A year at
Nasjonalmuseet

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• The book you own, two chapters: the Paris years and the religious commissions. List in the log the names of her teachers, flatmates and sitters before you go.

2At the museum

Ninety minutes

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• 1. Three portraits, the full time each, chosen before you go in: the Elisabeth Fearnley you named, one you have not spent time on, and the Jesus picture. For each, the period-eye questions only: who commissioned it, where did it hang, what did the sitter want it to say, what did Nørregaard's Paris training (Bonnat's atelier, the 1880s) give her that a Christiania-trained painter would not have had? Write the answers from the book in the log before the visit; check them against the paint. 2. The traditionalist's choice. Find the latest-dated picture in the show and the earliest. What did she refuse to change over forty years, and what changed anyway? That is the exhibition's thesis ("truth and beauty"); decide whether you believe it. 3. *Upstairs, room 051: Blått interiør NG.M.02582. Nørregaard as sitter, Backer as painter, Paris 1883. Ten minutes. Then down again, if time, to one Nørregaard portrait of the same decade. Two friends, one flat, two theories of what a picture is. 4. Room 052: the fan. Kunstnerviften* (1898) NG.M.04483, eighteen signatures, hers among Krohg's, Munthe's, Peterssen's. Note which of the eighteen have portraits in the room and which do not. The network begins here.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Tomaso Montanari's Caravaggio lectures on YouTube (Italian, clear, free), or Longhi's Caravaggio (1952) if you want the founding text of "Caravaggio's light".
• Frick, Cocktails with a Curator: the Ribera or any Caravaggesque episode, 25 minutes.
• Simon Schama, Power of Art, Caravaggio episode (BBC, 2006), to reload the vocabulary of the light.
• Andrew Graham-Dixon, Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane (2010), chapters on Rome after 1606 and on the followers, if you want the network: who was in whose studio, who copied whom.

2At the museum

Ninety minutes

Baburen's temple against El Greco's Peter. Both are about a man and a truth he cannot hold. One answers with crowd, flesh and lamp; the other with a column of colour and a sky. Which painter trusts you more?

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Nearly everything in room 038 came in one gift: Christian Langaard's bequest, received 1923. A Christiania businessman's taste decided which El Grecos Norway owns. Read the acquisition lines on the labels; the room is a portrait of him. Room 037's lines name Dahl, Grosch and Bugge: the 1830s–40s founders buying Italian and Flemish baroque for a country that had almost none.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Montanari's Caravaggio lectures (YouTube) for Orazio and Artemisia's Rome; Panofsky's iconography essay (Meaning in the Visual Arts) and an Electa dictionary (Giorgi, Santi) for the saints and attributes.
• Great Art Explained on Caravaggio; the Private Life of a Masterpiece Caravaggio episode; Graham-Dixon's chapters on Rome 1600–1606 for the world Orazio and Artemisia worked in.
• The Great Women Artists podcast has episodes on Gentileschi and Anguissola [specific episodes unverified]; In Our Time has an Artemisia episode [unverified].
• Read nothing about the trial before the first visit; read about it before the second, and record whether it changed the pictures.

2At the museum

Two hours

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Making. Gentileschi learned Caravaggio's light in her father Orazio's Roman studio around 1610. Find the beam. Then find the one thing she does with it that the men in room 037 (visit 2) do not.
• Period eye. Who could commission a woman painter in Bologna in 1580 (Fontana) or Naples in 1630 (Gentileschi), and for what rooms? Why are so many of these pictures portraits and still lifes (Peeters), and what did the academies forbid women to study that made that so? What did Leyster's Haarlem guild membership (1633) actually permit?
• Chain of viewers. Several of these pictures spent centuries attributed to men (Leyster's to Hals; Peeters's still life carries a new attribution in this show). What did the picture look like to the viewers who thought a man had painted it, and does knowing change what you see? Be honest; write both answers.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Florian Illies, Zauber der Stille (2023): how Friedrich was forgotten, found by Disney and abused by the Nazis; reception history to carry into room 043.
• Gunnarsson, Nordic Landscape Painting in the Nineteenth Century (1998), the Dahl and Fearnley pages: the Nordic peers Oslo does not hang.
• Rom for rom episode 1 covers rooms 043 and 046.
• The museum's own texts on Dahl and Fearnley (rooms 041–043), which are unusually good.

2At the museum

Two hours

Friedrich's Riesengebirge (1835) against Dahl's Stalheim (1842). Same house, same decade, same genre. One empties the landscape until it is a thought; the other fills it until it is a nation. What did Dahl decide that Friedrich would not?

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Who looked at Stalheim in 1842, and where? (Not in Norway: Dahl sold mostly to Germans, and the picture came to the gallery as a gift in 1914.) What did a Dresden buyer want a Norwegian fjord for? Then the reverse question for Oslo in 1914.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Laura Cumming, Thunderclap (2023): Fabritius, de Hooch and Vermeer in Delft, by a critic who looks slowly. The best single book for this visit.
• Hagen and Hagen, Bildbefragungen (Taschen): the Avercamp, Steen or Bruegel chapters, detail by detail.
• Konsthistoriepodden on van Eyck's Arnolfini portrait or Vermeer, for the train.
• Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (1983), introduction and the chapter on maps. Dense; one chapter is enough.

2At the museum

Two hours

Avercamp's Vinter against Cranach's Gullalderen. Both are crowded; both are about a community at leisure. One is a Lutheran court's classical fantasy, the other a Calvinist town's actual Tuesday. Which is the more detailed, and which detail is doing more work?

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Pick one picture under 50 cm and do "Ten Times Two" (list ten things, then ten more). Then, without looking, describe it to the log from memory. Then look again and record what you got wrong.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Kirk Varnedoe, Northern Light (1988), the Krohg, Backer and Hammershøi entries: the generation's international reading, written by the man who later defended abstraction (visit 12).
• Patricia Berman, In Another Light (2007) for the Danish line that ends in Hammershøi.
• Re-read the relevant chapter of the Nørregaard book you own, with the Paris years and the names of her teachers and flatmates listed in the log before you go.
• The museum's own Backer material (the 2023–24 Backer exhibition catalogue is in libraries).

2At the museum

Two hours

Backer's Blått interiør against Hammershøi's Interiør med kvinne som leser. Same genre, 27 years apart. One is about colour, the other about its absence. Where in each is the painter's own body?

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Why did these women go to Paris, and why in 1878–83 specifically? (Academies closed to women; private ateliers open; money from home.) What did "traditional" mean for Nørregaard in 1890 when the alternative was Fleskum, and what did it cost her in the 1900s? The exhibition book has the answer; check it against the hang.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Gunnarsson, Nordic Landscape Painting in the Nineteenth Century: Düsseldorf and the national landscape across Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
• Berg, Norges malerkunst vol. 1 (free on Bokhylla), the Tidemand and Gude chapters.
• Your own 1814 material on how the newspapers imagined the nation; then look for how the painters imagined it thirty years later.
• Gunnar Danbolt's Norwegian art history, the chapters on Düsseldorf and national romanticism.

2At the museum

Ninety minutes

Tidemand's Haugianerne against Peterssen's Christian II. Twenty-seven years apart, both indoors, both about authority and a text. One is a document of a living movement, the other a costume drama. Which painter believed his own picture?

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Who bought these? Brudeferd came to the gallery in 1895 after half a century of prints and tableaux. Read the acquisition lines: gifts from merchants, purchases "from the artist". Then ask what Kumu's nineteenth-century rooms did with the same problem: a people painting itself into existence under someone else's academy (there St Petersburg and Düsseldorf; here Copenhagen and Düsseldorf).

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• The Städel course, modules on 1850–1914: the slope this visit walks, in order.
• Julian Barnes, Keeping an Eye Open (2015), the Manet, Cézanne and Degas essays: a doubter looking carefully.
• Konsthistoriepodden or Augen zu on any of these painters, for the train.
• Great Art Explained on Van Gogh (any) or Cézanne, and Schama's Van Gogh episode of Power of Art.

2At the museum

Ninety minutes

Cézanne's Nature morte against Balthasar van der Ast's Stilleben med frukt og skjell (room 034, visit 5). Two tables of fruit, 260 years apart. Both painters spent the hours on the fruit. What did each think an apple was for?

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Nearly all of room 054 came to Oslo early and deliberately: Jens Thiis, director from 1908, bought Manet, Cézanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh when buying them was a scandal, and was attacked in the press for it. Read the acquisition lines for dates. The chain of viewers here includes the people who thought these pictures should not be in a national gallery at all.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• A human defender beats a book here: the research on contemporary art says a guided tour raises understanding and evaluation more than any label. If Et øyeblikk (one work in ten minutes, Thursdays and Saturdays) or MUNCH's free Museum Mondays tour offers Munch, take it before this visit.
• Sue Prideaux, Edvard Munch: Behind the Scream (2005), the chapters on 1885–86 and on Berlin 1892–93. Or the Munch Museum's own texts. The task is not to agree; it is to check her claims against the paint. Record which claims survived.

2At the museum

Two hours

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Døden i sykeværelset: the family around Sophie's deathbed, 1877, painted sixteen years later, "with no contact between the persons". What had happened to the deathbed picture as a genre between Tidemand's De ensomme gamle (1849, room 045) and this? Who was the audience in Berlin in 1893?
• Skrik: what did Kristiania look like from Ekeberg in 1893, and what was Munch reading? (Not necessary to know; necessary to ask.)
• Who paid? Olaf Schou gave Skrik, Madonna, Livets dans and Pikene på broen in 1909–10. One collector's decision made the Munch room. Compare Langaard's El Grecos.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Wolfgang Ullrich, Tiefer hängen (2003): why the art world asks what it asks of a viewer; the sceptic's own author.
• The Städel's free online course, module on 1900–1930, for the slope from Cézanne to the guitar.
• Robert Hughes, The Shock of the New (1980; BBC series 1980), the cubism chapter ("The Faces of Power" or "The Mechanical Paradise"). Hughes is a historian first and an enthusiast second, which is the order you need. Alternatively Great Art Explained on cubism.

2At the museum

Ninety minutes

Hellesen's Balalaika against Picasso's Gitaren. Two stringed instruments, four years apart, a master and a provincial. Is Hellesen worse, or different? Be specific about the three places where the difference lies.

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Who in Kristiania in 1921 wanted a cubist Picasso badly enough to buy one for the nation? (Jens Thiis, the gallery's director, bought modern French art early and was attacked for it.) The same institution then ignored Keyser, Kaarbø and Wankel until 1977. The museum is itself a chain of viewers with opinions.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Hughes, The Shock of the New, the chapter on art and politics ("The Powers That Be"), and his chapter on abstraction after 1945 for the Burri/Jorn line.
• Nasjonalmuseet's texts on Ekeland and Ryggen; Ryggen has had major recent exhibitions with good catalogues.
• From the Estonia trip: your notes on Kumu's 1945–60 rooms, reread the night before.

2At the museum

Two hours

Ekeland's Kampen (1943) against Weidemann's Furustubbe (1960). Seventeen years, one war, the same country. One painter still believes a picture can be a battle; the other paints a stump. Then ask what the Estonians were painting in 1960 and what they were allowed to.

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Read the acquisition years on the labels in 075: how fast did the gallery buy the abstract painters, compared with the half-century it took for Keyser and Kaarbø (visit 10)? The institution's own taste is the hidden picture in every room.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• The Art Assignment, "The Case for Rothko" and "The Case for Pollock" (10 minutes each, PBS): arguments built for exactly your position.
• Ossian Ward's TABULA procedure (Ways of Looking, 2014): Time, Association, Background, Understand, Look again, Assessment. Use it on the Vasarely.
• Kirk Varnedoe, Pictures of Nothing: Abstract Art since Pollock (2006), the first lecture. Varnedoe was a historian who had to argue abstraction to sceptics in a public hall, and he is very good on the "anyone could" objection: he agrees that the making is often simple and then explains why the deciding was not.

2At the museum

One hour

Schoonhoven's white relief against Hammershøi's grey interior (room 058, visit 6). Both are about almost nothing, both are about light on a surface. One keeps a woman in the room. Does she matter?

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• 1. Could you? Pick the picture that most provokes the thought. Describe in the log, step by step, how you would make it: materials, measurements, how long, what decisions. Be concrete. For Cruz-Diez the answer involves hundreds of coloured strips at calculated angles so that the colour changes as you walk; try walking. 2. Did anyone before 1950? The thought "I could have" quietly assumes "anyone could have at any time". Ask why no one did, and what had to exist first (colour theory, industrial paint, a public that had seen Mondrian, the rejection of the hand after two wars). 3. What is it doing to your eye? Op art is the one modern genre whose effect is physiological and undeniable. Stand still for two minutes in front of the Vasarely and report what moves. 4. Then the honest line. Having done 1–3, you may still write "a pattern; nothing more." But it is now a conclusion, not a glance.

1Before

the week before · 20 min the day before

• Martin Gayford, Modernists and Mavericks (2018): postwar painting (Freud, Bacon, Auerbach) for someone who likes paint; the English cousins of Nerdrum's refusal.
• Hughes's last chapter of The Shock of the New (the 1991 edition adds "The Future That Was") on the return to painting in the 1980s.
• Any interview with Nerdrum on kitsch (there are several in Norwegian; his 2000 manifesto On Kitsch is in libraries).

2At the museum

Ninety minutes

Nerdrum's Klodvig against Ribera's Ung gutt med blomsterkrukke (room 038, visit 2). Three and a half centuries apart, both a single figure in theatre light. Walk between them (it is a long walk; take it). Which one is about painting, and which one is about its subject?

• Four to six pictures, each with the three clocks
• Photograph the label, nothing else

• Why did Oslo in 1975 produce a painter who wanted to be in 1650, and why was he hated for it by the institutions and loved by the public? Compare Nørregaard's traditionalism in 1890 (visit 6): two refusals of the modern, eighty-five years apart, both from the right side of the Munch room. What makes one look like integrity and the other like reaction, and is that fair?