The Great War in portraits
Disappointing exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery of portraits from World War I.
Telegraph
Evening Standard
I only say
disappointing because this exhibition should have been so much bigger! What
there was was well thought out and created some interesting dialogues between
works but why give it only 4 small rooms. This is a national event and to me
one of the most interesting aspects is the art it inspired and how it changed art.
There is no way any curator could have done the subject full justice in four
rooms. Why did the David Bailey get the whole of the rest of the floor? Yes I
know economics as it’s a popular blockbuster and I guess it pays for this free
show.
As I say what was
there was fantastic. I liked the room of generals and ordinary solders with
them taking opposing walls. I loved the fact they had some of the Tonks
pictures of disfigured soldiers and that these were shown with some of the
photos from the Sidcup hospital. I liked the idea of having a display of
postcards and that they covered all countries and the sentimental as well as
the straight portrait.
I am fond of
William Orpen but thought he was over represented here. It felt like every
third picture was by him and yet we didn’t get a Kennington, who is the best
artist of the ordinary soldier, until the third room.
With such a small
space I think I might have been more focused on portraits not just pictures of
people. Much as I liked the dead stretcher bearer and the Nevinson of the
machine gunners maybe they could have been replaced by more pictures of real
rather than generic people. Also again I loved the idea of the wall of faces
but space was in short supply it was a shame to fill so much of it with
reproduced pictures.
Reviews
GuardianTelegraph
Evening Standard
Comments