Jean Paul Riopelle's Pavane and Its Polarization of Critics
I knew when approaching this entry, that I would focus on a work from the National Gallery of Canada. I grew up in Ottawa and spent countless afternoons strolling their halls with my dad or sister and a cup of tea. This is to say, I wanted to enter this project with a sense of familiarity. I decided on Hommage aux Nymphéas – Pavane, painted by Canadian artist Jean Paul Riopelle in 1954, after reading Chelsea Osmond’s take in her text The Art of Slow Looking. This is a painting I had spent quite a bit of time with (find proof in the photo of me with the piece included below) and her writing captured much of my own perspectives. Evidently well researched, she highlights the histories such as its inspiration, the effect of its composition, and its name. She details how the title Pavane is the name of a Spanish dance and how, once knowing that fact, it is easier to be pulled into the joy of emersion within the painting. She explains that taking time with his work, especially with others, engaging in conversation and peeling back layers “increased understanding and appreciation [and] pure enjoyment.” Upon looking for critiques of Riopelle’s work from other writers, I found Ken Johnson. His first sentence declares the painting “overrated” via the status of Clement Greenberg. He implies that, given Jean Paul Riopelle’s French influence, Pavane is “a tame and prettified version of Abstract Expressionism.” He claims that painters who enjoy his work may also enjoy the dramatic romanticization of materialistic and commercialised art in today’s culture. The stances here are essentially as opposite as possible. Osmond uses vivid and beautiful descriptions to capture the impact of the work while Johnson describes it as weak, patchy, and oleaginous. Though certain points of his are intriguing, like his stance that the work may have feared dissonance, I must say that Ken Johnson’s negative approach overshadows this. He led his view with the worst light of the work. Ultimately, I feel a far greater affinity with Chelsea Osmond’s text, she highlights the beauty and depth that I myself try to see in artworks.
It's interesting that you mentioned you "try to see" "beauty and depth" in artworks, which is why you feel a greater affinity with Chelsea Osmond's text -- and that Johnson chose the "worst light of the work." This implies that Johnson is indeed correct from a certain perspective -- I wonder why some people approach artwork with cynicism and suspicion and others with the intention of seeing good? And how this influences what pieces of art are valued?
ReplyDelete