This painting created quite a controversy when the National Gallery purchased it for the permanent collection in 1989. Voice Of Fire is a huge canvas by Barnett Newman, painted in 1967 for the American Pavilion at Expo 67. Purchased for 1.8 million dollars, its value has gone up exceptionally in recent years. Personally, I don't get it. And I could paint that.
This is a work by Jackson Pollock. No. 29, 1950 is its title, and Pollock painted on glass, using black and aluminum paint, beads, pebbles, and string as part of his artistic process.
You can view it from both sides, so Voice Of Fire shows up in the background from this side.
Here we have a look down into the garden courtyard.
I stepped into a side gallery. Wyndham Lewis painted Mrs. R.J. Sainsbury in 1940-41.
Lake George With Crows is the title of this 1921 oil painting by Georgia O'Keeffe.
The last art installation I photographed was this one, which again, I don't get. Bedroom Ensemble is a 1963 sculpture. It may look like a retro furniture set, but none of the furniture is real or functions as it would.
Here I have a perspective view.
While here outside is a view looking at the glass tower of the gallery. I will no doubt be visiting the National Gallery again in the coming months, and hope you have enjoyed this visit.
I have enjoyed the visit. The first painting I don't understand. Like you I think I could have painted it myself... Blasphemy most will say...ReplyDelete
What a beautiful building. I'm with you on the first painting and the Pollock piece. I *do* like the painting of Mrs. Sainsbury.ReplyDelete
Well, it's not what I would buy if I had 1.8 million dollars.ReplyDelete
You made me laugh :-) Yes, I could paint that, too!ReplyDelete
Guess there is some big idea behind that counts? I like the second one.
I´m very sure I saw "Bedroom Ensemble" in Sydney in 1995! With an old camera and somehow it was exposured to the next click, too.
Yes, I enjoyed it, thank you!
That first photo reminded me of an exhibit I saw some time ago at an art gallery in D.C.ReplyDelete
I have painted on acetate for projects but not glass. Like your first painting I know there is possible a reason or thought but I don't understand. As for Pollock interesting but. . .ReplyDelete
...talk about going out with a bang!ReplyDelete
É fantástica a arquitectura do museu e aproveito para desejar um bom Domingo.ReplyDelete
Dedais de Francisco e Idalisa
This has been a super visit William, we have seen many wonderful art works, merci beaucoup ✨ReplyDelete
I don't get a lot of art either. I am uncouth, I guess.ReplyDelete
I always make the same comment when I see a painting like that first one!ReplyDelete
i am not so sure about that furniture? it is a bit odd ... not sure i could feel it was comfy? i guess it looks interesting for pictures?? ( ;ReplyDelete
I'm not a great admirer of Barnett Newman his work.ReplyDelete
In the Netherlands we've had some trouble with his works too in the past.
If these are the only 'modern art' pieces in the collection, it doesn't speak very well of that period, does it? I may be partial to O'Keeffe, but that's not even a particularly great piece of her work. For a Pollock, that's kind of interesting, since I've never seen his work on glass before. The 60's bedroom scene does remind me of that phase of my life...and it's strange to see it in your museum. But if it were 1860 it would also look strange probably! Let's go back and look at your dancer statue!ReplyDelete
@Catarina: I'd be a blasphemer too.ReplyDelete
@Catalyst: I do as well.
@John: I'd go for other things.
@Iris: you're welcome.
@Parsnip: I agree.
@Tom: thank you.
@Grace: you're welcome.
@Anvilcloud: for me it depends on the era.
@Janey: I know I could do it. 1.8 million, please.
@Beth: it would not be comfy at all.
@Jan: that I didn't know.
@Barbara: I'm not drawn to modern art, though there is more of it here.
A very interesting collection. Thank you for taking us with you on your visit, I have enjoyed it a lot.ReplyDelete
I'm with you on 'not getting' quite a lot of so-called art. Someone's having a laugh. But I really liked your shot of Voice Of Fire through the Pollock!ReplyDelete
A nice en very interesting collection!ReplyDelete
Thank you for sharing!
The definition of art is hard to understand sometimes.ReplyDelete
Yes, I enjoyed your visit. Some art we get and some we don't but we should always give it some consideration. So now I'm wondering what comes next?ReplyDelete
I am aware that art is subjective, and while there are certain principles, learned by education, there is nevertheless a good degree of personal selectivity involved. I remember the controversy over the three swaths of paint; I did not get it then, and I don't get it now.ReplyDelete
Yep. That furniture thing is a bit strange, but then I'm an old fart. I lived it!ReplyDelete
I had forgotten about the snark around the fiery piece!
Some art baffles me.ReplyDelete
Yes, sometimes art is questionable ~ makes one think ~ReplyDelete
Happy Day to You,
A ShutterBug Explores,
aka (A Creative Harbor)
To each his own, as they say! ;-)ReplyDelete
IMO that first painting is slightly overvalued.ReplyDelete
@Alexandria: you're welcome.ReplyDelete
@Mike: thank you!
@Ella: you're welcome.
@Marleen: that is true.
@Red: good question.
@David: I never will.
@Jennifer: there was quite a bruhaha.
@Sandi: me too.
@Marie: I agree.
I can't imagine paying 1.8 million for the Voice Of Fire. I was at Expo 67 but I guess that painting didn't grab my attention then, it still doesn't. :)ReplyDelete
A lot of modern art is indifferent.Delete
I think you're being highly critical. 😂Just kidding. Proof that art speaks to everyone differently.ReplyDelete
Some contemporary art, I get. Others, no. I can see Pollock as art, though it's not to my taste. I can't say the same about Andy Warhol.Delete
Thank you for bringing to us the beautiful, the absurd and the stunning world of creativity,ReplyDelete
I am so glad you can take pictures in the National Gallery, and that you are such an excellent photographer.ReplyDelete
I try to resist the "I could do that" and "I don't get it" but I agree with you here.ReplyDelete
That big one would be easy.Delete
Yeah, I don't get that installation either. What's the point?ReplyDelete
And it keeps jumping up in value.Delete
Don't believe I have ever seen a formal work on glass, its special, lucky gallery, amazingly, the value of jackson pollock grows and grows as does many others,I suupose.ReplyDelete
It's an unusual canvas.Delete
Some interesting works, the Pollock is quite intriguing:)ReplyDelete
It doesn't really speak to me, but I can see it as art.Delete
Goodness me I wouldn't have spent 1.8 million dollars … but I guess we all see art differently !!!ReplyDelete
All the best Jan
We certainly do.Delete