Reception theory

Thursday already? How can that be so! Time is fleeting.

Jude is becoming a regular commuter on the DLR between Crossharbour and Greenwich. She should soon be able to make her own way to the vet there. The wound had healed and quicker than you could say antidestablishmentarianism the stitches were out and we were free to go.

By early-afternoon I was in Birkbeck Library where I struggled to read the set texts for the evening lecture. This was like wading through molasses wearing flippers. Crikey it was dull. I nodded off about seventeen times before I finished. So I headed off to the lecture with a certain degree of pessimism. However, there was no need for it as the lecture turned out to be the most interesting yet. We looked at British art in the 18th Century, focusing on Wright of Derby and linking this to reception theory. In a nutshell, this is the critical approach to art which involves analysing the artwork through the study of the period and circumstances in which it was created, and questioning the received wisdom of contemporary commentators. The lecturer had researched Wright of Derby through looking at original source documents (specifically letters) and suggested that (a) Derby has no real claim to Wright as an artist - from a young age he lived all the world and Derby does not feature in his work and (b) he was no artist of science and industry as history has pigeon-holed him. Nor was he a portraitist of the middle-classes. It is most likely that the famous science paintings were commissioned and therefore should really be viewed as portraits. The vast majority of Wright's oeuvre was in fact landscapes.

Anybody still awake? Mmm. As is becoming customary, we retired to the SU Bar to argue the toss over a few pints of cleansing lager.