A repousséd silver hand reliquary, c.1300:-

A Visigothic belt buckle:-

Georges Vantongerloo 1948:-

Magritte 1928:-

Galileo Chini, Self-Portrait, 1933:-

Alighiero Boetti:-

Doris Salcedo, Untitled, 2023:-

Magnolia shaped teapot, c.1735:-

Iizuka Rōkansai:-

Egyptian alabasters:-

Egyptian wood arm, c.2000BC:-

Park Seo-Bo, Scripture No. 911104:-

Beatrice Caracciolo:-

We were close to East Hatley today, so called in on its church, hard to find, up a footpath off the only street, looked after by Friends of Friendless Churches and restored in 1874 by William Butterfield, when he was already well known, had been offered and turned down the RIBA Gold Medal.

It was completely neglected in 2002:-

It has now been put back into reasonable order by the Friends of Friendless Churches, helped by a grant from the Culture Recovery Fund:-

Inside one sees survivals of Butterfield’s decoration:-

As I say in the accompanying article, I was prompted to write about Canary Wharf by bicycling through it last summer and finding it vastly much busier and alive than the City – the river banks and wharf-side bars all packed.

I read endlessly that Canary Wharf is suffering whereas the City is thriving.  I wondered if perhaps the truth is the other way round.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-us-city-on-the-banks-of-the-thames/

Reading Nicholas Olsberg’s excellent new book on William Butterfield (I am reviewing it for The Critic) prompted me to visit: a noble, if austere, mission church in the back streets of what must have been a suburb, built at the behest of Robert Brett, a local doctor, who was a close friend of Butterfield and had already got him the commission for St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury:-

The film of the exhibition:-

https://mailchi.mp/3dff8af3e598/a-short-film-of-romillys-exhibition-at-edmund-de-waals-studio?e=9dc0f9b85b

I have booked myself in for a tour of the newly developed Norton Folgate, an area which has historically been highly contentious.  Meanwhile, I walked past it this afternoon and was interested by how it tries to manage the relationship between new build and the surviving historic warehouses:-

Of the many articles about the re-opening of the Warburg Institute, I have found the one by Matthew Bowman in the Art Review (see below) the most helpful as to why there is such a revival of Warburg’s ideas at the moment. 

What Bowman helpfully makes clear is that the two most obvious disciples of Warburg, Panofsky and Gombrich, actually very much skewed the way he was interpreted in the post-war period: Panofsky because he treated iconography (or as he called it ‘iconology’), as in some way a science, as if the transmission of images could be tracked, whereas Warburg’s Mnemosyne Atlas was much less precise in the way it traced influence; and Gombrich was always felt to be ambivalent, if not hostile, to Warburg’s belief in the subterranean, if not subversive, aspects of Renaissance thought. 

Gombrich is viewed as a disciple of Warburg, but he only arrived in London in January 1936, so learned about Warburg’s ideas from Gertrud Bing and Ernst Kris.

Anyway, it’s good that Warburg’s ideas and his Institute are now, as of today, more centre stage.

https://artreview.com/its-art-historian-aby-warburgs-world-were-just-living-in-it/