another look at the Pre-Raphelites

I've never really liked the Pre-Raphaelites, but since I suspected that this was due to the way I was taught by my professors in History of Art, (Wits University, S.A.) I decided to go and see the exhibition at Tate Britain with an Open Mind.

I love the sensuality of Rosettis "Astarte Syriaca" - the cover poster above - this is pure theatre - the botoxed lips and the mirrored nymphs at the back - but this is his later work where he is no longer adhering to the Pre-Raphaelite principles. There is none of the narrative or nauseating moral messages such as in "The Awakening Conscience" by Holman Hunt or the kind of detail below (I think also H.H's - I snapped it on a billboard outside).
I think that when art tries to tell a story instead of exploring its own aesthetics it often falls short. I think that when the sole aim of the artwork is the story or the message, the art is compromised. When a story is the underlying theme or the inspiration behind the work it can take on its own energy. And all those sentimental soppy images like a sleeping child dropping primroses to signify innocence. Ugh.

Many works looked like beautifully illustrated children's Bible stories and would grace any Bible teaching book for children. But as art? No! 

Then I saw a piece by Ford Maddox Brown which caught at my heart - but only because it was unfinished. And when I read the sad story of why it was abandoned by him - his little baby had died and he could not complete the piece - it became more poignant.

There is something about incomplete work which often appeals far more than completed work. Perhaps it is because we see the maker within it and it has an energy of its own, or because it doesn't have the perfection that makes us gloss over it. Think of Michelangelo's sculptures of slaves. 
Looking at the two pieces I liked, I am reminded of why I enjoy Klimt (who my professors would probably also be rude about). 

So I have visited the exhibition and could happily write 5000 words - but I won't.
Observation 1: The craftsmanship and super-realism is magnificent and fills me with admiration for their technical skill. People kept saying they copied from photographs. Come on, this is 1860 and photos were tiny little black and white things.
Observation 2: This work preceded Impressionism by 30 years, so we can't compare it with Impressionism. Howevber, it has a kinship with the self-consciousness of Art Deco. (Anyway there are often two strands of art running side-by-side in various periods of Art History - painterly and draughtsmanship - Ingres & Titian - Sisley & Monet.
Observation 3: There are some really exciting innovations - the sort of flatness and detail such as can only be found in photography (an influence there) and bright colours harking back to the Renaissance; and yes, a complete re-interpretation of the Renaissance.

This is what I'll take home with me:
I would have loved to have sections of almost any painting and framed in all their exquisiteness - but the large canvasses were just too much for me. I also really liked some of the William Morris panels.


And, actually, I still don't really like them, but there are aspects of their work that I greatly admire.

This has been a hectic week with two trips to London (Monday and Wednesday) and teaching lettering design to embroiderers in Fareham today. Yesterday I saw the Pre-Raphelite Exhibition, Turner prize 2012 shortlist (I voted for Elizabeth Price's The Woolworths Choir of 1979 ), then attended Donald Jackson's brilliant lecture and had supper with the group afterwards, getting home at 12.30pm on the very last train from London to Didcot. A mere 5 hours later I was up and packing the car for my teaching. I'll talk about Donald Jackson's lecture when he has sent me some images and I'll also show you the designs the embroiders produced.

 Share||