A lot of paintings in the gallery were very nice, although still somewhat amateurish. It was still neat to see the pieces, even though they looked as if Pardee was learning techniques and experimenting as he went. Most of the pieces looked the same, in much the same way that pieces created in a classroom environment would. While I pass these judgements as if I'm an expert on the subject, the truth is that Hearne Pardee can paint better than I can.
My biggest complaint about the gallery was that it was poorly lit. It was dim and hard to make out the details on the paintings. I realize that this is so that the paintings don't get damaged and fade, but it was still a minor frustration.
While they did have spotlights on the paintings, they were generally one above the other with only one spotlight. One piece would be well illuminated while the other was in shadow, or both would be half illuminated. Also, the drab white of the walls was so boring as to drain the liveliness from the colors of the paintings.
On the whole, the gallery was pretty good for having a student curator. The organization was decent and the pieces were very nicely rendered. It was too bad that this particular show didn't last longer; I would have liked to visit it again.
This wasn't student work, Amarylis. They were travel sketches by a professional artist, not fully rendered work. Always read the didactic texts offered in exhibitions and include dates and titles of the shows in your reviews. Information - who, what, why, where, when - always goes in reviews. Works on paper are not supposed to be shown in bright light because it will damage (discolor eventually) the paper and certain water color pigments.
ReplyDelete