My day job has been a zoo lately and I feel like an over-rung dishrag when I get home, so I’ve been spending some time veggin’ in front of the television. The other night I came across a positively ancient broadcast of a CBC televsion show from the 60’s and 70’s: Telescope. This half-hour documentary focused on Canadian artist Alex Colville. The whole episode was rather interesting, once you got past the ridiculous clothing and hairstyles of course, but I think my favourite bit was a statement Colville made about where he would rather have his artwork would end up, in a museum or a private collection:
I prefer my work goes into a private collection where some person or small group of persons will look at it, live with it every day. It becomes a piece of daily life.
So I opened up my e-mail today and what did I see? A press release. I don’t think I’ve ever been e-mailed a press release before and I read with interest that the National Sculpture Society awarded Wildlife Sculptor Kent Ullberg the Henry Hering Medal for Art and Architecture. The award recognises Ullberg’s collaboration with the late architect Jim Reeves for his work, Omaha’s Spirit of Nebraska’s Wilderness.
You may remember that back in January I did wrote a post about Ullberg’s monumental work and my own hypothesis that the popularity of wildlife art can be credited to it being written in something other than “the language of our time”.
Congratulations, Mr Ullberg, your award is very well-deserved!
Text of the release follows below:
New York, New York — Internationally-known wildlife sculptor Kent
Ullberg was honored by the National Sculpture Society on May 17, 2008.
Ullberg received the Society’s Henry Hering Memorial Medal for Art and
Architecture at a black tie honors and awards dinner in New York City,
part of the organization’s annual Sculpture Celebration Weekend.
The Henry Hering Medal is considered to be the most important award
given for sculpture in architecture. It is given for outstanding
collaboration between architect, owner and sculptor in the distinguished
use of sculpture in an architectural project. The award, which is not
given every year, but only as warranted, is in recognition of the
“Spirit of Nebraska’s Wilderness” monumental work done in conjunction
with the First National Bank headquarters building in downtown Omaha.
Medal recipients will be Bruce Lauritzen, Chairman of the Board of the
First National Bank of Omaha, Jim Reeves of JVR and Associates
architects, and Ullberg. Reeves, who passed away prior to the completion
of the project, will be honored posthumously.
“This is a great honor, and although I’m pleased to again share it with
my late friend and colleague Jim Reeves, as well as the visionaries at
First National Bank, I am saddened that Jim couldn’t be here with us,”
said Ullberg. “The Hering Medal has been awarded to some of the most
important artists in America, and it’s humbling to be honored like this
for a second time for my collaboration with Jim.”
This is the 20^th presentation of the Hering Medal in the 48 years since
it was introduced. It is the second time that Ullberg and Jim Reeves
have been honored with a Hering Medal. In 1993, Reeves and Ullberg were
recognized for their work on the Broward Convention Center in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, where Ullberg’s monumental bronze fountain
“Sailfish in Three Stages of Ascending,” is displayed.
Past recipients of the Hering Medal include Paul Manship and Ivan
Mestrovic and architects such as Michael Graves. In 2007, Architect
Friedrich St. Florian and Sculptor Raymond Kaskey were honored for the
National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. The Henry Hering
Medal itself was designed by Albino Manca for a national competition in
1958 and officially accepted February 10, 1959.
Ullberg is a renowned wildlife and marine artist who has done hundreds
of works for museums, municipalities and individuals across the globe.
He is also a major supporter of many wildlife conservation efforts. He
maintains studios in Loveland, Colorado and Corpus Christi, Texas.
*About Kent Ullberg*
A native of Sweden, Ullberg is widely recognized as one of the world’s
leading wildlife sculptors. In 1990, he became the first wildlife artist
since John James Audubon to be elected full academician to the National
Academy, one of the greatest tributes in American Art. Ullberg’s
sculptures have been shown in museums and corporate headquarters around
the world, including the National Museum of Natural History in
Stockholm, Sweden; the National Gallery in Botswana, Africa; the
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.; Exhibition Hall, Beijing,
China; and the Guildhall in London, England. He is also a major
supporter of many wildlife conservation efforts. Ullberg maintains
studios in Loveland, Colo. and Corpus Christi, TX.
He is best known for monumental works he has done for museums and
municipalities from Omaha, Nebraska to Cape Town, South Africa. His Fort
Lauderdale, Florida and Omaha, Nebraska installations are the largest
wildlife bronze compositions ever done, spanning several city blocks.
Ullberg has been honored with numerous prestigious awards including the
Gold Medal for Sculpture in 1981, 1982, 1988, and 1990 and the
prestigious Prix de West Award in 1998, all from The National Academy of
Western Art. He also received a Gold Medal in 1993 from The National
Sculpture Society and a Silver Medal in 2002.
In 1996 he was awarded the Rungius Medal, the highest honor bestowed by
the National Museum of Wildlife Art. The award is given to artists,
authors, conservationists and others who have made significant
contributions to the interpretation and conservation of wildlife and its
habitats. It is named for premier wildlife artist Carl Rungius.
Additionally, in 1993 Ullberg received the Henry Hering Medal from the
National Sculpture Society for outstanding collaboration between
architect and sculptor in a monumental sculpture.
Ullberg is a member of the National Academy, National Sculpture Society,
the American Society of Marine Artists, the National Academy of Western
Art, the Society of Animal Artists, the Society for Wildlife Art of the
Nations, and Allied Artists of America, to name just a few. For more
information, visit www.kentullberg.net
###
Several small sculptures of late Haida artist, Bill Reid, were stolen from the University of British Columbia’s Museum of Anthropology over the weekend, including this lovely piece:
Reid, Bill. Box, 1967. Gold. UBC Museum of Anthropology. MOA ID: Nb1.717 a-b. Image copyright the UBC Museum of Anthropology.
For those of you who may not be familiar with Reid’s work (although chances are if you’ve been to Canada recently, you’ve handled an image of his work: his sculpture The Spirit of Haida Gwaii appears on the back of the Canadian 20-dollar bill, the original sculpture stands in the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC) he is one of Canada’s most celebrated artists.
The son of a Haida mother and father of European descent, Reid was born in British Columbia and was raised in a mainly white world until a trip to his mother’s home village of Skidgate in his early adulthood. It would be a life-altering experience for the young man who learned that his maternal grandfather had been a traditional Haida carver and modern silversmith. After a career detour to become a radio announcer for the CBC, Reid, who had shown artistic abilities and an interest in carving from childhood, took a course in jewellery making and design while working for the CBC in Toronto. When he returned to British Columbia, he set up his own jewellery shop in his basement and immersed himself in his Haida roots. He became involved in Haida art salvage and restoration projects through the University of British Columbia and used the time to study the art forms of his ancestors. Over a career that would span five decades, Reid would help revive what had become a near dead art form: Haida carving and design. Reid died in 1998 after a lengthy battle with Parkinson’s disease.
The work stolen from the University of British Columbia Museum are described as “priceless” and the theft as a “crime against all Canadians”. Speculation has included the sobering thought that the thieves may have stolen the works to melt them down for their value as a precious metal.
A complete list of the items, including three Mexican pieces, can be found on the CBC website where they also have a slide show of the stolen works.
Okay, I think I figured out how to do this: I’m going to look at Wright’s series of people reading letters by candlelight. Benedict Nicholson’s book has black and white reproductions for four such paintings, and I’ll use those for this post, but I’ll also include two in colour.
A Girl Reading Letter by Candlelight, with a Young Man Looking Over Her Shoulder. 1762. Oil on canvas, 27.5 x 35 in.
A Girl Reading Letter by Candlelight, with an Old Man Looking Over Her Shoulder. 1767. Oil on canvas, 28 x 36 in.
A Girl Reading Letter by Candlelight. 1772. Oil on canvas, size unknown.
Old Woman Reading Letter by Candlelight in the Company of a Young Girl. 1772. Oil on canvas, size unknown.
What are the common elements in these paintings:
1.) candlelight provides the (main/only?) light source
2.) the flame itself is hidden, obscured from view
3.) the light defines the forms, it shows us the fore- and mid-ground quite clearly, but obscures the background completely
4.) there are two figures: the reader in the foreground, the observer in the background
5.) the distance between the subject (the letter reader) and the viewer (us) is conversational, almost intimate, we’re just across a small table from them
6.) while the faces and pose of the readers are largely neutral, the second figures display an emotional response to the reader/letter (anger, sadness, joy, distress) and are in action (hand waving near face, rubbing eye, pointing up/towards own head, clasping own hands)
7.) the colour pallette is limited to dark neutrals except for the subjects faces and hands, which are warm tones
8.) with the exception of the final work, the composition is triangular
Next some sketches based on what I’ve learned…
Resources:
The title for this post, “very fine candlelight pieces” comes from a statement made about Wright’s work by James Northcote, an artist contemporary of Wright’s, quoted in W.T. Whitley’s Artists and Their Friends in England, 1700 - 1799, Vol. II. London, 1926.
Nicholson, Benedict. Joseph Wright of Derby: Painter of Light, Vol. I and II. Hew Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Plates 45: A Girl Reading a Letter by Candlelight, with a Young Man Looking Over Her Shoulder, 1762.
Well, if the light’s the thing, how did Wright do it? How did he use light to make engaging works? I’ve been thinking about how to do this and I believe a comparison of two of Wrights paintings, one with basic lighting and one with lighting typical of his “genre” paintings would be instructive. And I think it would be particulary helpful if the two paintings showed similar subject matter. I’ve chosen two of Wright’s cottage paintings, one in daylight and the other at night on fire*:
Image on the left: A Cottage in Needlewood Forest. 1790. Oil on canvas, 50 x 40 in . Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Image copyright the Derby Museum.
Image on the right: Cottage on Fire. 1793. Oil on canvas, 30 x 25 in. Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Image copyright the Derby Museum.
There are a few basic differences compositionally: the main subject in the daylight painting is located in one of the intersections created by dividing the canvas into thirds, while the cottage on fire is more precariously placed at the far edge of the canvas; the cottage in the daylight painting, protected by the hills and woods on either side, is open to the sky above, while the cottage on fire is hemmed in by woods on one side and an imposing castle and hill on the other. But the main difference is in the light.
The daylight cottage is bathed in the warm, natural light of the sun. The other cottage sits in darkness, the only natural source of light, the moon, is obscured by trees and the main light source comes from the cottage itself as it burns and is consumed by fire. In this painting the light isn’t a source of comfort but of drama. In both paintings, however the true source of light is obscured: we cannot see the rising sun in the daylight cottage painting, and although we can see the flames, the front of the night cottage is in silhoutte and we see the rim of flames and the back of the cottage prevents us from seeing the actual fire. The light from the fire, instead of illuminating the landscape, casts deep shadows, further obscuring our vision and increasing the sense of drama in the scene.
Maybe I’ve gone about this the wrong way… the pieces I’m most drawn to in Wright’s work are the interior pieces with an artificial light source: candle- or lamplight… Perhaps I need to look at this again with other examples of his work?
Notes:
* In November 2007 at the Wright of Derby Symposium organised by the University of Liverpool and the Walker Art Gallery, Stephen Daniels, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Nottingham, delivered a presentation titled, “Cottages on Fire” in which he explored Wright’s series of burning cottage paintings and used one other cottage painting for comparison. I’m not sure if Daniels compared these exact paintings, but based on my reading of the abstract of his presentation: http://www.uolevents.org/programmedocs/WrightofDerby_Programme_Speakers.doc he was exploring the image in context of war and illustration of wartime atrocities and panic. Not Wright’s use of light, so I believe I’m safe here taking the same tact to illustrate what I think.
