Art theory

Wine: The Medium of Choice for the Avant Garde?

by
Wine: The Medium of Choice for the Avant Garde?

The art world, that great machine of invention and secrecy, is alive at present with an unusual rumour. It has been said,quietly, but with enough persistence to warrant attention,that a painter of some repute has begun to work not in oil, nor in acrylic, but in wine.

Sources close to his circle speak of a practice both radical and meticulous: the use of different châteaux and vintages as one would select pigments from a carefully arranged palette. A Margaux for its velvety crimson, a Saint-Émilion for its earthy density, a Sancerre for its pale, almost translucent washes. Each bottle, if the stories are true, is decanted not into a glass but onto the brush, its terroir destined for canvas rather than palate.

The reports, if accurate, carry striking implications. Wine, unlike paint, is unstable, volatile, prone to oxidation. Its colour shifts as it dries, deepening, muting, sometimes blooming into unexpected shades. To paint in wine would be to embrace impermanence itself,to allow the medium’s life cycle to become part of the work. One imagines canvases that change subtly from week to week, their hues maturing or fading like the vintage from which they were born.

At present, no public exhibition has been announced. The few who claim to have seen these works describe them in hushed tones, as if unsure whether to speak of painting or alchemy. What is clear is that, should this practice prove authentic, it may mark one of the most provocative material experiments of recent years: the collision of two deeply French traditions,oenology and painting,on a single surface.

We will be pursuing this story further. If the rumours are true, and if the artist can be persuaded to speak, you will be the first to hear their account. For now, we are left with the tantalising possibility that the medium of wine, long celebrated for its place at the table, may soon claim its place on the gallery wall.

Is Motor-Racing One of the Fine Arts?

by
Is Motor-Racing One of the Fine Arts?

In this article the fine artist Hedge Fund says that it is.

To pose the question of motor-racing’s place among the fine arts may seem frivolous, or even a provocation. The customary division between the utilitarian and the aesthetic has long kept the motor-car in the category of engineering, and the race track in that of sport. Yet such boundaries are neither stable nor eternal. The historian of art must ask: does motor-racing not, in its highest instances, fulfill precisely those conditions by which we define the beaux-arts,beauty of form, expressive intensity, the staging of ritual, and the confrontation with the sublime? My contention is that it does, and that motor-racing must be understood as one of the fine arts of modernity.

I. The Aesthetics of Velocity

The depiction of motion has been central to Western art since antiquity. Myron’s Discobolus (5th c. BCE), its taut musculature caught in the instant before release, is paradigmatic of the aestheticization of movement. Renaissance artists from Leonardo to Uccello sought to capture not merely bodies but the energy of their trajectories.[^1] Motor-racing is the technological heir of these traditions. The “line” chosen by a driver through Monza’s Parabolica or Monaco’s hairpin constitutes an aesthetic gesture,one might even say a “brushstroke” executed at speed. Roland Barthes, reflecting on the Tour de France, wrote that “each rider’s style is a writing,”[^2] and the analogy applies even more forcefully to the racetrack. The race car becomes an instrument of calligraphy, inscribing arcs of velocity on the canvas of asphalt.

II. Machine as Sculpture

It may be objected that the racing car is an instrument of utility rather than expression. Yet the history of art is filled with media that once belonged to craft before ascending to the realm of the fine arts: bronze from weaponry, glass from domesticity, photography from reportage. The automobile, particularly in its racing form, possesses aesthetic dignity as sculpture. Consider Ferrari’s 156 “Sharknose” (1961) or Chapman’s Lotus 49 (1967): their sculptural volumes and aerodynamic purity speak to the modern reconciliation of beauty and function. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto declared in 1909 that “a racing car…is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace,”[^3] a claim often dismissed as bombast, but which in hindsight reads as prescient. The car is modern statuary,steel, carbon, and fibreglass charged with aesthetic aura.

III. Ritual, Risk, and the Sublime

The race itself is a ritual drama. Its sequence,the grid, the starting lights, the orchestration of pit-stops, the crescendo toward climax,mirrors the temporal structures of music and theatre. But it is risk that lends this art its tragic intensity. Kant’s account of the sublime insists on the paradoxical pleasure of confronting overwhelming danger without succumbing to it.[^4] Motor-racing exemplifies this: the spectator’s thrill lies in witnessing athletes negotiate forces beyond ordinary human scale, on the knife’s edge of catastrophe. The deaths of figures like Jim Clark or Ayrton Senna inscribe racing into the tragic register of art, aligning it with the Greek conception of performance as a confrontation with mortality.

IV. The Gesamtkunstwerk of Modernity

Richard Wagner envisioned the Gesamtkunstwerk,a “total work of art” integrating music, drama, poetry, and scenography.[^5] Motor-racing, particularly in its grand prix form, is precisely such a synthesis. Engineering, design, athletic skill, choreography, sound, and even landscape (consider Spa-Francorchamps’ Ardennes forest or Monaco’s urban theatre) converge to produce a spectacle irreducible to any single component. As Walter Benjamin argued of modern technologies of spectacle, the aura of art migrates into new forms under industrial conditions.[^6] Motor-racing is one such migration: a theatre of modernity in which man and machine perform together.

Conclusion

To exclude motor-racing from the canon of fine art is to cling to an antiquated hierarchy of media. Art is not confined to marble, canvas, or score; it is wherever the human imagination transforms form, risk, and ritual into aesthetic experience. Racing is not merely sport, nor mere technology. It is, in its highest moments, a fine art: the ballet of velocity, the opera of torque and the poetry of the machine age.

Read the contrary argument by one of our curators.

Notes

[^1]: Martin Kemp, Leonardo da Vinci: The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 142,145.

[^2]: Roland Barthes, Mythologies (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1957), 119.

[^3]: Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, The Futurist Manifesto, 1909.

[^4]: Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment, trans. Werner Pluhar (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987), §28,29.

[^5]: Richard Wagner, The Artwork of the Future (1849), trans. William Ashton Ellis (London: Kegan Paul, 1895).

[^6]: Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,” in Selected Writings, vol. 3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 101,133.

Which Colour Wall is Best for an Art Gallery? Part II: The Authority of Grey

by
Which Colour Wall is Best for an Art Gallery? Part II: The Authority of Grey

by Walta Bryce

If white was the late 20th century’s creed, then grey has emerged as the early 21st’s compromise. In galleries across Europe and North America, walls once blanched to clinical pallor are increasingly cloaked in muted shades of slate, dove, and mushroom. The effect is discreet but unmistakable: grey announces itself as serious, considered, resistant to both spectacle and sentimentality. Where white was evangelical, grey is judicial.

The appeal of grey lies in its subtle recalibration of tone. Unlike white, which thrusts a painting into stark relief, or red, which enfolds it in velvet theatricality, grey is reticent. It reduces contrast, permitting subtler works to emerge without glare. A 17th-century still life, with its restrained play of shadow and highlight, can seem to breathe more easily against a soft grey wall. Contemporary abstraction, too, benefits from the colour’s cool equilibrium: the riot of pigment in a Howard Hodgkin or Gerhard Richter seems steadied, held in suspension rather than flung outward.

Curators have long recognised this. Tate Britain’s rehang in the early 2000s adopted smoky greys to dignify its historical collections, while the Museum of Modern Art in New York increasingly turns to grey to soften the hard edges of its once-militant white spaces. Grey signals authority,an academic neutrality without the sterility of white. It suggests scholarship rather than commerce, connoisseurship rather than trade.

Yet grey is never merely neutral. The choice of tone,cool bluish, warm taupe, charcoal,can radically alter the psychological tenor of a room. A blue-grey can make even gilded frames seem ethereal, whereas a warmer stone-grey grounds the viewer, anchoring them in a more tactile world. There is, too, an element of class coded into grey: its association with restraint, understatement, “good taste.” In this sense, grey is the colour of curatorial diplomacy, a palette that refuses to offend.

But therein lies its danger. Where white imposed too much, grey risks imposing too little. The “dignity” of grey can shade into the dullness of bureaucracy, a museum turned mausoleum. One remembers the wry complaint of a visitor at the Prado’s grey-painted Velázquez rooms: “It feels like an insurance office with masterpieces on the walls.”

So if white walls aspired to invisibility but became overbearing, grey aspires to authority but risks anaesthesia. It grants the artwork space to speak, but occasionally it hushes it into submission. Grey, in other words, is a compromise,often a wise one, occasionally a timid one.

Next we will consider a colour that makes no compromises at all: the opulent, unabashed drama of red.

Which colour wall is best for an art gallery? Part I: The Myth of White

by
Which colour wall is best for an art gallery? Part I: The Myth of White

by Walta Bryce

In the hushed, climate-controlled world of the contemporary gallery, walls are rarely noticed. Their colour,more than any lighting rig, more than the strategic positioning of benches,determines the register of the room. Yet one hue, over the course of the 20th century, became so ubiquitous it almost effaced itself: white. The “white cube,” as Brian O’Doherty famously dubbed it in his essays of the 1970s, was never simply neutral. It was an ideology, one that claimed purity while imposing its own absolute aesthetic regime.

The white wall’s appeal is obvious enough. It promises to vanish, to offer the work of art a stage unencumbered by context. White absorbs and disperses light evenly; it creates the illusion of infinite extension; it suggests clinical objectivity. In the language of real estate agents and minimalist architects alike, white equals clarity. Yet art has always chafed against such clarity. A black Kazimir Malevich square seems somehow diminished when it floats on an already blank wall; a Rothko, designed to vibrate against deep maroon and sienna, is flattened by it.

Indeed, one wonders if the white wall has been less a friend to art than a friend to the market. In a white cube, paintings and sculptures become commodities: interchangeable, discreet, hygienic. They can be slotted, in their pristine isolation, into collectors’ living rooms. White neutralises history, geography, and politics; it allows art to circulate globally, shorn of site. The walls of Chelsea, Berlin, and Hong Kong become indistinguishable.

But there is a paradox here. If the white wall was meant to be invisible, why do we remember it so vividly? The very phrase “white cube” conjures not absence but presence,an architecture of control as recognisable as any frescoed chapel or rococo salon. When we step into such a gallery, we feel the discipline imposed upon us: silence, reverence, the suppression of bodily warmth. It is the theatre of purity, but one in which the walls are the true protagonists.

Which colour, then, is best for an art gallery? To begin at the beginning, one must confront the cult of white not as a default but as a choice, historically conditioned and far from inevitable. In the coming essays, I will consider what happens when curators, conservators, and architects break from the tyranny of blankness. For now, let us linger on this paradox: that the most famous wall in modern art history is the one that pretended not to exist.