Kapala-Hevajra and Nairatmya |
The very first artwork is the
Dancing Satyr of Mazara del Vallo (Greece, c..200 BC), an amazingly refined study of musculature
and movement, only rediscovered in 1998. I stayed staring at it for minutes,
just fascinated by the play of light on the dancer’s outstretched arms and the brilliant
sheen of his smooth skin: quite a sight. The Chimaera of Arezzo (c.400 BC) on
loan from Florence is considered by scholars to be one of the true Etruscan
masterpieces so I felt honoured just to share space with it. I think the
exhibition’s lighting really shows off the shiny surface of the beast’s ribbed flanks
and unnatural snake-head tail. The exhibition has impressive cultural breadth:
the early Ming period statue of the gods Kapala-Hevajra and Nairatmya (c.1400)
(pictured) has a beautiful metallic lustre and a gleaming array of
arms. Considering its age this piece has retained its shine very well and the
jewels set into its base have a mesmerising sparkle.
In general I enjoyed more the
modern creations. Some of them, such as Auguste Rodin’s ‘The Age of Bronze’
(1877), are finished to a really high shine and I found them just dazzling. I
could even see my reflection in Willem De Kooning’s ‘Clamdigger’
(1971) but I must say the curved surface made my head look really small!
If there’s one thing that ruffled
my feathers, it was the Japanese Bhudda head (c. 1200 AD) in gilt bronze. Most
of the gilt had worn away leave a disappointingly matt surface underneath. I
think it could really have benefitted from a good buff.
That aside, during the whole
exhibition I was so excited by each new treasure that my feet never touched the
ground. I must admit that some of the bronzes are so radient that I felt a
real urge for a more tactile experience, to pick them up and feel them, even to
carry them away!
Check back next week: I’ll be reviewing Charlotte De Sylas’s
jewellery exhibition at the V&A. And, yes, my wife and children are very
well, thank you for asking.
So it’s a pointless review but I’m
trying to make a point about subjectivity.
The magpie only values the art because it’s shiny rather than because it
is beautiful, has cultural value or shows fine workmanship. In the same way, a
work of art is different things to different people depending on their artistic
values. Similarly I want to say something about the usefulness of
reviews by art critics. If you don’t like the same things as the critic, you
might as well be listening to a magpie. Lastly I just wanted to show that a bird can
write a better art review than Brian Sewell.
No comments:
Post a Comment