Saxony Line I-IIIn my research today I learned that nullification is a form of body modification where one voluntarily removes a body part. I simply have no optimistic estimation of this. Therefore, nullification is simply out as a topic to continue this glorious Saxony Line. I also wonder what Gerhard Richter is doing, trying to nullify everyone with his blurs.
Gerhard Richter was in the news today. He, or rather the dangerous nullifying blurs that he is known for, are on display at the Tate Modern until the 8th of January. All my friends in the UK that have a penchant for daredevilry should go and scope this out. So long as I keep all of my limbs in tact, I must admit that I do enjoy a good destabilizing force in modernist fashion coupled with post-modern ruination. It goes excellent with a shot of brandy sunken into an espresso with a blueberry scone. For the full effect pour the brandied espresso on the sauce and crumble the scone into the mug. Perfect ruination.
All this talk of scones and espresso has rather perked up my appetite. Apologies for that sidetrack. Onward the glorious Saxony Line of thought!
The thing that I wanted most to discuss today was this show at the Vadehra Art Gallery in New Delhi called Picasso-Souza. There is a mess of cubism and pre-cubism and post-cubism doodling hanging on the walls by two artists, one well known (Pablo Picasso: Fumear a la cigarette rouge) and one not so well known (Francis Newton Souza: untitled, head of picasso). Fair play to the Hindustan Times on giving me the heads up on this one. It was a lot easier to read things about Earth in Heaven because of the whole time difference.
Obviously Picasso is a master and I like cubism, maybe not as much as its offshoots sprinkled with a little bit of Surrealism, but I like it. I even checked up on this guy Francis Newton Souza. He's from Goa, India and was a leader in the Progressive Artists' Group of Bombay. I checked out some of their work too. Good stuff. Anyway, this isn't really a critique, I don't feel I've got the chops to critique Picasso. Especially since he knows where I live upstairs.
I will say this though, Conor Macklin , comparing the two said, "The two had a lot in common." He then summarized what they had in common: being "competitive" and "iconic". I get that. Neither forgot their roots, Spain for Picasso and India for Souza. Good so far. Both led artistic revolutions, one in Europe and the other in India. Spot on. But then he says, "they were both criticized - Picasso for his anti-war works, and Souza for his erotic ones." What?
I don't know the back story of Souza enough to know why he painted erotic paintings. Maybe it was only to paint erotic paintings, but sometimes art has a deeper meaning. The Saxony Line of thinking marches on towards a different path than researching the deeper, more secret meaning to Souza's concupiscent caricatures. (If you know it post it here on a comment please). But at first blush the director of Grosvenor Vadhera Gallery in London equates a pacifism stance with a horny one. Read it in the headlines. It's all there. None of this is made up. Enjoy the art!
No comments:
Post a Comment