Science, yo!

Man, I like portraiture more than I thought! I think it is one of my top three favorite visual art forms (probably still below architecture, though). I visited our National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. a few years ago, and I remember being delighted by it at the time, but I didn’t quite realize the depth of my admiration. I think portraits are so interesting to me because they are physical (and often symbolic) manifestations of self-expression and conceptualization. I like to see how both the sitter and the artist perceive the subject, all the little choices that convey those impressions. One of my favorite high school classes was also AP Art History, so I just generally enjoyed being immersed in art and having the opportunity to critically engage with it.

One work that particularly stuck out to me was a portrait of Dorothy Hodgkin (1910-94), painted by Maggi Hambling. I vaguely recognized the name but I knew little about her before seeing this painting. Apparently, she was the first British woman to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, largely for defining the structures of things like penicillin, insulin, and B-12. This very much contextualizes the scientific adornments surrounding Dr. Hodgkin in this portrait—the DNA models, books, papers scattered all over the desk, a magnifying glass. Even in my ignorance I was able to determine that she had a career in the sciences.

Although she is central in the composition, her figure is smaller overall than the desk and models that the small room where she sits; in fact, nearly half of the painting vertically is occupied by Hodgkin’s desk. This seems to suggest that Hodgkin’s work and discoveries loom large in her life, crowding her, comforting her, whichever you choose to believe. The items on the desk specifically reveal that she is disorganized (talk about clutter!), but also that she is quite studious and tenacious as a professional. The model on the desk actually depicts the structure of insulin, a small nod to her scientific achievements.

This is also a subtly busy and bustling work. She has four hands instead of two, which are each completing or aiding in a different task. This tells me that she is someone who worked like she would die tomorrow, the next hour, the next second, worked tirelessly and with incredible fervor. She also had arthritis from the age of 28, so the hands have a red sort of hue to them and a strange, distorted curve. And yet she continues plodding ahead! That contrast is quite effective. Everything on her desk is in a picked-over state as well, with some papers looking recently discarded, others lazily strewn about, kind of a swirl of past or future activity. Additionally, the palette is quite bright, which adds an atmospheric sense of liveliness, of movement. The orange highlights around her shirt and hair attract attention and almost seem like a glow, suggesting that she is inspired and a person to be noticed. The contrast between her deeper blue and the mostly white and beiges of the desk kind of guide your eye and more clearly demonstrates how she interacts with her surroundings.

I feel I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention the National Gallery! What a beautiful, beautiful museum! Same as with St. Paul’s except even more, I was struck by how little time I had to absorb all the details, all the artistry. I’ve decided the best way to visit such a large museum is to pick a movement, region, or time period of art and spend the trip only perusing those pieces. Maybe I’ll try it someday. Regardless, I’m just feeling incredibly grateful to see such stunning, transformative, inspiring objects of expression!