I do like a bit of art now and then, and today seemed like the perfect day for meandering around Tate Britain. Albeit, I'm not a huge fan of Turner and only like a select few of the old masters, I though it worth seeing nevertheless. The exhibition dubbed 'magnificient' by The Times, and reviewed by almost every national rag in the land with the likes of The Daily Telegraph naming Turner as 'one of the greatest painters of all time,' was unremarkable in every aspect. His works - most of them indistinguishable on the verge of identical - are pastiches of elements purloined from the likes of Rembrandt, Claude Lorrain, Jacob van Ruisdael, Willem Van de Velde, Nicolas Poussin and Titian.

According to the national press this particular undertaking made Turner a 'virtuoso' painter 'who looked back as well as forwards'. I disagree, primarily because Turner didn't pay homage by imitating his idols he plagiarised them and that shows a lack of imagination and ingenuity on his part. Conversely, his technique was inimitably his own but his works hanging alongside the likes of Rembrandt and (even) Constable looked like nebulous pasquinades as opposed to bona fide works of a master painter.

Notoriously competitive with his contemporaries for the share of the pie he was very prolific and chose popular subject matter or whatever was considered a la mode at the time: Venetian cityscapes, Shakespearean parables, biblical scenes, mythologies and epichorial allegories all of which were pecuniary endeavours rather than artistic ones. So in essence we know little of Turner's true artistic nature, except for the fact that he absorbed a great deal from the old masters and thereby perfected his technique through ersatz and diligence.

Turner went trough many phases and was very capricious, experimenting with light, tincture, romanticism and emulation but all of his works are instantly recognisable by their glowing mists and beautified but otiose atmospheric emptiness. His works are immensely ambitious, as was Turner himself, but lack individuality which he borrowed from the masters he revered. In short, I personally think, that Turner was a man of potential rather than genius primarily because he never quite dared to paint what his heart desired preferring to emulate and unquestionably following the teachings of Sir Joshua Reynolds who deemed art to be a hierarchy with history painting at the top, followed by landscape, portraiture and genre. In turn, I found most of the exhibition repugnantly grandiose and uninspiring. However, I loved 'A Scene from the Apocalypse' by Francis Danby and 'Rough Sea' by Jacob Van Ruisdael. But above all, I just have to say that George Stubbs RULES!