Showing posts with label oil painting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil painting. Show all posts

14/03/2014

A Tour of Dublin Galleries 2013



We went into town to doing a mini tour of the galleries. First we went to the RHA Gallery were we saw an exhibition of paintings and drawings by Seán Keating an artist for whom I had long harboured a dislike because of his obnoxious mix of Irish nationalism/provincialism, reactionary aesthetics and dictatorial approach in the National College of Art. Keating was industrious and possessed above average skills, yet his work utterly lacked humanity or imagination and addressed the viewer with the kind of pompousness typical of nationalist propaganda. Yet, even I had to grudgingly admire some of his watercolours and oils of ESB engineering constructions at Ardnacrusha and Poulaphouca, even if they reminded me of far more daring, original and heartfelt work by the likes of Kokoschka.        
                       
An instillation of Michael Warren consisting of eight wooden folding chairs hung flat and vertically on the wall, each with minor alterations to the angle of the back slats, was cleaver but pointless and the comparison with the work of Piero della Francesca an utter cheek. A series of pretentious technical drawings, by Julie Merriman was worse still for its cleaver conceit of a sheet of paper with one drawing and tracing paper with another drawing laid on top. So what, as an idea it was not brought very far and as technical drawings they were crude and adolescent looking to me.                                              

Upstairs we saw the Futures 12 exhibition, which had two painters of quality, one painterly imposter and three ‘sculptors’ without a shred of talent between them. Peter Burn’s crumby paintings left me baffled as yet another manifestation of pseudo-naïve painting in Ireland. When I wondered had it become the ambition of so many young painters in Ireland to paint the most archly dumb paintings possible? Perhaps if Burns had proved himself as a craftsman and artist of significance and then like Philip Guston turned to black humour his rank efforts might have had some meaning.                                    

Jim Ricks’ inflatable Dolman sculpture (a mocking comment on the commercialism of Irish heritage) I found irritating for other reasons. It lacked any subtlety and while a great deal of industry had gone into this gag – I loathed joke art even if it put me out of step with virtually everything presented as iconic art since 1955. Peter Burns and Jim Ricks continued the tradition of joke art that had begun with the Dada artist of the 1920s and since the 1960s had achieved success in an art world sadly aware of its own insignificance in the modern world. Personally I loathed joke art; I thought it was an easy knee-jerk response to the impossible demands of creativity. The artists I truly admired where those who had avoided such defeatist strategies to find new expressive possibilities. Humour becomes dated notoriously fast, and there perhaps is humour to be found in the way naïve art students now revere the feckless urinal of Duchamp or the supposed can of shit of Manzoni. Joke art just doesn’t have the sustained meaning of tragic art. The only humorous art I had ever actually laughed out along with was Martin Kippenberger.      

Lucy Andrews ‘sculptures’ that looked like the most shoddy and incompetent science experiments in a high school left me equally baffled by their lack of technical quality and their cryptic meaning which I could not care less to decipher. Caoimhe Kilfeather’s sculptural installation was even worse than Lucy Andrews’ collection of woe begotten science experiments and I could barely waste a second look on her sculptural shambles.   Later I read that Kilfeather’s lump of lead was supposed to represent a waterfall, though at the time I recognized none of the fury and beauty of such a thing - in that shroud of clumsy lead.                                                                                                                          

On the other hand Stephanie Rowe’s miniature oil paintings on wooden boards of actresses caught in a freeze frame millisecond were technical and luminous masterpieces on a small scale. Though their subjects were modern silver screen actresses and their colours bright and lush – their miniature scale, smooth surfaces and minute sable brushed details were reminiscent of Dutch Golden Age painters like Metsu and Vermeer. Rowe’s use of screen-grabs from movies, illustrated again, how reproductions of reality had come to dominate more and more of our lives and take on part of our dreamscape. They were beautiful, patiently rendered, evocative memorials to screen goddess - many of us had daydreamt about. Rowe’s work proved what modesty, craft and real intensity could achieve.                                                   

Ed Miliano’s vast collection of smaller than A4 paintings on paper laid out on long shelves, initially did not impress me. However the closer and longer I looked the more I became sucked into their visual delight. The paintings of gardens, varied from a kind of early Expressionism to abstraction to a kind of contemporary realism. It was fascinating to observe the daily changes in Ed Miliano’s mood and vision and the different intensities. Seen close up each painting hummed beside its companions, yet looked at en mass a whole new rhythm revealed itself. Although Ed Miliano’s technique was not as stunning as Stephanie Rowe I found his paintings had more gravitas.                                                      

On our way out we briefly stepped in to Gavin Murphy’s twenty minute video On Seeing Only Totally New Things. We caught the video as the camera was fixed on a trendy chair and a male voice over waffled on about design. I had already given this piece a minute of my life and I wasn’t about to waste another nineteen so I walked out. Apparently it was about a modernist building called the IMCO which was built in 1939 and demolished in 1979.                                                                                          

Next we went to the Taylor galleries to view a new exhibition by Pauline Bewick one of the most commercially successful Irish artists due to the popularity of her Celtic brand of illustration which pillaged the images of far greater artists like Picasso and feminized them into mush. Personally I had never given a dam about her work, though I thought it might be fun to see her work in the flesh. They were not worth the trip, Bewick’s works was in fact worse in reality than in reproduction, her drawing flaccid and awkward and her colours utterly uninteresting and forgettable. Even Carol could only praise the ultra expensive handmade paper she used. Yet, Bewick’s show was thronged with school kids, minor celebrities and the prices of her works was truly eye watering. Bewick was yet more proof that nothing succeeds in the short term like charming mediocrity.                                                                                            

Next we went to the Rubicon gallery to see an exhibition of new oil paintings my Nick Miller, whose retrospective in the RHA in 2004 had been one of my favourites. I found these new paintings, which were again landscapes painted from his van a dreadful disappointment. They were under drawn and over painted, with none of the energy of his previous work. He seemed to be going over old ground for no particular reason.                                                                                                                  

Finally we went to the Kerlin gallery to see a new exhibition of oil paintings by Callum Innes. I was no particular fan of geometric abstraction, though when done well by the likes of Innes I found it strangely compelling, even if it went against my own instincts. Started as stained black canvases, Innes then worked them up to colour. Seen from the front their vertical bands were reminiscent of Barnett Newman, yet looking at the exposed sides of the canvases revealed something of the subtle build up of colour. They were a strong reaffirmation of pure intellectual abstraction and the power of minimalist paint to still carry ideas and emotion. With my faith in art restored we went onto Grafton Street and Carol and I went into the Disney store where she happily looked around in a childlike trance. Finally we had a meal in McDonald’s and looked around at the art books in Hodges Figgis before getting the DART home.                                                                                                   

Gabriel Metsu At The National Gallery of Ireland



On a gray and rainy Friday 29th October 2009, I went with Carol to the National Gallery of Ireland to see an exhibition of Gabriel Metsu, a neglected and underrated painter of the Dutch Golden Age. I was familiar with Metsu from two small companion oil paintings that had been donated to the National Gallery by Lord and Lady Beit in the 1980s - after they had been robbed and recovered from Irish criminals. The two paintings Woman Reading a Letter and Man Writing a Letter had long been two of my favourites in the National Gallery and with Vermeer’s Lady Writing a Letter, they offered an immediate chance to compare the techniques and styles of these two Dutch masters who both sadly died as they had just hit their prime.        

Both were part of the Dutch Golden Age, which after the Spanish Empire had signed a twelve-year truce with the Netherlands and formally recognized it as an independent commonwealth - saw an unprecedented period of peace, trade, commercial prosperity - and the flourishing of Dutch painting. The Dutch did not go in for the Italian love of religious, mythological or historical painting. They were common sense people and the art they liked was a mirror to their mercantile success. The Dutch genre picture was born from the low-life and moralizing pictures of Hieronymous Bosch and Pieter Bruegel in the early 16th century. The Dutch painters of this middle-class genre specialized in low-life debauchery and high-life ‘merry-companies’. The genre produced a host of minor masters like Nicholas Maes, Jan Steen, Pieter de Hooch and Gerard Terborch as well as Metsu and of course Vermeer who transcended the genre. Their work appealed to the common person’s love of stories, anecdotal details, realistic depiction, humour and moralizing. In a sense, they were lowbrow works but executed with a lot of talent and some originality.                                                                                     
                                             
Born three years apart and both dying in their late thirties, both Metsu and Vermeer had similar degrees of minor and purely local success in their day. Both produced a small number of finished and surviving works, Metsu about 130 oil paintings and Vermeer only about 34. Both specialized in domestic interiors scenes, Vermeer in a more distant manner - Metsu in a more interactive one. Both knew of each other’s work and were influenced by each other, in Metsu’s case the influence is obvious, Vermeer on the other hand - because of his distinctive style hid his influences better. Yet while Vermeer was almost forgotten in the following two hundred years, Metsu became highly collectable in the eighteenth century - especially amongst the Royal families of Europe. So much so, that Vermeer’s were sold as “in the manner of Metsu.” All this was to change in the late nineteenth century, when art critics, connoisseurs and writers like Proust wrote rapturously of Vermeer. The Impressionist generation of painters and art lovers, prized the painterly magic and originality of Vermeer, while at the same time poured scorn on the kind of minutely detailed and ‘fine’ painting of the likes of Metsu - whose reputation had never really recovered from this change in taste. This was the first exhibition devoted to Metsu since 1968, and the last book devoted to him had been published in 1974. Therefore, I saw this as a historically rewarding exhibition, which allowed modern day viewers to make up their own mind about Metsu.   
                                       
Before going into to see the exhibition of Metsu, I re-read my Heron History of Art volume on Baroque art and its chapters on the prolific and stunning Dutch Golden Age. While Vermeer had three pages of hyperbolic praise devoted to him, Metsu had just one dismissive paragraph: “Dutch art eventually became very tedious. If proof be needed, Metsu provides it. This latter painter was able to create illusion, but in him Gerrit Dou’s mastery became no more than a method; he took Vermeer’s stillness without his mystery... The truth is that Metsu was a cold painter. Ingres amply proved that coldness and stupidity do not preclude genius. Doubtless, Metsu could have proved an analogous demonstration if he had not been so strictly involved with school methods.” (Philippe Daudy, The XVIIth Century II, Heron History of Art, 1968, P. 37.)                     
                                                          
So as I entered the start of the exhibition, and began looking at Metsu’s early canvases my heart sank and my mind concurred with what I had read the night before. Metsu’s early low-life scenes painted on medium size canvases were workmanlike but uninspired. Reminiscent of Gerard Ter Borch, and countless other Dutch genre painters they lacked an authentic voice and offered little visual delight. Yet by the second room, I could already see a great leap forward in Metsu’s technique and maturing of his vision. As he grew into his art, his skill at rendering silk, velvet, fur, metal, wood and flesh became masterful. He was still painting subjects borrowed from others, yet his mastery of his medium was beginning to become evident, as where his own personal gifts of characterization and storytelling. As the size of his work shrank and he shifted from canvas to smooth wooden panels and minute and painstaking brushwork - his work began to exude a genuine glistening magic. In the crass modern age, big is often thought of as better - and even more difficult. Paintings like those of Metsu and Vermeer gave the lie to such primitive delusions. Their paintings made small details a trial of skill and patience beyond most blustering painters. Gerrit Dou for example was famous for spending days on a detail no bigger than a fingernail. I imagined that there must have been countless times when Metsu and Vermeer must have wanted to tear their hair out with despair - while trying to master a detail no bigger than an inch.          

Typically, Metsu painted on wooden panels that he prepared with a reddish brown, buff or grey ground - on which he painted a sketch in black and white, which produced a kind of black and white photograph. Over this, he then painted in colour, before finishing the painting off with a final layer of carefully modulated paint. He used a variety of brushstrokes from blended to stippled to scumbled depending on the surfaces he was trying to capture. Each layer of paint was thin and the final polished painting had virtually no impasto. Metsu’s fine brushwork was subtle but still visible up-close which gave his work a liveliness lacking in other painters of the period - like Gerrit Dou and Frans van Mieris - whose paintings had an enamelled polish that denied life. Amongst the paintings on show, my favourites were his; Still Life with a Dead Cockerel from 1655-8 whose stark mortality was more moving than many an over the top crucifixion, A Baker Blowing his Horn from 1660-3 which was almost surreal in its magic-realist combination of objects and action, The Intruder an erotic drama from 1661-3 and A Woman Composing Music, with an Inquisitive Man, from 1664-7, a beautiful and charming group scene, masterfully painted.

                 
The influence of Vermeer, was evident in Metsu’s later interior scenes yet the differences between them - were as telling as their superficial similarities. Vermeer’s work was almost dreamlike and uncanny whereas Metsu’s were more naturalistic. Vermeer’s use of a camera-obscurer was obvious - not only because of the strange perspectives, cropped compositions and spatial distortions - but also because of paintwork which seemed filtered and almost abstracted in parts. Vermeer’s use of optical devices may in part explain his rediscovery in the late nineteenth century as photography emerged. Perhaps, it took the photographic age to educate the public in the strange objectivity and dispassionate gaze of the lens. Metsu may have also used an optical device as an aid, but his work seemed far more conventional in its observation and application. While Vermeer presented interiors that were almost voyeuristic in their hidden-camera quality - of people caught unawares in their own silence - Metsu directly engaged us in conventional theatrical scenes that had been set up for an audience. In fact, they presented us with two very different kinds of aesthetics as dissimilar as hidden-camera spying and public theatrics respectively. The hidden-camera Vermeer was more radically modern - presenting a human solitude that was existential in its singularity. The theatrical Metsu was more of his period - presenting the spectacle of social dramas - anchored by a narrative that was traditional in its social discourse and moral presumptions. 


Sadly, the art world is a thing of fashion and bogus ratings. There are always a handful of winners and many losers. However, one of the purposes of the museum is to care for all with talent regardless of the vicissitudes of fashion - so that future generations, can make up their own minds and I for one found Metsu’s late paintings some of the most magnetic and stunning I had ever seen. Besides, even if Metsu was not as great as Vermeer, Rembrandt, Hals and a host of other Dutch masters he still possessed a talent and skill-set sadly all but lacking today.                                                                                
Apart from the forty oil paintings, there were also a few very rare drawings by Metsu – where he had sketched figures for his later oil paintings present in the show. In addition, there were costumes and objects like a linen night-rail, a pair of mules, an ornate buffalo drinking horn with silver gilt and a sewing cushion from Metsu’s day that all featured in his paintings - these gave an added depth to the exhibition.    After looking around the Metsu exhibition, we went around the permanent collection and looked at Vermeer’s Lady Writing a Letter. After being immersed in Mestu seeing it again was a shock to the system. Of course, it was a stupendous painting, of course, it was a work of genius and of course - it set me dreaming. However, was it any better than Metsu at his best? Maybe it was. But did it really matter? Besides, although Vermeer had always been an exemplary painter in my mind, I had never been able to rate him as highly as Rembrandt - who was in my opinion was the greatest Dutch artist ever and one of the greatest artists of all time. Vermeer and Mestu were masterful painters of small scenes, so had Rembrandt been in his early years. Nevertheless, Rembrandt had gone on to take in completely the rich pageantry of life. Rembrandt was a humane genius who had a vision of the world that transcended mere subjects or mediums – he was the Shakespeare of painting. Where Vermeer and Metsu had confined themselves to mostly oil painting, Rembrandt had produced drawings in chalk, and ink and etchings that were as great as anything ever done in those mediums. Vermeer and Metsu seemed to look at the work through microscopes – whereas Rembrandt could see the world from on high.                                       

We went to the gallery cafe and had Mocha’s and cakes. Carol had a Carrot cake and I had a Profiterole cake that melted in the mouth. We looked around the gallery bookshop and Carol bought me the catalogue for the Metsu exhibition and bought herself an amazing big book on Henry Darger.                   

As we collected our coats, the friendly girl told us that half the gallery would be closed next year for renovations. The roof was leaking and the heating had to be repaired. She told us also that the Metsu exhibition would be the last major exhibition in a long time because of budget cutbacks. I found it very sad and senseless to cut the funding of our National Gallery. Surely, to God, tourists wanted to come to Dublin to do more than just drink! And what about the up and coming generation of arts lovers and students, how were they going to educate themselves?

Tom Keating: The Forger in Love With Art



In the second week of September 2008, DVDs of series one from 1982 and series two from 1983 of Keating on Painters arrived in my door. Carol had thoughtfully bought me them on EBay. I joyously relived these lessons on painting that I had last watched when I was a callow teenager in the mid 1980s.    

                                                                                                                                     
I had feared that my fond memories of these television programs - would with the passing of time appear foolish. However, I was delighted to fall in love again with Tom Keating’s honest, humours, self-deprecating, intelligent and technically informative programs. They reminded me again - what a hero this portly, bearded and grey haired gentleman had been for me. Keating possessed more genuine, simple love for art - than hundreds of people I have encountered in the art world.                

Tom Keating (1917-1984) was born into a poor family in London. After World War Two he worked as an art-restorer and house-painter. Keating was a skilled but frustrated traditional painter whose work had failed to make a mark in an art world dominated by American Abstract-Expressionists, Pop artists and Conceptual theorists.                                                                

In 1970, auctioneers became suspicious when thirteen unknown drawings by the English Romantic artist Samuel Palmer - all of the town of Shoreham - came up for sale. Doubts were voiced in The Times and in letter to the paper Keating confessed that he had forged them and may other works by other artists. He said he had made them to get revenge on an art world that he thought was corrupt and got rich at artists’ expense. He also revealed that he had knowingly left anachronisms and flaws in the paintings - which would later reveal themselves to restorers. For example before starting a forgery – he would write on the canvas in lead white, fully knowing that x-rays would reveal them instantly.
             
In 1977, Keating was brought to trial at the Old Bailey. It was revealed that he had forged over 2,000 paintings by over a hundred different artists. He claimed that his forgeries had been made to show up the art establishment. However, the case was dropped due to Keating’s ill health - brought on by a life-time of chain-smoking and inhaling dangerous fumes from his restoring chemicals and painting turpentine. That year with the help of Geraldine Norman and Frank Norman he wrote and published his bestselling auto-biography The Fakes Progress: The Tom Keating Story.                

After the trial, his fakes – now titled homage’s - and his own work began to be avidly collected. His last hurrah were these wonderful programs for Channel four in 1982 and 1983 - when he was in his mid sixties and in poor health.
             
In these half-hour television programs - made at the tail-end of his life - he showed how the painters; Titian, Rembrandt, Constable, Turner, Boudin, Rousseau, Manet, Monet, Degas, Renoir, van Gogh and Cézanne  - conceived, started, worked up, qualified and finished their canvases. As he made works in their style (often with tongue-in-check) - he told brief but telling stories of their lives, character, training and working habits. Keating modestly taught the techniques of tempera and oils and pastels, which kinds of brushes to use, how to grind pigments, how to prime canvases, apply glazes, use impastos, varnish paintings and handle the paint brush.
             
Keating said: “I am trying to encourage everybody to have a go… anyone can pick up a paint brush… it’s inhibition that stops even children… it just needs courage.” Yet at the same time he made clear the need for academic or self-training, the difference between genius and talent and those unteachable aspects of painting that required an inner vision. He also honestly pointed out how comparatively easy it was to copy a painting – since the forger did not have to imagine, compose and construct a painting from scratch and out of a highly evolved personal style – they merely imitated.
             
Keating most admired the techniques of the Venetian painters like Titian and Dutch painters like Rembrandt. Although he acknowledged that Titian was widely regarded as the greatest painter in the Western tradition – his favourite was Rembrandt whose humanity he found very moving. William Turner he regarded as the greatest landscape painter of all time.
             
As an old forger Keating frankly spoke of the difficultly of old master and academic techniques - which he confessed required more discipline, skill, craft, patience and professional focus – than Impressionist techniques. However he also spoke of the freshness, direct honesty and reality of out-door painting conceived by Constable, Turner, the Barbizon painters and the Impressionists. He also spoke of the courage and Christ-like humanism of van Gogh and the obsessive dedication of Cézanne.
             
I noted to Carol that she could learn more about the technical aspects of painting in these two series – than fours year in NCAD. Keating was quite simply the greatest and only credible painting teacher I had ever seen in this debased, low-brow and asinine genre. If I had one complaint about Keating’s painting it was the slackness of his underlying drawing and the crudeness of his brushstrokes.

James Esnor



By 2008, I had over five hundred art books in my home. As you know, I had more - but threw them out because I had simply no room. My collection covered everything from the cave painters to Luc Tuymans. For me the lives and work of the masters were not only a framework for my art - but also a road map for my life. I called many artists master – but only a handful brother. One such man was the Flemish visionary painter James Ensor (1860-1949.)
             
His art and life had haunted my imagination for the last four years – usually at my bleakest moments of despair - when I did not have even rage to keep me going. When I was younger, angrier and more optimistic - I would turn to the likes of; van Gogh or Munch to give me courage in my pursuit of my own art. However, by 2008 - the only story to really give me any consolation - and make me smile if not laugh - was the strange life of Belgian’s greatest artist of the twentieth century (sorry Magritte.)
             
I had first discovered his work when it was featured in a documentary on BBC 2 in the mid 1980s. His Self-Portrait in a Flowered Hat (1883) - jumped off the screen at me – with a jolt of recognition – the mother complex, the transvestism, the madness and the complete self-assured indifference - to the opinions of the world.
            
Having only seen a few of Ensor’s paintings in the flesh - I worried for weeks about writing something on him. Usually I thought it an unforgivable sin to write about art one had largely never seen in the flesh. However, in his case I had finally made a concession. After all who better to write about an eccentric man who lived with his mother, rarely left his house, painted in an attic, thought about death every day, thought he was a prophet, and travelled little outside his home town – than an artist like myself?
             
With other rebellious and revolutionary artists at the fag end of the nineteenth century like; Cézanne, van Gogh, Gauguin and Munch – Ensor struggled for decades to find a sympathetic audience. Perhaps their stories of rejection - had been slightly overdone by romantic biographers in the 1950s – van Gogh for example was just beginning to achieve some recognition when he killed himself. Certainly Ensor’s story of artistic neglect had been over played – largely because of Ensor’s own martyr complex. I think Ensor forever felt himself abused and neglected even when he had success. I also think that he was the kind of man who liked to complain. However, the fact remains that these seminal fathers of modern art – spent many years in the wilderness (literally and metaphorically) before their visions became understood.
             
Ensor was in his forties before he could financially support himself – until then his mother had kept him. His work was intensely disliked by critics and fellow artists. It was writers who supported him and eventually brought him the success he had craved in his youth. He was shy, neurotic and hypersensitive - he died unmarried and childless. He was rumoured to have an imitation mermaid in his studio made off fish-scales, monkey’s teeth and woman's hair. He is most famous today for his paintings of skeletons and masks – but he was in fact one of the most confusingly diverse artists in art history. Don’t expect to understand his art immediately – his work takes time. Many of his paintings are crammed with obsessive details and hidden meanings – so they demand prolonged study. He painted in oils on canvas, wooded panels and paper. He worked deftly in watercolours and also produced a huge body of etchings, and drawings. He could paint and draw like an angel or like a demon. He depicted; landscapes, seascapes, streets scenes, crowds of goggle-eyed people, portraits, interiors, still-lives, self-portraits, caricatures, masks and skeletons. His drawings like his paintings varied from highly skilled, almost magic realism – to his own brand of raw, inspired Expressionism. However, he produced most of his visionary masterpieces between 1876-1896 – after which he mostly copied his past glories and out-lived himself as an artist.
             
In conversation, he was constantly self-contradictory. He was one of those hilarious people who have no idea just how funny they are. At first, they laughed at him - but they ended up laughing with him. In his later years - when fans of his work came to visit him he would play his harmonium - and tell them he wished he had become a musician! I suspect this was his final attempt to frustrate the world.                                                                                                                                  

At first sight, Ensor’s work could appear to the conservative art lover; crude, ugly, creepy and mad. However, the closer one looked at his fantastic and visionary paintings - the more skilled, beautiful and prophetic they became.
             
James Ensor was born on April 13 1860, in Ostend a seaside town in Belgium with a population of just 16,000 at his birth. He lived his life with the lapping, rolling and crashing sounds of the Atlantic sea against the beach and pier of Ostend.
            
 His father was an English engineer - who had travelled to America to find work but had returned to Europe because of the Civil War. His mother was a native of Ostend where she ran a souvenir shop that sold; trinkets, toys, shells, masks, seashells, Chinese goods and all manner of curiosities. A year later Ensor’s sister Mariette (who the family called Mitche) was born. They would have a close relationship and she would pose for many of his early naturalistic canvases. At the age of twenty-one Mitche married a Chinese man - complete with oriental robe and pigtail - who was passing through Ostend. Mitche had a girl with him but then abandoned by him.
             
Ensor only started school at the age of thirteen – and he lasted just two years in the Collage Notre-Dame in Ostend. He loathed school – but did not outwardly rebel. Instead, he adopted an indifferent and resistive attitude towards his teachers. Two years later his parents took him out of Notre-Dame - and left him free to daydream, roam the beach and take up drawing. His father - recognizing his son’s talent - sent him to take lessons with two undistinguished local watercolorists. He later said of them: “They initiated me professorially into the fallacious banalities of their dreary, narrow-minded and still-born craft.” (Jacques Janssens, James Ensor. Switzerland: Bonfini Press, 1978, P18.)
             
Ensor’s mother was far less sure of this path for her son, and would have preferred he took up a real profession. Her husband idled his days reading, drinking and socializing in the cafes - and no doubt feared that her only son would become a burden too – she was right.
             
Even in his most apparently simple, early paintings – Ensor could create pure magic. One of the first such works was Bathing Hut (1876) - a small oil painting - of a mobile beach cabin by the sea. On first sight, it seemed to me to have the ethereal softness of a watercolour – so soft were Ensor’s brushmarks. On second sight, it seemed a humdrum scene. However, by the third look – I was hooked! He painted this small canvas at the age of sixteen – and his painterly skills were already evident. He was already able to create a magical and uncanny version of reality on canvas. It as though - he could actually paint - the air. You felt the wind in your face and the sand beneath your feet.
             
In 1875 – Ensor’s family moved to 23 Vlaanderendreef (now Vlaanderenhelling) on the corner of Noordstraat (now Van Iseghemlaan) in Ostend – where James would live with his family until 1917 - surrounded by his paintings and a life time of collecting what some might have called junk. On the ground floor, his mother ran her souvenir shop.
             
Ensor remembered his family home as such: “My grandparents had a shop in Ostend, in the Kapucijnenstraat, where they sold shells, lace, rare, stuffed fishes, old books, engravings, weaponry, chinaware… It was an inextricably confused jumble of heterogeneous objects; several cats knocked over things, somewhere some parrots produced a deafening noise, and there was a monkey… The shop smelled of mold; the stench of the monkey’s stale urine filled the shells and cats walked over the precious lace. Yet, during the summer season the most distinguished visitors entered the place: the Emperor Wilhelm I, then Prince of Prussia; Leopold I, King of Belgium; the duke of Brabant; the Count of Flanders; The Duke of Ossana; the Duchess Douglas Hamilton. My mother amused all of them with her wit.” Indeed! (This quote is taken from - Between The Street and The Mirror: The Drawings of James Ensor. Ed. Catherine De Zegher, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001, P223.)
             
At seventeen, he enrolled at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Brussels. From day one - when he was forced to draw from the antique casts – he knew he would not fit in. His attitude was profoundly anti-classical, anti-authoritarian and modern. In three years at the Academy, the best he ever got was a second prize for a drawing from an antique head. However, he continued his studies in the Academy in his own dogged, insular way – no doubt convinced he should be teaching them. Later he was to say that he had learned nothing in this: “establishment for the near blind.” (Jacques Janssens, James Ensor. Switzerland: Bonfini Press, 1978, P20.)
             
While in Brussels, he met and befriended the much older Ernset Rousseau - Rector of Brussels University and his young wife Mariette – who were both lovers of science and art. Ensor was to also befriend their son - who had the same name as his father. Their friendship was his rock of safety – through many dark years of isolation and ridicule.                                                     

After three unspectacular years in the Academy - Ensor returned to Ostend. Apart from a few trips to Brussels, Amsterdam and Paris, he was never to leave his hometown again.
             
He converted the fourth-floor attic of his parent’s home into a studio and began painting a series of Impressionist inspired landscapes and realist portraits. However, it was his interiors with his family members sitting inside - that I found haunting. Had anyone ever painted curtains with such tenderness – as flimsy barriers to a harsh external world of frightening people? I wondered to myself.
            
Ensor liked to have photographs taken of himself and his friend Rousseau Jr. - messing about. In one black and white photo - Ensor and his friend Ernest - play-fight with bones on the beach. In another photo - Rousseau plays the role of a surgeon - removing the “stone of madness” from Ensor’s head! Later Ensor would use these and other photographs as stimulation for his paintings. As a young man, Ensor liked to play his flute at parties, jeer at hunchbacks in the street - or mock the stallholders at the fish market. You could say he loved causing mischief - and I thought that was the best way to understand his strange and comical work. When he would walk the streets of Ostend, he was jeered at by passers-by and gangs of children. They nicknamed him ‘Compere-la-mort’ (Death’s Confederate.)
             
Ensor’s attic studio had a fine view of the streets’ of Ostend outside – which he would paint repeatedly – often when they were crowded with Mardis Gras revelers, military regiments, or marching bands. He sat and watched the world pass by. In the course of his life, Belgium was invaded three times. First by; Bismarck’s Prussian army - then the Kaiser’s Storm-troopers and finally - by Hitler’s Panzer Grenadiers. They were all then beaten out - by the French, English and American armies. Sitting in his little room dispensing his rage and fears on canvas - but always trying to remain polite in real life – he must have wondered at a world that thought him the madman!
             
At the age of nineteen, Ensor painted his first mask paintings. Ostend was known for its masks and his family home was full of them. The masks harked back to fourteenth century farce, the danse macabre, paganism and witchcraft. However, there was nothing schematic about the way Ensor painted masks – each had its own peculiar identity – depicting different kinds of personalities, vices or stations in society. In fact, it almost appeared to me that the masks were coming to life. When I was younger, I was somewhat sceptical of Ensor’s masks and skeletons. I worried that it might be a bit contrived. However, Ensor lived from birth with these strange objects. He played with them. He befriended them. Therefore, it was utterly natural for him to paint them.
             
In 1881 – Ensor started exhibiting – to poor reviews, little public enthusiasm and some ridicule. Over the following years, many of his submissions were rejected and when he did show - he received scathing reviews.
            
By the mid 1880s fantastic and macabre imagery entered into his work. Groups of masked people met in rooms, skeletons fought each other - and bourgeois rooms were littered with; skulls, dolls, masks, puppets, books and bones.
             
Ensor never painted from the nude life-model – because his mother disapproved. So most of his nudes came from his head or were reworked from others artists paintings and drawings. Those nudes that there are - tend to be comical or threatening (in one drawing of a big breasted woman he drew satirical faces over the nipples.) In fact, I wondered if he thought of sex much at all - I knew he thought of death every day.
             
Like his life – Ensor’s paintings were full of contradictions. In the same year (sometimes in the same month) - that he painted a fantastic and gruesome pair of skeletons – he could also paint a beautiful and sedate still-life. Yet all of his work was stamped with his DNA. He painted what he wanted – when he wanted. Art was his solitary amusement. He delighted in confusing and playing with his audience and himself. This was made even more clear in his drawings - where half a page might depicted a fully shaded realist drawing of a fireplace – but on the other half of the page odd faces, masks and goblins appear out of thin air - threateningly.
             
Every great painter has his or her own idiosyncratic pallet. Ensor’s brittle whites, steely blues, fire-engine reds, emerald greens and sad violets - were totally his own. His greatest paintings seemed to me to radiate light – which miraculously appeared to come from behind the paintings somewhere.
             
Ensor was an obsessive reader and loved the writings of Balzac, Edgar Allen Poe, and was very fond of Rabelais and Cervantes’ Don Quixote – whose flights of fancy mirrored Ensor’s own. As a painter he was equally omnivorous looking intently at; Rembrandt, Chardin, Watteau, Rowlandson, Turner, Courbet, Delacroix and as a Belgian of course he was steeped in Brueghel the Elder and Bosch.
               
In 1883 Octave Maus created the circle Les xx (The Twenty) an avant-garde group - which welcomed the work of radical and unpopular painters, writers and musicians from all over Europe. Les Vingt organized exhibitions of work by Paul Cézanne, Paul Gauguin, Claude Monet, August Rodin, Georges Seurat and Henri Toulouse-Lautrec. It was at one of the Les xx shows that van Gogh sold his only painting for 400 Francs in 1889. Ensor quickly joined the group but his submissions were frequently rejected or accepted in part only. Even here, his work was often considered too outrageous to be shown. After another of his submissions - this time to Brussels Salon of 1884 was rejected – he wrote a savage pamphlet mocking his old professors in the Academy. It only served to put even more peoples backs up. However Ensor became addicted to polemics and went on to take issue with things like vivisection and the modernization of Ostend. I had no doubt that if he were alive in my today - he would have been a compulsive blogger!
             
Suddenly in 1887 – Ensor’s father died. Ensor drew tender drawings of his dead father in bed. However, rather than darken – his pallet exploded with ever more daring juxtapositions of colour.
             
In 1888, Ensor painted his masterpiece Christ Entry Into Brussels, 1889. It depicted Ensor’s fantasy of the day when Christ would enter Brussels. The historian Heusinger von Waldeck has suggested that this massive canvas might have come as a professionally competitive reaction to Seurat’s Grande Jatte - which had recently made a big impact.
             
At first, it was hard to see Christ – as he rode on a donkey in the background of the canvas. For ones attention was first grabbed by the army band and Mardi Gras revealers - that thronged the foreground. To the lower left a couple French-kissed and seemed oblivious to Christ’s presence. The largest red banner in the parade read; “Vive La Sociale” (Long Live Social Progress.) Ensor had outrageously given the figure of Christ his own features – but this was nothing new for him. Ensor frequently depicted himself as Christ – misunderstood, reviled but prophetic. Sometimes he also depicted himself as the devil – demonic and sly.
             
He had previously drawn blasphemous images like Ensor/Christ in the temple – expelling the moneylenders – or even of himself as Christ crucified on the cross. There were no easy answers in Ensor’s art – ‘good’ people had a secret dark-side - and the divine touched ‘bad’ people.
             
Christ Entry Into Brussels - was a true masterpiece in the old-fashioned sense of the word – a vast consolidation of all the lessons and discoveries of his art up to that point. Although the painting looked crude and impulsive, he actually planned each figure beforehand. The canvas was so large that Ensor painted it on an unstretched roll. He painted sections of the canvas at a time – keeping the rest of it rolled up against the wall. That is why parts of the painting look disjointed and contradictory. In 1989 – I saw this overwhelming work in The Getty Museum in L.A. - where it was fittingly the culmination of the museum’s collection of nineteenth century paintings. It was hard to recall my impressions but they were probably; fever, joy, bewilderment, awe, curiosity and empathy. It was a vast canvas teeming with incident, satire, venom and humanity - and I knew I did not understand an inch of it – but I loved it.
             
Also in 1888 - Ensor met and befriended Augusta Boogaerts - who was ten years younger and a barmaid in a local inn. He called her “the siren.” Very little is known about the extent of their relationship. Did they ever kiss? Did they ever have sex? Who knows? They never married and only saw each other irregularly. Maybe his mother disapproved – maybe Ensor prized his independence too much. However, they remained close until his death - she died the following year. In 1905 he painted a very tender but mysterious oil painting of the two of them called; Our Two Portraits. Both are dressed in dark clothes – though her hat is ringed with bright flowers. She sits at the centre of the painting seated in a chair - and holding a pink flower - as she looks out of a window to the left. Behind her in the mirror of a cabinet - we see Ensor - seated at a table looking over at her with fondness. It is as though they are completely together – yet respectful of each other’s solitude. As a statement of elderly love - it was wonderfully restrained and unsentimental.
             
By the turn of the 1890s Ensor’s social satire and rage at the stupidity of the world had brimmed over into biting cartoons and caricatures - some of which he went on to paint in oils on wooden panels – the most permanent of painting methods. He mocked; the doctors – who cured nothing, the judges even more vile than the criminals they sentenced, the politicians so deceptive and hypocritical they were like devils - and the artists and critics so blind and stupid they could not see his genius! Ensor’s satire followed and was influenced by - a long line of English caricaturists like William Hogarth, Thomas Rowlandson and James Gillray as well as the French genius of caricature - Honoré Daumier. The line in these paintings, etchings and drawings was spiky, brittle, fluttering and acidic – yet strangely beautiful. This tradition of biting satire continued in my day by comic book, artists like Robert Crumb. Of course, Ensor’s vision of the world was over the top. Like all great comics – the wanted to shake up people’s minds with ideas they may have had themselves – but never had the courage to admit.
             
Up until the early 1890s, Ensor was content to work alone in Ostend and without any real support. However, with the last exhibition of Les xx – he lost his one and only life-line to the public. Meanwhile his families’ disapproval, irritation, disappointment and anger had grown. His paintings rarely sold and he still lived off his mother’s earnings. His isolation deepened and so did his despair – culminating with his attempt to sell the entire contents of his studio for 8,500 francs. He had no takers. God only knows how desperate he felt after that.
             
After 1895, Ensor’s output slowed down. He had lost faith in himself and could no longer put up a fight. However, he began to have a growing following amongst poets, writers and intellectuals.
             
Then in 1899 – the tide really began to change. That year the Paris journal La Plume devoted an issue to him. He began to sell works on a regular basis to private collectors – and the world began to catch up with his visions. However, by then Ensor had become detached from his art. He watched his bizarre success like a spectator. Because his earlier work began to fetch higher and higher prices – he backdated his new paintings and plagiarized his own past achievements. However, he could still pull off a few last masterstrokes.
             
After caring for his mother for many years - Ensor was at her side when she died at the age of eighty in 1915. Before she died, he drew and painted a few heart-breaking portraits of his mother on her deathbed. I found them heartbreaking beautiful. In the foreground of his largish, The Artist’s Mother in Death (1915) – was a tray of beautiful bottles of medicine. You can almost hear Ensor pray that they work.
             
In 1903, he was made a Chevalier in the Belgian Order of Leopold – the first drop in what would become a shower of belated glory. In 1929, he was made a Baron and the Brussels Palais des Beaux-Arts organized a massive retrospective of his work. In 1931, a monument was erected to him near the Ostende Kursaal. In 1933 he was proclaimed the ‘Prince of Painters’ and in the same year he was awarded the Band of the Legion of Honour by France! Finally, before he died - an Association of Friends of Ensor was established - who after his death founded his museum in Ostend. Ensor apparently accepted all these awards with a wry smile.
            
 In 1942 – Belgian newspapers mistakenly pronounced Ensor dead. He did nothing to correct the misapprehension and even visited his own monument wearing a black arm-band! “I am mourning myself,” he told those he met. And you still wonder why I loved the man!
             
I doubted a day went by when Ensor did not think about death. Repeatedly he painted and drew himself as a skeleton. He spent his life like a hypochondriac nihilist - convinced the end of the world was nigh. He finally did die, after a three-week illness (quietly in his sleep), on 19th November 1949 - at the age of eighty-nine. By 2008, his art had long since become a source of inspiration to Expressionists, Surrealists, Outsiders and young artists concerned with identity.
             
His funeral was the last brilliant act in his theatre of comedy. However, this time he was not a lone actor crying in the streets – he was the focus of a national celebration of comic and visionary genius. All of the high and mighty of Belgium turned out for his funeral; Cabinet ministers, judges, generals, critics and the great and good of the art world – basically everyone he had poked fun at throughout his career. The bells tolled, high-flow speeches were made and flags fluttered in the wind. It was like a scene out of one of his paintings. It sounds like one of the funniest - yet most profound - funerals in history. I wished I had been there.