Revolution: Russian Art 1917–1932, Royal Academy, plus David Hockney, Tate Britain, 6 March 2017

We had booked the evening out for Hockney members’ evening ages ago; we decided to book out the whole day once our holiday plans had been fixed.

Thus the idea of going to see Revolution before the Hockney was hatched.

Still, events conspired against us earlier in the day and it ended up a bit of a rush to get in to see Revolution before closing time.

We got to the RA about 17:15. The young lady on the door warned us that they start closing about 17:55 (five minutes before actual closing time). I explained that the revolution wouldn’t take us all that long as we are seasoned revolutionaries. That seemed to convince her – at least she let us through without further ado.

Here is a link to the Royal Academy’s excellent resource on the Revolution exhibition.

In truth, we didn’t need all that long to see that exhibition. There were a few really good works of art, but the rest was interesting from an historical point of view rather than jaw-dropping art that you want to look at for ages.

I expected to like the Chagalls and the Kandinsky. More surprising was that I liked some of the Kazimir Malevich and the Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin (in the latter case, not the one depicted on the resource link above, but I did like several others).

I read The Noise Of Time by Julian Barnes on holiday, so the stuff about Stalin purging the arty folk was fresh in my mind.

Janie commented that, in many ways, reading the leaflet was more interesting than much of the art itself.

We then took a welcome break at the RA bar, where a Lenin-lookalike barman took an age to serve our wine as he was busy making up cocktails for a little group of barflies who were knocking them back.

Then on to Tate Britain for the Hockney. We had seen many of the works before, not least the more recent iPad work, the colourful East Riding of Yorkshire works and (some years ago) the sixties and seventies portrait stuff around pools in California and the like.

The art critics tend to favour the earlier stuff over the later stuff, whereas Janie and I are both fans of the later work. Seeing this retrospective on his whole oeuvre, our feelings were reconfirmed.

Here is a link to the Tate Britain resource on Hockney.

As it was a members evening, the exhibition was actually rather busy at the start. We chose to go round it backwards, starting with the later work and ending with the earlier. This seemed to work well enough for us, as we are familiar with much of his work. Perhaps not such a good idea for an artist with whom you are less familiar.

Then home (i.e. the flat) via the Ranoush shawarma bar in Kensington High Street.

What a pleasant late afternoon/evening.

Painting the Modern Garden: Monet To Matisse, 26 February 2016

While we were away, Janie got very excited about the prospect of seeing this show about gardens. Janie is a friend of the Royal Academy now, so we can go when we like.  We both thought that the Friday afternoon of our return might be a good bet. Perhaps 16:00ish – between the earlier in the day Friday-offers and the after work Friday evening-istas.

But of course it didn’t work out that way. “I’ll be over around 15:00” became “15:30” and then at 15:30 came the call, “I’ll probably be another hour or so”. It enabled me to get other stuff done. In the end, Janie turned up at the flat around 18:00 so we decided to load up the car and drive in to Mayfair – so we got to the Academy at the prime time for the late crowd, especially as the free guided tour was kicking off.

At the start I saw several stylish works that all resembled the backs of peoples’ heads rather than gardens, but then Janie came up with a cunning plan to whiz through to the end of the show and work backwards-ish, avoiding the heave. This cunning plan pretty much worked, apart from the last room with three of Monet’s giant water lilies.  I thought we’d seen them before in the major Monet exhibition some years ago, but Janie insists these particular three are ones that hadn’t been exhibited before. You need to be an expert/completist to tell one triptych of Monet water lilies from another IMHO.

Reviews in major papers such as the Guardian and Telegraph tell you all you need to know about what you are and aren’t getting in this exhibition. Yes, you are getting lots of Monet. No, you don’t get much Matisse, nor much Klee, Van Gogh etc.  Only one Kandinsky but it is a cracker. Ditto Klimt.

Worth seeing, this exhibition, especially if you like gardens and you like Monet. It is beyond chocolate box but it is mostly easy-going eye candy.

 

Three Exhibitions In One Day: Kandinsky Watercolours And Other Works On Paper, Birth Of The Cool, New Art – New Era, Royal Academy & Barbican, 12 May 1999

As part of a week off at home, we did a fair bit of cultural stuff. A rare visit to the theatre on the Monday did not work as well as the dinner afterwards…

…but this day going around galleries was memorably good.

We loved the Kandinsky watercolours, but the critics hadn’t been so keen on them, preferring Kandinsky for oils and criticising the way the exhibition had been curated. Richard Dorment in The Telegraph, for example.

Kandinsky Dorment TelegraphKandinsky Dorment Telegraph 21 Apr 1999, Wed The Daily Telegraph (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com

Brian Sewell in The Standard was even more waspish.

Kandinsky Sewell StandardKandinsky Sewell Standard 22 Apr 1999, Thu Evening Standard (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com Kandinsky Sewell Standard 2 of 2Kandinsky Sewell Standard 2 of 2 22 Apr 1999, Thu Evening Standard (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com

Still, Ogblog is not about what those expert geezers think but it is about what we felt. I recall Janie and I really liking that exhibition, so much so that we set off later than intended for the Barbican, where we had chosen to see two exhibitions – in particular David Bailey’s The Birth Of Cool Photographic Exhibition.

We loved these pictures. Who cares what the critics said. Well, actually I think the critics lined up in favour of this one.

Adam Edwards in The Standard celebrated the cool:

Bailey Edwards Standard 1 of 2Bailey Edwards Standard 1 of 2 07 Apr 1999, Wed Evening Standard (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com Bailey Edwards Standard 2 of 2Bailey Edwards Standard 2 of 2 07 Apr 1999, Wed Evening Standard (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com

Whereas Jonathan Green in The Standard fretted that The Swinging Sixties weren’t so swinging for all. Who knew?

Bailey Green GuardianBailey Green Guardian 17 Apr 1999, Sat The Guardian (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com

We also popped in to see New Art, New Era in the other hall at the Barbican

We didn’t spend too long on this sweeping exhibition, little being to our taste, but we did enjoy some of the exhibits.

John McEwen in the Telegraph gave it a comprehensive review:

New Art McEwen TelegraphNew Art McEwen Telegraph 02 May 1999, Sun Sunday Telegraph (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com

Brian Sewell in the Standard rubbished the exhibition even more comprehensively:

New Art Sewell Standard 1 of 2New Art Sewell Standard 1 of 2 13 May 1999, Thu Evening Standard (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com New Art Sewell Standard 2 of 2New Art Sewell Standard 2 of 2 13 May 1999, Thu Evening Standard (London, Greater London, England) Newspapers.com

Heck, but we’d had a great day. Yah boo.