My interest in Stanley Spencer goes back to 1979 when I was first in the UK and spent a day with Liz Mandler and Barbara Brooke (of the ChCh gallery) visiting Cookham - Spencer's home town and the setting for much of his painting. Later I saw his work in the Tate and read about his life. The works I was most familiar with were those related to the local 'swan-upping' and also the ones in which the residents of Cookham are depicted rising from the dead! He is a complex artist whose subject matter can sometimes obscure the fact that he is a superb draftsman and colourist.
The Spencer work in the Leeds gallery were a surprise, especially this one titled Two Sisters. It was quite stunning and so unlike anything of his I had seen before.
And then there was this sad work, of Spencer's wife and daughter, whom he had left for another woman and then tried, unsuccessfully, to return to. Such a psychologically penetrating and poignant painting.
It was lovely to see Frances Hodgkins represented, though no mention of her New Zealand origins.
And, to end on a happy note, this piece of anthropomorphised sculpture delighted me. Such energy and joi de vivre - makes you smile :-)
Incidentally, this is the first time ever that I have taken photos in an art gallery. There was no suggestion that I shouldn't - as there is in many galleries. But I'm not really sure how I feel about the ethics of this...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The only no-no to me is a flash. Set digital to no-flash. Sometimes gives less than adequate pictures but means the pigments in the artwork will probably last longer. I remember "La Gioconda" in the Louvre and counting a flash every few seconds. It had some sort of transparent protective covering over it but I wondered how effective it was against the stream of flashes.
ReplyDeleteJohn O
Thanks John. I didn't know about the no-flash (or at least I may have done but it hadn't sunk in!). Not only damage to art works but the distraction of flashes (flashers!). Like an electronic graffiti...
ReplyDelete