Category Archives: Art

Cyril Power’s The Tube Train (1934)

In 2013 the Lon­don Under­ground cel­e­brat­ed its sesqui­cen­ten­ni­al, and to mark that mile­stone, the Lon­don Trans­port Muse­um launched “Poster Art 150”, a selec­tion of the best posters from 150 years of Lon­don Under­ground mar­ket­ing, every­thing from this from 1905…

…to this from 1998…

One of the many artists and design­ers who con­tributed to the Lon­don Underground’s cam­paigns hap­pened to be one of the pio­neers and lead­ing expo­nents of the linocut in Eng­land: one Cyril Pow­er.

In 1925, along with fel­low artists Sybil Andrews, Iain McNab and Claude Flight, Pow­er had co-found­ed the Grosvenor School of Mod­ern Art in War­wick Square, Lon­don. He became the prin­ci­pal lec­tur­er and Sybil Andrews became school sec­re­tary. Pow­er taught aes­thet­ics in archi­tec­ture; McNab taught wood­cut, and Claude Flight ran class­es in linocut­ting, the print­mak­ing tech­nique that is a vari­ant of wood­cut in which a sheet of linoleum is used for the relief sur­face. Soon, the school achieved a name for itself and it began to attract stu­dents from as far afield as Aus­tralia and New Zealand.

Cyril Pow­er and Sybil Andrews them­selves attend­ed Flight’s class­es and became adept linocut artists. They began co-author­ing prints togeth­er, and mount­ed a series of exhi­bi­tions which attract­ed con­sid­er­able inter­est. In 1930, they estab­lished a stu­dio in Ham­mer­smith close to the Riv­er Thames, a loca­tion which inspired many prints by both artists, such as The Eight by Cyril Pow­er and Bring­ing in the Boat by Sybil Andrews (both in the gallery below). Then, begin­ning in 1932, the Under­ground Elec­tric Rail­ways Com­pa­ny of Lon­don (as the Lon­don Under­ground was then) com­mis­sioned a series of posters, includ­ing Pow­er’s Tube Sta­tion (1932) and The Tube Train (1934).

Pow­er’s linocuts explored the speed, move­ment, and flow of mod­ern urban Lon­don, and you can clear­ly dis­cern the move­ment and ener­gy in his prints. It’s no sur­prise that one of his favourite sub­jects was the Lon­don Under­ground, a sym­bol of the mod­ern indus­tri­al age. Let’s look at Pow­er’s vibrant Tube linocuts and a selec­tion of oth­er linocuts by both him and Sybil Andrews.

The Tube Train (1934)

More Cyril Pow­er Linocuts…

…and a selec­tion of Sybil Andrews linocuts…

 

Otto Dix’s Metropolis Tryptych (1928)

The peri­od, in Ger­many, between the end of World War I in 1918 and Hitler’s rise to pow­er in 1933 is a fas­ci­nat­ing one: there was a rapid emer­gence of inno­va­tion in the arts and sci­ences, embod­ied in the term “Weimar cul­ture” (after the Weimar Repub­lic, which was the unof­fi­cial des­ig­na­tion for the Ger­man state at that time).

Lumi­nar­ies in the sci­ences dur­ing the peri­od includ­ed Albert Ein­stein, Wern­er Heisen­berg and Max Born; Wal­ter Gropius was busy invent­ing mod­ern archi­tec­ture and design with the Bauhaus move­ment; Lud­wig Prandtl was pio­neer­ing aero­nau­ti­cal engi­neer­ing. In the arts, Ger­man Expres­sion­ism was reach­ing its peak: Fritz Lang’s Metrop­o­lis expressed the pub­lic’s fas­ci­na­tion with futur­ism and tech­nol­o­gy; con­cert halls were begin­ning to hear the aton­al, mod­ern exper­i­men­tal music of Kurt Weill and Arnold Schoen­berg, whilst Bertolt Brecht was shak­ing up the the­atre.

How­ev­er, 1920s Berlin also had a dark under­bel­ly and a rep­u­ta­tion for deca­dence. There was a sig­nif­i­cant rise in pros­ti­tu­tion, drug use, and crime. The cabaret scene, as doc­u­ment­ed by Britain’s Christo­pher Ish­er­wood in his nov­el Good­bye to Berlin (which was even­tu­al­ly adapt­ed into the musi­cal movie, Cabaret), was emblem­at­ic of Berlin’s deca­dence. Many of the painters, sculp­tors, com­posers, archi­tects, play­wrights, and film­mak­ers asso­ci­at­ed with the time would be the same ones whose art would lat­er be denounced as “degen­er­ate art” (Entartete Kun­st) by Adolf Hitler.

A new cul­tur­al move­ment start­ed around this time, how­ev­er – named New Objec­tiv­i­ty (Neue Sach­lichkeit). Its mem­bers turned away from the roman­tic ideals of Ger­man Expres­sion­ism and adopt­ed instead an unsen­ti­men­tal per­spec­tive on the harsh real­i­ties of Ger­man soci­ety. A lead­ing mem­ber of this move­ment was Otto Dix, and it is his paint­ings – satir­i­cal and at times sav­age — that I’m show­cas­ing here. He wished to por­tray the decay of the post-war life; thus, fre­quent themes include the pros­ti­tutes and down­trod­den of Berlin, their defects exag­ger­at­ed to the point of car­i­ca­ture. He also paint­ed many of the promi­nent char­ac­ters from his milieu, in a style influ­enced by the dadaism and cubism art move­ments.

Here is a small selec­tion of his art from the Weimar years, begin­ning with his 1928 tryp­tych, Metrop­o­lis (Großs­tadt), which incor­po­rat­ed crip­pled war vet­er­ans, pros­ti­tutes, musi­cians, dancers, and night club rev­ellers into its three-pan­el indict­ment of con­tem­po­rary Berlin life. Inci­den­tal­ly, when the Nazis came to pow­er, Dix had to promise to paint only inof­fen­sive land­scapes: that must have been excru­ci­at­ing for him!

Metrop­o­lis
Otto Dix

Tipu’s Tiger (c. 1790)

Between 1767 and 1799 there was a series of wars fought between the British East India Com­pa­ny and the King­dom of Mysore, all part of the ongo­ing strug­gle of the British to con­sol­i­date domin­ion in the Indi­an sub­con­ti­nent and lay the ground for what would become the British Empire. The Fourth, and last, Anglo-Mysore War cul­mi­nat­ed in 1799 with the deci­sive defeat and death of Tipu Sul­tan, the ruler of the Mysore­ans, at the siege of his cap­i­tal, Seringa­p­atam.

Dur­ing the sub­se­quent plun­der of Tipu’s palace, East India Com­pa­ny troops came across an unusu­al and intrigu­ing mechan­i­cal toy in a room giv­en over to musi­cal instru­ments. It was a carved and paint­ed wood­en tiger sav­aging a near life-size Euro­pean man. Con­cealed inside the tiger’s body, behind a hinged flap, was an organ which could be oper­at­ed by the turn­ing of a han­dle next to it. This simul­ta­ne­ous­ly made the man’s arm lift up and down and pro­duced nois­es intend­ed to imi­tate his dying moans and the growls of the tiger. A piece more emblem­at­ic of the Sultan’s antipa­thy towards the British would be hard to find!

The Gov­er­nors of the East India Com­pa­ny sent the inter­est­ing object back to Lon­don, where, after a few years in stor­age, it was dis­played in the read­ing-room of the East India Com­pa­ny Muse­um and Library at East India House in Lead­en­hall Street. It proved to be a very pop­u­lar exhib­it and the pub­lic could not only view Tipu’s Tiger, but crank its han­dle and oper­ate its machin­ery at will. This they did on a reg­u­lar basis, appar­ent­ly, to the deep annoy­ance of stu­dents try­ing to study there. No sur­prise then, that at some point the han­dle dis­ap­peared, and the peri­od­i­cal The Athenaeum report­ed that:

“Luck­i­ly, a kind fate has deprived him of his han­dle… and we do sin­cere­ly hope he will remain so, to be seen and admired but to be heard no more”

In 1880, the Vic­to­ria and Albert Muse­um acquired the piece, and it remains there to this day (the han­dle has of course been replaced, though not for the pub­lic to crank). Tipu was big into his tigers: he had jew­elled, gold­en tiger heads as finials on his throne, tiger stripes stamped onto his coinage, and tigers incor­po­rat­ed into the Mysore­an swords, guns, and mor­tars. How­ev­er, this won­der­ful­ly paint­ed piece is cer­tain­ly the most unusu­al! Do call into the V&A if you get the oppor­tu­ni­ty.

 
Tipu’s Tiger

Giovanni Piranesi’s Imaginary Prisons (1761)

Venice had been one of the great trad­ing pow­ers of medieval and Renais­sance Europe, but by the 18th-cen­tu­ry its polit­i­cal domin­ion was wan­ing. Although past its hey­day, the repub­lic still pos­sessed great appeal to the emerg­ing tourist mar­ket; it was a pre­em­i­nent des­ti­na­tion for the thou­sands of promi­nent young adult males embark­ing on the “Grand Tour”. Cap­i­tal­is­ing on the tourists’ desire to secure a memen­to, there devel­oped the genre of view paint­ing, spawn­ing a pletho­ra of paint­ings of the Rial­to Bridge, the Grand Canal and St Mark’s Square, by the likes of Canalet­to, Bel­lot­to, and the Guar­di broth­ers.

As well as real city views, the artists some­times liked to let their fan­cy fly and paint imag­i­nary views (capric­ci) that placed build­ings, archae­o­log­i­cal ruins and oth­er archi­tec­tur­al ele­ments togeth­er in fic­tion­al and often fan­tas­ti­cal com­bi­na­tions. The name of one such artist, Gio­van­ni Bat­tista Pirane­si, is not par­tic­u­lar­ly well-known these days but nonethe­less left to his­to­ry a series of etch­ings whose influ­ence is felt to this day: the so-called Imag­i­nary Pris­ons (Le Carceri).

These pris­ons of Piranesi’s imag­i­na­tion were dark, labyrinthine depic­tions of a night­mare world. Ever since they were pub­lished — the first edi­tion in the late 1740s, the sec­ond, even dark­er one in 1761 — Pirane­si’s images have inspired design­ers, writ­ers and archi­tects alike. We can see ele­ments of them in Fritz Lang’s Metrop­o­lis and in Michael Rad­ford’s adap­ta­tion of George Orwell’s 1984. The etch­ings fore­shad­ow M C Escher’s play­ful explo­rations of per­spec­tive, and we can even see their influ­ence in the mov­ing stair­cas­es at Hog­warts.

Pirane­si’s prison inte­ri­ors have no out­er walls; each vista is cut off only by the frame of the image itself. The spaces are large and con­tin­u­ous: they may not even be inte­ri­ors; this may be a city that has grown into a world, where inte­ri­or and exte­ri­or are no longer defin­able. We see strange devices sug­ges­tive of tor­ture: wheels with spikes, pul­leys, bas­kets big enough to con­tain a per­son. You don’t quite know how they work, or what the think­ing could be behind them. Pris­on­ers under­go mys­te­ri­ous tor­ments, chained to posts, whilst high above them spec­ta­tors gath­er on a ver­tig­i­nous walk­way. It is impos­si­ble to tell at times who is a pris­on­er, who a guard, who a vis­i­tor, and in the end you sus­pect that every­one in this place is a pris­on­er.

Some of Pirane­si’s Imag­i­nary Pris­ons:

…and some exam­ples of their influ­ence in mod­ern cul­ture:

Mary Cassatt’s Young Mother Sewing (1900)

When we think of the Impres­sion­ists, we tend to think about Mon­et, Renoir, Degas, Cézanne…and quite right­ly, because they were titans of their art. How­ev­er, less well-known to us (always the way, unfor­tu­nate­ly, eh ladies?) were “les trois grandes dames” of Impres­sion­ism, name­ly Marie Brac­que­mond, Berthe Morisot and the sub­ject of today’s blog, Mary Cas­satt. These women more than held their own amongst their male coun­ter­parts; all three pro­duced won­der­ful art and exhib­it­ed suc­cess­ful­ly at the Paris Salons.

Mary Cas­satt was a young Amer­i­can artist who arrived in Paris in 1866, hav­ing quit the Penn­syl­va­nia Acad­e­my of the Fine Arts back home, due to the lack of inspi­ra­tion and patro­n­is­ing atti­tude of the male stu­dents and teach­ers there. Although we asso­ciate the birth of fem­i­nism with the ear­ly 1900s, the first wave of fem­i­nism began as ear­ly as the 1840s, and some doors were opened to women, par­tic­u­lar­ly in cos­mopoli­tan Paris, to which Mary was drawn.

Not all doors were opened, how­ev­er: women still couldn’t study art at the pres­ti­gious École des Beaux-Arts so Cas­satt signed up for pri­vate study with Jean-Léon Gérôme, (the Ori­en­tal­ist I wrote about back in March) and she became an advo­cate for women’s equal­i­ty all her life. She became a friend and col­lab­o­ra­tor of Edgar Degas, too. They had stu­dios a five-minute stroll apart, and Degas would reg­u­lar­ly look in at Mary’s stu­dio, offer­ing advice and help­ing find mod­els.

Cassatt’s art cen­tred on the lives of women, and in par­tic­u­lar she paint­ed many works depict­ing the inti­mate bond between moth­er and child. It is that aspect I am show­cas­ing here, with a gallery of pieces fea­tur­ing some often touch­ing depic­tions of moth­er and child, begin­ning with Young Moth­er Sewing, paint­ed in 1900 and pur­chased a year lat­er by influ­en­tial art col­lec­tor and fem­i­nist Loui­sine Have­mey­er, who fit­ting­ly used it to raise mon­ey for the wom­en’s suf­frage cause.


Mary Cas­satt

Jean-Léon Gérôme’s The Carpet Merchant (1887)

In July of 1798, Napoleon marched into Egypt and defeat­ed the Turks at the Bat­tle of the Pyra­mids, weak­en­ing past break­ing point the wan­ing Ottoman Empire. He was dri­ven out a year lat­er by the British, but in that small amount of time he had already changed every­thing: because fol­low­ing him came first a trick­le and then a tor­rent of west­ern­ers into the Near and Mid­dle East. They came and they jour­neyed through Turkey, Iraq, Per­sia, Egypt, Lebanon, Pales­tine, Ara­bia and North Africa. Many of them wrote about their expe­ri­ences, spark­ing a deep fas­ci­na­tion with these exot­ic, mys­te­ri­ous lands.

The artists came too, and they paint­ed what they saw: bazaars and souks; robed and mous­ta­chioed Arabs smok­ing hookah pipes; mosques and minarets; Turk­ish baths and harems. With time this became an art move­ment and today we call it Ori­en­tal­ist art. I love it for the way it con­jures up the exot­ic, and although it is clear that some artists let their imag­i­na­tions get the bet­ter of them (I’m think­ing of the harems, which no artist can have actu­al­ly seen), their depic­tions of these lands must have inspired many a beat­ing heart to vis­it.

One such Ori­en­tal­ist was French painter, Jean-Léon Gérôme. In 1856, he vis­it­ed Egypt for the first time and fol­lowed the clas­sic grand tour of a typ­i­cal occi­den­tal vis­i­tor to the Ori­ent: up the Nile to Cairo, then to Abu Sim­bel, across the Sinai Penin­su­la and through the Wadi el-Ara­ba to the Holy Land, Jerusalem and final­ly to Dam­as­cus. He gath­ered themes, arte­facts and cos­tumes for his ori­en­tal scenes, and then set to work, soon estab­lish­ing a rep­u­ta­tion back home which saw him become hon­orary Pres­i­dent of the French Soci­ety of Ori­en­tal­ist Painters.

There’s a gallery, below, of sev­er­al of his Ori­en­tal­ist works, giv­ing a good flavour of what he was about, and below that my favourite piece of the lot, The Car­pet Mer­chant. I have trav­elled quite exten­sive­ly myself in these lands, from Istan­bul, Beirut and Dam­as­cus to Mar­rakesh, Petra and Cairo; and noth­ing quite beats the sim­ple plea­sure of wan­der­ing the snaking alley­ways and souks of an old quar­ter, and tak­ing in the sights, sounds and smells of life there. The Car­pet Mer­chant cap­tures that feel­ing per­fect­ly.

The Carpet Merchant
The Car­pet Mer­chant

 

John Singer Sargent’s Madame X (1884)

One of my favourite artists is John Singer Sar­gent, the great Edwar­dian-era por­trait painter. Born in Flo­rence to Amer­i­can par­ents, he lived an itin­er­ant ear­ly life in Europe, his par­ents mov­ing reg­u­lar­ly between sea and moun­tain resorts in France, Ger­many, Italy, and Switzer­land (alright for some). Sargent’s ear­ly signs of artis­tic tal­ent led the fam­i­ly to Paris where he gained admis­sion to the École des Beaux-Arts and stud­ied with the not­ed French por­traitist, Car­o­lus-Duran.

In 1879, at the age of 23, Sar­gent paint­ed a por­trait of Car­o­lus-Duran and exhib­it­ed it at the Paris Salon. It met with such pub­lic approval that his future direc­tion was sealed. He quick­ly accu­mu­lat­ed com­mis­sions for por­traits and his fame spread. He paint­ed com­mis­sioned por­traits right up until his death in 1925, but in between com­mis­sions he would paint friends and col­leagues for fun. It was one such non-com­mis­sioned paint­ing, Car­na­tion, Lily, Lily, Rose, that grabbed my atten­tion at the Tate Britain and turned me into an instant fan. How­ev­er, the sub­ject of today’s blog is the paint­ing that became Sar­gen­t’s head­line-grab­ber, Por­trait of Madame X.

Just as we saw when I blogged about Edouard Manet, Sargent’s suc­cess­ful career was not with­out scan­dal. In 1884 he sub­mit­ted Por­trait of Madame X to the Paris Salon. “Madame X” was “pro­fes­sion­al beau­ty” and socialite, Vir­ginie Gautreau, the Amer­i­can wife of a French banker. Sar­gent actu­al­ly pur­sued her to paint her, rather than the oth­er way round. It’s a deeply allur­ing piece, with the sit­ter stand­ing in pro­file, and the deep black of her dress empha­sis­ing the “aris­to­crat­ic pal­lor” of her skin. With cinched waist, the ele­gant bone struc­ture, and with one shoul­der strap seem­ing­ly about to fall off the shoul­der, the image could only sug­gest one thing — the erot­ic — and it was this, inevitably (for the time), that pre­cip­i­tat­ed the scan­dal at the Salon. It was only a tem­po­rary set­back (and Sar­gent respond­ed by repaint­ing the shoul­der strap in a “safer” posi­tion), and I don’t sup­pose a lit­tle bit of scan­dal is too harm­ful to the career of a gift­ed artist, after all.

In June of 1999, Nicole Kid­man was the cov­er girl of Vogue, and in her cov­er sto­ry, she posed for pho­tographs in a num­ber of John Singer Sar­gent re-imag­in­ings (includ­ing Madame X) by the pho­tog­ra­ph­er, Steven Meisel. The pho­to­genic Kid­man suits these pic­tures per­fect­ly so I thought it well worth show­cas­ing them here, along­side their originals…starting with the beguil­ing Madame X.

Madame X
Lady Agnew
Mrs George Swin­ton
Mrs Charles E Inch­es
John Singer Sar­gent

Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson Of Dr Nicolaes Tulp (1632)

Giv­en all the stan­dard gen­res of paint­ing open to an artist in 17th cen­tu­ry Ams­ter­dam – land­scape, por­trai­ture, still life, his­to­ry, reli­gious – you could be for­giv­en for assum­ing that the sub­ject of today’s blog, Rembrandt’s The Anato­my Les­son of Dr Nico­laes Tulp, was some­thing of a one-off. It has a seem­ing­ly very spe­cif­ic and niche sub­ject: that of an anato­my les­son involv­ing the dis­sec­tion of a cadav­er! In fact, though, at the time of Rembrandt’s work in 1632, there was already a strong tra­di­tion of Dutch “guild por­trai­ture” (group por­traits com­mis­sioned by a pro­fes­sion­al asso­ci­a­tion such as the Guild of Sur­geons) and many of these involved dis­sec­tion scenes, so Rembrandt’s sub­ject was far from unique for the time.

This was the Dutch Gold­en Age. Com­pared to most oth­er coun­tries of 17th cen­tu­ry Europe, the Nether­lands was pos­i­tive­ly pro­gres­sive in its mod­el of gov­ern­ment. Since the for­ma­tion of the Dutch repub­lic in 1581, the Nether­lands had expe­ri­enced the emer­gence of a nation­al and cul­tur­al iden­ti­ty, and both reli­gious free­dom and open trade were high­ly val­ued. With a bur­geon­ing econ­o­my and the rise of the mid­dle class­es, it was a place where Dutch sci­en­tists — and Dutch artists — were able to exper­i­ment with­out fear of papal cen­sure. Guild por­trai­ture was there­fore an expres­sion of Dutch pro­gres­sivism.

The prac­tice of dis­sec­tion, pri­or to the Dutch repub­lic, had been moral­ly ques­tion­able: in fact, the Church had offi­cial­ly con­demned it, and even post-repub­lic it was still a grey area. How­ev­er, it was recog­nised that dis­sec­tion was part and par­cel of sci­en­tif­ic advance­ment, and so Amsterdam’s now-Protes­tant city coun­cil sanc­tioned the prac­tice on the con­di­tion that only the corpses of crim­i­nals were used. Anatom­ic dis­sec­tions soon became high­ly pop­u­lar pub­lic events, last­ing for sev­er­al days (and for that rea­son car­ried out in the win­ter, to retard the decay of the cadav­ers) and gen­er­at­ing a sub­stan­tial income from pay­ing observers.

Artists were thus com­mis­sioned to cap­ture the scene and guild mem­bers would have paid a pret­ty sum to be fea­tured in it. What dif­fer­en­ti­ates this paint­ing from all the oth­ers was the fact that this was Rem­brandt, the most gift­ed and pro­lif­ic artist of his age, and typ­i­cal­ly he under­took to reject the tra­di­tion­al com­po­si­tion of Dutch guild por­trai­ture and instead he adopt­ed a more vis­cer­al style. Rem­brandt puts the corpse at the cen­tre of the scene and por­trays it in full length, in Christ-like repose. It turns a group van­i­tas por­trait into a quite dra­mat­ic and arrest­ing image.

The corpse, inci­den­tal­ly, was one Adri­aan Adri­aan­szoon, who was con­vict­ed for armed rob­bery and sen­tenced to death by hang­ing (which occurred on the very morn­ing of the dis­sec­tion). Per­haps not the most illus­tri­ous rea­son to be cap­tured on can­vas for pos­ter­i­ty, but hey ho!

Anatomy Lesson
The Anato­my Les­son of Dr Nico­laes Tulp

Édouard Manet’s A Bar at the Folies-Bergère (1882)

Édouard Manet is thought of as a lead­ing light of the Impres­sion­ists, but actu­al­ly, although he was asso­ci­at­ed with them and was admired by Mon­et and Renoir, he nev­er actu­al­ly exhib­it­ed at any of the Impres­sion­ist Exhi­bi­tions in Paris. He was more of a pre­cur­sor to the new era of artis­tic impres­sion­ism, and still had a foot plant­ed firm­ly in real­ism. His ear­ly work was, how­ev­er, con­tro­ver­sial, and he scan­dalised crit­ics and pub­lic alike, most notably with Le Déje­uner sur l’herbe and Olympia (both 1863), but even these were mod­elled on old clas­si­cal mas­ter­pieces: Giorgione’s Pas­toral Con­cert (1509) and Titian’s Venus of Urbino (1538) respec­tive­ly. Let’s have a quick look and see if you can spot, in the mind of a nine­teenth cen­tu­ry purist, the ele­ments of Manet’s work that trans­formed ele­gant clas­si­cism into lewd mod­ernism:

How­ev­er, the sub­ject of this blog is actu­al­ly the Manet that is arguably the most recognisable…the cel­e­brat­ed A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. The Folies Bergère was the most famous of Paris’s café-con­cert halls and was not­ed at this time for its new-fan­gled elec­tric lights. We see the frontal image of a bar­maid look­ing out at us from behind her counter, and behind her a huge mir­ror in which we see reflect­ed the back of the bar­maid along with the scene that she her­self is observ­ing. There are the mem­bers of the audi­ence, watch­ing the show, and indeed an ele­ment of the show itself: the legs of the trapeze artist which appear in the very top-left cor­ner of the pic­ture.

The woman behind the bar was actu­al­ly a real per­son, known as Suzon, who worked at the Folies Bergère dur­ing the ear­ly 1880s, and whom Manet paint­ed in his stu­dio. The gen­tle­man at the bar was Manet’s neigh­bour. The bot­tles, fruit and vase of flow­ers arranged on the counter are repli­cat­ed with all the pre­ci­sion of a still life paint­ing, and inter­est­ing to note – for such a French-feel­ing paint­ing — the bot­tles of British beer: yes, Bass Pale Ale of all things! The loose British con­nec­tion is main­tained: this famous paint­ing is held not in Paris but at the Cour­tauld Gallery, Lon­don.

Édouard Manet

Tamara de Lempicka’s Young Lady with Gloves (1930)

Art Deco was one of the first tru­ly inter­na­tion­al styles, influ­enc­ing the design of just about every­thing from build­ings to fur­ni­ture, jew­ellery to fash­ion, and art to every­day objects like radios and vac­u­um clean­ers. It took its name (short for Arts Déco­rat­ifs) from the Expo­si­tion Inter­na­tionale des Arts Déco­rat­ifs et Indus­triels Mod­ernes Arts which was held in Paris in 1925, and which serves as a fair start­ing point to cred­it for the birth of a move­ment. We are slap-bang in the mid­dle of the Roar­ing Twen­ties, the era of the Jazz Age and of flap­pers, of motion pic­tures and the Charleston, of The Great Gats­by and Radio City Music Hall, and whilst this rep­re­sen­ta­tive list smacks of the Unit­ed States, the cul­tur­al vibe was no less felt in Berlin, Paris, Lon­don and Syd­ney. It was an era of eco­nom­ic pros­per­i­ty and cul­tur­al dynamism and as such, don’t be sur­prised to see this blog return to this peri­od in the future.

Art Deco drew its inspi­ra­tion from such art move­ments as Cubism, Futur­ism, and the influ­ence of the Bauhaus. It played with geo­met­ric motifs and bright, bold colours, and of all the artists pur­su­ing this style, one of the most mem­o­rable and inter­est­ing was Tama­ra de Lem­pic­ka.

Born in Poland in 1898, she lived, after her par­ents divorced, with her wealthy grand­moth­er, who spoiled her with clothes and trav­el. By age 14 she was attend­ing school in Lau­sanne, and hol­i­day­ing in St Peters­burg. All this high liv­ing gave the young girl an idea of how she want­ed to live and what her future should be. Thus, when she found she had a tal­ent for art, she took her­self to Paris to live among the bour­geois and bohemi­an of the Left Bank (where else?). Between the wars, she paint­ed por­traits of the great and the good, and many of East­ern Europe’s exiled nobil­i­ty, bring­ing her crit­i­cal acclaim, social celebri­ty and con­sid­er­able wealth. She was also well-known for her high­ly stylised nudes.

Her icon­ic work exud­ed a con­fi­dence that epit­o­mised the era (see her Self-Por­trait in the Green Bugat­ti, for instance). But let’s look at her Young Lady with Gloves (AKA Girl in the Green Dress), typ­i­cal of her style. It has stream­lined, geo­met­ric shapes and clean, metal­lic sur­faces depict­ing a beau­ti­ful, sophis­ti­cat­ed woman. She exudes a detached aura of supe­ri­or­i­ty, and there is a visu­al­ly strik­ing inter­play of com­po­si­tion­al effects, angu­lar lines, and shad­ing. The unabashed sen­su­al­ism of those nip­ples and that navel vis­i­ble through the fab­ric is pure de Lem­pic­ka. Small won­der that one of her high-pro­file col­lec­tors is inter­na­tion­al super­star, Madon­na, who has fea­tured some of de Lem­pick­a’s works in her own videos, notably Vogue. Push­ing the bound­aries as a fear­less female artist, she was per­haps the Madon­na of her day.

 

 

Tama­ra de Lem­pic­ka