Hi Diana yes I did and I’m in haste now but will reply properly to your email later. I agree with all you say! Turner is a wonderful artist and I enjoy his work tremendously. As an historical source it also offers another interesting perspective that we don’t often think about.
Why do you think they held back Vic? I’d love for there to be more explanation and nuggets of info in galleries, always feels like a snobbish thing to be left not knowing what the art is all about.
However, I’d imagine there’s also time and place for art to be unexplained, to be the starting point or accompaniment to a learning journey. Still, that feels like a bit of a leap of faith.
One idea that is bouncing around is the burden /and whose burden it is, to explain colonialism and racism. The idea that we need to do the work to understand, perhaps being at an exhibition that doesn’t give us everything helps us to own that learning.
This one is on my itinerary for next week (fingers crossed) I’m curious about who the curation team are now!
Where should the burden fall? It's a mix of both of course. But I just think, what is the point in one of the leading galleries in the country putting on an exhibition on this topic and then doing a half-arsed job of it? Be part of the solution! Put your money where your mouth is. Go large or go home etc.
I saw it last week too and it's really good to have your thoughts on it, Victoria. I also thought something didn't quite work about it although I loved some of the contemporary work. Much of it I found quite moving like Bettye Saar's ironing board with the KKK sheet and Keith Piper's Coloured Codex. I wish I had seen the Fitzwilliam show.
Piper's Codex was in the Fitzwilliam Museum show, except they gave some good context around it and explained the history of categorising skin colour in the 19th century and the racism of light to dark in terms of ideas around degeneracy. This is what I mean, it was altogether just much more interesting and carefully explained.
I haven’t seen the show but I trust your observations and critique. I guess it would take some digging to find out the influenced the curators to create the show you describe. What were they frightened of? You point it that a better scrutiny of colonial and imperial history was achieved at the FitzWilliam so the ground has already been broken. The deliberate forgetting that is endemic here seems to extend to this very recent event.
I need to check who was on the team of curators for this show, but for the Fitzwilliam show there were two lead curators, one of whom was history, the other art history. I do think art historians can be quite narrowly focused on visual concerns rather than the context in which the object was made. Although that is a broad statement.
I have read some suggestion of this being a show put together rather quickly in response to BLM protests in 2021, so that might be why there is less scholarly research to it. But I've also heard several critics talk about its scholarly nature (which I feel is lacking somewhat). I didn't buy a copy of the catalogue so I'm not sure how much more is in that rather than in the show. But the carefully researched and thought out elements of the Fitzwilliam exhibition were evident in the show and supplemented in the catalogue, which is how it should be.
I must agree with you. My copy of the catalog arrived yesterday and I was surprised that a Turner painting about the Zong was not a part of the show and thought wait a minute how can this be, based on what the show is alleged to reveal, but does not include this painting that would illuminate so much of the connection the show is saying it is making. So sadly I will not be in London to see it. And it is not to say the works are not great works of art, but as you have so well expressed the show is tame and does not draw the hard lines of connection and influence and information between the realities of colonialism, slavery and the present institutions of oppression that it should have done yet claims to be doing.
Thanks for your thoughts Phoenix, I didn't get a copy of the catalogue so I wondered how much more in terms of research there was in that. Is it worth getting? I was surprised that Turner's Slave Ship wasn't in the show but it may be that it wasn't available? It certainly would have worked well in the 'Crossing Water' room.
Interesting question, Amanda, and the answer is no. There was nothing as far as I could see about Australia or other white settler colonies like Canada /NZ. That's another reason why I felt this was rather surface-level. The British Empire extended beyond the familiar countries that are always discussed: India, America and the West Indies but there wasn't really any real meaningful dialogue about what Empire meant or where it extended.
I followed the Voice of First Nations debate / vote with interest and was surprised by the outcome.
I’ve sent an email. Did you get it?
Hi Diana yes I did and I’m in haste now but will reply properly to your email later. I agree with all you say! Turner is a wonderful artist and I enjoy his work tremendously. As an historical source it also offers another interesting perspective that we don’t often think about.
Why do you think they held back Vic? I’d love for there to be more explanation and nuggets of info in galleries, always feels like a snobbish thing to be left not knowing what the art is all about.
However, I’d imagine there’s also time and place for art to be unexplained, to be the starting point or accompaniment to a learning journey. Still, that feels like a bit of a leap of faith.
One idea that is bouncing around is the burden /and whose burden it is, to explain colonialism and racism. The idea that we need to do the work to understand, perhaps being at an exhibition that doesn’t give us everything helps us to own that learning.
This one is on my itinerary for next week (fingers crossed) I’m curious about who the curation team are now!
Where should the burden fall? It's a mix of both of course. But I just think, what is the point in one of the leading galleries in the country putting on an exhibition on this topic and then doing a half-arsed job of it? Be part of the solution! Put your money where your mouth is. Go large or go home etc.
I’ll be in London soon and will visit the RA show. It sounds like the curators played it safe. Thanks for giving me a great preview.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it
I saw it last week too and it's really good to have your thoughts on it, Victoria. I also thought something didn't quite work about it although I loved some of the contemporary work. Much of it I found quite moving like Bettye Saar's ironing board with the KKK sheet and Keith Piper's Coloured Codex. I wish I had seen the Fitzwilliam show.
Piper's Codex was in the Fitzwilliam Museum show, except they gave some good context around it and explained the history of categorising skin colour in the 19th century and the racism of light to dark in terms of ideas around degeneracy. This is what I mean, it was altogether just much more interesting and carefully explained.
I haven’t seen the show but I trust your observations and critique. I guess it would take some digging to find out the influenced the curators to create the show you describe. What were they frightened of? You point it that a better scrutiny of colonial and imperial history was achieved at the FitzWilliam so the ground has already been broken. The deliberate forgetting that is endemic here seems to extend to this very recent event.
Bah!
I need to check who was on the team of curators for this show, but for the Fitzwilliam show there were two lead curators, one of whom was history, the other art history. I do think art historians can be quite narrowly focused on visual concerns rather than the context in which the object was made. Although that is a broad statement.
I have read some suggestion of this being a show put together rather quickly in response to BLM protests in 2021, so that might be why there is less scholarly research to it. But I've also heard several critics talk about its scholarly nature (which I feel is lacking somewhat). I didn't buy a copy of the catalogue so I'm not sure how much more is in that rather than in the show. But the carefully researched and thought out elements of the Fitzwilliam exhibition were evident in the show and supplemented in the catalogue, which is how it should be.
I must agree with you. My copy of the catalog arrived yesterday and I was surprised that a Turner painting about the Zong was not a part of the show and thought wait a minute how can this be, based on what the show is alleged to reveal, but does not include this painting that would illuminate so much of the connection the show is saying it is making. So sadly I will not be in London to see it. And it is not to say the works are not great works of art, but as you have so well expressed the show is tame and does not draw the hard lines of connection and influence and information between the realities of colonialism, slavery and the present institutions of oppression that it should have done yet claims to be doing.
Thanks for your thoughts Phoenix, I didn't get a copy of the catalogue so I wondered how much more in terms of research there was in that. Is it worth getting? I was surprised that Turner's Slave Ship wasn't in the show but it may be that it wasn't available? It certainly would have worked well in the 'Crossing Water' room.
Interesting question, Amanda, and the answer is no. There was nothing as far as I could see about Australia or other white settler colonies like Canada /NZ. That's another reason why I felt this was rather surface-level. The British Empire extended beyond the familiar countries that are always discussed: India, America and the West Indies but there wasn't really any real meaningful dialogue about what Empire meant or where it extended.
I followed the Voice of First Nations debate / vote with interest and was surprised by the outcome.