Drawing from Soho Square

The Saatchi Gallery

Two Temple Place

Design for Acanthus furnishing fabric by William Morris. Pencil and watercolour on paper, 1879. William Morris Gallery, London. Courtesy of Two Temple Place and William Morris Gallery.

Great Hall of Two Temple Place from the South West. Photo by Will Pryce

Edward Burne-Jones and William Morris, Detail of The Romance of the Rose embroidered frieze, 1874-6. Embroidered by Margaret Bell and her daughter Florence, 1874-82, Copyright William Morris Gallery, London

Two Temple place, formerly called Astor house, was built by William Waldorf Astor in 1895. During his lifetime the house was used as estate office and his residence. The neo- Gothic building was designed by architect John Loughborough Pearson. Because there were no financial restrictions Pearson was able to use the best craftsmen and materials. All around the house we can see sculptures, reliefs and carvings from literary history. For example the main staircase is decorated with mahogany carvings about the characters from Dumas' "The Three Musketeers". The house is also very well preserved even though it got serious damage during the Second World War. This year the house was opened to the public as a gallery. The first exhibition "Story, Memory, Myth" consist of works from William Morris Gallery. Several of the works were made in collaboration with Edward Burne-Jones. The works include books, stained glass and tapestrie and pattern designs. The theme of the exhibition is inspired by the architecture of the building itself, which was designed to symbolize literature in addition to being representative of art, craft and architecture. I find that Two Temple place has perfect surroundings to Morris's works considering the context and simply visual side. I most liked the "Romance of the Rose" embroidered friezes where linen is embroidered with silks, wools and gold thread.

Édouard Manet's A Bar at the Folies-Bergère

Édouard Manet "A Bar at the Folies- Bergére" 1882

A Bar at Foiles- Bergére" has fascinated its viewers since it was first presented. As there are so many various interpretations the painting has remained to be a cause for many discussions. Trough history critics and other enthusiasts have tried to understand the story behind the painting. First thing that is usually confusing to the viewer is the composition of the painting. The fact that the reflection of the barmaid is moved to the right, the amount of the bottles reflected from the mirror behind her and other odds concerning the theatre reflecting behind her. The key to the story lies in the face of the barmaid, whose facial impression again raises many questions. Her face to me is helpless, innocent and it seems to reflect some kind of regret or unease, maybe because of something she has already done or thinks she has to do but don't want to. This seems to go together with the interpretation that she is also selling herself a she is selling the other goods we can see on the counter. In addition in the mirror we can see her having a conversation with a gentleman, who does not exist on our side, where we should be able to see his back in front of the barmaid. For me that face of a young woman looking at us almost in despair represents the reality, her real self. The mirror is about who she is expected to be or who she is maybe pretending to be- a part of her profession. The real her would not act the same as the one in the mirror. That is maybe why there is no male figure to be seen on this side of the counter. The reflection of her for me seems collapsed and degraded, however, the woman in front of us looks younger, stronger and also in a way has more dignity. That clearly comes out of the way Manet has painted the reflection duller and with far less details. But this unfathomable expression of hers might also hide a completely different story. She is looking a the busy nightclub/theatre and is thinking about her lost love. The mirror reflects her imagination- the man she is thinking about and her leaning towards him. Nevertheless every new viewer who is lucky to see this masterpiece will have its own thoughts and understanding of it and for me this is even more interesting than the stories told by professionals.

Paul McCarthy at Hauser & Wirth

This exhibition was certainly the boldest I have had a chance to visit  so far and my emotions could be described as something like positively surprized. First looking at "Train, Mechanical" I was drawn to how smooth and real the movements seemed and almost not robotic at all and the feeling that G. W. Bushes' haunting eyes were really looking at you. The united pinkness of the pigs and Bush figures and the squeaking noises above the robotic ones.  
I was most interested of the technical side  of the sculpture. How it works? What is it made of? How did he do it? Seemed that he had possibly achieved the best way to present his idea. Well I cant deny the fact that "Train, Mechanical" arises many questions and discussions. Most definitely it gives an idea of McCarthy's attitude towards G. W. Bush. It also makes you question  how seriously the artist takes his work? Does he just want to shock or make people think about the issues in a society by using well known figures and images and creating associations. 

"FILM" Tacita Dean

The first thing I found out about the movie was that she herself was very passionate about her work and that it is in a way very very personal. When I already knew that I examined the film from a different ankle and tried to more understand her and why she especially used these images, try to understand her world. She says that film is a visual poem and she lets the material's intrinsic magic to be her guide. She always works alone letting the solitude to inspire her. I think thats why her film for me seems like her contemplation or a glimpse into another persons inner world. I think for me the images create different connections than for her or every other human being. I liked the most how the film was presented, the size of it and the darkness. It created a whole different level to the film- in a way united the people who had come to see the big glowing mix of images, regardless what exactly did they think of it.

Cornelia Parker from the Government collection

Kenneth Martin "Blue Tangle" 1964

This piece is a part of selection chosen by Cornelia Parker from the Government collection at Whitechapel Gallery. The title of the exhibition is "Richard of York gave Battle in Vain". She chosed the pieces and arranged them carrying in mind the colours of the rainbow. For me this was the first thing I noticed - that the works created a composition of colours. It made me look the exhibition as one piece - a whole, even though the works she selected were different in all ways concidering the era, style, subject etc. Only later I concentrated on the pieces seperately and found they were not only parts of the colour composition, but had their own say. But exhibition is not only about the rainbow. It is also a hint to political spectrum as the blue works are on the right and red on the left leving the rest in the middle.

The painting I chosed to examine is "Blue Tangle" by Kenneth Martin. I like that the painting because on the one hand it is supposed to be a tangle, confused twisted mass of something and you cant follow the lines to reach their destination, they just disappear into each other, but on the other hand the tangle has its composition, where all the twisted and seemingly chaotic lines have their own place where they perfectly fit This makes the Blue Tangle enjoyable to look, the fact that you can't follow or actually understand, but that the lines create a composition with more and less intense or clear areas. It is more like an abstract feeling and doesn't make me think about something else than the construction of the the tangle itself.

I think this exhibition is a bit different from her previous ones. She has done many more abstract installations like "Cold Dark Matter: An Exploded View" or "Hanging Fire Suspected Arson"and also used usual objects to create mostly hanging- seemingly floating intsallations. Her other works include using objects owned by famous people, where she has created a new surruondings or for example used microscopic view like in "Marks made by Freud", where she made a macrophotograph of Freud's chair seat. I think the most obvious connection with her previous works lies in the use of something famous. In this exhibition she decided to use paintings that were already famous, but considering the way she presented them, she was able to make the exhibition herś not just collected works by other artists.

C. Parker "Hanging Fire Suspected Arson" 1999

C. Parker "Marks made by Freud, Subconsciously" 2000

•