Page 24 - Studio International - March 1965

1
2
Rothenstein's British Art Since 1900, published in 1962.
Adams is the kind of artist the British public ignores
because he doesn't help them. Most people will even­
tually see the human likeness in a Moore sculpture, or
can be taught to appreciate the natural beauty in Hep­
worth, whilst the lumpy, twisted forms of the Humanists
are obviously moving. But Adams is uncompromisingly
abstract and Cubist. This kind of artist. like Pasmore or
Richard Hamilton, who refuses to bend his vision to
cosier. acceptable modes. must not expect early
recognition. From the simple relationships of flat steel
shapes, virtually without decoration, Adams evolves
endless variations. Always controlled and elegant. his
imagination works entirely within the limits and charac­
ter of the material. He does not enclose space in the
traditional European sense of sculpture. he defines it
yet permits it to flow through the visual boundaries.
The distinctive quality of Adams and his followers is
creation through the material, rather than the imposition
of imagery alien to it. To some extent all sculptors must
face this problem. and compromise. In Moore. despite
the imagery. one is aware in the early carvings of his
reverence for the wood. This is even more marked in
Hepworth. Yet both dominate the material in the end.
although in the process it has influenced their vision.
Adams, Caro, Hoskin and Brian Wall do not attempt to
dominate their material. They work with it. going only
as far as it permits, using the limitations as a test o
strength. Closest to Adams is Wall. a much younger
man, whose sculpture is even simpler and more linear.
Caro's is a more complex. emotional art. His large,
metal constructions are like drawings in space. Once
accustomed to their size and the austerity of large
girders. one sees that the artist's intention is poetic and
decorative. A little less self-consciousness. a little more
humour. would relieve them of a certain pretentious­
ness, but the brave attack on intractable material and
the seriousness of the effort is impressive.
What these three artists and John Hoskin share is the
fact that they are not image makers. and therefore not
imitators of pre-digested forms. This is not three­
dimensional idol-making in the traditional sense. We are
not asked to emulate an embodied virtue. to identify
ourselves with a banal emotion. to appreciate the
beauty and variety of the natural world. Nor is this an
art of Surrealistic or Dadaist alienation. trying to shock
us out of our conventions or raise our dormant spirit
to revolt. This is frankly man-made. not imitating nature,
not a Pygmalion effort to give life to dead materials.
Hoskin is perhaps the most immediately pleasing of
the four. He uses polished steel. rather than iron or
gaunt girders. and despite the size of his conceptions
he cannot suppress the joy of making and the pleasure
of visual beauty. In contrast to his colleagues· efforts at
near anonymity. Hoskin leaves his imprint. He lacks
their purity but gains in a rewarding intimacy.
Apart from the artists mentioned. the Tate includes a
group of six 'Constructivists'-Hill, Mary and Kenneth
Martin. Wise, Matt Rugg and Ernest. I think this is a
mistake. In the first place not to include Victor Pasmore.
on the grounds that he took part in the recent survey of
British Painting of the Sixties. is ludicrous. Then there
are other omissions like Anthony Gilbert. Those
included, whilst accomplished. do not add up to any
significant British movement or contribution to the
international movement which has now progressed
into the broader field of motorisation. Recent exhibi­
tions in London, and the establishment of the Signals
104