Page 36 - Studio International - February 1966

'Towards something unknown'

Edward Lucie-Smith interviews Michael Tyzack

Lucie-Smith What difference do you think winning had absorbed, particularly Matisse. It took about two
the John Moores 1965 prize is going to make to you ? years before I really started painting again.
Tyzack Well, I think it has made me a little better Lucie-Smith How do you want your paintings to be
known than I was before. Up till now, I have just been taken ? They have op elements in them, for example,
known by a few painter friends of mine and possibly but you wouldn't call yourself an op artist?
the art critics, but there has been no wide recognition Tyzack Oh no, one uses the optic element in planning
until the recent John Moores Exhibition. light, and one uses brushes or colour—it's just another
Lucie-Smith And what do you feel about what was thing that one can manoeuvre, but certainly the paint-
said of the picture* you showed ? ings, although they have some reference to op paintings,
Tysack I think far too much was made of the title. It aren't optical paintings as such, nor are they geometric,
Born Sheffield 1933; was only when the painting was completed that I
Sheffield College of Art although there are geometric elements in them too.
1950-52 ; Slade School of realised that it had strong visual links with a small Lucie-Smith And talking in more general terms, you
Fine Art 1952-57 ; French reproduction of Baldovinetti's profile-portrait of a wouldn't call yourself an idea painter?
Government Scholarship
1956-57 young lady that I have got in the studio. Someone Tyzack I think obviously the idea is important, but I
Principal Prize Winner (Open said there was a 'mod' reference to the Baldovinetti would say that the paintings are, in fact, rationalizations
Section) 5th John Moores but this is not so. of what was initially 90% intuitive.
Liverpool Exhibition 1965 ;
Lucie-Smith What are your real influences as a Lucie-Smith How do you set about painting a canvas ?
has participated in many
mixed exhibitions, including painter, then ? How did it begin ? A very obvious question, but one I don't think is often
Young Contemporaries Tysack Initially, Matisse exerted a tremendous enough answered by painters.
1955, London Group 1956,
1961 and 1962, and Arts influence on me as a student, and it wasn't until I went Tyzack Generally the painting that has just been
Council Touring Exhibitions to Paris for a lengthy stay that I realised that by trying finished suggests a way of moving and throws up
Has participated in many to be a Matisse kind of painter I was really taking on some kind of art element or form one can use and
group shows.
First one-man show someone else's problems. This was at the time of the develop in a particular way.
Axiom Gallery, London, big Matisse Retrospective exhibition in 1956. It was a Lucie-Smith So your paintings aren't absolutely con-
March 1966 tremendous eye-opener. clusive statements in themselves ?
When I came back to England in April 1957, I more Tyzack They don't seem to be to me. I always find that
or less stopped painting altogether and just spent a lot one painting suggests something else that could be
*Alesso 'B'
of time looking for my own direction, or at least trying taken further, so I tend to paint in what seems to be a
reproduced in Studio International
January 1966, page 20 to find a direction out of the various influences that I series. I don't think it is, actually, but people have said
that they think this is happening.
Lucie-Smith The physical handling of the materials
means a lot, doesn't it?
Tyzack It does, because various colour areas vary in
depth ; some are almost at low relief and other areas
have quite chunky brush marks that aren't visible from a
distance, but close to there is a difference in pattern.
Lucie-Smith What is the painting meant to do once
you are through with it? Do you have some idea of
someone who is going to look at it afterwards ?
Tyzack Well, if you mean how would I like the
spectator, the observer, the person who sees the
painting, to react to it, I would like them to feel
exhilarated in some way, to feel different for having
seen it.
Lucie-Smith To you, painting is not just an event
which afterwards gets hung on the wall ? And of which
the spectator can make what he pleases ?
Tyzack Obviously, he is going to bring his own
associations to this painting, just as much as I bring
mina to it. They may be very different, but this doesn't
make the painting less valid as a statement. I think
making the painting is a very private act but I see no
reason why the thing shouldn't be shown : why the
spectator shouldn't be invited to come and look and
react in some way.
Lucie-Smith You don't see the artist as a rebel, for
example ?