|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 30, 2009 21:17:46 GMT -5
This article ran in the Austin American Statesman today. Apparently some art critics think Harry McArdle's Dawn at the Alamo is too dark for the twilight hours before the sun rises over Texas. Legislators want to lighten up this historical work and others at the capitol. I've seen this painting in the last year and it looked fine to me so far as lighting. I'm wondering if these folks have other issues with McArdle as an artist. www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/03/30/0330paintings.html |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 30, 2009 23:09:27 GMT -5
And while they're mulling over restoration of the paintings, maybe they can give some thought to restoring the Alamo itslef. Just think.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Mar 31, 2009 0:50:29 GMT -5
The article is more about the negative effects of displaying 19th century art work without any thought of conservation than it is about the artistical interpretation of Henry McArdle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 31, 2009 4:23:32 GMT -5
I have to agree with Hiram. I just read the piece and it has nothing to do with reinterpreting the works of art mentioned, and everything to do with restoration. In fact several other paintings were mentioned, so the article was not just about the Alamo painting. This sounds like a responsible undertaking, should it be done.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 31, 2009 4:59:19 GMT -5
Sounds a bit like a painting by Rembrandt which was for years known as "The Night Watch" until it was realised (the absence of lanterns was a giveaway) that it wasn't a night-time scene at all but a daylight one darkened by aging varnish
|
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Mar 31, 2009 9:16:29 GMT -5
Harry McArdle's "Dawn at the Alamo" is a priceless and irreplaceable piece of historical art and it should be preserved at all costs. The darkening of old art work caused by aging is not uncommon. I think it is both reasonable and responsible to want to properly maintain McArdle's paintings.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 31, 2009 11:45:53 GMT -5
It's interesting to me how the passage of time confers respectability on an object, whether it warrants it or not. It's a little bit like the fervent defense of the Crockett Building, which many folks claim to be "Historic," when its merely old. When asked what happened in that building that was "historic," all you get are fumbling answers...
McArdle's painting is chock full of inaccuracies and bizarre flights of fancy, rendering it more akin to a painter's depiction of a bad acid trip, or a painting by Hieronymus Bosch than what actually happened.
That notwithstanding, however, I still feel that the painting has intrinsic value as a key "way-point" along the long arc of understanding we have developed about the battle, and as such, should be preserved as much as possible.
And also, I believe that art should be maintained and preserved, for its own sake (perhaps this is what the Crockett Bldg defenders should say: "save old architecture for its own sake...")
And of course, as an artist, I have a dog in this hunt, as I'd hate to look down, (or up!) from the hereafter, and see folks trashing or burning my stuff because it was so inaccurate....
MHL
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Mar 31, 2009 22:04:51 GMT -5
Maybe I jumped the gun in posting this link and mildly criticising the proposed illumination of this dark
work. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I'm opposed to restoring historic paintings when needed. I'm
just skeptical about this piece (Dawn at the Alamo) and whether it needs to be fixed again. Restoration shouldn't be entered into lightly as a mass refurbishment project. They say in the article that the dawn
is too dark, but what does that mean? Too dark for who? When I last saw the painting, I didn't have a problem with darkness. I havn't seen the other capitol works in awhile, so I don't know their condition.
Many a painting has been ruined by premature and unecessary restoration in my opinion. I visited the
Sistine Chapel in '88, while they were restoring Michaelangelo's masterpiece. The vast majority of the
ceiling was refurbished to eye-popping detail and color the way the master originally made them, but
in some areas it looked like the artists took creative license and tried to improve on Michael. It wasn't
the awe-inspiring viewing that I imagined, but I did get to see swaths of restored original fresco. The
artist's vision is very important even in McArdle's gloomy piece.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 31, 2009 23:20:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 1, 2009 7:54:22 GMT -5
An interesting article. I found the reader's comments as interesting as the main article.
Glad that they are wanting to do work on the paintings in the statehouse.
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 1, 2009 8:09:06 GMT -5
I love McArdle's paintings of the Alamo and San Jacinto. Grostesque, and often innaccurate, yes...but they do reflect the artist's intense researches into the subject matter, often with veterans, and merit a much closer scrutiny.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jul 24, 2009 0:51:53 GMT -5
Mark,
Please accept my apologies for my (months later) response, but as a fervent defender of the Crockett Bldg (1882), I think we should clarify the words "historic" and "historical". "Historic" refers to what is important in history. "Historical" refers to whatever existed in the distant past. You are correct in your appraisal of the Crockett as not being historic, and yet, by its mere presence on Alamo Plaza for more than 125 years, it is by definition, historical, and therefore is important to the history of San Antonio and thus should be preserved in its present location.
|
|
