Now that the weather was nicer, we drove to Ottawa to see Len and Louise again. Upon hearing from Louise about the Renoir landscape paintings exhibit at the National Gallery of Art, we went the next morning.
I must confess that I'm not a fan of the National Gallery. In 1990, while taking Grade 13 Fine Arts, my classmates and I had to write an essay defending the National Gallery's purchase of Barnett Newman's
Voice of Fire for $1.76 million. While I did my best to conjure up meaning from the boring stripes in Newman's so-called painting, I disliked this sort of stuff with a passion. In my opinion, art represents either beautiful things or interesting things. Of course, what's considered beautiful or interesting is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. As far as I'm concerned, most of modern art is hideous and absurd. To this day, I view abstract art as the emperor's new clothes, daubed by fakes who have no more talent than you and me. For a national art institution to accumulate piles of this rubbish is pathetic; a look around the Gallery is enough to make one sick at most of the stuff hanging on the wall. To be fair, the whole world has been showering praises on the emperor's new clothes for decades.
Renoir, on the other hand, was not a faker. His paintings were both beautiful and interesting. My favourite was
The Garden in the Rue Cortot, Montmartre. It is incredible to me how he used seemingly simple brush strokes to bring to the foreground the dazzling flowers and bland into the far side of the painting two people having a leisurely chat. Simply beautiful.
Labels: art