The recent exhibition of the Goya Portraits at the National Gallery resulted in an excellent catalogue which is a serious contribution to the Goya literature. The exhibition Delacroix and Modern Art takes on a much more general theme and perhaps could never hope to be more than an introduction to the subject.The topic is huge and unwieldy. This show has many enjoyable paintings but is to a considerable extent an example of forced association, based on the collections of the two venues for this exhibition. An exhibition on the (relative) cheap you might say. It is based largely on the National Gallery in London and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. The unifying factor is Patrick Noon who is Chair of Paintings at Minneapolis and an expert particularly on Bonington, and obviously by extension the friendship between Bonington and Delacroix which was cut short by the early death of the English artist.
In London about one in six of the exhibits comes from the National Gallery itself. There are many lovely paintings in this show but circumstances and expense most obviously dictated the selection. One might almost wish to congratulate the organisers on doing so well.
Delacroix's Baron Schwitter (4) was included because the Gallery owns it and because it fills out the list and because it allows the somewhat farcical comparison with Sargent's Lord Ribblesdale-which shows a similarly elongated figure.It is true that the painting was acquired in dramatic circumstances from the posthumous 1918 Degas sale ("But Monsieur it is for the Louvre!") and had been treasured by that great and mysterious artist. But that association though fascinating scarcely bears any relation to Degas' own work and is surely an episode in the history of collecting. The inclusion of Ovid among the Scythians is perhaps more appropriate. Baudelaire praised it and it must have some relevance for Symbolism.Redon would surely have approved. Again a work from the National Gallery Collection.
Delacroix's Baron Schwitter (4) was included because the Gallery owns it and because it fills out the list and because it allows the somewhat farcical comparison with Sargent's Lord Ribblesdale-which shows a similarly elongated figure.It is true that the painting was acquired in dramatic circumstances from the posthumous 1918 Degas sale ("But Monsieur it is for the Louvre!") and had been treasured by that great and mysterious artist. But that association though fascinating scarcely bears any relation to Degas' own work and is surely an episode in the history of collecting. The inclusion of Ovid among the Scythians is perhaps more appropriate. Baudelaire praised it and it must have some relevance for Symbolism.Redon would surely have approved. Again a work from the National Gallery Collection.
There are copies of Delacroix by interested artists, a reduced version of one work (Sardanapalus) and a copy by Renoir of the Jewish Wedding. These help put his life in context. Degas' Young Spartans is included because it shows the artist almost at the end of his somewhat half-hearted attempt to treat classical subjects and because Delacroix had thought of a similar subject for one of his mural decorations. A Gauguin demonstrates a similar interest in Delacroix. Does this justify shuttling major works to-and-fro across the Atlantic? Sometimes I wonder.
There is also a mediocre Degas from the NG in Washington present because Delacroix had used a similar theme.
There are a few luminous Cézannes.They include the Lutte d' Amour, The Apotheosis of Delacroix and The Eternal Feminine. Did not Giacometti say that a Cézanne was like a fresco? Giacometti was right!
There is also a mediocre Degas from the NG in Washington present because Delacroix had used a similar theme.
There are a few luminous Cézannes.They include the Lutte d' Amour, The Apotheosis of Delacroix and The Eternal Feminine. Did not Giacometti say that a Cézanne was like a fresco? Giacometti was right!
The exhibition is good when it deals with Delacroix's orientalism.Minneapolis is the owner of the magnificent Convulsionists (21) which is one of the glories of the show.It has other works relating to the North African trip whilst the NG has none.This painting shows Delacroix at his finest and lives as an exemplar which would have fascinated any Impressionist/Post Impressionist. We know that Seurat studied it thoroughly early in his career-before the great masterpieces of the early '80s.His notes survive as a link to Delacroix and, in effect, back before him to one of Delacroix's artistic gods- Veronese. Here the achievement of a coherent, unified painting of a brightly lit religious procession in Tangiers shows the colourist in Delacroix, and demonstrates what mattered to the impressionists. Delacroix manages a painting which is free from murky shadow and paints the subtle greys associated with partial shadow. Some figures are partly lit-the child running out of the composition at lower left was noted by Seurat.And you can see in the greyish green shadow the pink underskirt a subtle complementary salmonish pink. Seurat also noted the blue-greyed as he said by distance- of the carpet hanging over the wall high up at the centre of the picture.I would say that the illustration shown here is reasonably accurate but makes the lower half of the painting a little too dark.Seurat, as always,interested in complementary colours, found plenty here-starting with the blue-yellowish opposition of sky and rooftops in the the sun.It is a miracle that the artist was able to create this poetic work 6 years after his only visit to N Africa.
So here is a painting which can be used to demonstrate colour theory.I leave the complicated question of how much Delacroix knew of Chevreul at the time of the Convulsionists well alone. Some guidance can be found in Lee Johnson's still useful book of 1963. One thinks that Delacroix cannot have known much in 1838.Most artists at that time will have known of the idea of a colour wheel and perhaps by empirical evidence that a colour can be greyed by its opposite. Seurat evidently believed that Delacroix was thinking along these lines in this painting- whether by influence or instinct.This is why art history shows Delacroix a precursor of the Impressionists and so on towards Neo-Impressionism and into the C20.The link direct, the proof of an actual source or stimulation in Delacroix is shown in one of Van Gogh's dire transcriptions of Delacroix's religious subject-a Pieta from the Van Gogh Museum.Nevertheless it demonstrates VG's use of complementary colours.
 |
| Convulsionists of Tanger: Minneapolis. |
 |
| Pieta after a print after Delacroix. By Van Gogh |
The exhibition does have some fascinating paintings. When did you last see anything in the UK by Bazille or Chassériau? You will find them in this show. Does the National Gallery own a Bazille or a Chassériau? No of course not.
Some of the Delacroixs are more in the way of space fillers.His relevance for Symbolism is certainly demonstrated-at length with the St George theme. There is a delightful room of flower paintings by various artists..
But Delacroix was a very uneven artist and this large and now mediocre Lamentation (37) is a perfectly dire example of him at his most half-hearted. He seems to have been relatively proud of it as showing unity in the work.There is a kind of unity, I'll grant that, but it is a unity of gloom.On the left there are large areas where the paint appears to have sunk and nothing of any substance is visible. Compared to his finest work this painting-not apparently a commission is a failure on several points.Much of the the painting is only partly differentiated murk. If Delacroix painted it like this then he was having an off day. The figure of St John sitting in the foreground with the Crown of Thorns in his hand shows Delacroix"s love of Poussin and the anatomy of the figure is reasonably done. But there is no bold chiaroscuro such as we see attempted with Christ's body and winding sheet.The painting is inconsistent within its own terms.
Christ's body is the colour of dirty snow.The anatomy is poor. Christ's feet appear at the right of the composition protruding from the grave cloths-painted crudely and reminding me of those cheap dolls which have china feet and ankles but when you pick them up you find that the body is nothing more than padding. The torso of Christ is very poorly realised and the paintwork is crude and rough.The whole figure is elongated in proportions, It does not contribute anything substantial to the theme of Delacroix and Modern Art. We know that Delacroix was working on major decorative schemes when he produced this work but it us poor in comparison.This is baffling and I have to think that the painting has deteriorated or, what amounts to the same thing, been poorly restored.
There is a lovely early Signac ( of the Boulevard de Clichy) which is a joy to see. What a prodigy that man was, and what an artistic bore he became when he turned to watercolour . Signac must feature in this exhibition as the author of the articles later published as "D'Eugène Delacroix au néo-impressionisme". But a more luminous later painting could have been found. But this one of course comes from Minneapolis and so does not add substantially to the exhibition costs.
There is a painting by the dedicated follower of fashion Metzinger and it is there because it shows a form of divisionism and belongs to Minneapolis. This crass painting of all the paintings in the world is used to show developments from Seurat/Signac when no Seurat is exhibited . A Seurat panel would have sufficed but it was not to be.There are one or two early Matisses which show the influence of Signac and we must be thankful for that. The Collioure sketch of Mme Matisse on the rocks attempts to make an equivalent for intense light and here the form is broken into writhing patches and worms of colour.
There is nothing in the exhibition to remind us of the existence, let alone the marvel of the Chapelle des Saints-Anges at St Sulpice.This Left Bank church set in a quarter where many artists had their studios, is indeed holy ground for Impressionism, and we can be certain though we may not always be able to prove it that Renoir, Cézanne, Monet, Pissarro and Van Gogh visited these rich decorations-at that time and still, the only major decorative scheme by Delacroix which is easily accesible by the public.
Delacroix and the Rise of Modern Art: Patrick Noon and Christopher Riopelle, NG Company,2015.The exhibition is at the National Gallery until 22 May 2016.
Amended14/04/16.
Some of the Delacroixs are more in the way of space fillers.His relevance for Symbolism is certainly demonstrated-at length with the St George theme. There is a delightful room of flower paintings by various artists..
 |
| The Lamentation: Boston MFA |
But Delacroix was a very uneven artist and this large and now mediocre Lamentation (37) is a perfectly dire example of him at his most half-hearted. He seems to have been relatively proud of it as showing unity in the work.There is a kind of unity, I'll grant that, but it is a unity of gloom.On the left there are large areas where the paint appears to have sunk and nothing of any substance is visible. Compared to his finest work this painting-not apparently a commission is a failure on several points.Much of the the painting is only partly differentiated murk. If Delacroix painted it like this then he was having an off day. The figure of St John sitting in the foreground with the Crown of Thorns in his hand shows Delacroix"s love of Poussin and the anatomy of the figure is reasonably done. But there is no bold chiaroscuro such as we see attempted with Christ's body and winding sheet.The painting is inconsistent within its own terms.
Christ's body is the colour of dirty snow.The anatomy is poor. Christ's feet appear at the right of the composition protruding from the grave cloths-painted crudely and reminding me of those cheap dolls which have china feet and ankles but when you pick them up you find that the body is nothing more than padding. The torso of Christ is very poorly realised and the paintwork is crude and rough.The whole figure is elongated in proportions, It does not contribute anything substantial to the theme of Delacroix and Modern Art. We know that Delacroix was working on major decorative schemes when he produced this work but it us poor in comparison.This is baffling and I have to think that the painting has deteriorated or, what amounts to the same thing, been poorly restored.
There is a lovely early Signac ( of the Boulevard de Clichy) which is a joy to see. What a prodigy that man was, and what an artistic bore he became when he turned to watercolour . Signac must feature in this exhibition as the author of the articles later published as "D'Eugène Delacroix au néo-impressionisme". But a more luminous later painting could have been found. But this one of course comes from Minneapolis and so does not add substantially to the exhibition costs.
There is a painting by the dedicated follower of fashion Metzinger and it is there because it shows a form of divisionism and belongs to Minneapolis. This crass painting of all the paintings in the world is used to show developments from Seurat/Signac when no Seurat is exhibited . A Seurat panel would have sufficed but it was not to be.There are one or two early Matisses which show the influence of Signac and we must be thankful for that. The Collioure sketch of Mme Matisse on the rocks attempts to make an equivalent for intense light and here the form is broken into writhing patches and worms of colour.
There is nothing in the exhibition to remind us of the existence, let alone the marvel of the Chapelle des Saints-Anges at St Sulpice.This Left Bank church set in a quarter where many artists had their studios, is indeed holy ground for Impressionism, and we can be certain though we may not always be able to prove it that Renoir, Cézanne, Monet, Pissarro and Van Gogh visited these rich decorations-at that time and still, the only major decorative scheme by Delacroix which is easily accesible by the public.
Delacroix and the Rise of Modern Art: Patrick Noon and Christopher Riopelle, NG Company,2015.The exhibition is at the National Gallery until 22 May 2016.
Amended14/04/16.
