The show has famously been curated under themes, rather than chronologically, which obviously has its benefits and drawbacks. It is interesting to see botanical art grouped together in one room, when you probably wouldn't see it at all in most exhibitions. I also liked the large room in which travel and watercolour were explored - there were fantastic works by John Nash and Eric Ravilious (below) on display here. The breadth of the show ('anything in watercolour) means that it is full of surprises, but it is also a weakness: a lot of the watercolours don't really look like they were painted in watercolour, but rather like imitation oil paintings. In their striving to show the versatility of the medium, they don't have nearly enough examples of what watercolour at its best can do. I would have liked to see a lot more sketch work in watercolour (probably its strongest use), illustration work (Quentin Blake only uses watercolour, but wasn't on show here) and yes, twee, traditional Victorian watercolour stuff, which is what everyone thinks of when they think of watercolour. My guess is the curators wanted to steer well clear of 'what everyone thinks of' and surprise us with Watercolour Where You Least Expect It. What wasn't surprising is Tate Britain rolling out Turner again, their favourite star turn. He's bound to turn up, because Tate Britain has a lot of him, and his preparations, if you squint a bit, look a bit like abstract expressionism, so he neatly straddles the abstract and figurative schools of art.
There was a Watercolour and War room here, which could have been larger. I've seen some excellent James Boswell war watercolours at the British Museum Drawing and Prints Room, and of course Henry Moore used watercolour (with wax and chalk and ink) for his famous subway pictures from the Blitz, surely worth a look, but sadly no sign of them here. What I'm getting at, is that any exhibition that is this broad is laying itself open to accusations of missing out a lot of the best stuff in an effort to pack everything in.
Exhibition ended very badly in a sort of catch-all room about the imagination, which included William Blake and Tracy Emin. Spot the connection - I couldn't. Overall, I really enjoyed the high points of the show, and it was excellently displayed, particularly the room about watercolour materials, about which I already know a good deal, but still found it fascinating. I understand the criticism that this show is going to attract from watercolour purists, but I think it is worth looking beyond that. This show has something for everyone. It brings in the punters and goes a good way towards destroying the reputation that watercolour has as the medium of choice for old ladies on 'Watercolour Challenge' and the Prince of Wales. That's quite an achievement.
No comments:
Post a Comment