We started off today by visiting St. Paul's Cathedral. To tell the truth, I didn't think anything could rival the Westminster Abbey; however, St. Paul's was a close contender. The architecture and ornamentation was marvelous. Nearly everything was decorated, either with gilded edges, elaborate paintings, or sculpted details. It was an amusement park for the eye- everything from the larger-than-life sculptures of notable figures to the religious scenes on the dome. I kept thinking that I would frequent my church if this is what it looked like. There was just so much to look at and so much space. It was much more open than Westminster Abbey. Some of the notable featuers were the large arches, the stained glass windows, and the painted ceiling. In the South Transept was a statue of Turner holding paint brushes and a palette. I thought this was interesting that he had a memorial, because it shows how respected he truly was to the British. Furthermore, it was interesting to see what he looked like after seeing so many of his paintings the other day. After we looked around in the nave for a while, we wandered up to the Whispering Gallery- which was quite a wonder in itself. After a series of painful stairs, we entered this round balcony-like section which looked down on the nave (which was a spectacular sight). When leaning against the wall, you could hear people whispering on the other side of the room as if they were right next to you. I was quite doubtful and sceptical that this actually worked- but it did! I'm amazed that such a thing can happen and wish there was a scientific explanation as to how it does work. Several of us experimented with this for a while whispering various things back and forth. After this, we continued to venture upwards to the outside balcony, and then later the even higher balcony outside. The view of London was great- especially since we couldn't go on the London Eye to see the city from a bird's eye view. We could literally see the whole city from the top of the cathedral. Brittney explained that we had to go up about 530 stairs to get to the top, but I think it was well worth it. After the amazing view, we wandered downstairs to the crypt, which held several tombs as well as a history of the cathedral. I was impressed by Nelson's tomb because it was so elabroate and gorgeous that it's clear that he was a hero to England. Also, it was interesting to see the visual timeline of the cathedral. For instance, I didn't know Princess Diana got married there, I thought that was at Westminster Abbey. Overall, I was once against stunned. I think the architecture has taken me most by surprise on this visit. I have never been really interested in architecture while studying art history; however, photographs completely lose the three-dimensional sense of the space and not only dwarf the building, but diminish the beauty and fluidity of the structure. I've been truly enjoying the places we've been thus far.
After our group seperated for lunch, we reunited at the National Gallery. I didn't realize until we entered what a wonderful and large collection they had. I was the first presenter, which I presented on Jan van Eyck's "Arnolfini Wedding Portrait". There were five other presenters today. When I entered the room in which my chosen painting hung, I was surprised how many pieces from the Northern Renaissance I recognized. I took Northern Renaissance last year and truly enjoyed it- so it was nice to see Van der Weyden and Campin. I think Constable's "Hay Wain" has been one of the biggest surprises as far as paintings go thus far. I really thought it was going to be a much smaller painting than it was. The sheer size shocked me. Also, in reproductions, it seems that Constable was a much more precise and realistic painter; however, in person the texture and markings of the paint can be seen. There was so much to look at once again it's difficult to summarize everything I enjoyed. I was really shocked to see Rousseau's "Surprised!" painting because this painting was the earliest "high art" piece I remember being introduced to in an art class. I was in elementary school when my art teacher asked us to talk about the painting. I remember specifically talking about the roundish shape of the tiger- and the use of color. It was strange that this painting struck me and brought me back to this memory. I had no idea it was in this gallery, but I'm really glad I had the opportunity to see it in person. David's paintings were amazing. His brushstrokes are invisble. He truly is a master- his pieces could pass for photographs. I'm really anxious to see his larger works at the Louvre, such as "The Oath of the Horatii"- but I enjoyed his portraits because they were my first in-person experience with his impeccable, detailed work. I was shocked at the utter detail a lot of the painters obtained. For instance, in Hogarth's work, he truly captured the effect of fur. I think this would be a particularly difficult feat, but he makes it look so realistic that you could reach out and touch the soft textures. Or the transparency of the clothing in Da Vinci's painting- it's just amazing to me how accurate the clothing and fabrics seem. Also, the texture and smoothness of flesh. I really enjoyed seeing Da Vinci's cartoon because for some reason it strikes me more than his painting. I think part of the reason was because he had help in the painting; however, you can see the thought process and planning in his preliminary sketches. Van Gogh's "A What Field with Cypresses" was a surprise. I always think of dark color palettes for Van Gogh's work (even his "Sunflowers"- which was also there- is a darker shade of yellow, more of an ochre color), but "A Wheat Field with Cypresses" was much more lighter and uplifting. The clouds, especially, were alluring. They danced and weaved in and out of the pale blue sky. There was something less severe about this piece compared to many other Van Gogh works which seem tense and a bit more rigid. I also enjoyed seeing Manet's work- there was quite a difference between his highly realistic "Eva Gonzalez" and "Woman with a Cat"- it was interesting to see the transition into his more painterly and somewhat Impressionist style. Overall, I think this has been one of my favorite things about the paintings- seeing how varied artists' styles are and how they transformed over time. The Gallery was much larger than I had imagined, and unfortunately we didn't get to everything I wanted to so we're planning on coming back on Thursday before we head off to Stonehenge.
After the National Gallery we wandered down the river to The Tower of London. I didn't realize how large it was! I thought it was literally one tower- not a whole castle-like structure. We got there too late and the woman advised us not to bother going in because we wouldn't see everything. This was frustrating since we travelled all the way there. So instead we went to The Monument, which was a large monument that is meant to note the Great Fire of London in 1666. We didn't climb it, but we did take some pictures and enjoyed looking at it...but St. Paul's had so many stairs we didn't think our poor little legs could make it up to the top. From there, we ventured over to the Tower Bridge. The bridge was beautiful from the outside- the blue outlines ad the classical architecture was wonderful. The view from the top was also breathtaking- similar to St. Paul's, we could really see all of London from the top. However, the "exhibition" was nothing too interesting. There was five stations: The North Tower, Walkways, South Tower, South Tower Lower Level, and the Engine Rooms. There wasn't too much to look at except the view. We weren't really interested in the videos playing in the two Towers. It was interesting to learn that during World War II the enemy didn't bomb the towers because they used it as a landmark, so the towers remained untouched throughout the war. The Engine Room was also pretty interesting- the brightly colored wheels and tools were pretty neat. I wish we had been able to go to the Tower, though, I think that would have been more interesting- especially since everyone else has really seemed to enjoy it. Although, I've decided this is where I'm going to honeymoon to (or at least, one of the destinations), so I'll just have to come do all the things I don't get to then!
We tried to go to the Midevial Banquet for dinner, but we had all sorts of issues trying to find it and getting discounted tickets with our London pass, so we decided to try it another day. Instead, we stumbled upon St. Katharine's Dock, which held a lot of gorgeous boats and shops. We ended up window shopping and enjoying the view. The rest of the night was pretty uneventful- we got dinner at this Asian-inspired, hotwing place. It was good, but then we just returned to the room. Another successful day, if you ask me!
Question of the Day: How do you feel that you have seen the monument that you were assigned? Is it better or worse than you expected?
I was actually a little suprised how large the "Arnolfini Wedding Portrait" because everyone kept telling me how small it was with all the details, so I was expecting something REALLY small- like the size of van Eyck's "Man in the Red Turban". It's not like it was a huge painting, but it was still a little larger than anticipated. I'm really glad I saw it- it's even more shocking in person to see the kind of details van Eyck was able to put into such a painting. The cherries on the tree outside the window could barely be seen in person! Similarly, you couldn't see what was on the medallions on the back mirror, which makes it even more impressive that scholars could figure out what scenes they were meant to portray- which shows how much effort van Eyck put forth to create this painting. I think the painting is better than expected. You can't see the brushstrokes- it looks as if van Eyck had just printed out the image it's so tight. I'm really glad I got to see this piece in person.
No comments:
Post a Comment