After lunch, the four of us headed on to the National Gallery at Trafalgar Square. I'm slightly embarrassed to admit I'd never been. Art galleries weren't my thing in 1984, and I've only enjoyed going to them in the last ten years.
Even then, my other visits to London were only three-day stretches before moving on to other places (Scotland once, Ireland once, and the Cotswolds the last time), so the Nat Gallery did not make the cut of things to do on short visits.
I liked it. After a while, art museums start sucking the life out of me, but at least now I appreciate the art I am non-comatose for. Art galleries (and museum for that matter) need to pump oxygen in rooms to keep people awake like casinos do in Vegas.
(Well, it turns out to be a urban myth -- the Vegas Gaming Commission even randomly checks oxygen levels to make sure it's not happening, it's expensive, and a fire hazard. So, my contribution to improving museum experiences is DOA. There goes my Nobel Peace Prize hopes.)
We decide to divide and conquer as couples -- Carol and I were free to go wherever we wanted, whilst Rick and Sandy did the same.
This probably isn't news, but the National Gallery, besides being free, has quite an impressive collection. We didn't see everything (obviously), but highlights included works by da Vinci, Michelangelo, Monet, Sorolla*, van Gogh**, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Raphael, Renoir, Rubens, Caravaggio, Degas, Van Dyck, Titian, Velazquez, Bellini (the artist, not the cocktail), Botticelli, and some big names I'm totally blanking on eight days later. Ugh -- just realized we missed the Giotto at the National Gallery, so I suppose we'll have to go back!***
Carol and I wandered from room to room, doing "drive by arting" until we saw paintings we wanted to spend a modicum more of time with. Not to anger the art purists, but we would split the room in half, with Carol taking one side and me the other. We would hurriedly look at the paintings and names associated with said painting.
If there was a painting by one of the greats, we'd call the other one over to look at it for a bit of time, and then go back to cruising through the room until the next find.
If you feel bad for all the art we glanced at and kept going, don't. There's a reason the greats are, well, great. It's worth looking at a Van Gogh, but not a Van Joe when you have a limited bandwidth for art like I do. Importantly, I know what I like when I see it (for example, the afternoon we spent in Melbourne, Australia at the Aborginal Art Museum was eye-opening), and at the National Gallery, there's too many paintings to take them all in.
The Gallery was founded in 1824, and displays more than 2,300 paintings. The current building opened in 1838, and has a grand look and a grand location, right above Trafalgar Square.
After a while, I was cooked, so we headed outside to take in Trafalgar Square. Rick and Sandy joined us for a snack break, and then we walked down to Piccadilly Circus, which either is more interesting at night or was more unique in the 1980s, as it was underwhelming this time.
*Thanks to an account dedicated to Joaquin Sorolla on Twitter, Carol and I discovered this Spanish artist impressionist-esque paintings probably five years ago. Carol had just said, "We never see Sorolla works in museums outside of Spain" when we stumbled on a painting of his -- we didn't even need to check the placard, because his style is so unique. (But we did check the placard, and it was his work).
**The more van Gogh works I see, the further up Glen's Hierarchy of Painters. Monet is still my favorite (I have a very positive impression of his work). I actually think that da Vinci is the greatest painter ever, while Michelangelo's paintings, with the exception of the Sistine Chapel, are over-rated. Michelangelo is the greatest sculptor ever, so hopefully I'm not hurting his feelings too much.
(Editor: "With the exception of the Sistine Chapel" is quite the sentence clause. Writer: I was hoping nobody would notice just how stupid my whole statement about Michelangelo's paintings actually is.)
(Editor: Hopefully no one will ask to see "Glen's Hierarchy of Painters." Writer: Yes, well then I'd have to actually come up with it, and painters do move up and down the list based on what I've recently seen.)
Okay, one more art note -- Carol and I share the same controversial opinion -- we think Giotto's Scrovengi Chapel in Padua is more impressive to see than the Sistine Chapel. Why? Because seeing it is a more intimate experience. Seen in blown up photos, the Sistine Chapel is beyond amazing, but in person it's not the best experience. Approximately 1,000 of your closest strangers are jammed in with you, you can't take photos, and no talking is allowed -- even whispering is frowned up.
No comments:
Post a Comment