“I don’t know I just like it” was how Andrew Graham Dixon, tongue in cheek, explained his fondness for his favourite picture at home during Q&A following his lecture - this was typical of his self-deprecating and unpretentious style. He was also asked whether he felt the descriptive plaques next to paintings in galleries helped the audience to appreciate the artwork referred to which, after some equivocation, he replied “no” which he qualified by saying such descriptions were often too bland and too short. Interestingly, this question led back to his opening premise that appreciation of art is improved by understanding the artist, the language of their painting and their personal and historical background. Andrew Graham Dixon felt that each painting encapsulated a moment in time and history and to more fully appreciate a piece of art, its audience needs some appreciation of its context. Consequently, Andrew Graham Dixon finds it impossible to make sweeping generalisations about art appreciation and criticism and felt that a work of art should be looked at individually.

He then proceeded to illustrate this argument by looking at a wide-range of painters’ work in detail from Caravaggio, through Turner, Mondrian, Manet and Munch, to name but a view. He carefully explained the time and context in which the works were painted and how this information could illuminate appreciation of a painting. Throughout the lecture he demonstrated an extensive and amusing knowledge of his subject, beguiling the audience with twists and tales from his own life amongst paintings. He was particularly knowledgeable and illuminating when discussing Caravaggio’s Beheading of St John, no doubt this was in the front of his mind having just written a book about the artist. He also spoke with great passion about Turner and the way in which his use of light – here illustrated by his water colour series of the conflagration of the Houses of Parliament – changed the art world forever much as Einstein’s theories had changed the way in which scientists approach their work. He revealed that Manet and the impressionists had acknowledged Turner’s influence. Before Turner, paintings illustrated objects and people; after Turner objects and people are part of the way paintings illustrate light and shade.

Andrew Graham Dixon also explained and illustrated his argument through discussion of Giovanni’s resurrection altar piece – originally in a small church on a small island off Venice, now in a Berlin museum. He had initially found the painting deeply moving and on reflection had found it was its reversal or subversion of the classical constructs of paintings of the crucifixion that had provoked such a feeling of joy. Further the painting and particularly the sky is radiant representing the dawn of a new age. A similar subversion occurs in Manet’s painting of the barmaid at the Folies Bergère. Seemingly a place of fun and pleasure the barmaid stands centrally in the picture, almost like a priestess at an altar, but it is an altar of drink supported by mirrors. The barmaid has a look of utter contempt and in the reflection she is seen next to a man, hinting at the prostitution which underpinned this lifestyle. This beautiful painting is bleak and points to the tawdry side of the coming age of consumerism.

I have always strongly believed in the legitimacy of the “I don’t know why but I like it” school of art appreciation but tonight’s presentation by Andrew Graham Dixon has subverted this belief and I now fully appreciate that by understanding the artist, the language of their painting and their personal and historical background I can not only better appreciate art but can also better understand my personal reaction to it. Andrew Graham Dixon also demonstrated that there is great pleasure to be had in pursuing this knowledge and reaching a better appreciation of art.