Art and what it's for . . . .

Last night I watched Peter Capaldi's guide to Scottish Portrait Art, an excellent progrmme from the BBC (hands off, Murdoch, you bastard).  In the programme the one-time Art student (Glasgow School Of Art - that wonderful Mackintosh building) and Actor looked at portraiture in Scottish Art from the famous 1559 portrait of Mary Queen of Scots onwards.  Ramsay, Wilkie, Raeburn, the Victorians, the Glasgow Boys, the Colourists and so on - all of the work we saw was executed with consumate skill, which was learned and practised over the years.  There were insights into how the artists worked, and glimpses into their studios.

 

This is Sir David Wilkie's portrait of William Chalmers-Bethune, his wife Isabella Morison and their Daughter Isabella.  It was painted in oils in 1804.  It is not intended to be a flattering portrait.  It is an accurate record of how Wilkie saw that little family.  The sheer skill is obvious.  And to those of us who have been taught to actually look at paintings, the insights into the people portrayed are richer and deeper than any photograph could convey.

And this is John Byrne's 2007 portrait of his partner Tilda Swinton, executed in chalks.  And the same comment applies.  It tells you far more about the Actress than any photograph could.  The technique is completely different apart from one thing.  Both Artists, separated by 200 years, have looked and looked and looked at their subject; have interacted with their subject, and have put their insights down on canvas or paper.  Wilkie's must have taken months to complete; John Byrne's perhaps much less time.  But they are both the result of an applied art, craft or skill, call it what you will, which values intelligent, thoughtful analysis over cheap sensation.

It was a brilliant programme, and offered a vision of Art so far removed from Saatchi-World that it could have been a different planet.