Academy House (RHA HQ) in Abbey St.
on fire during the 1916 Rising
Painting by Mick O'Dea
Click on any image for a larger version
I don't really have any huge interest in art, but the RHA floated into my consciousness when I learned that Gordon Brewster, an artist in whom I have an interest, exhibited there in 1916 and 1917. In 1916 the RHA was in Abbey St. next to Wynn's Hotel.
Unfortunately it went on fire and was gutted during the 1916 Rising. All the works in the annual exhibition which was on at the time were lost, including two of Brewster's paintings, as were all the works in the RHA's own collection.
I was very interested to see Mick O'Dea's painting of the old RHA on fire (above) in his wonderful Foggy Dew exhibition, and I have been keeping an eye on the annual exhibition ever since.
The exhibition in modern times is in the RHA's spanking new premises in Ely Place.
My reaction to first seeing the exhibition was "how did so much obvious crap ever get near an exhibition wall of any sort let alone the RHA's wall?". Maybe, at the end of the day I lack the sophistication to appreciate the finer points but but it does seem to me that the Emperor really does not have any clothes.
Perhaps "any" is a bit of an exaggeration as I have seen some stuff I liked and other stuff I thought worthy but I'd have no truck with most of the exhibits and so I'll settle for a very skimpily dressed Emperor indeed.
But over to this year's exhibition which finished up yesterday.
I could appreciate Vera Klute's bust of Eileen Gray. It is striking, eye catching and realistic and speaks to me.
Whether it is at all like Eileen Gray or not, I have no idea. But it does look like art.
I'd never heard of Vera Klute so I looked her up. Her portraits seem like reasonable likenesses but the rest of her stuff is positively weird, in my book at any rate.
James is a wonderful portrait artist. The night I first met him I sought him out to compliment him on a portrait I had just seen, had thought highly of, and had been told it was his work.
It was of his father in law Gerry Dukes. Now I've known Gerry for a long time and I was immediately taken with his portrait when I saw it. It had great depth and got Gerry to a T.
Anyway I've chosen Angelique from this year's exhibition, rather than anything more colourful because I like it. I wondered who Angelique might have been and am still wondering. Might she have been the young artist, Angélique Cheronnet, who died last year?
On to more mundane matters. There were some 500 works in this year's exhibition from giants to miniatures. This miniature caught my eye on the way up the stairs, a traditional "throw" (trough) introduced under its modern label "sink". Never mind, it's a family thing with me.
A strange one celebrating the wheelie bin.
Then I remembered I had, myself, taken a photo of some wheelie bins - but that was because they were on the southside and had LOCKS on them. I wonder what's in those bins.
This I recognised as Luke from the far end of the gallery. It turned out to be Vera's. Nice piece of work.
I was amazed some time back to find there was a gallery dedicated to Pádraig Ó hUiginn in the RHA.
Now I knew that Denis O'Brien had dedicated a whole building to Pádraig and this was expressed in the most grossly effusive terms on a marble plaque on the exterior. That plaque vanished when Denis sold the building and the dedication is now expressed in more restrained terms in a new discreet plaque at the entrance to that building.
Pádraig's RHA gallery remains in its original form and I have no idea of how or why it came into being.
My interest stems from having once worked with Pádraig and subsequently finding my self entangled in the web he spun across the Irish administration and beyond. I followed his career with interest ever since.
All that being said, there was something that felt so right with this centrepiece floor exhibit in the heart of his gallery at this year's show. To elaborate would spoil the poetry of it.
I should say, for the avoidance of doubt, that, leaving aside the significance of its location for me in this context, I do like Katherine's piece.
I mentioned that there were some 500 exhibits this year and they were stuffed into every nook and cranny. I don't know why they accept so many unless there is a funding angle, but it seems a bit unfair in the circumstances to have so much space taken up by what appears to be one triple item above. I didn't note whose it was and it's a bit late now.
Before I go I should get a plug in for my own episodic career as an artist's model in case there are any others out there looking for one. I will not be emulating Nell McCafferty, however, so if that's what's on your mind forget it.
This post is not meant to be a comprehensive evaluation of the exhibition. Just a personal opinion from skiting around the exhibition for the last few years. There is probably a good exhibition there with less than a quarter of the stuff.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how a lot of the stuff makes it. Thousands of aspiring works are anonymously wheeled in front of a distinguished panel, seriatim and with up to say half a minute to make an initial assessment. I'll grant that the artistic palette must get somewhat overloaded but they are professionals, every work is looked at and this is a chartered national institution and not my local library (where the criteria may be different & with reason).
500 is also far too much for the space available. 100 would be more reasonable & spaced. If required, two exhibitions of shorter duration could be held in a year and some gallery space kept for other exhibitions.
Anyway not my call, thank the Muse.