-
Two years ago, I have to say there was no problem.
-
Two years ago, I knew exactly
what an icon looked like.
-
It looks like this.
-
Everybody's icon, but also the default position
-
of a curator of Italian Renaissance
paintings, which I was then.
-
And in a way, this is also another default selection.
-
Leonardo da Vinci's exquisitely soulful image
-
of the "Lady with an Ermine."
-
And I use that word, soulful, deliberately.
-
Well then there's this, or rather these:
-
the two versions of Leonardo's "Virgin of the Rocks"
-
that were about to come together
in London for the very first time.
-
In the exhibition that I was then in
the absolute throws of organizing.
-
I was literally up to my eyes in Leonardo,
-
and I had been for three years.
-
So, he was occupying every part of my brain.
-
Leonardo had taught me, during that three years,
-
about what a picture can do.
-
About taking you from your own
material world into a spiritual world.
-
He said, actually, that he believed
the job of the painter
-
was to paint everything that was visible
and invisible in the universe.
-
That's a huge task. And yet,
somehow he achieves it.
-
He shows us, I think, the human soul.
-
He shows us the capacity of ourselves
-
to move into a spiritual realm.
-
To see a vision of the universe that's
more perfect than our own.
-
To see God's own plan, in some sense.
-
So this is, in a sense, really what I believed an icon was.
-
At about that time, I started talking to Tom Campbell,
-
director here of The Metropolitan Museum,
-
about what my next move might be.
-
The move, in fact, back to an earlier life
-
one I'd begun at The British Museum,
-
back to the world of three dimensions --
-
of sculpture and of decorative arts --
-
to take over the department of European sculpture
and decorative arts, here at the MET.
-
But it was an incredibly busy time.
-
All the conversations were done
at very peculiar times of the day --
-
over the phone.
-
In the end, I accepted the job
-
without actually having been here.
-
Again, I'd been there a couple of years before,
-
but on that particular visit.
-
So, it was just before the time that
Leonardo's show was due to open
-
when I finally made it back to the MET, to New York,
-
to see my new domain.
-
To see what European sculpture
and decorative arts looked like,
-
beyond those Renaissance collections
with which I was so, already familiar.
-
And I thought, on that very first day,
I better tour the galleries.
-
57 of these galleries --
-
like 57 varieties of baked beans, I believe.
-
I walked through and I started in my comfort zone
in the Italian Renaissance.
-
And then I moved gradually around,
-
feeling a little lost sometimes.
-
My head, also still full of the Leonardo exhibition
-
that was about to open, and I came across this.
-
And I thought to myself: What the hell have I done?
-
There was absolutely no connection in my mind
-
at all, in fact if there was any emotion going on
-
it was a kind of repulsion.
-
This object felt utterly and completely alien.
-
Silly at a level that I hadn't yet
understood silliness to be.
-
And then it was made worse --
-
there were two of them.
-
(Laughter)
-
So, I started thinking about why it was, in fact,
-
that I disliked this object so much.
-
What was the anatomy of my distaste?
-
Well, so much gold, so vulgar.
-
You know, so [unclear], frankly.
-
Leonardo himself had preached
against the use of gold,
-
so it was absolutely anathema at that moment.
-
And then there's little pretty sprigs
of flowers everywhere. (Laughter)
-
And finally, that pink. That damned pink.
-
It's such an extraordinarily artificial color.
-
I can't think of anything that
you actually see in nature,
-
that looks that shade.
-
The object even has its own tutu. (Laughter)
-
This little flouncy, spangly, bottomly bit
-
that sits at the bottom of the vase.
-
It reminded me, in an odd kind of way,
-
of my nieces fifth birthday party.
-
Where all the little girls would come
either as a princess or a fairy.
-
There was one who would come as a fairy princess.
-
You should have seen the looks.
-
(Laughter)
-
And I realize that this object was in my mind,
-
born from the same mind, from the same womb,
-
practically, as Barbie Ballerina. (Laughter)
-
And then there's the elephants. (Laughter)
-
Those extraordinary elephants.
-
With there little, sort of strange sinister expressions
-
and Gretta Garbo eyelashes,
with these golden tusks.
-
I realized this was an elephant that had
-
absolutely nothing to do with a majestic
march across the Serengeti.
-
It was a Dumbo nightmare. (Laughter)
-
But, something more profound
was happening as well.
-
These objects, it seemed to me, were --
-
quintessentially the kind that I and my
liberal left friends in London
-
had always seen as summing up
-
something deplorable about the French aristocracy
-
in the 18th century.
-
The label had told me that these pieces were made
-
by the [unclear] manufactory,
-
made of porcelain in the late 1750's.
-
And designed by a designer called
Jeanne Claude Duplessy,
-
actually somebody of extraordinary distinction
-
as I later learned.
-
But for me, they summed up a kind of,
-
that sort of sheer uselessness of the aristocracy
-
in the 18th century.
-
I and my colleagues had always thought
-
that these objects, in way, summed up the idea of,
-
you know -- no wonder there was a revolution.
-
Or, indeed, thank God there was a revolution.
-
There was a sort of idea really, that,
-
if you owned a vase like this,
-
then there was really only one fate possible.
-
(Laughter)
-
So, there I was -- in a sort of paroxysm of horror.
-
But I took the job and I went
on looking at these vases.
-
I sort of had to because there was no --
-
through route in the Met.
-
So, anywhere I went, there they were.
-
They had this kind of odd sort of fascination,
-
like a car accident.
-
Where I couldn't stop looking.
-
And as I did so, I started thinking:
-
Well, what are we actually looking at here?
-
And what I started with was understanding this
-
as really a supreme piece of design.
-
It took me a little time.
-
But, that tutu for example --
-
actually, this is a piece that
does dance in its own way.
-
It has an extraordinary lightness
-
and yet, it is also amazing balanced.
-
It has these kinds of sculptural ingredients.
-
And then the play between --
-
actually really quite carefully disposed
color and gilding, and the sculptural surface,
-
is really rather remarkable.
-
And then I realized that this piece went into the kiln
-
four times, at least four times
in order to arrive at this.
-
How many moments for accident can you think of
-
that could have happened to this piece?
-
And then remember, not just one, but two.
-
So he's having to arrive at two exactly matched
-
vases of this kind.
-
And then this question of uselessness.
-
Well actually, the end of the trunks
were originally candle holders.
-
So what you would have had
were candles on either side.
-
Imagine that affect of candlelight on that surface.
-
On the slightly uneven pink, on the beautiful gold.
-
It would have glittered [unclear] in an interior,
-
a little like a little firework.
-
And at that point, actually,
a firework went off in my brain.
-
Somebody reminded me that, that word 'fancy' --
-
which in a sense for me, encapsulated this object --
-
actually comes from the same
root as the word, fantasy.
-
And that what this object was just as much in way,
-
in its own way, as a Leonardo da Vinci painting,
-
is a portal to somewhere else.
-
This is an object of the imagination.
-
If you think about the mad 18th century
-
operas of the time -- set in the orient.
-
If you think about divans and perhaps even
opium induced visions of pink elephants,
-
then at that point, this object starts to make sense.
-
This is an object which is all about escapism.
-
It's about an escapism that happens --
-
that the aristocracy in France sought
-
very deliberately --
-
to distinguish themselves from ordinary people.
-
It's not an escapism that
-
we feel particularly happy with today, however.
-
And again, going on thinking about this,
-
I realize that in a way we're all victims
-
of a certain kind of tyranny
-
of the triumph of modernism.
-
Whereby, form and function in an object
-
have to follow one another or are deemed to do so.
-
And the extraneous ornament is seen as really,
-
essentially, criminal.
-
It's a triumph, in a way, of bourgeoisie
values rather than aristocratic ones.
-
And that seems fine.
-
Except for the fact that it becomes a kind of
sequestration of imagination.
-
So just as in the 20th century, so many people
-
had the idea that their faith
-
took place on the sabbath day,
-
and the rest of their lives --
-
their lives of washing machines and orthodontics --
-
took place on another day.
-
Then, I think we've started doing the same.
-
We've allowed ourselves to
-
lead our fantasy lives in front of screens.
-
In the dark of the cinema, with the
television in the corner of the room.
-
We've eliminated, in a sense, that constant
-
of the imagination that these vases
represented in peoples lives.
-
So maybe it's time we got this back a little.
-
I think it's beginning to happen.
-
In London, for example,
-
with these extraordinary buildings
-
that have been appearing over the last few years.
-
[Unclear], in a sense of science fiction,
-
turning London into a kind of fantasy playground.
-
It's actually amazing to look out of
a high building nowadays, there.
-
But even then, there's a resistance.
-
London has called these buildings the
Gherkin, the Shard, the Walkie Talkie --
-
bringing these soaring buildings down to Earth.
-
There's an idea that we don't want this
-
anxious-making, imaginative journeys
to happen in our daily lives.
-
I feel lucky in a way,
-
I've encountered this object.
-
(Laughter)
-
I found him on the internet when
I was looking up a reference.
-
And there he was.
-
And unlike the pink elephant vase,
-
this was a kind of love at first sight.
-
In fact, [unclear] I married him. I bought him.
-
And he now adorns my office.
-
He's a staffiture figure made in
the middle of the 19th century.
-
He represents the actor, Edmund Kean,
playing Shakespeare's Richard the third.
-
And it's based, actually, on a more
elevated piece of porcelain.
-
So I loved, on an art historical level,
-
I loved that layered quality that he has.
-
But more than that, I love him.
-
In a way that I think would have been impossible
-
without the pink [unclear] vase in my Leonardo days.
-
I love his orange and pink britches.
-
I love the fact that he seems to be going off to war,
-
having just finished washing up. (Laughter)
-
He seems to also to have forgotten his sword.
-
I love his pink little cheeks, his munchkin energy.
-
In a way, he's become my sort of alter ego.
-
He's, I hope a little bit dignified.
-
But mostly, rather vulgar. (Laughter)
-
And energetic I hope too.
-
I let him into my life because the [unclear]
pink elephant vase allowed me to do so.
-
And before that Leonardo,
-
I understood that this object could become
part of a journey for me every day,
-
sitting in my office.
-
I really hope that others, all of you,
-
visiting objects in the museum,
-
and taking them home and
finding them for yourselves,
-
will allow those objects to flourish
in your imaginative lives.
-
Thank you very much.
-
(Applause)