It's easy to slip into accustomed ways of experiencing things - definitely something to which I'm prone - and in the spirit of avoiding that kind of laziness of the imagination, I went into the Nolan exhibition determined to open myself to whatever it might hold.
One thing that was striking about the exhibition is the extent to which it highlights the relationship between Nolan's travels and the art he produced, with dramatics shifts in not only subject matter but also style seemingly closely correlated to the particular places through which he was passing or had recently passed at the times of their creation; my favourites, as far as I can remember (it was a couple of weeks ago now), were the deep, craggy central Australia rockscapes and the second series of Ned Kellys (the later, messianic ones as opposed to the more famous earlier ones) which if I remember correctly were inspired by his exposure to sacred art in Italy. Also striking were the colours he used, particularly the vivid azures (which always strike a chord) - those, and some other aspects, put me a bit in mind of James Gleeson's stuff. And some cool tricks with perspective, too, including a recurring trope of things appearing too large or 'foregrounded' in a scene relative to everything else.
Overall, though, it wasn't especially my thing. I liked bits, but nothing really spoke to me - some engaged me viscerally but fleetingly, others tugged at more critical/analytical/experience-of-experiential parts of me but similarly didn't really lodge...well, we like what we like, and increasingly so, I suppose.
(w/ Jade T)
