The National Galleries in Edinburgh and Dublin both have wonderful collections of Turner watercolours. These are the Vaughan bequests, left to each gallery, over a century ago, by the collector Henry Vaughan, with the proviso that they can only be displayed during the month of January to protect the works. The galleries have honoured these requests and Turner in January has become a tradition in both cities, always popular, with many people returning each year. Vaughan’s collection was comprehensive and he divided it so that each gallery has a coherent collection, representative of Turner’s output.

The watercolours are shafts of light and colour in the depths of winter, as if the sun has come out. The experience of viewing them is intense and quite emotional, and hugely pleasureable. There is something about the annual January show which adds to the sense of occasion, of sharing a special pilgrimage, before their light goes out for another year.

I think what I like is the asymmetry and the similarities of the two mosaics – they’re the same, but different. And although the faces all look similar, they still have individual characters. The compositions look so stiff, but also have a sense of capturing a moment, both a moment in the day and a moment in history.

That’s not a very formal way to look at it, but it’s the stories more than the analysis that I love about art!

You have brought up an interesting point: there must be overlap between the usage of “formal” and technical, depending on who is writing the article/commentary. It is interesting to know that conservation reports use the term “visual light” analysis. I am going to be more aware of these similarities (and also distinctions!) of these various terms in my future research and writing.

I’m interested in the terminology used – “formal” vs technical analysis – is this the term used in art history texts to denote looking at compositional or iconographic details – or is it used to record observable indications of technique used and additions. In the literature I’ve been working from on paintings, conservation type reports mostly describe “visible light” analysis with reference to other modalities which examine objects in other bands of the visual spectrum (infrared etc). They do make commentary on changes – such as seen in the Prado Mona Lisa report, but it is still is not called “formal” – I am curious to know how this term is being used here – and whether it is mentioned in the sources you used or is a clarification you have included.

many kind regards
H

Thanks for all of the information that you added on this topic. That’s interesting to know that watercolor was used in war paintings, because of its portability. War paintings seem to weighty in terms of their subject matter; it’s interesting to think about how a fragile (yet portable) medium was used to compose these types of subjects. As you have mentioned, it seems like the fragility and portability of this medium seem to work in opposite directions.

Peter, you have raised some good points about the problems inherent to oils. Perhaps we’ll see a shift in the future toward watercolor – as long as there are enough watercolorists around to start the trend (and beget more interest!).

Karen, I also think that the lack of watercolors in museums is a compelling argument. I wonder if watercolors were displayed more frequently, then we could foster or “beget the belief” (like Peter mentioned above) that watercolor is a noble and important artistic medium.

Now I don’t know the reasons why ancient Egyptians had two right hands, but I do know that “Principles of Egyptian Art” by Heinrich Schafer deals with pretty much all the details of Egyptian art and, more importantly, why it looks the way it does. Bit outdated in some cases, but still one of the best books on Egyptian art I’ve ever read. I’d really recommend checking it out!