A few (mostly unrelated) thoughts for the day:

The program on L.S. Lowry ‘Looking for Lowry’ has recently been aired on Sunday 24th May, ITV. A number of distinguished figures such as Ian McKellen and Paula Rego discuss why Lowry is simultaneously so loved by the public and dismissed by the academic and cultural bodies that be. From a related article in the Guardian I am led to believe that the argument is not a populist issue but a class one, although despite reading the article I am still at odds as to what this really means. The Tate seems to have thirty or so (I cannot quite remember the figure) Lowry paintings and drawings in its collection, only one of which has been on public display within the institution itself. I know many people who site Lowry as their favourite artist, I for one was introduced to this artist at the tender age of eight via a selection of slim, paperbacks in large fonts laboriously read to me by my Grandmother. The collection also included a short guide to Monet, Turner and Renoir. Maybe I am mistaken and the Tate has a proportional number of Monet’s, Turner’s and Renoir’s squirreled away in its never-before-seen collections but I am guessing not. This is because while these artists encompass a strategic change in the way we see the world, even think about the world, Lowry merely depicted a way of life. His is not so much insightful as intuitive documentary and where does this fit into a wider art-historical and social history after the advent of photography?

One week on and I have finally managed to cajole my weary internet into action and actually watch ’Search for Lowry’ rather than mindlessly pondering its subject matter. I was a little disappointed. It painted a lonely figure, debt collector by day, painter from memory by night, awkward and repressed. It discussed the theatrical appeal of Lowry’s crowd scenes with their full figures caught in movement against their flat, matchbox, Manchester stage set. Nothing new, in fact I think I read something similar in my trusty paperback guides age eight. It failed however to really get to the bottom of why Lowry seems to have been omitted from every exhibition of 20th century art. It is a ridiculous argument to say that the Tate is anti-populist - look at the shop, the branding. The majority of Manchester’s tourists are brought in by The Lowry Centre which sees 800 000 visitors per year (this was a number plucked from a 2008 survey and has, no doubt, increased). It is not a tourist economy that the Tate should be sniffing at and one that in the same year pushed Manchester into close third behind Edinburgh and London for most popular destination for overseas visitors.

Just a thought for the day…

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1081254_lowrys_the_biggest_draw_in_tourism_boom
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/18/ls-lowry-tate