This morning in class we discussed poems from the collection All That Mighty Heart which all deal with different aspects of London. After our discussions, we took the tube over to the Saatchi gallery of Post-modern art.
Usually I have an open mind for things and have vowed to give modern and post-modern art a chance on this trip... but I am really overwhelmed by the amount of things in that gallery that, in my biased perspective, just have no artistic value. There were some really fascinating pieces by Ged Quinn and Hurvin Anderson. Quinn painted beautiful woody and scenic landscapes but embedded within them these little tricks or bonuses that turned the scene on its head. In one of his most beautiful paintings, he paints a classic Greek paradise scene, with the wooded greens on the left and ruins to the right and in the middle, on the grassy land, there's a small universe with planets and stars overhead. This painting, to me, seemed to theorize that our Earth and our entire universe could be embedded within some much greater reality. Quinn's pieces were by far the highlight for me.
I also really liked Anderson's work as it was fairly easy to follow but again Anderson too adds in small bonuses that a viewer can only pick up on with some in depth examination of the pictures. Anderson's scenes are much more contemporary and there is no mind blowing thesis... but his work is very genuine and honest.
Scott King did this really excellent piece which he should have called Cher Guevara.
Yet... while these pieces for were... these were only 4 artists in the giant gallery. There were some really disturbing paintings - horrifying bunnies and cartoon characters with lewd gestures and symbols, ripped photographs with lines drawn on in sharpie. If this is what it takes for one to have post-modern art, then my second grade teacher was doing the world a disservice when she threw away my useless scribbles. Pieces like that just cluttered the exhibition and made me unenthusiastic about all post-modern art... even when some is very good.
After the art gallery, most of the group went on a walking tour of Chelsea and then got tickets for Wicked. Wayne and I, however, have been lucky enough to have already seen Wicked a few times so we decided to go see the very highly reviewed play "War Horse" at the New London Theater. We took the tube down to Leicester Square and then found the theater. There, we got some great cheap student tickets in great seats and then walked around a bit before finding Mr. Wu's 5 Pound Chinese Buffet. On the way there Wayne and I wondered aloud why Mr. Wu's was the only 5 pound buffet and all the others were 8 or 9. We learned why when we got there... but we the main thing was that we weren't hungry anymore (and so far our bowels aren't rebelling).
After our dinner we toured Leicester Square some more and then walked back to the theater.
The show was not at all what we expected. Think Equus (sans the very adult nature) meets Les Miserables. The plot centers around a boy whose father drunkenly purchases a young horse. The boy raises the horse in England and develops a deep friendship with the animal but it is purchased by the British Army for use in World War I and the boy's father agrees to the sale.
The play used very detailed puppets and puppeteers to represent the horses and their motion. It's hard to describe but the show was a solid 4/5. There was a minimalist set but there was a rotating stage used to perfection. The actors were great and there were excellent, deep characters introduced in the second half.
Now I'm back in Regent's about to watch True Blood.
Check back soon!
-Simon
No comments:
Post a Comment