Monday, 25 November 2013

Museum Visit - Analysis of Two Pieces

(John) Peter Warren Cochrane - 1962
Howard Hodgkin

This is a portrait of Cochrane, an influential art dealer who worked at Tooth & Sons in the 1950's and 60's, who is credited for introducing new European and American artists to the London art world. He's also credited for promoting a new generation of British artists including Hodgkin, the creator of this particular work. Hodgkin's first solo exhibition was held in the National Portrait Gallery in 1962, the year this work was created.
This particular work is notable for it's use of thick lines and vivid, bright colours. What personally attracts me to the piece is that it almost looks like a sad clown due to the use of colour. The thick outline looks almost as though an aura around the character, and the use of bright reds give off the idea of the figure in the painting being passionate, while also looking quite sad. Through the use of vigorous painting but very specific, intentional lines the painting gives off the illusion of chaos while being very precise and intentional in its construction.

Dogman - 1972
John Davies

Dogman was originally modelled by the artist in clay, with a plaster mould then being made, and from this the head was cast in fiberglass and painted. It incorporates what Davies refers to as a 'device', in this case, a dog-like muzzle modelled over the features of the head. In the adding of glass eyes it creates the illusion of reality, making the piece look both natural and bizarre at the same time.
John Davies is primarily known as a photographer, most famous for his research on the English Industrial landscape, observing vast and detailed views.
This piece automatically makes me think of a world of the fantastic, where obscure creatures like this would run riot. However more so I see it as a representation of the animalistic nature of man, and given the realistic nature of the piece it makes me think that looking at it makes the observer in turn take a look at themselves and think of their own nature at the same time.

These pieces are incredibly different, and in my mind are trying to communicate two very different things while both having the same general concept of being of a face. The first in a more direct representation of a single person, while the latter is based on no one in particular, instead being more of a representation of people in general, and the nature of them. In this respect I feel that they share a common thread, with the first work at the same time giving a glimpse into something that Howard Hodgkin saw in the nature of Cochrane.

No comments:

Post a Comment