Making my random way through London, I bumped into The National Gallery and decided to throw away any lazy hesitations and go inside (again and again, as there is always something we’ve definitely not noticed when we were there previous times). I was lucky to have a ‘museum’ mood, so I took my time to notice and search for inexistent mysteries or conceptual misinterpretations (naive, i know). I stopped doing that as soon as I discovered the ‘Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries’ gallery which sounded a bit too pompous for the exhibition itself (to be honest), which resembled a scientific research of the paint surface rather than an appealing exhibition of controversies. For those who are really interested in the science of painting , it is a ‘must-see’ exhibition, though. For those who enjoy improving their vocabulary with random words such as ‘dendrochronology’(tree-ring dating), it is a ‘must see’, as well.
Revenons a nos moutons…This museum trip made me oscillate a bit between different thoughts. The oscillation was provoked by a detail that attracted my attention on many paintings: angels. While browsing several masterpieces (mostly focused on biblical moments), my eyes stopped on one of the most innocent paintings I might have ever seen, a painting by Lucas Cranach the Elder, entitled ‘Cupid complaining to Venus’. Cupid is (as you might have guessed) portrayed as a child who is stung by bees while trying to taste a bit of honey. The message of the painting is revealed in a short verse combination which says that life is made of pleasure and pain. I took a closer look on the images of angels that were portrayed in the following paintings and I thought that our mind is so used to the idea that a biblical-themed painting must have the angelic element, that we don’t even seem to notice these creatures anymore. I went straight to the museum’s bookshop and tried to find answers to such questions as ‘when and how were angels created?’ , ‘why are angels generally painted as children?’, etc.
These questions found their answers but I remained with a vague feeling that angels lost their initial spiritual and even philosophical status. Angels can be found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, in a constantly thriving society based on consumerism, these winged creatures seem to survive. Lucky stuff. Is this survival genuinely artificial? Maybe. The concept of an ‘angel’ remains popular despite the descending church attendance; they appear on St. Valentine’s postcards and are kitsch nicknames for lovers. The angels that once supported Adam in Michelangelo’s masterpiece are now Charlie’s Angels. The angel which Rubens illustrated in ‘The departure of Lot and his family Sodom’ is probably now lost on a T-Shirt, or a mug, or on the right cup of a bra.
The cultural assumption is in a constant change (Jeez!). Angels are given a feminine portrayal, wings become a sexy accessory for striptease clubs and so on. Or is this the tendency to recover a certain lost innocence? A person suggested that it might resemble the tendency to show the world that ‘angelism’ can exist everywhere. Or probably it’s just making use of something both meaning and looking ‘sweet’.
