In defence of Bonnard
The Sunday Times art critic Waldemar Januszczak has taken recently to rubbishing some of the big figures of 20th-century art. Henry Moore, Leger and now Bonnard have received the treatment. And he is not above using scatology to signal his contempt: he has referred to Moore’s ‘turds’ and asks ‘what is that shit-brown rectangle?’ in one of Bonnard’s paintings.
Picasso apparently dismissed Bonnard’s work as ‘a pot-pourri of indecision’, and that gives Januszczak confidence in his judgment. He seems to think that Bonnard had no idea of which colour to use and squeezed out blobs at random, before dotting them over his canvases, and that his reputation as a great colourist is a myth.
It doesn’t occur to the journalist-critic that this building-up with small brush strokes is leading to a finished product of deliberate intention. The technique is not dissimilar to that used by Cezanne with a very different intention and outcome.
I haven’t actually seen the Tate exhibition which Januszczak reviews, but I have seen many Bonnards and have in my possession an Hors Serie publication from a French art magazine about a previous Bonnard exhibition, along with an illustrated catalogue that includes the large holding of Bonnard works in the Fondation Bemberg in Toulouse. I would judge that Bonnard had more successes than Picasso post Guernica in spite of the master’s three decisive painting improvisations per day.
Januszczak’s view that, as far as anatomy is concerned, Bonnard makes Douanier Rousseau look like Michelangelo is plainly stupid. He should seek out a reproduction of ‘Nu a contre-jour ou Le Cabinet de toilette au canape rose’, 1908, Bruxelles, Musees Royaux des Beaux Arts de Belgique. He will see that Bonnard had a sure grasp of female anatomy.
Picasso apparently dismissed Bonnard’s work as ‘a pot-pourri of indecision’, and that gives Januszczak confidence in his judgment. He seems to think that Bonnard had no idea of which colour to use and squeezed out blobs at random, before dotting them over his canvases, and that his reputation as a great colourist is a myth.
It doesn’t occur to the journalist-critic that this building-up with small brush strokes is leading to a finished product of deliberate intention. The technique is not dissimilar to that used by Cezanne with a very different intention and outcome.
I haven’t actually seen the Tate exhibition which Januszczak reviews, but I have seen many Bonnards and have in my possession an Hors Serie publication from a French art magazine about a previous Bonnard exhibition, along with an illustrated catalogue that includes the large holding of Bonnard works in the Fondation Bemberg in Toulouse. I would judge that Bonnard had more successes than Picasso post Guernica in spite of the master’s three decisive painting improvisations per day.
Januszczak’s view that, as far as anatomy is concerned, Bonnard makes Douanier Rousseau look like Michelangelo is plainly stupid. He should seek out a reproduction of ‘Nu a contre-jour ou Le Cabinet de toilette au canape rose’, 1908, Bruxelles, Musees Royaux des Beaux Arts de Belgique. He will see that Bonnard had a sure grasp of female anatomy.
Comments
Post a Comment