
English: 
Ladies and gentlemen, a very warm welcome
to the National Gallery.
My name is Matthew Morgan,
and for the next half an hour
we're going to be thinking
about this painting here
by one of my favourite artists,
J.M.W. Turner.
He is not just one
of my favourite British artists,
he is one of my favourite artists
of all time,
and I hope by the end of this talk,
some, if not all, of you
will agree with me.
This is the third lecture
that we are having
in a series of six lectures
where we are thinking about
the history of the National Gallery
in six paintings.
We started at the beginning of the Gallery
with the very first painting, NG 1,
and now we come up
to the middle of the 19th century.
One of the other things
that I want to think about,
to talk about in this lecture,

English: 
Ladies and gentlemen, a very warm welcome
to the National Gallery.
My name is Matthew Morgan,
and for the next half an hour
we're going to be thinking
about this painting here
by one of my favourite artists,
J.M.W. Turner.
He is not just one
of my favourite British artists,
he is one of my favourite artists
of all time,
and I hope by the end of this talk,
some, if not all, of you
will agree with me.
This is the third lecture
that we are having
in a series of six lectures
where we are thinking about
the history of the National Gallery
in six paintings.
We started at the beginning of the Gallery
with the very first painting, NG 1,
and now we come up
to the middle of the 19th century.
One of the other things
that I want to think about,
to talk about in this lecture,

English: 
is the idea of what is displayed:
how does the Gallery,
how do curators decide
on what we see?
And how do those decisions
change over time?
How are they impacted and affected
by what is happening in the wider world,
not just the art world?
This painting, 'The Evening Star',
is a favourite in the National Gallery
by Turner.
It is a picture of a sea scene.
We have the beach here,
the rather dark sea
and this wonderfully painted sky.
I think it's a very calm painting,
a very tranquil painting.
One of the words that often comes to my
mind when thinking about it is "delicate".
There's not a lot of movement
happening here.
Unlike a lot of paintings by Turner,

English: 
is the idea of what is displayed:
how does the Gallery,
how do curators decide
on what we see?
And how do those decisions
change over time?
How are they impacted and affected
by what is happening in the wider world,
not just the art world?
This painting, 'The Evening Star',
is a favourite in the National Gallery
by Turner.
It is a picture of a sea scene.
We have the beach here,
the rather dark sea
and this wonderfully painted sky.
I think it's a very calm painting,
a very tranquil painting.
One of the words that often comes to my
mind when thinking about it is "delicate".
There's not a lot of movement
happening here.
Unlike a lot of paintings by Turner,

English: 
where there's very often
a lot of movement,
he's a very melodramatic painter,
there's very often a lot of narrative
and action going on.
We don't get that here.
In fact, I think you have
to look quite carefully
to see any movement at all,
this little dog here,
a beautiful, fantastic
piece of painting by Turner,
this little dog jumping up and down
on his hind legs.
This boy here with a net over his shoulder
and a creel, a basket, in front of him,
and he's looking into it,
maybe he's about to pull out
something for the dog to eat.
The dog is waiting for a shrimp
or a crab or whatever the boy has got.
But that's really the only movement
that is happening.
It's very still.
The sun, we can see perhaps
behind these clouds
with this pink colour here,
applied with a palette knife,
there is a very strong impasto,

English: 
where there's very often
a lot of movement,
he's a very melodramatic painter,
there's very often a lot of narrative
and action going on.
We don't get that here.
In fact, I think you have
to look quite carefully
to see any movement at all,
this little dog here,
a beautiful, fantastic
piece of painting by Turner,
this little dog jumping up and down
on his hind legs.
This boy here with a net over his shoulder
and a creel, a basket, in front of him,
and he's looking into it,
maybe he's about to pull out
something for the dog to eat.
The dog is waiting for a shrimp
or a crab or whatever the boy has got.
But that's really the only movement
that is happening.
It's very still.
The sun, we can see perhaps
behind these clouds
with this pink colour here,
applied with a palette knife,
there is a very strong impasto,

English: 
a very strong thickness
to the paint happening here,
with these, I think,
rather wonderful grey, purplish clouds.
And we are this scene,
we are at this moment
where the sun is setting,
but it's not yet night-time.
We are at this transitional moment
a liminal moment, perhaps,
between day and night.
And in this moment, at this time, we have
a star coming out, I'm pointing up here,
you may not be able to see
from where you're sitting,
it's very small,
also painted with impasto,
there is the contour of the paint,
you can see on the canvas,
it's been pushed on.
You might more easily be able to see
the star's reflection here in the sea.
And this is one of Turner's
continuing obsessions

English: 
a very strong thickness
to the paint happening here,
with these, I think,
rather wonderful grey, purplish clouds.
And we are this scene,
we are at this moment
where the sun is setting,
but it's not yet night-time.
We are at this transitional moment
a liminal moment, perhaps,
between day and night.
And in this moment, at this time, we have
a star coming out, I'm pointing up here,
you may not be able to see
from where you're sitting,
it's very small,
also painted with impasto,
there is the contour of the paint,
you can see on the canvas,
it's been pushed on.
You might more easily be able to see
the star's reflection here in the sea.
And this is one of Turner's
continuing obsessions

English: 
throughout his artistic career,
the effect of light on water.
So, we have this very calm,
very relaxed, very delicate painting.
It's been described
as a "symphony of colours".
Turner gave this painting
to the National Gallery,
along with a large number
of other paintings.
We don't know exactly
when this painting was painted
and it's been suggested
that it might have been painted
in about 1830.
And this suggestion comes from a linkage
that an art historian
called Alfred Finberg made
when he was cataloguing Turner's
watercolours and works on paper.
And in one of Turner's workbooks,
he discovered a poem
that Turner had been trying to write
about just this very moment
between night and day,

English: 
throughout his artistic career,
the effect of light on water.
So, we have this very calm,
very relaxed, very delicate painting.
It's been described
as a "symphony of colours".
Turner gave this painting
to the National Gallery,
along with a large number
of other paintings.
We don't know exactly
when this painting was painted
and it's been suggested
that it might have been painted
in about 1830.
And this suggestion comes from a linkage
that an art historian
called Alfred Finberg made
when he was cataloguing Turner's
watercolours and works on paper.
And in one of Turner's workbooks,
he discovered a poem
that Turner had been trying to write
about just this very moment
between night and day,

English: 
between light and dark.
And so, Finberg called this painting
'The Evening Star'.
Prior to that,
it had been called simply "117".
That's the number,
in fact, it's chalked on the back
of this painting, number 117.
Turner gave this painting to the
National Gallery, well... sort of, yes.
When Turner died in 1851,
his will stipulated
that all his oil paintings
should be given to the nation.
And, in fact, Turner started
writing his will in about 1831,
about the time when this painting
might have been painted.
Was he thinking about this painting
when instructing his solicitor
to write his will?
How can we ever know?
Turner's will was contested
by his relatives.
They didn't want Turner's intentions
to be carried out,

English: 
between light and dark.
And so, Finberg called this painting
'The Evening Star'.
Prior to that,
it had been called simply "117".
That's the number,
in fact, it's chalked on the back
of this painting, number 117.
Turner gave this painting to the
National Gallery, well... sort of, yes.
When Turner died in 1851,
his will stipulated
that all his oil paintings
should be given to the nation.
And, in fact, Turner started
writing his will in about 1831,
about the time when this painting
might have been painted.
Was he thinking about this painting
when instructing his solicitor
to write his will?
How can we ever know?
Turner's will was contested
by his relatives.
They didn't want Turner's intentions
to be carried out,

English: 
because what Turner wanted was his legacy
to be enshrined
so that subsequent generations
of artists, of art lovers, of the public,
could be exposed to his paintings,
could engage with his work.
Initially, he wanted to establish
a charity for poor artists.
Initially, he also wanted to have
a special gallery for his paintings
where they could be exhibited
to help raise money for this charity.
His will then went through a number
of different manifestations.
He wrote and rewrote it a number of times.
And it's quite complicated, really, to
know exactly what it was that he did want.
There seem to be a number
of conflicting things going on there.
So, when his relatives contested it,
it was taken all the way
through the courts,
and, in fact, it took about six years,
until 1856,

English: 
because what Turner wanted was his legacy
to be enshrined
so that subsequent generations
of artists, of art lovers, of the public,
could be exposed to his paintings,
could engage with his work.
Initially, he wanted to establish
a charity for poor artists.
Initially, he also wanted to have
a special gallery for his paintings
where they could be exhibited
to help raise money for this charity.
His will then went through a number
of different manifestations.
He wrote and rewrote it a number of times.
And it's quite complicated, really, to
know exactly what it was that he did want.
There seem to be a number
of conflicting things going on there.
So, when his relatives contested it,
it was taken all the way
through the courts,
and, in fact, it took about six years,
until 1856,

English: 
before a decision was made
by the Court of Chancery.
And the decision was the relatives could
have all the money, they were delighted.
The nation could have all the oils,
finished and unfinished,
and all the works on paper
in Turner's possession.
Now, that may or may not be
what Turner wanted,
it's not, as I say, clear from his will
whether the finished works were separate
from the unfinished works.
There were about 100 paintings
that were considered to be finished,
about 182 paintings
that were considered to be unfinished
and over 19,000 works on paper.
Think about that for a moment,
19,000 works on paper.
That's an absolutely huge amount of art,
and the National Gallery, frankly,
didn't know what to do with it.

English: 
before a decision was made
by the Court of Chancery.
And the decision was the relatives could
have all the money, they were delighted.
The nation could have all the oils,
finished and unfinished,
and all the works on paper
in Turner's possession.
Now, that may or may not be
what Turner wanted,
it's not, as I say, clear from his will
whether the finished works were separate
from the unfinished works.
There were about 100 paintings
that were considered to be finished,
about 182 paintings
that were considered to be unfinished
and over 19,000 works on paper.
Think about that for a moment,
19,000 works on paper.
That's an absolutely huge amount of art,
and the National Gallery, frankly,
didn't know what to do with it.

English: 
We were not as big then as we are now
in terms of our size,
in terms of the galleries
that are available to us.
And suddenly to find that we had
100 paintings by one artist
that we were forced to exhibit,
required to exhibit by law,
upset the view, the vision,
that people had of what
the National Gallery was,
much less what could we do
with all the unfinished paintings,
all the works that were
considered to be unexhibitable.
And this was one of them,
which is why it's called,
or initially called "Number 117".
It didn't even warrant a name,
it didn't even warrant a title.
And when we think
that in Turner's own lifetime,
paintings that he exhibited
at the Royal Academy
were considered by critics
to be unfinished,
he was criticised for his use of colour,

English: 
We were not as big then as we are now
in terms of our size,
in terms of the galleries
that are available to us.
And suddenly to find that we had
100 paintings by one artist
that we were forced to exhibit,
required to exhibit by law,
upset the view, the vision,
that people had of what
the National Gallery was,
much less what could we do
with all the unfinished paintings,
all the works that were
considered to be unexhibitable.
And this was one of them,
which is why it's called,
or initially called "Number 117".
It didn't even warrant a name,
it didn't even warrant a title.
And when we think
that in Turner's own lifetime,
paintings that he exhibited
at the Royal Academy
were considered by critics
to be unfinished,
he was criticised for his use of colour,

English: 
he was criticised
for his fugitive effects,
he was criticised for the indistinction
of some of his finished works.
When we think about that
and look at this painting,
I think it can come as no surprise
that people at the time
did not consider this to be worthy
of being shown to members of the public.
Now, I can see some of you are
a little perturbed by that very thought.
We'll maybe come to that a bit later.
So, the National Gallery had
a problem on its hands.
What do we do with all these paintings?
One option was that
we exhibited them elsewhere,
and for a while some of them
were exhibited in South Kensington,
for a while some of them
were exhibited in Clarence House.
But that could not last forever.
If we think about...
...the bulk of paintings by Turner
and we think about this particular
painting, if we look carefully at it...

English: 
he was criticised
for his fugitive effects,
he was criticised for the indistinction
of some of his finished works.
When we think about that
and look at this painting,
I think it can come as no surprise
that people at the time
did not consider this to be worthy
of being shown to members of the public.
Now, I can see some of you are
a little perturbed by that very thought.
We'll maybe come to that a bit later.
So, the National Gallery had
a problem on its hands.
What do we do with all these paintings?
One option was that
we exhibited them elsewhere,
and for a while some of them
were exhibited in South Kensington,
for a while some of them
were exhibited in Clarence House.
But that could not last forever.
If we think about...
...the bulk of paintings by Turner
and we think about this particular
painting, if we look carefully at it...

English: 
...is it finished? What do we think?
If we look hard, can we make an opinion?
Can we judge?
Well, lots of thing about it,
to me, look very unfinished.
Here, there is a sort of a mark
and it looks very much like there may
at one point have been a boat
which Turner has painted over.
If we look down here, particularly,
there are all sorts of painted marks,
very indistinct,
it's not clear, I think,
what Turner's intention might have been.
So, maybe this painting was unfinished.
Perhaps Turner started it...
...and decided for reasons
that we can never know
that it wasn't going the way
that he wanted.
He started, he worked a little bit of it,
he covered bits over,
then he thought, "No, this isn't
going the direction I want it to,
I'm going to put it down
and put my efforts into something else."

English: 
...is it finished? What do we think?
If we look hard, can we make an opinion?
Can we judge?
Well, lots of thing about it,
to me, look very unfinished.
Here, there is a sort of a mark
and it looks very much like there may
at one point have been a boat
which Turner has painted over.
If we look down here, particularly,
there are all sorts of painted marks,
very indistinct,
it's not clear, I think,
what Turner's intention might have been.
So, maybe this painting was unfinished.
Perhaps Turner started it...
...and decided for reasons
that we can never know
that it wasn't going the way
that he wanted.
He started, he worked a little bit of it,
he covered bits over,
then he thought, "No, this isn't
going the direction I want it to,
I'm going to put it down
and put my efforts into something else."

English: 
And so it just happened to be
in his studio when he died,
and we got it as part of the bequest.
But...
...maybe he did consider it
to be finished.
Maybe for him this painting is saying
everything he wanted to say.
Maybe his experiments with light,
his experiments with colour,
for him, were working beautifully
and perfectly here.
But he recognised
that members of the public
in mid-19th century Britain
or early-19th century Britain
were unready for this kind of painting,
so he put it to one side
for his own personal enjoyment.
Now, we have no way of knowing.
No way of finding out what
Turner's opinion of this painting was.
He left no records,
we have nothing written down.
Does that matter? Does that matter to you?
When you look at it...
...does it matter what Turner thought?

English: 
And so it just happened to be
in his studio when he died,
and we got it as part of the bequest.
But...
...maybe he did consider it
to be finished.
Maybe for him this painting is saying
everything he wanted to say.
Maybe his experiments with light,
his experiments with colour,
for him, were working beautifully
and perfectly here.
But he recognised
that members of the public
in mid-19th century Britain
or early-19th century Britain
were unready for this kind of painting,
so he put it to one side
for his own personal enjoyment.
Now, we have no way of knowing.
No way of finding out what
Turner's opinion of this painting was.
He left no records,
we have nothing written down.
Does that matter? Does that matter to you?
When you look at it...
...does it matter what Turner thought?

English: 
Does it matter if it's finished?
Can we enjoy it
as an equivalent work of art
to, say, "The Fighting Temeraire"
even if we think it is not finished?
How are we to take a painting
that we accept may not be the conclusion
of Turner's intention?
You've got to make your own minds
up about this, I can't tell you.
But what I can say
is that for curators and critics,
after Turner died,
this was a very important question.
About six years after the Turner bequest
arrived at the National Gallery,
there was an exhibition here
of watercolours,
and quite a number
of unfinished watercolours,
watercolours that were recognised
as not being finished, were exhibited.
Now, I think that's remarkable.
In a very short space of time,
Turner's reputation had gone

English: 
Does it matter if it's finished?
Can we enjoy it
as an equivalent work of art
to, say, "The Fighting Temeraire"
even if we think it is not finished?
How are we to take a painting
that we accept may not be the conclusion
of Turner's intention?
You've got to make your own minds
up about this, I can't tell you.
But what I can say
is that for curators and critics,
after Turner died,
this was a very important question.
About six years after the Turner bequest
arrived at the National Gallery,
there was an exhibition here
of watercolours,
and quite a number
of unfinished watercolours,
watercolours that were recognised
as not being finished, were exhibited.
Now, I think that's remarkable.
In a very short space of time,
Turner's reputation had gone

English: 
from one where his finished works were
considered to be too out there and weird
to one where his unfinished works
could be considered to be exhibited
at the National Gallery.
And it's been suggested,
and I think I slightly agree,
that this process of showing
his unfinished works
together with his finished works
allows us to think about him
and what he's doing in a new way
that we don't get
with lots of other artists.
We don't get a chance to see
the unfinished works
of very many painters,
much less shown
next to their finished works.
And if we accept that there's
an equivalence between the two,
maybe when we come to this
we can accept it as a work of art
in its own right.
Now, lots of critics at the time
said that these sort of things
should be shown to members of the public,
because they helped us to learn,
they helped us to learn
what Turner was doing.
His working methods were
very carefully protected by him,

English: 
from one where his finished works were
considered to be too out there and weird
to one where his unfinished works
could be considered to be exhibited
at the National Gallery.
And it's been suggested,
and I think I slightly agree,
that this process of showing
his unfinished works
together with his finished works
allows us to think about him
and what he's doing in a new way
that we don't get
with lots of other artists.
We don't get a chance to see
the unfinished works
of very many painters,
much less shown
next to their finished works.
And if we accept that there's
an equivalence between the two,
maybe when we come to this
we can accept it as a work of art
in its own right.
Now, lots of critics at the time
said that these sort of things
should be shown to members of the public,
because they helped us to learn,
they helped us to learn
what Turner was doing.
His working methods were
very carefully protected by him,

English: 
he didn't allow very many people
to come and watch him paint.
He would come on varnishing days
at the Royal Academy
in a bravura performance
before members of the public came in,
but only other artists
could see him adding bits,
taking bits away from paintings,
then walk out without talking to anyone.
But nobody really saw him in his studio.
Nobody followed his technique.
And it was thought that paintings
like this might help us know
how Turner produced the paintings
that he produced.
So, we can see, for instance,
that he started
with this blue, beautiful blue sky
that comes down,
comes all the way down,
that perhaps is the underpainting,
and then he painted gradually on top,
the beautiful clouds,
the grey clouds here,
and then finally the colours of the sun.
So, we can see the process
by which Turner went through,
we can see a little bit of,
to use a phrase of Ruskin's,

English: 
he didn't allow very many people
to come and watch him paint.
He would come on varnishing days
at the Royal Academy
in a bravura performance
before members of the public came in,
but only other artists
could see him adding bits,
taking bits away from paintings,
then walk out without talking to anyone.
But nobody really saw him in his studio.
Nobody followed his technique.
And it was thought that paintings
like this might help us know
how Turner produced the paintings
that he produced.
So, we can see, for instance,
that he started
with this blue, beautiful blue sky
that comes down,
comes all the way down,
that perhaps is the underpainting,
and then he painted gradually on top,
the beautiful clouds,
the grey clouds here,
and then finally the colours of the sun.
So, we can see the process
by which Turner went through,
we can see a little bit of,
to use a phrase of Ruskin's,

English: 
"the master's mind",
the movement of the master's mind.
So, when we look at a painting like this,
it's educative.
If we were artists,
we could say to ourselves,
"Yes, now, suddenly I can see
what Turner was doing,
I don't have to work it out
by looking at the finished paintings.
I can work it out by looking at
a halfway stage, perhaps."
Okay, so that's quite interesting.
Other critics said we should
be looking at this painting
not to learn how to paint like Turner,
but as a warning:
"Don't paint like Turner!"
For a long time after he died,
it was widely held
that Turner's great paintings,
his important paintings,
the peak of his career,
was at the beginning of his life,
around about the 1820s perhaps,
1810 to 1820s.
Those were the paintings
that showed him at his best.
And by the time we get to the 1830s,
he's already on a downward spiral.

English: 
"the master's mind",
the movement of the master's mind.
So, when we look at a painting like this,
it's educative.
If we were artists,
we could say to ourselves,
"Yes, now, suddenly I can see
what Turner was doing,
I don't have to work it out
by looking at the finished paintings.
I can work it out by looking at
a halfway stage, perhaps."
Okay, so that's quite interesting.
Other critics said we should
be looking at this painting
not to learn how to paint like Turner,
but as a warning:
"Don't paint like Turner!"
For a long time after he died,
it was widely held
that Turner's great paintings,
his important paintings,
the peak of his career,
was at the beginning of his life,
around about the 1820s perhaps,
1810 to 1820s.
Those were the paintings
that showed him at his best.
And by the time we get to the 1830s,
he's already on a downward spiral.

English: 
By the time we get to the 1840s,
he's frankly just a bit crazy.
And by the time we get
to that time in his career,
lots of critics were saying
that his painting style had become
one of total effect,
he's only painting light effects,
he's only painting things
that are going to impress us,
in the same way a rollercoaster
might impress us,
it's fun, but ultimately empty.
That's what people said
about those sort of paintings.
And this painting, I think,
people would have said exactly that about.
It's all about effect.
It's all about light, it's indistinct.
What is a landscape artist doing
painting this?
This is surely not a representation
of what you can see.
If Turner was stood here,
he could not see this.
You could not see this, this is not real
in the sense that this is not capturing
something that can be seen
by us in our world.

English: 
By the time we get to the 1840s,
he's frankly just a bit crazy.
And by the time we get
to that time in his career,
lots of critics were saying
that his painting style had become
one of total effect,
he's only painting light effects,
he's only painting things
that are going to impress us,
in the same way a rollercoaster
might impress us,
it's fun, but ultimately empty.
That's what people said
about those sort of paintings.
And this painting, I think,
people would have said exactly that about.
It's all about effect.
It's all about light, it's indistinct.
What is a landscape artist doing
painting this?
This is surely not a representation
of what you can see.
If Turner was stood here,
he could not see this.
You could not see this, this is not real
in the sense that this is not capturing
something that can be seen
by us in our world.

English: 
This is, to use a very loaded word,
an impression.
Turner's impression
of what might be seen here.
Turner is thinking about
what light effects might occur
if we could see this.
This is not about observed reality.
And for lots of critics,
and artists as well,
that was not what art was about.
Art was not about these kinds of effects,
art was about getting us
to think about our world
by watching it, by observing it.
So, it could have an education effect
by putting us off.
One of the effects of the Turner bequest
is that suddenly everybody, all of us,
had access to an enormous amount
of work by one artist.
In fact, it's true to say
that today the Turner bequest is
the single biggest group of works of art

English: 
This is, to use a very loaded word,
an impression.
Turner's impression
of what might be seen here.
Turner is thinking about
what light effects might occur
if we could see this.
This is not about observed reality.
And for lots of critics,
and artists as well,
that was not what art was about.
Art was not about these kinds of effects,
art was about getting us
to think about our world
by watching it, by observing it.
So, it could have an education effect
by putting us off.
One of the effects of the Turner bequest
is that suddenly everybody, all of us,
had access to an enormous amount
of work by one artist.
In fact, it's true to say
that today the Turner bequest is
the single biggest group of works of art

English: 
by any one artist in a public collection.
So, whatever you thought about Turner,
whether you thought these sort
of paintings were not very good,
or whether you thought he was amazing,
you couldn't escape him.
So, the effect of giving his paintings
to the nation
was in some ways exactly what he wanted:
his legacy continued
again and again and again.
And whenever people
thought about British art,
they had to consider Turner,
they couldn't ignore him,
because he was right here
at the National Gallery.
But, of course, things change.
Critical opinions change.
And, more to the point...
...the art world changed.
Very dramatically, in fact.
In France, in around the 1870s,
an artist started to take a different view
of what landscape painting might be,

English: 
by any one artist in a public collection.
So, whatever you thought about Turner,
whether you thought these sort
of paintings were not very good,
or whether you thought he was amazing,
you couldn't escape him.
So, the effect of giving his paintings
to the nation
was in some ways exactly what he wanted:
his legacy continued
again and again and again.
And whenever people
thought about British art,
they had to consider Turner,
they couldn't ignore him,
because he was right here
at the National Gallery.
But, of course, things change.
Critical opinions change.
And, more to the point...
...the art world changed.
Very dramatically, in fact.
In France, in around the 1870s,
an artist started to take a different view
of what landscape painting might be,

English: 
and they were, and I've already used
the word, the Impressionists.
They were painting not exactly
what we could all see
if we were looking at this scene,
they were painting their feelings,
their impressions,
of what that scene might be.
And it didn't take very long
for British critics...
...to start making connections
between what they thought
the Impressionists were doing
and what they thought Turner was doing,
and they started to write about Turner
not as somebody who was a great artist
at the beginning of the 19th century
and then went into a sad decline later,
they started writing about Turner as
somebody who was ahead of the curve.
He was modern, he was contemporary.
He was the Impressionists'
avant la lettre.
He, in fact, blazed a path
for these French artists,
and why that was important
was because it enabled British art critics

English: 
and they were, and I've already used
the word, the Impressionists.
They were painting not exactly
what we could all see
if we were looking at this scene,
they were painting their feelings,
their impressions,
of what that scene might be.
And it didn't take very long
for British critics...
...to start making connections
between what they thought
the Impressionists were doing
and what they thought Turner was doing,
and they started to write about Turner
not as somebody who was a great artist
at the beginning of the 19th century
and then went into a sad decline later,
they started writing about Turner as
somebody who was ahead of the curve.
He was modern, he was contemporary.
He was the Impressionists'
avant la lettre.
He, in fact, blazed a path
for these French artists,
and why that was important
was because it enabled British art critics

English: 
to say that, effectively,
Britain had invented the Impressionists.
And, funnily enough, in this country
that view was very popular.
So, towards the end of the 19th century,
there was a marked shift
in the way that people
thought about Turner.
Suddenly, all the things
that Turner had done wrong
in the end of his career,
his use of colour,
his interest in light,
his interest in form,
which people didn't like
in his own lifetime,
now became exactly the very thing
that people liked most.
What impact might that have had
on the National Gallery?
How might these critical
changes of opinion
and changes in the art world
have impacted on what happened here?
Well, in about 1905,
the trustees of the National Gallery
got together
and they decided
that there were 22 paintings
which previously had been thought of
as completely unexhibitable,

English: 
to say that, effectively,
Britain had invented the Impressionists.
And, funnily enough, in this country
that view was very popular.
So, towards the end of the 19th century,
there was a marked shift
in the way that people
thought about Turner.
Suddenly, all the things
that Turner had done wrong
in the end of his career,
his use of colour,
his interest in light,
his interest in form,
which people didn't like
in his own lifetime,
now became exactly the very thing
that people liked most.
What impact might that have had
on the National Gallery?
How might these critical
changes of opinion
and changes in the art world
have impacted on what happened here?
Well, in about 1905,
the trustees of the National Gallery
got together
and they decided
that there were 22 paintings
which previously had been thought of
as completely unexhibitable,

English: 
trash, rubbish.
In fact, most of them
hadn't even been framed.
Lots of them had been rolled up
and left in storage underground.
So, 22 of these paintings were retrieved
from the depths of the National Gallery,
framed, cleaned if necessary,
and exhibited
in what became a very successful
and famous exhibition
in a new gallery,
or rather a new wing, at the time,
of the National Gallery,
the National Gallery of British Art,
opened in 1897,
and we might now know it today
by its current name of the Tate,
it became a Tate in 1932.
It was recognised by the  
trustees of the National Gallery
that we didn't have enough space
to show works of Western art
and to be a national gallery
of British art.
We simply couldn't put
everything together.

English: 
trash, rubbish.
In fact, most of them
hadn't even been framed.
Lots of them had been rolled up
and left in storage underground.
So, 22 of these paintings were retrieved
from the depths of the National Gallery,
framed, cleaned if necessary,
and exhibited
in what became a very successful
and famous exhibition
in a new gallery,
or rather a new wing, at the time,
of the National Gallery,
the National Gallery of British Art,
opened in 1897,
and we might now know it today
by its current name of the Tate,
it became a Tate in 1932.
It was recognised by the  
trustees of the National Gallery
that we didn't have enough space
to show works of Western art
and to be a national gallery
of British art.
We simply couldn't put
everything together.

English: 
So, when the National Gallery
of British Art was established,
it was a great opportunity
to send lots of works
that we had to them.
Now, the National Gallery
has never really collected
British paintings,
not in a systematic way,
and at this time, most of the paintings
that we had, just like the Turner bequest,
had come to the National Gallery
from bequests, people had left them to us.
In fact, towards the end of Turner's life,
when it was known his will left
his paintings to the National Gallery,
we decided not to buy any,
we'd get all of his,
so we didn't need to spend
any money on his.
So, we had a very good,
but not very focused collection
of paintings by British artists.
And gradually
they were sent off to Millbank
to what's now Tate Britain.
And this exhibition in the National
Gallery of British Art in 1905,
as I say, was a huge success,

English: 
So, when the National Gallery
of British Art was established,
it was a great opportunity
to send lots of works
that we had to them.
Now, the National Gallery
has never really collected
British paintings,
not in a systematic way,
and at this time, most of the paintings
that we had, just like the Turner bequest,
had come to the National Gallery
from bequests, people had left them to us.
In fact, towards the end of Turner's life,
when it was known his will left
his paintings to the National Gallery,
we decided not to buy any,
we'd get all of his,
so we didn't need to spend
any money on his.
So, we had a very good,
but not very focused collection
of paintings by British artists.
And gradually
they were sent off to Millbank
to what's now Tate Britain.
And this exhibition in the National
Gallery of British Art in 1905,
as I say, was a huge success,

English: 
and this painting particularly,
people focused on
and people commented on the fact
that it was incredible.
They liked the effect of the light
coming through.
They loved the calmness,
the stillness of it.
They loved the fact
that it seemed very modern.
Very modernist, perhaps.
So, in the space of about 50 years...
...opinion had changed so radically
from despising
these sort of works by Turners
to actually preferring
these kind of works by Turner.
I don't know what you guys think
when you have a look
at the paintings along this wall,
or if you go
to the Turner Wing of the Tate
and have a look at his paintings,
what paintings you like,
whether you like these later works
or whether you like the earlier works.
But one of the effects
of the change of opinion

English: 
and this painting particularly,
people focused on
and people commented on the fact
that it was incredible.
They liked the effect of the light
coming through.
They loved the calmness,
the stillness of it.
They loved the fact
that it seemed very modern.
Very modernist, perhaps.
So, in the space of about 50 years...
...opinion had changed so radically
from despising
these sort of works by Turners
to actually preferring
these kind of works by Turner.
I don't know what you guys think
when you have a look
at the paintings along this wall,
or if you go
to the Turner Wing of the Tate
and have a look at his paintings,
what paintings you like,
whether you like these later works
or whether you like the earlier works.
But one of the effects
of the change of opinion

English: 
has been that not only do more people
like these sort of works,
but these sort of works are preferred
because they have no content.
There is no narrative here.
What is happening with the boy
and the dog? We don't know.
But we're not intended
to connect this to a poem
or a literary source.
But lots of Turner's paintings are.
Lots of Turner's paintings
are specifically linked
to other sources, that's where
he gets his inspiration from.
And for a long time, that meant
that people ignored
all those things about Turner,
all the things that placed him
in his own lifetime,
things that not just Turner was doing,
but his contemporaries were doing as well,
and thinking about painting
in terms of how it connected to poetry
or the Bible or classical literature.
And I think part of the reason
that we have jettisoned
some of that thinking about Turner is that
we don't think about those sort of things,
we don't read the same poems
Turner read,
we don’t read the Bible
the way Turner read it,
we don't read classical literature
anymore.

English: 
has been that not only do more people
like these sort of works,
but these sort of works are preferred
because they have no content.
There is no narrative here.
What is happening with the boy
and the dog? We don't know.
But we're not intended
to connect this to a poem
or a literary source.
But lots of Turner's paintings are.
Lots of Turner's paintings
are specifically linked
to other sources, that's where
he gets his inspiration from.
And for a long time, that meant
that people ignored
all those things about Turner,
all the things that placed him
in his own lifetime,
things that not just Turner was doing,
but his contemporaries were doing as well,
and thinking about painting
in terms of how it connected to poetry
or the Bible or classical literature.
And I think part of the reason
that we have jettisoned
some of that thinking about Turner is that
we don't think about those sort of things,
we don't read the same poems
Turner read,
we don’t read the Bible
the way Turner read it,
we don't read classical literature
anymore.

English: 
So, those references,
that for Turner's contemporaries
would have been completely well-known,
to us are opaque,
we don't understand them.
Whereas when we look at this,
we don't need any references.
We just need to be able to accept
Turner's use of paint in front of us.
So, I mentioned that paintings
by British artists
started going to the Tate.
And the decisions as to what should go
and what should not go
were very often not minuted,
so we don't really know how the trustees
and curators came to their decisions.
But we do know that they decided
to keep some paintings
because they related to paintings
by artists that we have here
from the rest of Europe
so they could be seen within
a bigger context of European painting.
But we also know that they made
some decisions on what to keep
because people liked them,
they wanted popular paintings
that people would come and see,
not much has changed, perhaps.

English: 
So, those references,
that for Turner's contemporaries
would have been completely well-known,
to us are opaque,
we don't understand them.
Whereas when we look at this,
we don't need any references.
We just need to be able to accept
Turner's use of paint in front of us.
So, I mentioned that paintings
by British artists
started going to the Tate.
And the decisions as to what should go
and what should not go
were very often not minuted,
so we don't really know how the trustees
and curators came to their decisions.
But we do know that they decided
to keep some paintings
because they related to paintings
by artists that we have here
from the rest of Europe
so they could be seen within
a bigger context of European painting.
But we also know that they made
some decisions on what to keep
because people liked them,
they wanted popular paintings
that people would come and see,
not much has changed, perhaps.

English: 
So, although this painting went to Tate,
in fact, it's been to Tate three times
and back again,
it's always come back,
because I think that it is recognised
that this painting does connect to people,
despite the fact that
in the beginning of its life
it was considered to be unexhibitable,
to be not worth showing.
Now, it's incredibly popular,
it's a painting that people love.
It's a painting that maybe
doesn't connect us
to the story of Western art,
it maybe doesn't connect us to some
of the earliest paintings that we have,
but it connects us,
I think, not deliberately,
but it is a stepping stone
from the paintings in the National Gallery
to the more modernist paintings
in the Tate.
It's a way of looking at what we have
and thinking about how that impacts
on future appreciation of art
and the future display of art.
Thank you very much indeed.

English: 
So, although this painting went to Tate,
in fact, it's been to Tate three times
and back again,
it's always come back,
because I think that it is recognised
that this painting does connect to people,
despite the fact that
in the beginning of its life
it was considered to be unexhibitable,
to be not worth showing.
Now, it's incredibly popular,
it's a painting that people love.
It's a painting that maybe
doesn't connect us
to the story of Western art,
it maybe doesn't connect us to some
of the earliest paintings that we have,
but it connects us,
I think, not deliberately,
but it is a stepping stone
from the paintings in the National Gallery
to the more modernist paintings
in the Tate.
It's a way of looking at what we have
and thinking about how that impacts
on future appreciation of art
and the future display of art.
Thank you very much indeed.
