JMW Turner site
Leigh Kimmel
artist JMW Turner, I have just completed a complete update of my pages
dedicated to him.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/9989/jmwturner.html
--
One terrified boy, and a girl who would save him.
"Claws of Vengeance" now available, http://www.alexlit.com/
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@globaleyes.net
http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel!
Check out my bookstore http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/bookstore/
A.A. Raimes
<kim...@mail.globaleyes.net.?> writes
>In honor of the 224th anniversary of the birth of English landscape
>artist JMW Turner, I have just completed a complete update of my pages
>dedicated to him.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/9989/jmwturner.html
Leigh: I took a look at your essay and found a number of inconsistencies
in what you wrote concerning Turner and his work and would be happy to
discuss them with you. Your reading sources are somewhat limited and
have excluded some of the most important books written. Of course here
in London, Turner's work takes up a position of prestige at both the
Tate and the National Gallery and it may be that there is more
information available to us - which I will gladly pass onto you if you
would like. Also we are privileged to have access to the actual work -
and as many posters ! You might want to consider that John Ruskin was in
awe of Turner, and as one of the most influential art critics of that
time was largely responsible for Turner's public acceptance - Turner was
in no way the underdog. On the contrary, Turner, supported by Ruskin,
was largely responsible for Constable's lack of public recognition. Many
share the opinion that Turner was the first abstract artist but as
Ruskin thought it would damage his reputation he took it upon himself to
destroy a lot of the works that would have confirmed this. I highly
recommend Wilton's _Turner and the Sublime_ if you intend to research
further. Also I think it might be beneficial to compare him with someone
like the German, Casper David Friedrich. In any event, I would be
delighted to pass onto you any information from my own research.
Best to you.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Leigh Kimmel
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> writes:
> You might want to consider that John Ruskin was in
> awe of Turner, and as one of the most influential art critics of that
> time was largely responsible for Turner's public acceptance - Turner was
> in no way the underdog. On the contrary, Turner, supported by Ruskin,
> was largely responsible for Constable's lack of public recognition. Many
> share the opinion that Turner was the first abstract artist but as
> Ruskin thought it would damage his reputation he took it upon himself to
> destroy a lot of the works that would have confirmed this.
Interesting -- that is so different from the situation described in the
books I've read. But then they were concentrating on his lifetime, when
he was receiving the downright vicious critical attacks which led
Ruskin to become his foremost defender. Even so, the Turner Bequest
languished for many years ill-housed, and an unknown number of sketches
and watercolors were destroyed in the early 1920's when the Thames
flooded the basement in which they were stored. It was only in the
latter part of this century that a proper gallery was built to house
and display the Turner Bequest.
As for Ruskin's championing of Turner leading to Constable not being
recognized, the dates seem a little off to me. Ruskin didn't start
championing Turner until the 1840's, by which time Constable was dead.
Of course if you meant that Ruskin's activities led to the obscuring of
Constable's legacy, I might conceded to that.
Ruskin did burn some of Turner's work, but the sources I've read all
agree that it wasn't the abstract work that he found objectionable, but
rather the drawings with sexual content. Ruskin destroyed an unknown
number of sketchbooks in which there were drawings of an erotic nature.
Ruskin's prudery and disgust at all things sexual was a fundamental
part of his personality (he never consummated his marriage, apparently
because he found the sex act unutterably distasteful). A few did
survive, either saved as evidence of Turner's "moral collapse" or
escaping Ruskin's notice.
A.A. Raimes
<kim...@mail.globaleyes.net.?> writes
>
>Interesting -- that is so different from the situation described in the
>books I've read. But then they were concentrating on his lifetime, when
>he was receiving the downright vicious critical attacks which led
>Ruskin to become his foremost defender. Even so, the Turner Bequest
>languished for many years ill-housed, and an unknown number of sketches
>and watercolors were destroyed in the early 1920's when the Thames
>flooded the basement in which they were stored. It was only in the
>latter part of this century that a proper gallery was built to house
>and display the Turner Bequest.
Leigh: As an art historian, you will be fully aware of the conflicts
that appear in biographies and writings on artists - best to always keep
away from the writers who concentrate on the artists personal life
rather than on the work he produced, I think. The critical attacks that
Turner received as a member of the RA, after showing there for almost
fifty years, resulted from the work that moved away from narrative and
in which the use of paint and colour became strikingly *loose* - he
succeeded in displaying what was seen as an alarming *spontaneous* and
non-traditional use of paint in his work around the early 1840's.
>
>As for Ruskin's championing of Turner leading to Constable not being
>recognized, the dates seem a little off to me. Ruskin didn't start
>championing Turner until the 1840's, by which time Constable was dead.
>Of course if you meant that Ruskin's activities led to the obscuring of
>Constable's legacy, I might conceded to that.
You must surely know that famous docent's story of how Turner, as a full
member, prevented Constable's acceptance into the RA ? Poor old
Constable, who wanted to *make it* for his wife's sake, who he doted on,
was finally accepted just after her death - by which time he no longer
cared whether or not his work was chosen. As for Ruskin, even after
Turner's death he ensured that Turner's reputation as the leading
British landscape artist of the nineteenth century remained firmly
established. I am curious about your statement that Turner was "probably
one of England's greatest landscape artists". It is such a vague
statement and yet few British art historians would ever dispute the fact
he was one of the greatest - though I believe that Constable now has
equal footing in the popularity charts, which is emphasised by the
National Galleries decision to devote equal wall space in the same room
for the two artists. It does concern me that you seem not to realise
that Turner is recognised as one of the *greats* but then again, if you
base that decision on being able to find posters and prints of him I
guess I can understand this. Perhaps a trip to London might do you good,
then I can absolutely assure you that you will no longer think that he
is in any way "oddly ignored, as though history had left him behind" or
that "he seems to be forgotten". Rothko is one of the many artists who
is renowned for his appreciation of Turner's work and when the Seagram
paintings were purchased by the Tate, here in London, it was only on
condition that they hung in the same gallery as Turner's. I spend many
hours a month studying his paintings there and after two years still
have not managed to take in all of them here in London.
>
>Ruskin did burn some of Turner's work, but the sources I've read all
>agree that it wasn't the abstract work that he found objectionable, but
>rather the drawings with sexual content. Ruskin destroyed an unknown
>number of sketchbooks in which there were drawings of an erotic nature.
>Ruskin's prudery and disgust at all things sexual was a fundamental
>part of his personality (he never consummated his marriage, apparently
>because he found the sex act unutterably distasteful). A few did
>survive, either saved as evidence of Turner's "moral collapse" or
>escaping Ruskin's notice.
>
Tut, tut, gossiping about a critics sex life eh ? Once again, there is
speculation as to what exactly was destroyed during that burning frenzy
but several sources tell that Ruskin *went for it* and that many of the
truly abstract works went with these sketches. Who will ever know ? it
is not for us to decide.
You mention nothing about his work in your essay - not a single mention
of how his work transformed over the years and how his revolutionary use
of light, colour and paint was one of the leading sources for the
Impressionist movement or how important the sublime was as a focal point
for his work. Instead you seem to be more interested in the *gossip* and
his personal life - for instance to ascertain that Turner was
*introvert* is slightly misleading - he was not withdrawn but *private*
preferring his own company to crowds. In terms of his contribution to
the art world he played a major role in the RA, which, as you know,
decided on the success of new art and new artists.
As I said at the beginning, one has to keep an open mind when reading
about dead artists who are not here to defend themselves. Both you and I
have been influenced by his work in our own work, though I think in very
different ways, and I believe that we should focus on his subject matter
and techniques rather than speculating about what did or didn't happen
when he was alive - don't you ?
For the last two years I have been preparing a thesis for my MFA (when I
eventually get around to doing it) which studies the sublime in art from
the mid 1800's to the present day. However, unlike you, I am *not* an
art historian, just an artist who is indebted to Turner (and Rothko) for
my inspiration. Maybe we can continue to exchange information ? I would
be interested to hear how you see the work of Turner as being an
inspiration and how you see the role of the sublime, which was the
source of most of his work, being relevant to your paintings.
Regards.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> For the last two years I have been preparing a thesis for my MFA (when I
> eventually get around to doing it) which studies the sublime in art from
> the mid 1800's to the present day. However, unlike you, I am *not* an
> art historian, just an artist who is indebted to Turner (and Rothko) for
> my inspiration. Maybe we can continue to exchange information ? I would
> be interested to hear how you see the work of Turner as being an
> inspiration and how you see the role of the sublime, which was the
> source of most of his work, being relevant to your paintings.
On rare occassions I see a painting that evokes a strange sort of response --
and that is that my pallette is affected, especially that taste area near the
back of the tongue. I'm really serious about this. I was looking at a
Turner once, I believe it was called "Land's End" and it was something about
the perspective -- well, there were no obvious devices for the perspective --
it was done with very heavy globs of paint and very subtle values. It was, I
felt, good enough to eat. The appearance of the paint was like my favorite
ice-cream -- or an 'imaginary' favorite (the 33rd flavor) and it hit me in
that area of my mouth. Simultaneously, I felt as if I could fall into the
painting.
By contrast, I looked at a Fairfield Porter that had the same sort of depth
to it. It was a simple landscape which portrayed a little swale of grass,
and I had that feeling of 'falling into the picture space." But I didn't
have the taste- bud sensation. Porter's paint is inedible to me. It's like
the color on those birthday cake decorations, which claims to be edible, but
you always have a caveate about eating something called "Red Dye #57."
Anyway, Turner's paint is edible, which is the highest honor I can bestow.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
A.A. Raimes
writes
>
>Anyway, Turner's paint is edible, which is the highest honor I can bestow.
>
>Erik Mattila
You affectionately reminded me of a college buddy who related all
paintings to food. Turner used mixed materials, often very impulsively
and certainly experimentally - oils, resins, waxes and water-colours
often meeting in a single painting. The restoration of these works has
caused some real nightmares at the Tate. One of the Tate's scientists,
Joyce Stoner, found in one single Turner "linseed oil heated for the
sky; bitumen and oil for shadowed landscapes; pure resin and oil/resin
mixtures for certain glazes; oil/wax emulsions (including beeswax and
spermaceti wax) and layers of almost pure wax medium for water[colours]"
Most conservationists now agree that Turner's are best left alone -
Evelyn Joll sees "a good deal of evidence which points to Turner's
paintings having suffered less from the artist's alleged unsound
materials than subsequently at the hands of the ignorant restorer who
failed to understand either Turner's techniques or his intentions".
Does this sound like the painting techniques of a nineteenth century
artist ?
John Haber
>paintings to food.
My reply to Karen Finley and Paul McCarthy's performance pieces is to
relate ALL of art history to chocolate. Essential food group...
John (on chocolate art history:
http://www.haberarts.com/chocoart.htm)
A.A. Raimes
<kim...@mail.globaleyes.net.?> writes
>He also was known to swipe bits of paint from other artists during
>Varnishing Days, if he saw a bit of color that particularly struck his
>fancy.
They were varnishing over wet paint ??????????
A.A. Raimes
<kim...@mail.globaleyes.net.?> writes
>To be honest, my essay is fannish, not sercon. It wasn't intended to be
>a carefully objective scholarly paper, but rather more of a fan's
>response to having read so many awful things about him. The next time I
>revamp that part of my website, I'll probably add some more scholarly
>pages on discussions of his works.
Leigh: If at any time I can be of assistance in your research please do
not hesitate to contact me. The experts are but a phone call away and
from past experience are always delighted to talk to students of
Turner's work.