Martyr or Murderess?

They call her an enigmatic figure. It is an economical way of saying that not enough evidence survives to know if  Mary Stewart, Queen of Scotland, was a Catholic martyr or a cunning murderer. Her fame, or infamy, is the result of  Elizabeth the I , Protestant Queen of England's decision to have  Mary beheaded on February 8, 1587. This image is a detail from a cast of her effigy in Westminster Abbey.

Francois II and his Queen Consort Marie (Mary Stewart) at their wedding when both were teenagers.

   Mary, a tall, clever beauty, was born on 8 December 1852. She was the heir to King James V of Scotland. She was an infant when he died and she became Queen. The complicated story that followed which includes her marriage to Francois II, King of France-- her return to Scotland, her never ending claim to the English throne-- are the subject of an exhibition, "Mary Queen of Scots" at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh until 17 November..If, like me, there are large holes in your knowledge of British history of the period, this is dandy way to fill them in.
    The show is  designed to create a sense of drama of which there is plenty in this story and a feeling for the richness of court life. Not a lot survives because the events recorded happened more than 400 years ago --but also because there was plenty of reason for those involved to destroy

The Darnley Jewel

 
 evidence of the events that took place--and their connections with the Queen of Scotland --whether they were supporters or members of the cast that wanted to do her in. (She had a strong claim to succeeded Elizabeth I as Queen of England.) Still enough has survived for this to be a touching as well as dazzling display of furniture and books, maps and letters, embroiders. The hokey modern recreations of court dress are ghastly although some are bound to disagree. Mary was known to have had a magnificent collection of jewels. (On her death, Elizabeth I took her  fabulous pearls.) One of the most fabulous objects in the show is the Darnley Jewel, above. It is a locket that opens to reveal even more wonderful enamelling and a white skull and cross bones at its center. The jewel which belonged to mother of Henry, Lord Darnely. It was given to the Queen of Scotland after she married Henry. She gave birth to a boy. James grew up to become.  King James VI of Scotland and then King James I of England and Ireland. 

. Elizabeth I saw off his mother but she failed to prevent a Stewart from ruling her country as well as his.  

Mexico? Yes and no.

"Mexico:  A revolution in Art :  1910-1940 at the Royal Academy in London is not the survey its title suggests.  It is more like a visual version of the children's game, Pin the Tail the Donkey. There is a little of this and a little of that; a random, scatter shot selection.Too often an artist is represented by a single work. Paintings by Mexicans and mixed together with those of foreigners. The big names are here but usually not their best works: Frida Kahlo,  currently the most famous Mexican artist among foreigners, is represented by a single oval miniature.  It is a fine, expressive work but it feels more like a box ticked (she could not be left out) than an example of her achievements. The same applies to works on view by Rivera, Siqeieros, Orozco and Tomayo. So the show does not add up to much but neither is it a waste of time. For example, two large watercolours by the English artist Edward Burra (1905-1976) are powerful and arresting . El Paseo, 1938 (below), from a private collection,makes you feel the heat, sensuality, presence of death which must have seemed intoxicatingly exotic, alluring and frightening --to a him as a foreigner. Burra's  Mexican Church (left) painted the same year will  surprise even  regular visitors to London museums. It belongs to the Tate but never seems to be on view. There is a faux- naive quality to these sophisticated paintings.  In the works of Mexican artists in this show, folklore seemed to be more deeply felt even if like Roberto Montenegro, they lived in Paris before returning home to work.Just have a look (below) at his Mayan Women of 1926:

My favorite painting is Jose Chavez Morado's 1939 Carnaval en Huejotzingo. (Below). Why? I am not really sure. I feel it is like a dream where everything is out of the ordinary yet the result is an harmonious image of great tranquillity. It makes me want to see more of Morado's work.

The Mexican and foreign photographers whose work is on view seem to have had more in common aesthetically than the painters. Maybe that's a way of saying that there is not the same impression of marked originality. Or maybe they saw more of each  others work and were able to steal from each other more comfortably. Anyway for me,  already familiar with the photographs of Tina Modotti, Edward Weston and Henri Cartier Bresson, the photographs of Manuel Alvarez Bravo have the greatest impact. At first sight I immediately wanted to own his 1931 Lords of the Dance (below).

The show continues until 29 September.