Page 17 - Studio International - December1996

been accused by American critics of retreating into for its permanent collection. of those by the British; and particularly, amongst
• Cubism again—which betrays an incredible in- So Pollock owed his first introduction to London to these, of those by abstract painters. Does a double
sensitiveness to the pictorial facts of our work (or the Institute of Contemporary Arts—whose Presi- retrospective of 132 works by Ben Nicholson, put
is it just a wilful blindness?). Furthermore we have dent, then as now, was Sir Herbert Read. But on in April 1965, at two leading New York dealers
brought to this task of re-complication certain Pollock was, as I've already suggested, several simultaneously, really only merit ninety odd coolly
European resources of sensibility and instinct years ahead of all his friends in New York in superior words in Arts (N.Y.)?
which contrast extraordinarily with the American becoming known over here. It was not until When Mr Michael Fried begins his book on
painters, who seem, by comparison, far more January 1956, at the Tate Gallery, that most of Noland, Olitski, and Stella (Three American Painters:
dominated by the sheerly conceptual, by exclu- us had our first glimpse of the other American published by Harvard University in 1965) with

sively intellectual or systematized* modes of work- artists I've mentioned. The exhibition was Modern the words: 'For twenty years or more almost all
ing. Hence the accusation that our pictures look Art in the United States, organized by the Museum the best new painting and sculpture has been done

`too hand-made'. Actually—they are meant to be. of Modern Art in New York. And although most in America ... ' is the rest of the world supposed to
Hence, too, our rejection of the quite incredibly of these 'first generation' New York painters were shrug this sort of nonsense off with a smile? Or,
widespread addiction—amongst American painters only represented by a single canvas each (and take the calculated, patronizing cheek of Mr Max
of more than one school—to the symmetrical format, Barnett Newman was unaccountably omitted Kozloff who, in an article in Encounter, in January
the symmetrical image set down bang in the altogether), we were all very quick to get the point 1964, on 'British Painting Today', goes on like
centre of the canvas. This symmetry, or centre- of what had happened. this: ' ... it is hard to be unaware of a general
dominated format, has become a vast academic In Arts (New York), for March 1956, I published deficiency in British art. Timorousness, in itself,
• cult, evident even in the best Americans. The a long article on this exhibition in which I praised does not accurately express it. Rather, the word
British 'middle generation' never fell for this: we the new American achievement with unrestrained underlies the withdrawals and missed opportuni-
never abandoned the belief that painting should enthusiasm. Indeed, I was asked only last October, ties which have resulted from a certain ethical
resolve asymmetric, unequal, disparate formal in- in New York, by a high official at a world-famous nicety.... Sacrifices of radical positions in British
gredients into a state of architectonic harmony Museum, whether I realized that my articles in painting, when known as sacrifices, are made for
which, while remaining asymmetrical, nevertheless Arts, from London, between 1955 and 1958, had the sake of imaginary virtues. Sensuous restraint,
constitutes a state of perfect balance, or equili- been 'crucial for the success of American painting further, cannot be respected when there is little
• brium. That obvious 'unity', of image or format, abroad' ? I replied that such a result had even been sensuous responsiveness. And one questions a moral
which the American cultivation of the symmetrical my intention. [sic] husbanding of energy in a picture when there
canvas (or `composition'— a nice old-fashioned In the article in March 1956, I had said that: is no implication of energy....' And this: 'The pre-
word which still nevertheless serves) produces so `the fame of these painters [Pollock, Rothko, etc.] eminent critical issue so far raised about British
easily—this is a unity not worth having. Indeed, it just managed to precede the arrival of their art centres around its possible loss of 'Britishness',
• has short-circuited the whole process of pictorial canvases.' This was an ideal state of affairs, from as if the latter was some burdensome form of
statement, which should involve an elaborate, the American point of view, and most of the credit virginity.' Or ' ... the most poignant irony of the
intuitive adjustment and readjustment of initially for it must go to such painters as William Scott, Tate-Whitechapel exhibition [a large double
warring and disparate elements, until they finally Alan Davie and the late Peter Lanyon, for instance. exhibition which represented a pretty thorough
click into the condition of balance. And Lanyon, of course, was painting 'like an cross-section of British painting in 1963], even
But I began with the claim that it was we British American Abstract Expressionist' from 1950 on- when one admits, as I do, that it reflected a coming
middle generation painters who first rendered wards—that is to say, for some years before he of age among certain London painters, was that
Pollock, Rothko and the others I've named, the himself or any of the rest of us had any acquaint- the present New York situation once again catches
signal service of foreign recognition; and, al- ance whatsoever with the work of the New York them off guard....'
though it is boring, I had better go into this here. painters. To all those in America who would find no
Alan Davie started the process in the late 'forties Describing my own reactions to that show, in that difficulty in endorsing every word I have just
when he saw, and was influenced by, canvases by same article in March 1956, I said: 'I was quoted from Mr Kozloff I will only say one thing:
Pollock in Italy. Then, in the summer of 1953, instantly elated by the size, energy, originality, Wake up! Stop fooling yourselves! There is still
William Scott spent ten days in New York, on his economy, and inventive daring of many of the time to stop yourselves becoming the Mid-
way home from teaching in Canada, and came paintings. Their creative emptiness represented a Victorians of the Twentieth Century—but only if
back to London with the amazing news that there radical discovery, I felt, as did their flatness, or you make an effort to see that in Europe, and
was a whole group (we only knew of Pollock) of rather, their spatial shallowness. I was fascinated particularly in Britain, there is a pictorial scale of
important new painters at work there (New by their consistent denial of illusionistic depth....' values which differs very considerably indeed
York) —referring to the eight painters I have men- And: 'I would like to end by insisting that to me from your own.
tioned. Their names meant nothing to us: but and to those English painters with whom I Zennor
Scott was tremendously enthusiastic. I think the associate, your new school comes as the most September 1966
first canvases by any of this 'first generation' of vigorous movement we have seen since the war.' 0
New York painters to be seen in Britain were the And I renewed my very flattering analysis of
three or four Pollocks shown at the Institute of Pollock, Rothko, Kline and Still in an article in *Since writing this article I've seen a Press Release
Contemporary Arts in a mixed show of seven the May 1958, issue of Arts (N.Y.), for instance. from the Guggenheim Museum, New York, announcing
painters (the other six worked in Paris) in 1953. I So I do not think we British painters can be an exhibition of 'Systemic Painting'. Mr Lawrence
reacted unfavourably at first: but later, remember- accused of chauvinism, cageiness, slyness or indeed Alloway is, it seems, about to create a 'new' American
ing the one large Pollock at the I.C.A., I began of anything other than a slight excess of generosity movement, cutting across existing groupings, based on
• to refer to him with increasing enthusiasm in and openness towards our American friends. an illiterate use of the word systemic—for it is explained
that he is referring to artists who work 'according to a
lectures and articles, even mentioning him in the As I have said, I am not here engaged in justi-
same breath as Picasso and Moore, I'm sorry to fying in detail my round assertion of the ascendancy system, plan, or organized method' as an alternative
to the 'earlier gestural and expressionist style'. That
say, in the Introduction (`October 1954') to my of British painting today, in the middle sixties. the artists Mr Alloway is choosing do indeed work in
book, The Changing Forms of Art, and ending up by But I have accused New York of chauvinism and I the way here suggested one does not doubt. This is
criticizing the Tate Gallery, in a letter to the New will end by asking anyone who really doesn't know precisely their limitation and misfortune. But systematic
Statesman and Nation published on Christmas Day, what I mean by this to look through the New York is the only word available to Mr Alloway. 'Systematic
1954, for not having already acquired works by reviews of exhibitions by non-American artists in Painting' though, wouldn't sound too good. Anyway,
`Pollock, Tobey, Calder, Motherwell', and others, New York, during the past four years—particularly this all highlights the very criticism I was making.