comments on some art

A few comments about some of the art that I have seen here in London (Michaelangelo, and Herzog and DeMeuron). (the picture above is of the interior of the tate modern.)

I have two comments to make about Michaelangelo’s paintings in the National Gallery. First of all, I don’t think that he is the most realistic of the rennaissance painters. In fact, it seems that his paintings have more of a cartoonish appearance than those of Leonardo, or Raphael, and later, Ruebens. However, it is that quality that I like about them. The reason that I say that they have a cartoonish appearance is that they seem to glow. The figures in the paintings seems to have an aura about them such that they are radiating light. Perhaps this was diliberate in order to illustrate some sort of heavenly glow that the characters in the painting had.

A second thing about the Michaelangelo paintings is that they were both unfinished. This is not an uncommon theme in all of Michaelangelo’s works. That is something that I really like about his works. Some art historians suggest that none of his works are unfinished, and rather, that they are all complete. I like that idea. What it means is that he had an idea that he wanted to flesh out and realize. He began the work, and once he felt that the idea was presented well, and he expressed what he needed to, he stopped working on the piece. Why should he have to go on? For example, in the painting of Christ being taken down from the cross, it is the bottom of the painting that has so little painting completed. That means that among other things, the people, including Christ, do not have complete legs. Again, if one could, when looking at this painting, see what it is that Michaelangelo wanted to express, why would he need to paint legs?

Now a comment about the Tate Modern gallery. I have already said that I really like the architecture of the building designed by Herzog and DeMeuron. The outside of the building is rather bland. The shape of it is little more than a long rectangle with a tall rectangular tower in the front (that almost resembles a chimney for a factory), made with mostly red brick. On top of the long rectangular building is a glass rectangle that helps serve as a sky light. In any case, I was not very impressed with the exterior of the building. However, the interior blew me away. One sees, upon entering, that the long rectangle is almost empty. That is, there is a huge empty space in the building that serves as the lobby or reception area, and all the collection and exhibitions are displayed on the seven floors of space that are relegated to the left (long) side of the building, the side of the building that would be seen from the Millenium Bridge, and might be considered the front from the outside. It almost resembles a large movie studio stage within which some massive set is to be built. So the space is seven stories tall, and about a quarter of a mile (half a kilometer) long. Along the length of almost the entire ceiling of the building is a skylight (a window). There are also five long verticle windows that look like slits at either end that are about as tall as two thirds of the wall, and set closer to the top. The windows and the skylight provide all the light for inside the lobby, which is all concrete with steel beams supporting the walls. Dividing the lobby in half is a mezzanine that acts as the second floor. It allows you to stand in the middle of the great space and become overwhelmed with the emptiness. It also allows for the back half of the space to serve as an exhibition space (this is where they were exhibiting architectural projects by Herzog and DeMeuron). The space might also inspire artists to want to design and create something so large to use up all the verticle and horizontal space in this exhibition area (as it did me). An artist could create something truely massive!