Impressions of Classical Art

When you are happy, or sad, or just generally pissed off, you have a lot to write about. But when you feel numb, you don't have a lot to work with. In fact, even picking up the computer to try to write something, anything, feels daunting. For at least the past month, I have had an overpowering feeling of "What the fuck is the point?" Other than occasionally going out and getting hammered, I haven't done much of anything, and the weeks have seemingly blurred into one long stretch of disillusioning not-much-of-anythingness. At some point I realised that getting drunk and sleeping until midday was making it worse, so I stopped drinking. And a few days ago I got bored of sitting in the apartment doing absolutely fuck all, so yesterday I decided to take a very long walk into the West End, and ended up in the National Gallery for the second time this week. I spent over 2 hours in the 1250-1500 section, and finally found something to write about.

A rather shaming confession of mine is that, up until this week, I'd never actually stepped inside the National Gallery. Even though it is right there in Trafalgar Square, and I have passed it more times than I can count, I've just never had the urge to go in. This is probably because my opinion of art is almost the exact opposite of my opinion of literature: namely, that modern art is far more interesting than classic or archaic art. And this was somewhat perpetuated by my long perusal of the pre-16th Century section of the gallery. Essentially, this is what I saw:

Jacopo Di Cione - The Crucifixion

Countless depictions of the Virgin and Child or Christ crucified, many of which were altarpieces like this one. Whilst walking around I had a distinctive sense of deja vu. It seemed as if every one of the 16 rooms contained at least 2 Virgins and at least 1 Crucified Jesus. 32 virgin portraits and 16 dead men nailed to crosses. Simply put, too many. It seems to me that life in these times was an extremely depressing ordeal indeed. Spending most days looking at graphic portrayals of a man dying on a cross, and being shamed if you've lost your virginity? I'll take sinful modern culture any day. It did get me questioning the idea that religion has been a huge comfort to people in centuries past however. Notice the little angels collecting the blood that pours from Christ's wounds in that picture above? Yeah, comforting, okay...

Religious criticism aside, it seems that my opinion of literature and art are not that dissimilar after all. It is hard to deny that classical art, like classical literature, required a lot more skill than the stuff around nowadays. For one thing, it's not even imperative that you use a brush to paint anymore. Hell, just throw the paint at the canvas and call it an abstract self-portrait. I certainly do not agree that modern art requires no skill (for the most part). But I do agree that when it comes to classical or traditional art, for want of a less cliched phrase, "they don't paint like that anymore". One example of this is the Arnolfini Portrait (1434), which caught my attention for quite some time. And no, not because it is featured in the intro sequence to Desperate Housewives.

The Arnolfini Portrait - Jan van Eyck

Admittedly, that is where I recognised it from. But that is not what kept me stood there looking at it. Like many of the paintings I saw yesterday (despite the depressingly repetitive themes), the skill of the artist and the minuscule details in the painting are awe-inspiring. Whether it be this, or that it stood out as unique amongst the majority of overt religious paintings and altarpieces, this is one of the paintings that I remember, and which I will go back to see again.

Probably one of the reasons I have put off going to the National Gallery for so long was because I wasn't really expecting to like anything in there very much. Van Gogh? Overrated. Cezanne? Crap. Or so my conception was before actually going inside. The majesty of traditional art galleries can be discouraging to people like me, who are used to the cold white rooms and industrial spaces of galleries like the Tate Modern. But once you realise that you are not the youngest, or the most uncultured person in there (by a long way), the feeling that you are out of place wears off, and you can actually enjoy the art. Okay, so pictures of ugly virgins holding wrinkled little goblin Jesus babies aren't really my cup of tea, but there's definitely enough variety to work around those unfortunates.

I'm often accused of being a traditionalist, albeit jokingly. And I find this rather laughable because I always considered myself one of the least traditional people I know. When I decided to finally visit the National Gallery, it was with a mixture of apprehension that I would hate everything, and with curiosity regarding whether I would prove to have more traditional tastes than I first thought. Well, since I have only explored one section of the National gallery (and this being the section that I will probably appreciate the least), that is still up for debate. For now, I would say yes, some of the paintings I saw in the National Gallery were absolutely brilliant. But I still think Van Gogh is overrated crap.

Pope Benedict XVI: Leader of Bigotry

Anyone who knows me will know about my passionate stance on religion. For those who don't, I despise it. It happens that whilst wandering around Facebook today in my everyday boredom, I noticed an article that had appeared in my news feed with the title, "David Cameron offers a very warm welcome to Pope Benedict XVI", which prompted me to comment"

"Thanks a lot Cameron, for using our taxes to welcome a bigoted, hypocritical, backwards Catholic ass like the Pope to London. Let's remember what the real problems that the world faces are shall we; not war, or famine, or religion, no. It's the gays and contraception. I will most definitely be attending the protest against the visit and hope many others will be joining me."

Now I admit that I allowed my irritability to get the better of me and placed the blame directly on Cameron, when it was in fact Gordon Brown who made the invite, so I have been informed. However, this was apparently also just the push necessary for my support of the Tories to wane, and for me to see them for what they really are: religiously-oriented, traditionalist, class-obsessed Eaton-pricks with no understanding of anyone outside the aristocracy. This hasn't suddenly sprouted from Cameron welcoming the Pope, but everything has a catalyst. And this led me to a very lengthy argument with various people on Facebook regarding the so called pros, and the cons of the Pope's visit to London.

Now this is what I find really frightening; the fact that people who are well educated and intelligent, and have historical knowledge at their disposal, can still stand up for the Catholic church. As the argument went on, I admit that I began to exaggerate (for example by saying that Catholics believe homosexuality to be a bigger threat than terrorism or war), but I don't think I was veering completely away from the truth. The Pope has said that fighting homosexuality is as important as saving the world's ecosystem. The fact that an educated person can then defend such a crudely inhumane public figure frankly infuriates me.

And I cannot help but believe that anyone entering into a debate about bigotry with the statement "As an American.." invalidates their entire argument. From America you say? The land of freedom and democracy? Or the country so corrupt it has lost any sense of the values laid out in its own constitution? The Separation of Church and State; boy did you fuck that one up. And the Anti-religious bigotry that you speak of I guess comes in contrast to religion's history of love and equality? May I remind you that America is the home of Scientology, of Mormonism, and of the Westboro Baptist Church, infamous for their brutally hateful stance on almost everything, particularly homosexuality. "Christians don't judge so neither should you." What a crock of shit.

Where does humanity stand if 1.2 billion people worldwide agree with someone who says that homosexuality is a bigger problem than the destruction of the planet? Someone who exploits people in the third world countries by telling them that wearing a condom is more dangerous than the AIDS virus they will catch if they don't? And follows two thousand year old scriptures who state such nonsense, alongside the benefits of slavery and the death sentence for anyone who works on a sunday? I have another question; when does the inconsistency end? If gays are still being crucified for their sexuality, then should we not be burning people for wearing garments made from two different cloths? No, because that would be ridiculous... It is the 21st Century, and although many of the Bible's teachings have been left in the dust of a previous age where they belong, Catholicism still keeps it's grip on a select few. Why? Do you not think that in another two thousand years, people will look back at the lives of people today as uncomprehendingly as we do. These are the Dark Ages of the future, where equality and peace are far from being reached, and billions of people still allow their lives to be dictated for the benefit of a few select individuals like the Pope. I wish I could be around in another two thousand years, in the hope that the majority of the planet wouldn't be wasting their lives worrying about what happens when they die, and just lived them.