tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post3027213997375641327..comments2024-03-26T07:58:59.761+00:00Comments on I'll think of something later: Hussey's giftsDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14506881804082382739noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-50524391661095991532017-12-28T13:40:05.765+00:002017-12-28T13:40:05.765+00:00I've certainly aimed to; of course, whether I&...I've certainly aimed to; of course, whether I'm successful is a question for readers, particularly those who knew him. I'm hoping for a review or two.Peter Websterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11658752319509408253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-81093855398547737702017-12-27T15:04:13.167+00:002017-12-27T15:04:13.167+00:00I look forward to reading it. Guessing you catch a...I look forward to reading it. Guessing you catch all sides of a complicated man.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506881804082382739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-3308262257628176142017-12-27T13:38:10.014+00:002017-12-27T13:38:10.014+00:00Hussey's career is now fully documented for th...Hussey's career is now fully documented for the first time in this (my) new book: https://peterwebster.me/wh Peter Websterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11658752319509408253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-86287829332410184282013-05-01T20:46:13.907+01:002013-05-01T20:46:13.907+01:00David - I think what you're saying is that it ...David - I think what you're saying is that it was too private a portrait for a public place, and it certainly clashes with the bluff persona he presents when being wryly - or so he thinks - rude about its unveiling. Was Clemmie nuts when she burnt it? <br /><br />Sue - that remark was not aimed at you, who always cover so many bases, but gently at wanderer, who managed to chat Wagner here and twice more elsewhere (though he did weave in a 'fat cannolo' reference in bringing up Bryn...) I suppose I am a little touchy if the blog subject is ignored COMPLETELY, but I also love it when the chat takes a surprising turn, as you know. And I love my Wagner in selective, passionate dollops too.<br /><br />Church's big cumulo-nimbus clouds in the pictures and sketches represented in the little exhibition - and there were a few of your lovely neighbouring hilltop home - certainly brought back memories of standing in the porch at Olana watching one of many wild thunderstorms over those two days crashing and flashing around the Hudson Valley. You have big sky country indeed!Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506881804082382739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-29963087045487933882013-05-01T16:15:10.169+01:002013-05-01T16:15:10.169+01:00I now pay penance of the most delightful sort to p...I now pay penance of the most delightful sort to peruse further, after sullying this post with my opera report! First, I've found my Chichester Psalms CD and have it out to play tonight. Second, I looked up the Cathedral and Sutherland's work. I love the images you show, BTW. I wasn't at all familiar with him, but now will keep a look-out. Now, as for Church/Olana: Olana is such a beautiful place, and, thankfully, due to diligent citizens, the view out from it remains mostly unsullied. So, when I look at Church's paintings, though they may not be my favorites of all paintings (much for the reasons you name), I still like them, for they do evoke that landscape, and particularly its light. (I tried also to find the Churchill portrait and sketch you discuss here, but npg does not seem to let me past the fundraising screen. I think I found them elsewhere, but can't be sure.) Next stop, the Bach. I shall return!Susan Scheidhttp://prufrocksdilemma.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-14233085113444860382013-05-01T15:19:34.171+01:002013-05-01T15:19:34.171+01:00One has ( quite rightly )to be so exact in this bl...One has ( quite rightly )to be so exact in this blog......I should have enunciated more clearly that this portrait DOES fulfill the requirement of showing more than a photograph. Having done so however the character portrayed even if right at the time of sitting was not a record of general validity, so not suitable to hang in the Houses of Parliament. Apologies for rabbiting onDavid Damantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-75720947717653695932013-05-01T14:28:58.842+01:002013-05-01T14:28:58.842+01:00Having just seen the footage you recommended, I se...Having just seen the footage you recommended, I see that the half-sideways representation I liked is in fact the surviving sketch you write about, and it would have been better if the big portrait had stuck to that. Even so, I think it's a shame Churchill snickers about 'modern art' (as you say, it's hardly modern),<br /><br />But re the actual state of Churchill's mind when the portrait was painted, how do we know? We weren't there. We know about Churchill's black dog and the unhappiness of his last years. And you surely contradict your earlier assertion that it's too photographic. Whether a correct reflection of the meeting or not, it's still a psychological portrait. A thousand times preferable to the soft-pornish image of Princess Kate, a ridiculous and unreal piece of work on any level.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506881804082382739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-92165629690100251502013-05-01T13:47:43.076+01:002013-05-01T13:47:43.076+01:00The Sutherland portrait is as a picture perhaps ma...The Sutherland portrait is as a picture perhaps magnificent but as regards showing Churchill's character it is wrong. Even when very old ( years after the picture was painted) he was detached and calm about fate - as he said, in the face of death the wise accept the future, whether another life, or oblivion. The tension in the portrait was not in his character. His boyishness (he was called Winston by everyone) and idiosyncratic approach to life do not appear. Perhaps his humour contained vanity ( see how pleased he was in the little film when his joke about modern art was appreciated) but that and other faults which may be adduced were not revealed. I wonder - I have never seen this mentioned - whether the stroke he suffered, which was hidden from the public, was at the time of the portrait still requiring him to take a grip on himself. That would explain the high level of tension. The half sideways sketch which I think with others is in the NPG is much betterDavid Damantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-65080674287889188772013-05-01T10:06:09.658+01:002013-05-01T10:06:09.658+01:00Hijacked by Wagnermania thrice over. To which I wi...Hijacked by Wagnermania thrice over. To which I will only answer that I ADORED Joanie - my gateway to opera as a teenager. Maria Stuarda was my first opera at Covent Garden. Then I saw Salome and realised the bel canto rep wasn't so much my cup of tea. But I carried on worshipping at La Stupenda's shrine.<br /><br />But back to the Sutherland who's one of the real themes. David's remark about the sketches of Churchill being better than the finished (destroyed) thing - which I like very much from what I've seen incidentally, will drop in on NPG - applies to an exhibition close to Sue's stamping ground, if not her heart. Room One of the Nat Gall is devoted to Frederic Church of Olana. His finished nature pictures seem overworked and sterile to me, but the studies - for Niagara Falls especially - have all the magic and motion the bigger canvases lack.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506881804082382739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-4605350965338107252013-05-01T02:51:51.418+01:002013-05-01T02:51:51.418+01:00Surprisingly, the only time I've cried through...Surprisingly, the only time I've cried through Siegfried was with Heppner, and there's nothing too youthful there, nor certainty of going the distance. Yet, all rolly polly with a lumberjack shirt hanging out, he sang with such innocence and beautiful naivety (and here I specifically mean singing of/to his mother as forest bird, in this production the one and same as the leitmotif suggests) that all disbelief didn't need to be suspended, it was simply erased, and I blubbered in the front stalls. K was embarrassed.<br /><br />It was a not dissimilar experience to Sutherland's Lucia ( I seem to recall late Sutherland not really your cuppa) when in the house the voice so overwhelmed the physicality that the music as written was left to do its job - channel the emotion and the character. Many of today's sopranos (well, one in particular) have need to resort to the opposite - let the histrionics achieve what the voice can't.wandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08196036534397389760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-64425548155540417932013-04-30T23:17:30.972+01:002013-04-30T23:17:30.972+01:00Well, if you've got a Siegfried who stays the ...Well, if you've got a Siegfried who stays the course and doesn't make you wince - and yours clearly didn't - that's a start. One day someone will find a young god who sings like one. Though frankly just a suggestion of youthfulness will do. Siegel is excellent, I know.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506881804082382739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-48934693259001960562013-04-30T20:55:47.412+01:002013-04-30T20:55:47.412+01:00So interesting to look at the 12th C panels after ...So interesting to look at the 12th C panels after an eyeful of new art--it does bring out the modern in them, doesn't it? I'm reminded of visiting Elisabethkirche in Marburg, an early Gothic with a modern crucifix. With some searching, I found this about it: "The altar of the Holy Cross is adorned with an expressionist bronze crucifix by Ernst Barlach, which was originally designed for a war cemetery in 1918 and has been in this church since 1931. As the Nazi-regime regarded Barlach´s work as degenerate this crucifix only survived destruction by being hidden in an attic." I want to say also that there was some modern stained glass, as I believe at least some of the original windows were destroyed during WW2, but my visual memory, beyond the striking, and moving, juxtaposition of old and new, is hazy so many years on.<br /><br />I haven't listened to the Chichester Psalms in a long time. The opportunity to revisit that piece must wait a bit, as with further Cantata installments, as they won't play on the iPad. Annoying that, but I can at least enjoy your story of meeting Bernstein (!) and the incredible true vine mss you display.<br /><br />Brief Ring report: Siegfried was sublime. Lepage's production, while still troublesome overall, was much more "in keeping" and stunning in spots, though requiring the cast to perform long segments on a raked stage in difficult lighting seems to me unnecessary at best. The singing and the orchestra were superb throughout. Gerhard Siegel, as Mime, was a stand-out in what I (though, again, I have no real basis for comparison) and everyone I spoke with thought was a tremendously strong cast. And the music! Ah, the music!Susan Scheidhttp://prufrocksdilemma.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-54995533612913747862013-04-30T12:44:31.023+01:002013-04-30T12:44:31.023+01:00The presentation to Churchill of the Sutherland po...The presentation to Churchill of the Sutherland portrait is at " Offensive portrait of Churchill destroyed/Goldmark " See the man there, always called Winston by everyone, and compare him with the portrait. Some of the sketches by Sutherland at the Portrait Gallery are better than the finished productDavid Damantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-42824708169025074152013-04-30T10:37:29.815+01:002013-04-30T10:37:29.815+01:00I don't know Sutherland's portrait of Chur...I don't know Sutherland's portrait of Churchill - shall check it out forthwith. I've never even been to Coventry Cathedral, though I'd love to have got there for the CBSO's 50th anniversary performance of Britten's War Requiem. Apparently it can be seen on a site called thespace. It was screened all over the continent - but not in Blighty. What does that say about our telly culture?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506881804082382739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1248503935075362425.post-88677544514883624652013-04-30T10:33:05.577+01:002013-04-30T10:33:05.577+01:00Sutherland's achievements had an essential el...Sutherland's achievements had an essential element in his brilliant surfaces. Thus the tapestry at Coventry (Christ the King)appears to me inappropriately soft in texture. [ Also on my visit it was possible to turn off the light illuminating Christ at the touch of a switch. God, said Colonel Robert G Ingersoll is the noblest work of man. At least it should be a gradually growing or fading light.]<br />The reason why Sutherland's portrait of Churchill was a bad portrait was that it showed a character that Churchill did not possess even in old age ( and we know a great deal about him from many sources) If he looked like that at the sitting it was because he was in pain or was bored by the artist ( "dull" according to one commentator). Whether it was a good picture from the purely painterly point of view is another matter, but portraits are supposed to show more than a photograph and in that sense this one was just wrongDavid Damantnoreply@blogger.com