Category Archives: Art

Andrew Wyeth’s Christina’s World (1948)

Andrew Wyeth (1917–2009) is per­haps not a wide­ly known name out­side of the States, but he was one of the greats of mid­dle 20th cen­tu­ry Amer­i­can art. His oeu­vre was Amer­i­can Region­al­ism, the real­ist art move­ment that depict­ed scenes from the rur­al, small-town Amer­i­ca of the Mid­west. Land and peo­ple, paint­ed by an artist with an appre­ci­a­tion for nature and the abil­i­ty to fire the imag­i­na­tion. He was born in Chadds Ford, Penn­syl­va­nia, into an estab­lished art-ori­ent­ed fam­i­ly, his father being the cel­e­brat­ed artist and illus­tra­tor N C Wyeth. Andrew was brought up on the art of Winslow Homer, the poet­ry of Robert Frost and the writ­ings of Hen­ry David Thore­au, and was thus inspired intel­lec­tu­al­ly as well as artis­ti­cal­ly.

One of Wyeth’s best-known works is his tem­pera paint­ing Christi­na’s World, which is held in the Muse­um of Mod­ern Art (MoMA) in New York; it was paint­ed in 1948, when he was 31 years old. The work depicts his neigh­bour, Christi­na Olson, sprawled on a dry field fac­ing her house in the dis­tance, in Cush­ing, Maine. Christi­na had a degen­er­a­tive mus­cu­lar dis­or­der that ren­dered her unable to walk, and she spent most of her time at home. She was firm­ly against using a wheel­chair and so would crawl every­where, and Wyeth was inspired to cre­ate the paint­ing when he saw her crawl­ing across the field.

Christi­na’s World

Christi­na’s World was first exhib­it­ed at the Mac­beth Gallery in Man­hat­tan in 1948. It received lit­tle atten­tion from crit­ics at the time, but Alfred Barr, the found­ing direc­tor of the MoMA, bought the paint­ing for $1,800 and it grad­u­al­ly grew in pop­u­lar­i­ty to the point that today, it is con­sid­ered an icon of Amer­i­can art. The Olson house itself has been pre­served and ren­o­vat­ed to match its appear­ance in Christi­na’s World, and because of Wyeth’s pro­file, it was des­ig­nat­ed a Nation­al His­toric Land­mark in June 2011.

Olson House
Andrew Wyeth

 

Albrecht Dürer’s Self-Portrait At Twenty-Eight (1500)

Albrecht Dür­er (1471–1528) was a Ger­man painter and print­mak­er and a lead­ing light of the North­ern Renais­sance.  Born in Nurem­berg to a suc­cess­ful gold­smith, he lived in the same street where his god­fa­ther Anton Koberg­er was turn­ing Gutenberg’s print­ing press into a huge com­mer­cial enter­prise and pub­lish­ing the famous Nurem­berg Chron­i­cle (1493). Albrecht learnt the basics of gold­smithing and draw­ing under his father and his pre­co­cious skills in the lat­ter led him to under­go an appren­tice­ship under print­mak­er Michael Wol­ge­mut in which he learnt the art of cre­at­ing wood­cuts for books. After his Wan­der­jahre – essen­tial­ly gap years – in which he trav­elled to study under var­i­ous mas­ters, he set up a work­shop and began to estab­lish a rep­u­ta­tion for his high-qual­i­ty wood­cut prints.

Dürer’s wood­prints were main­ly reli­gious in nature, often in sets such as his six­teen designs for the Apoc­a­lypse, the twelve scenes of the Pas­sion, a series of eleven on the Holy Fam­i­ly and Saints, and twen­ty wood­cuts on the Life of the Vir­gin. He was also par­tic­u­lar­ly renowned for his three Meis­ter­stiche, mas­ter prints that are often grouped togeth­er because of their per­ceived qual­i­ty, name­ly Knight, Death and the Dev­il (1513), Saint Jerome in his Study (1514), and Melen­co­l­ia I (1514). He also made sec­u­lar wood­cuts, such as his famous Rhi­noc­er­os (1515), which he nev­er actu­al­ly saw but cre­at­ed his print using an anony­mous writ­ten descrip­tion and brief sketch of an Indi­an rhi­noc­er­os brought to Lis­bon in 1515.

How­ev­er, today we focus on his pan­el paint­ing in oil, Self-Por­trait (or Self-Por­trait at Twen­ty-Eight), held today in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. Paint­ed ear­ly in 1500, just before his 29th birth­day, Self-Por­trait is the last – and most per­son­al and icon­ic — of his three paint­ed self-por­traits. It is remark­able for its direct­ness – does it remind you of any­one? Yes, its resem­blance to many ear­li­er rep­re­sen­ta­tions of Christ has not gone unno­ticed: there are clear sim­i­lar­i­ties with the con­ven­tions of reli­gious paint­ing, includ­ing its sym­me­try and dark tones, and full-frontal con­fronta­tion with the view­er. He even rais­es his hands to the mid­dle of his chest as if in the act of bless­ing.

If that is the case, isn’t that blas­phe­my? Sounds some­what dan­ger­ous, no? Per­haps we’re pro­ject­ing too much intol­er­ance onto the fif­teenth (well, new­ly-six­teenth) cen­tu­ry, or per­haps Dürer’s moti­va­tion was sim­ply a way to (lit­er­al­ly) imi­tate Christ, which could be seen as a good thing. Art his­to­ri­an Joseph Koern­er inter­prets it square­ly as a pio­neer­ing chal­lenge to the norms of self-por­trai­ture, albeit putting it in that par­tic­u­lar­ly ver­bose way only art his­to­ri­ans can do:

By trans­fer­ring the attrib­ut­es of imag­is­tic author­i­ty and qua­si-mag­i­cal pow­er once asso­ci­at­ed with the true and sacred image of God to the nov­el sub­ject of self-por­trai­ture, Dür­er legit­i­mates his rad­i­cal­ly new notion of art, one based on the irre­ducible rela­tion between the self and the work or art”.

Albrecht Dür­er, Self-por­trait at Twen­ty-Eight

Akseli Gallen-Kallela’s Kalevala Paintings (1890s)

Greece has its Ili­ad and Odyssey, Italy its Aeneid, Por­tu­gal its Lusi­ads, Ice­land its Eddas, Ger­many its Nibelun­gen­lied, Britain its Beowulf and Le Morte d’Arthur, and India its Mahabara­ta and Ramayana. I am talk­ing of course about nation­al folk-epics, those lit­er­ary mas­ter­pieces that were orig­i­nal­ly an oral canon of folk-sto­ries per­co­lat­ed down through the mists of time and lat­er writ­ten down and inte­grat­ed into the world­view of its peo­ple.

Well, Finland’s was the epic poet­ry col­lec­tion known as the Kale­vala, which was devel­oped quite late — dur­ing the 19th cen­tu­ry — but still from ancient tra­di­tion­al folk-tales. The Kale­vala was an inte­gral part of the Finns’ nation­al awak­en­ing in the era of the Grand Duchy of Fin­land when they were under the yoke of the Russ­ian empire, and it was instru­men­tal in the devel­op­ment of the Finnish nation­al iden­ti­ty, ulti­mate­ly lead­ing to inde­pen­dence from Rus­sia in 1917.

This nation­al awak­en­ing coin­cid­ed with the so-called Gold­en Age of Finnish Art rough­ly span­ning the peri­od 1880 to 1910. The Kale­vala pro­vid­ed the artis­tic inspi­ra­tion for numer­ous themes at the time in lit­er­a­ture (J. L. Runeberg’s The Tales of Ensign Stål; Alek­sis Kivi’s The Sev­en Broth­ers), music (Jean Sibelius), archi­tec­ture (Eliel Saari­nen), and of course the visu­al arts, the most notable of which were pro­vid­ed by one Akseli Gallen-Kallela.

Born Axél Walde­mar Gal­lén in Pori, Fin­land, to a Swedish-speak­ing fam­i­ly (he Finni­cised his name in 1907), Gallen-Kallela first attend­ed draw­ing class­es at the Finnish Art Soci­ety before study­ing at the Académie Julian in Paris. He mar­ried Mary Slöör in 1890 and on their hon­ey­moon to East Kare­lia, he start­ed col­lect­ing mate­r­i­al for his depic­tions of the Kale­vala. He would soon be inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the inde­pen­dence move­ment as he pro­duced his scenes from the old sto­ries.

The most exten­sive paint­ings that Gallen-Kallela made of the Kale­vala were his fres­coes, orig­i­nal­ly for the Finnish Pavil­ion at the Expo­si­tion Uni­verselle in Paris in 1900, but paint­ed again in 1928 in the lob­by of the Nation­al Muse­um of Fin­land in Helsin­ki where they can be seen to this day. How­ev­er, many stand­alone works exist too; here’s a flavour of his art, though if you want to know what they depict you’ll have to read the Kale­vala!

Alek­si Gallen-Kallela

John Atkinson Grimshaw’s Boar Lane, Leeds (1881)

Last Sun­day I popped along to see Monet’s icon­ic The Water-Lily Pond, on loan at York Art Gallery, and very nice it was too, being the cen­tre­piece of a nice col­lec­tion of key loans fea­tur­ing var­i­ous French en plein air pre­cur­sors to Impres­sion­ism. How­ev­er, whilst there, I was remind­ed that the gallery had also recent­ly acquired for its per­ma­nent col­lec­tion a piece by an artist a lit­tle clos­er to home, Leeds-born John Atkin­son Grimshaw, known not for the Impres­sion­is­tic brush­work or gar­den scenes of Mon­et and his ilk but for real­is­tic noc­tur­nal scenes of urban land­scapes. The paint­ing is Liv­er­pool Docks at Night (1870s) and it’s a fine exam­ple of Grimshaw’s oeu­vre. It was also some­thing of a coup for York Art Gallery, giv­en that it had been accept­ed by HM Gov­ern­ment in lieu of inher­i­tance tax from a col­lec­tion and had been allo­cat­ed to the gallery for the bar­gain­ous price of £0.

Grimshaw was born in a back-to-back house in Park Street, Leeds, in 1836, and at first looked des­tined for a nor­mal, anony­mous life —  he mar­ried his cousin Frances at age twen­ty and got a job as clerk for the Great North­ern Rail­way. How­ev­er, the young John had an artis­tic gift and an ambi­tion, and it must have tak­en a great deal of courage and self-belief for him to dis­may his par­ents by pack­ing in his job and launch­ing him­self as a painter, but he did just that, in 1861. His pri­ma­ry artis­tic influ­ence was the Pre-Raphaelites and true to their style he paint­ed with accu­rate colour and light­ing and with vivid detail. Although he did start out paint­ing a vari­ety of gen­res, Grimshaw was lat­er drawn to depict­ing moon­lit views of city streets in Leeds and Lon­don, and dock­side scenes in Hull, Liv­er­pool, and Glas­gow. James McNeill Whistler, with whom Grimshaw worked lat­er in his career in his Chelsea stu­dios, said: “I con­sid­ered myself the inven­tor of noc­turnes until I saw Grim­my’s moon­lit pic­tures”.

Unlike Whistler’s Impres­sion­is­tic night scenes, “Grimmy’s” noc­turnes were sharply focused and almost pho­to­graph­ic in their qual­i­ty, and there is an eerie warmth about them. Rather than con­cen­trat­ing on the dirty and depress­ing aspects of indus­tri­al life (that he would have had no trou­ble find­ing), Grimshaw imbued his paint­ings with a lyri­cal evo­ca­tion of the urban land­scape and there is poet­ry in his cap­tured mists, reflect­ed street­light in wet pave­ments, and dark fig­ures wrapped up against the weath­er. His twi­light cities became his “brand” and became very pop­u­lar with his mid­dle-class patrons; he must have done well because by the 1870s he and his wife were liv­ing at Knos­trup Old Hall, in the Tem­ple Newsam area of Leeds, a far cry from the back-to-back in Park Street.

Here is a favourite of mine, Boar Lane, Leeds (1881), a street we Leeds dwellers have walked down many a time on a win­ter’s day like this.

 

Boar Lane, Leeds (1881)
John Atkin­son Grimshaw

John Everett Millais’ Ophelia (1851)

If you were to choose any British art gallery to walk into today, you would be sure to find one or more paint­ings by one or more artists belong­ing to the Pre-Raphaelite Broth­er­hood. The Pre-Raphaelites were a group of Eng­lish painters, poets, and art crit­ics, found­ed in 1848 by William Hol­man Hunt, John Everett Mil­lais, Dante Gabriel Ros­set­ti, and oth­ers, who sought to reform art and return it to the glo­ry days, as they saw it, of Ital­ian fif­teenth cen­tu­ry art. That peri­od of art, so-called Quat­tro­cen­to art, was char­ac­terised by abun­dant detail, colour and com­plex­i­ty; in the fol­low­ing cen­tu­ry, how­ev­er, artists – such as Raphael – were seen by the group as hav­ing a cor­rupt­ing influ­ence on art, ush­er­ing in the unnat­ur­al and stylised art of Man­ner­ism. Parmigianino’s Madon­na With The Long Neck (1540) is often used as an exam­ple of Man­ner­ism play­ing fast and loose with prop­er per­spec­tive, as I’m sure you can see.

Parmi­gian­i­no’s Madon­na With The Long Neck (1540)

Today, we’re look­ing at a clas­sic of the Pre-Raphaelites, name­ly Ophe­lia, the 1852 paint­ing by British artist Sir John Everett Mil­lais (and held in Tate Britain). Ophe­lia is of course a char­ac­ter from Shake­speare’s Ham­let, a Dan­ish noble­woman dri­ven mad by her love for Prince Ham­let and who ulti­mate­ly drowns in despair. Her drown­ing is not usu­al­ly seen onstage in the play, but mere­ly report­ed by Queen Gertrude who tells the audi­ence that Ophe­lia, out of her mind with grief, has fall­en from a wil­low tree over­hang­ing a brook. She lies in the water singing songs, as if unaware of her dan­ger (“inca­pable of her own dis­tress”), her clothes, trap­ping air and allow­ing her to stay afloat for a while (“Her clothes spread wide, / And, mer­maid-like, awhile they bore her up.”). But even­tu­al­ly, “her gar­ments, heavy with their drink, / Pul­l’d the poor wretch from her melo­di­ous lay” down “to mud­dy death”.

Mil­lais paints Ophe­lia in a pose with open arms and upward gaze in the man­ner of saints or mar­tyrs (they did love a trag­ic woman, the Pre-Raphs). In keep­ing with the tenets of the Pre-Raphaelites, he has used bright colours, with lots of detailed flo­ra and fideli­ty to nature. Despite its nom­i­nal Dan­ish set­ting, the land­scape has actu­al­ly come to be seen as quin­tes­sen­tial­ly Eng­lish (Ophe­lia was paint­ed along the banks of the Hogsmill Riv­er near Tol­worth in Sur­rey). The flow­ers shown float­ing on the riv­er were cho­sen to cor­re­spond with Shake­speare’s descrip­tion of Ophe­li­a’s gar­land.

Fun fact: at one point, Mil­lais had paint­ed a water vole pad­dling away near Ophe­lia, but changed his mind (prob­a­bly cor­rect­ly) after an acquain­tance mis­took it for a hare or rab­bit. Although ful­ly paint­ed over, a rough sketch of it still exists in a cor­ner of the can­vas hid­den by the frame, appar­ent­ly.

Mil­lais’ Ophe­lia (1851)

Paolo Veronese’s The Wedding Feast At Cana (1563)

Great art comes in many shapes and sizes, from por­trait minia­tures right up to mon­u­men­tal can­vas­es depict­ing epic scenes with casts of thou­sands. Today we’re going to look at an exam­ple of the lat­ter, one which hangs in the Lou­vre and deserves to have the same-sized crowd of admir­ers that per­pet­u­al­ly gath­er around the Mona Lisa there (and per­haps it does usu­al­ly, but I do have a mem­o­ry of being able to admire it unmo­lest­ed by oth­er peo­ple and able to take in its con­sid­er­able fea­tures). It’s Pao­lo Veronese’s The Wed­ding Feast at Cana (Nozze di Cana, 1562–1563), depict­ing the bib­li­cal sto­ry of the Wed­ding at Cana, in which Jesus mirac­u­lous­ly con­verts water into wine, thus jus­ti­fy­ing his invi­ta­tion sev­er­al times over.

It’s a whop­ping 6.77 m × 9.94 m and indeed as such it’s the largest paint­ing in the Lou­vre. Veronese exe­cut­ed his paint­ing slap-bang in the mid­dle of the peri­od in art known as the Man­ner­ist age (c.1520‑c.1600), in which there was a ten­den­cy of artists to take the ideals of the High Renais­sance (1490–1527) — pro­por­tion, bal­ance, ide­al beau­ty – and exag­ger­ate them such that arrange­ments of human fig­ures have an unnat­ur­al rather than a real­is­tic feel to them. It’s as if artists felt that every­thing that could be achieved had already been achieved by the likes of Da Vin­ci, Raphael and Michelan­ge­lo, and they need­ed a dif­fer­ent approach.

The can­vas was orig­i­nal­ly hung in the San Geor­gio Monastery in Venice, until Napoleon’s sol­diers nicked it as war booty in 1797. It depicts a crowd­ed ban­quet scene in the sump­tu­ous style char­ac­ter­is­tic of 16th cen­tu­ry Venet­ian soci­ety but framed in the Gre­co-Roman archi­tec­tur­al style of clas­si­cal antiq­ui­ty. There are 130 human fig­ures dressed fash­ion­ably in Occi­den­tal and Ori­en­tal cos­tume alla Tur­ca, and there are indi­ca­tions that we are post-feast, with guests sat­ed and await­ing the wine ser­vice.

In the fore­ground are musi­cians play­ing stringed instru­ments of the late Renais­sance, with leg­end hav­ing it that the musi­cian in the white tunic is a depic­tion of Veronese him­self and the oth­er musi­cians mod­elled on fel­low artists Jacopo Bas­sano, Tin­toret­to and Tit­ian. Behind the musi­cians are seat­ed Jesus of Nazareth, the Vir­gin Mary, and sev­er­al apos­tles. Amongst the wed­ding guests are depict­ed many his­tor­i­cal per­son­ages from Veronese’s day, such as Mary I of Eng­land, Holy Roman Emper­or Charles V, and Suleiman the Mag­nif­i­cent. There are so many quirky ele­ments to dis­cov­er– a lit­tle dog on the table here, a lady pick­ing her teeth there, a dwarf hold­ing a bright green par­rot – that to do so could take up some con­sid­er­able time.

Here are some details (click on them to enlarge), with the whole mas­ter­piece in its entire­ty below.

 

James Cox’s Silver Swan Automaton (1774)

Vis­i­tors to the Bowes Muse­um in the town of Barnard Cas­tle in Coun­ty Durham are reg­u­lar­ly blown away by the trea­sures housed in this provin­cial town, miles away from the major cities where art col­lec­tions of this qual­i­ty may be expect­ed. The build­ing alone is worth the vis­it; it is elab­o­rate­ly mod­elled in the style of the French Sec­ond Empire, pur­pose-built to house the art col­lec­tion of John Bowes, and opened to the pub­lic in 1892.

Bowes Muse­um, Barnard Cas­tle

The col­lec­tion con­tains paint­ings by El Gre­co, Goya, Canalet­to, Frag­o­nard and Bouch­er, as well as items of dec­o­ra­tive art, ceram­ics, tex­tiles, tapes­tries, clocks and cos­tumes. The pièce de résis­tance, how­ev­er, is today’s sub­ject, the Sil­ver Swan automa­ton, cre­at­ed by Lon­don jew­eller James Cox and the inven­tor John Joseph Mer­lin.

The Sil­ver Swan was first record­ed in 1774 as a crowd puller at the famous Cox’s Muse­um of James Cox, an entre­pre­neur as well as a tal­ent­ed jew­eller. The exquis­ite­ly craft­ed swan has an inter­nal clock­work-dri­ven mech­a­nism with 2000 mov­ing parts (designed by Mer­lin), and at an appoint­ed time each day at Bowes Muse­um, the automa­ton is cranked up and goes through its 32-sec­ond per­for­mance.

The swan sits in a stream made of glass rods and sur­round­ed by sil­ver leaves, and small sil­ver fish can be seen “swim­ming” in the stream. When the clock­work is wound, the music box plays and the glass rods rotate giv­ing the illu­sion of flow­ing water. The swan turns its head from side to side, preens itself, and after a few moments bends down to catch and eat a fish. The swan’s head then returns to the upright posi­tion and the per­for­mance is over.

The Sil­ver Swan was exhib­it­ed at the 1867 Paris Inter­na­tion­al Exhi­bi­tion, and it was here that John Bowes and his wife saw it, fell in love with it, and in 1872 had the oppor­tu­ni­ty to pur­chase it (for £200, or about £20,000 in today’s mon­ey, still an absolute steal). The Amer­i­can nov­el­ist Mark Twain also saw the Sil­ver Swan at the Paris exhi­bi­tion in 1867 and described it in his book The Inno­cents Abroad:

I watched the Sil­ver Swan, which had a liv­ing grace about his move­ment and a liv­ing intel­li­gence in his eyes – watched him swim­ming about as com­fort­ably and uncon­cerned­ly as it he had been born in a morass instead of a jeweller’s shop – watched him seize a sil­ver fish from under the water and hold up his head and go through the cus­tom­ary and elab­o­rate motions of swal­low­ing it…

If this inspires you to see the swan for your­self, leave it a few months: it is cur­rent­ly being restored but is expect­ed to return to its pub­lic next year.

George Stubbs’ Cheetah And Stag With Two Indians (1765)

If you hap­pen to be in Man­ches­ter with a spare hour or two, do call into its art gallery on Mosley Street where you’ll find a host of inter­est­ing paint­ings, not least of which is Chee­tah and Stag with Two Indi­ans by George Stubbs. Stubbs was an Eng­lish artist, born in Liv­er­pool in 1724 and who moved to York in 1744 to pur­sue his pas­sion for human anato­my, study­ing under the sur­geon Charles Atkin­son at York Coun­ty Hos­pi­tal. He was also a nat­ur­al and entire­ly self-taught artist, and worked as a por­trait painter in York for ten more years, but he would become famous lat­er not for paint­ing human sit­ters but ani­mal ones, par­tic­u­lar­ly hors­es (of which his best-known, Whistle­jack­et, is at the Nation­al Gallery in Lon­don).

Whistle­jack­et

By 1764, Stubbs had estab­lished a rep­u­ta­tion for his anatom­i­cal­ly accu­rate ani­mal paint­ings, and attract­ed the atten­tion of the roy­al court, who had com­mis­sioned him, the year before, to paint Queen Charlotte’s South African zebra. He was, then, the obvi­ous choice when a cer­tain out­go­ing Gov­er­nor Gen­er­al of Madras, Sir George Pig­ot, arrived back in Lon­don with a menagerie of “wild beasts and curiosi­ties” as gifts for King George III, and was look­ing for an artist to paint a por­trait of the most exot­ic of those gifts, a mag­nif­i­cent chee­tah.

Eas­i­ly tamed and trained, chee­tahs had been used as hunt­ing ani­mals by the Mogul Emper­ors for hun­dreds of years. In that spir­it, the King’s uncle, the Duke of Cum­ber­land, was eager to put the King’s chee­tah through its paces and so arranged a demon­stra­tion in Wind­sor Great Park, where George Stubbs was present to cap­ture the occa­sion on can­vas.

A stag was duly placed in an enclo­sure of the roy­al pad­dock while the chee­tah was pre­pared by Pigot’s Indi­an ser­vants. First, they ‘hood­winked’ the ani­mal by tying a red blind­fold over its face, whilst one of the ser­vants held it by a restrain­ing sash around the hindquar­ters. A ser­vant then pulled back the hood back to allow the chee­tah a first sight of its quar­ry, whilst the oth­er one ges­tured towards the stag, and the preda­tor was unleashed. What hap­pened next was not quite what was intend­ed: accord­ing to the St James’s Chron­i­cle the stag staunch­ly defend­ed itself and end­ed up chas­ing the chee­tah off!

The paint­ing has been praised for its sin­cere ren­der­ing and lack of Euro­pean con­de­scen­sion: in an age when for­eign vis­i­tors were pic­tured at best as colour­ful exotics, at worst as sin­is­ter or ridicu­lous car­i­ca­tures, Stubbs endowed the ser­vants with a grace and authen­tic­i­ty equal to the mag­nif­i­cent crea­ture they were car­ing for.

Post­script Chee­tahs are no longer to be found wild in the Indi­an sub-con­ti­nent: the last three indi­vid­u­als were report­ed­ly shot in 1947 by the Mahara­jah of Sur­gu­ja.

Chee­tah and Stag with Two Indi­ans
George Stubbs, self-por­trait

Wassily Kandinsky’s Yellow-Red-Blue (1925)

My appre­ci­a­tion of art spans many cen­turies. I’ve mar­velled at the Gre­co-Romano art of the clas­si­cal world; con­tem­plat­ed fres­coes adorn­ing Byzan­tine monas­ter­ies and church­es in Turkey, Arme­nia and Cyprus; spent hours in gal­leries mus­ing over paint­ings from the Medieval and Renais­sance peri­ods, through the eras of Baroque, Neo­clas­si­cism and Roman­ti­cism to late nine­teenth-cen­tu­ry Impres­sion­ism and on to…well to be hon­est, when we hit the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, my enthu­si­asm starts to wane. Sure, Art Deco was a bona fide, aes­thet­i­cal­ly pleas­ing and inno­v­a­tive art move­ment, and Cubism had its place, but when I start to con­sid­er Sur­re­al­ism, Min­i­mal­ism and Abstract Expres­sion­ism, I’m less impressed.

Sure, sure: it’s emi­nent­ly pos­si­ble to sit and enjoy a mon­u­men­tal and vibrant Jack­son Pol­lock can­vas in New York’s Met­ro­pol­i­tan Muse­um of Art — and I have done — and there will always be excep­tion­al and intrigu­ing art to be found through­out the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry. But my con­tention is that over­all these tend to be out­liers, and that in amongst the gems there is a broad seam of dis­tinct­ly uncap­ti­vat­ing art. You can enjoy a Mark Rothko but can you real­ly be cap­ti­vat­ed by it? I can’t. And don’t get me start­ed on the tru­ly mod­ern “art” of the last four decades, the likes of Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, the Chap­man Broth­ers, Mar­tin Creed et al…please!

Hav­ing said that, I’m going to give a free pass to one of the head hon­chos of Abstract Expres­sion­ism, the Russ­ian painter and art the­o­rist Wass­i­ly Kandin­sky (1866–1944). With Kandin­sky I can embrace the new cen­tu­ry vibe and be inspired by all that art the­o­ry behind colour and form. Kandin­sky wrote volu­mi­nous­ly about art the­o­ry: his writ­ing in The Blue Rid­er Almanac and the 1910 trea­tise On the Spir­i­tu­al in Art were bold affir­ma­tions that all forms of art can reach a lev­el of spir­i­tu­al­i­ty. He found­ed the short-lived but influ­en­tial Blue Rid­er group (Der Blaue Reit­er) with like-mind­ed artists such as August Macke, Franz Marc, and Albert Bloch, who exper­i­ment­ed bold­ly with colour, lines and form, and gave pri­or­i­ty to spon­tane­ity and impro­vi­sa­tion.

Kandin­sky’s paint­ings are expres­sive explo­sions of colours, lines and shapes that have an extra­or­di­nary force and musi­cal qual­i­ty about them. Kandin­sky recog­nised that there were impor­tant con­nec­tions between music and abstract art: music is abstract by nature and does not try to rep­re­sent the exte­ri­or world but instead express­es the imme­di­ate inner feel­ings of the soul. That is why Kandin­sky referred to his works as “com­po­si­tions”. I get it. I seem to remem­ber hav­ing this com­po­si­tion — 1925’s Yel­low-Red-Blue (Gelb-Rot-Blau) — on my kitchen wall in the nineties, and, to extend the musi­cal metaphor, I find it rather jazzy!

Kandin­sky, Yel­low-Red-Blue
Wass­i­ly Kandin­sky

Gilbert Shelton’s Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers (1971)

As a boy, the Beano was my com­ic of choice, with occa­sion­al for­ays into the Beez­er, the Top­per, and the Dandy. Lat­er, War­lord would come along, a now large­ly for­got­ten boys’ com­ic fea­tur­ing sto­ries cen­tred around Lord Peter Flint (code­name “War­lord”), Union Jack Jack­son and Bomber Brad­dock (I would write to the com­ic for its free pack to become a “War­lord agent” with a badge and every­thing). By the eight­ies, all grown up, I had pret­ty much done with comics, but one notable excep­tion came along in the guise of the series of under­ground comics writ­ten and drawn by Gilbert Shel­ton and fea­tur­ing the “Fab­u­lous Fur­ry Freak Broth­ers”.

The Freak Broth­ers were a trio of hip­pie ston­ers whose lives revolved around the pro­cure­ment of recre­ation­al drugs and whose chaot­ic lives led them on var­i­ous adven­tures. First appear­ing in 1968 in the under­ground coun­ter­cul­ture news­pa­per The Rag, pub­lished in Austin, Texas, the char­ac­ters were emblem­at­ic of the bloom­ing hip­pie cul­ture of the late six­ties and soon would grad­u­ate to a ded­i­cat­ed com­ic book of their own: Shel­ton co-found­ed Rip Off Press in 1969 and pub­lished 13 issues of The Fab­u­lous Fur­ry Freak Broth­ers com­ic between 1971 and 1997 (so no, it was no week­ly com­ic, it was issued as and when Shel­ton fin­ished his lat­est piece). How they came onto my radar, I’m not entire­ly cer­tain, though I was pos­si­bly drawn by the vibrant and promis­ing cov­ers:

The “broth­ers” (who were not actu­al­ly sib­lings) con­sist­ed of Fat Fred­dy (over­weight, yel­low curly hair, mous­tache), Free­wheel­in’ Franklin (tall, skin­ny, bul­bous nose, Mex­i­can mous­tache, cow­boy hat, pony­tail) and Phineas Phreak (bushy black hair, joint-shaped nose). They live in San Fran­cis­co (where else?) and their adven­tures often serve to foil Nor­bert the Nark, the inept DEA agent who is con­tin­u­al­ly try­ing, and fail­ing, to arrest them. Mean­while, a bonus com­ic strip at the foot of the page fea­tured feline anti-hero, Fat Fred­dy’s Cat (which spawned its own spin-off com­ic series).

With drug use being the dom­i­nant theme, the sto­ries are very much in line with the shenani­gans of con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous on-screen homo­logues Cheech and Chong. Far be it from me to con­fess some kind of fra­ter­ni­ty with law-break­ing drug-tak­ers con­spic­u­ous­ly fail­ing to be mod­el cit­i­zens but what can I say, I’m a cul­tur­al observ­er! Shelton’s comics are rich­ly humor­ous and bril­liant­ly drawn, even if very much of their time. They must have clicked with a whole gen­er­a­tion of boomers for whom, as Free­wheel­in’ Franklin said, “Dope will get you through times of no mon­ey bet­ter than mon­ey will get you through times of no dope”.

Gilbert Shel­ton