Unusually I found myself in London a week last Saturday. I was down to attend a function, but with time in hand I whiled away a few hours in the NG which I have been neglecting of late. Moves in his context relate to games such as chess, cards etc. It was the French art historian Hubert Damisch who suggested thinking of paintings as chess pieces moved by curators and directors in the gallery. It’s a useful metaphor for thinking about the positioning of works of art in museums. And sometimes it seems to me that exhibitions, re-hangs, general movements of pictures resemble chess games played by curators and directors watched by an uncomprehending public. You can only understand museum moves when you know the game! There are other moves I observed, but these are the ones that struck me the most.
MOVE 1: FLORENTINE MANNERISM; THE KNIGHT’S MOVE.
They've created a Pontormo room, a kind of unofficial exhibition with works from mannerist artists. As a kind of comparison, they’ve put the works of murky mannerists like Macchietti, Cavalori and Naldini next to Pontormo. There is growing interest in Macchietti whose attributed "Knight of S Stefano" (in another room) shows other obvious Pontormo tendencies, so we can note the NG's interest in exploring links between prominent Florentine mannerists like Pontormo, Bronzino and the frankly outre in that genre, Macchietti and Cavalori. This seems more aimed at connoisseurs, especially as there are attribution issues with the Macchietti.Knight. Still, an interesting development which reflects an international vogue for late Florentine mannerism: the recent brilliant Barocci show in London and St Louis, and the Met's purchase of a Santo di Tito are part of this trend. This might be considered a knight’s move on the NG chessboard, unorthodox but effective- it could lead to some interesting developments in curating Florentine mannerism which is becoming a game in its own right on the international museum chessboard.. An intriguing move!
MOVE 2: LE NAIN & THE 17th CENTURY ROOM; A LONE PAWN..
Turning to a different country and century, the 17th century French room has a small "Le Nain" Dancing Children, though I'm not satisfied it's up to their usual standard. The most unskilled of the three, Antoine.was known for having problems with composition, and this might be typical of him. But at best it should be an attribution. Why put a mediocre borrowed "Le Nain" here when there are more superior examples like the brilliant Adoration of the Shepherds, probably by Louis Le Nain. There are four good Le Nains in the collection, and this is like putting a weak pawn next to stronger pieces. I reflected on the fact that with the exception of a brilliant Valentin Four Ages of Man, the French Caravaggisti movement was never pursued in the NG. If Kenneth Clark had accepted La Tour's Christ in the Carpenter;'s Shop back in the 1930s, then not only would there have been a very strong piece on the 17th century French board, but it might have inspired the acquisition of French painters under Caravaggio's influence like the Candellight Master (Trophime Bigot); more explicit links could also have been made between the Flemish baroque which is well represented in the NG, Honthorst and Terbrugghen for example. This would have resulted in a more balanced view of 17th century French art, a counterweight to Poussin and Claude in their own rooms. Decisions can affect the direction of a museum game, so because of Clark's rejection of the La Tour, the French Carvagggisti game can never happen in the NG. Instead we’re left with a mainly academic game with classical painters in the orbit of Poussin, Vouet, La Hyre, Le Sueur. It's true that there are paintings by Champaigne who could be considered as realist, but he isn't Carvaggesque, his art is more of a stylistic detente between Poussin and Rubens- he doesn’t belong to the French Caravaggisti game. The inclusion of the little mediocre "Le Nain" puzzles, and one wonders why the gallery couldn't borrow a better picture by either the Le Nain or another French painter, say another Valentin. The Le Nain picture can be considered a lone pawn, isolated and unlikely to reach the end of the board where it can be promoted, i.e authenticated. An inexplicable move!
MOVE 3: POUSSIN AND DOMENICHINO; CASTLING..
The sad death of the legendary Denis Mahon, and his resultant Bequest has seen the strengthening of the Italian Baroque holdings at the NG. One of Mahon's most cherished landscapes, Domenichino's Landscape with a Fortified Town has entered the Poussin room. Domenichino now hangs next to Poussin's Landscape with a Man Killed by a Snake, which for a long time hung with the other French painters underlining the academic bias mentioned previously. It’s an excellent decision to hang Domenichino next to Poussin as it offers the opportunity of studying the two painter's attitudes towards painting the natural world. The Domenichino is actually based on a Flight into Egypt by Annibale Carracci, and it was the view of one scholar that a figure group at the back of the Domenichino canvas shows the Flight into Egypt group. This is plausible and if true makes this a Christian picture to be contrasted with the secular, "stoic" Poussin landscape, although this picture seems to have many meanings. Two paintings very different in mood, the calm before the storm, if you like. Putting Poussin next to Domenichino is a kind of castling. Domenichino is a rook who moves on the art history chessboard usually vertically through the art market, occasionally sideways through scholarship although he’s usually blocked by stronger pieces like Caravaggio (a bishop sweeping across the board?) and even Barocci recently (definitely a a knight leaping over pieces). Poussin’s importance in 17th century art qualifies him as the king, – but he has limited power on the board; he can only move slowly, a square at a time and he needs constant protection.
It is also worth mentioning that the NG have brought up the copy after Poussin's lost Triumph of Silenus and hung it next to the artist's Triumph of Pan in the same room. The placing of the Silenus next to the Pan, a Poussin original and a copy might be likened to a pawn next to a king, a minor piece next to a major one. Hopefully you will have gathered by now that I regard copies, fakes as pawns that have to be queened, i.e. have their authenticity proved. At the same time certain pawns are in stronger positions than others. You could argue that the Macchietti is more convincing as an original than the Le Nain. Two excellent museum moves in the Poussin room!
MOVE 4: SAINTS ALIVE AND RENAISSANCE ART.; A WEAK MIDDLE GAME..
The exhibition Saints Alive seems to be the latest move in the NG's game with modern and renaissance art, a game they’ve been playing for a long time with some initial success which they haven’t been able to maintain. It's a game with a double structure too, because it’s also about engaging the public about religious art, hence Michael Landy's decision to extract saints from renaissance art and turn them into kinetic sculpture; and the NG’s decision to appoint a Fellow in Religion and Art who obviously supports this manoeuvre. I remain unconvinced by this show, either as an example of learning about renaissance art, or as a way of educating the public about art or religion. The best attempts made at fusing modern art and religion were made by Neil McGregor whose opening gambits were exhibitions on the image of Christ, followed by the modern video artist Bill Viola back in the day. However, Viola was thoroughly immersed in the language of the renaissance and baroque, whilst Landy seems out of his depth. The problem with Landy's exhibition is that the approach towards it is too avant-garde and too alien to renaissance art.
In a film that accompanied the exhibition we were shown Landy, the NG's artist in residence cruising the renaissance galleries in search of motifs or figures that could be turned into kinetic sculpture. Whilist there is novelty value in seeing an oversize truncated version of Sassetta's St Francis, or a gigantic St Appolonia wielding pliars, the appeal rapidly fades. About 30 minutes before I had derived immense pleasure and spiritual (art is my religion) nourishment from standing in front of Sassetta's beautiful panels in the Sainsbury Wing, so all this seemed totally redundant to me. From the film it's clear that Landy took a serendipitous approach to his exhibition, walking through the gallery and picking out objects like St Catherine's wheel which resulted in a massive replica in his show. Landy decided against traditional interpretations of renaissance art through drawing, though there are several sheets showing mechanised saints split open as if on some surrealist operating table. Instead we get a kind of surrealist fun park which might please the kids, but ultimately fails as a way of educating the public about either art or religion.
Damisch wrote that “at any time during a chess game, the distribution of pieces on the board can be considered either the product of a given history (the succession of moves from which it results) or a 'position' - in other words, a system - which contains all the necessary and sufficient information for the player whose turn comes next to be able to decide a move in an informed manner." You can apply this principle to exhibition strategies and curatorial moves. Exhibitions should be considered as chess games in their own right and moves within the overarching game that the museum is playing with the visiting public.
As a museum-goer you can play these games with the curators, so long as you recognise the moves! You need to review the history of exhibitions in the gallery and determine what the current “position” is. To me, Saints Alive seems the latest move in a game that the NG has been waging for years. After a very strong start by Neil McGregor, a previous grandmaster of the museum, the NG’s game has considerably weakened and they have lost control of this part of the board. Penny is a capable museum grand master, but he’s been forced to play a very different game due to the political and financial climate which also influences these museum chess games. Here, we see other levels of chess emerging. You might like to think of it as chess on a number of levels, which is an idea I’d love Damisch to explore! Still, we can only hope that this particular game improves as there is still time for more inspiring exhibitions on religion and art, perhaps something on style, aesthetics and religion. What about something on colour and religious art? What we have now is not so much an endgame as a middle game, but its strategy needs to be re-thought if the game of educating the public in both religion and art is to be resolved successfully.
