I went to three first floor, west building exhibits at the National Gallery of Art today. An exhibit of British romantic art primarily from the late 19th century, an exhibit of Rembrandt drawings, and an exhibit of photographs of New York from the 1930s and 1940s. You would think that at least one of these would have captured my interest, but none did.
I have seen a lot of black and white photos of New York. These just were not that illuminating. After all, how many subway passengers do you want to look at? As to Rembrandt, he was quite prolific, as every city seems to have 400th birthday Rembrandt exhibits, but how many small drawings or etchings can you appreciate at one time? As to the British art, none of it was bad, but was any of it that good?
The engraving above is by William Blake. There were a number of similar pieces, along with landscapes, and biblical scenes and everything you would expect. Mainly watercolors, the landscapes could be pleasant (but it was not like seeing the Constable exhibit, even though there was a drawing of a tree in winter by Constable). The "horror" engravings, like Blake, could be fascinating, but I couldn't put them in any sort of context.
It's always nice wandering through the National Gallery, but I don't think these three are worth the trip.
No comments:
Post a Comment