“I find myself a President of a body of men who…feel that there is something in this so-called
modern art… If you paint a tree, for God’s sake make it look like a tree!” The words of Munnings at
the RA in 1949 appear reactionary and pugnacious. But as an artist, he touched on some important
points in Art History and art criticism– what art is best, and what is the point of art: to be realist, or
expressive? His questioning of the development of art is but one proof that art and its history are
inseparable. Art is made to be seen, it is first seen in a certain context, and Art History studies this
context and development. Munnings’ comment was 63 years after the last impressionist exhibition.
His own style incorporates observation of light, colour and society and is aesthetically like
Impressionism. However, while he viewed this as anti-modern, Impressionism was anything but; I
admire Munnings for voicing an ill-received opinion but he ignored the advent of modernism and
subsequently the ability to paint what you feel, rather than simply what you see. Impressionism led
to artists like Gauguin claiming, “I close my eyes to see”.
Impressionists sought a new style, one supported by Zola, who shared their pursuit of naturalism:
they sought to portray feeling and subjective insight which is echoed in Zola’s ‘Nana’. The novel
deepened my fascination for the artistical and social life of 19 th century Paris, so I wrote an EPQ on
Bazille, a minor artist who witnessed this zeitgeist. This kind of extension work, along with essay
competitions, has expanded my knowledge and skills beyond the restrictions of A-Level study and
opened my mind to new concepts and approaches to Art History.
Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ broadened my visual fluency. His argument on the ‘new’ experience of a
visual essay was engaging, yet he omitted the context behind the works: my first inclination is to
seek context when I see a picture. I found more satisfaction in this respect when reading Hughes’
essay, ‘A Mechanical Paradise’. The narrative element to his writing provided an actual history of
‘modern’ art. The art was contemporary to Munnings yet considered modern. I find the concept of
modernity to be less defined by the style of an artwork, but more by its context – the French artists
that Hughes writes about were inspired by modern technology such as aerial photography and the
Eiffel Tower. I am interested in how artists depict their contexts: what is coming next in art history?
Context also includes how we view art: is viewing best executed in a gallery space or elsewhere? I
worked at the Munnings Museum and had an intriguing glimpse into their curatorial approach
through editing their section of the ArtUK website. I endeavour to see as much art as I can, be that in
museums, virtually or in cities. My favourite recent exhibition was Sorolla at the National Gallery. It
confirmed for me the power of art, due to his ability to balance light and colour with deeper, often
dark messages and reflections of Spanish society. I felt uplifted, touched, and humbled when looking
at his monumental range of works, largely on account of presentation and strands of context
available. For in-situ art, I travelled to Pompeii and Rome and realised the beauty of the place was its
art. I saw links across time when working for Francis Terry and Associates architects, whose
newbuilds are decidedly classicist and thus take inspiration from ruins, like those I saw in Italy. I have
used work experience as an opportunity to understand commercial aspects of the art world – a
potential future career. Through working at Reeman Dansie auctioneers I felt the joy of handling
objects that captured a previous time and place, yet they also provided a gateway to make possible
parallels with the context of our own era.
I wish to study Art History at a higher level due to my innate tendency to surround myself with arts
of all kinds: I am always searching for new ways of viewing the world.
modern art… If you paint a tree, for God’s sake make it look like a tree!” The words of Munnings at
the RA in 1949 appear reactionary and pugnacious. But as an artist, he touched on some important
points in Art History and art criticism– what art is best, and what is the point of art: to be realist, or
expressive? His questioning of the development of art is but one proof that art and its history are
inseparable. Art is made to be seen, it is first seen in a certain context, and Art History studies this
context and development. Munnings’ comment was 63 years after the last impressionist exhibition.
His own style incorporates observation of light, colour and society and is aesthetically like
Impressionism. However, while he viewed this as anti-modern, Impressionism was anything but; I
admire Munnings for voicing an ill-received opinion but he ignored the advent of modernism and
subsequently the ability to paint what you feel, rather than simply what you see. Impressionism led
to artists like Gauguin claiming, “I close my eyes to see”.
Impressionists sought a new style, one supported by Zola, who shared their pursuit of naturalism:
they sought to portray feeling and subjective insight which is echoed in Zola’s ‘Nana’. The novel
deepened my fascination for the artistical and social life of 19 th century Paris, so I wrote an EPQ on
Bazille, a minor artist who witnessed this zeitgeist. This kind of extension work, along with essay
competitions, has expanded my knowledge and skills beyond the restrictions of A-Level study and
opened my mind to new concepts and approaches to Art History.
Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’ broadened my visual fluency. His argument on the ‘new’ experience of a
visual essay was engaging, yet he omitted the context behind the works: my first inclination is to
seek context when I see a picture. I found more satisfaction in this respect when reading Hughes’
essay, ‘A Mechanical Paradise’. The narrative element to his writing provided an actual history of
‘modern’ art. The art was contemporary to Munnings yet considered modern. I find the concept of
modernity to be less defined by the style of an artwork, but more by its context – the French artists
that Hughes writes about were inspired by modern technology such as aerial photography and the
Eiffel Tower. I am interested in how artists depict their contexts: what is coming next in art history?
Context also includes how we view art: is viewing best executed in a gallery space or elsewhere? I
worked at the Munnings Museum and had an intriguing glimpse into their curatorial approach
through editing their section of the ArtUK website. I endeavour to see as much art as I can, be that in
museums, virtually or in cities. My favourite recent exhibition was Sorolla at the National Gallery. It
confirmed for me the power of art, due to his ability to balance light and colour with deeper, often
dark messages and reflections of Spanish society. I felt uplifted, touched, and humbled when looking
at his monumental range of works, largely on account of presentation and strands of context
available. For in-situ art, I travelled to Pompeii and Rome and realised the beauty of the place was its
art. I saw links across time when working for Francis Terry and Associates architects, whose
newbuilds are decidedly classicist and thus take inspiration from ruins, like those I saw in Italy. I have
used work experience as an opportunity to understand commercial aspects of the art world – a
potential future career. Through working at Reeman Dansie auctioneers I felt the joy of handling
objects that captured a previous time and place, yet they also provided a gateway to make possible
parallels with the context of our own era.
I wish to study Art History at a higher level due to my innate tendency to surround myself with arts
of all kinds: I am always searching for new ways of viewing the world.
