Page 49 - Studio International - April 1968

Correspondence ignorant because I had forgotten or ignored previous certainly he is difficult; if he has a language, I do not
writi�gs of Messrs Greenberg, Baro and Heron. Now
understand it. As an historian I only just begin to
I have reconsidered them. all seem to point to a understand the language of David's Horatii or
critical malaise. and in this light, I would like to Picasso's Demoiselles. One does not expect a diffi­
comment on contributions by some of the above cult language to be understood in a short time, but if
named critics, and reply to the appealing questions a critic claims comprehension, he could explain,
of Charles Harrison's February 'London Comment­ which Mr Harrison does not even try to do. His flat
ary', First. however. I must draw attention to an assertions about Caro, and obscure ones about Lewis
article of E. Lucie-Smith in The Times, and a letter of and Nicholson, place him, in critical quality. no higher
J. Bratby to the New Statesman. both last December. than the critics whom he blames for having failed to
in which they expressed, to my surprise if not dis­ make any such assertions. A reference to Greenberg
pleasure, similar views to my own. Also I was is not enough; nor is one to Bowness, who to my
'Cultural i m perialism· surprised to find myself in partial agreement with so mind (clever flourish). has devoted himself to works
many conflicting writers. but hope that this is due to of artists of the third rank-Scott or Davie, to name
Sir. their inconsistency rather than to mine. and to their the most obvious. So what does he want for Caro and
Patrick Heron's article 'A kind of cultural imperial­ diffuseness, at which I have already hinted. British sculpture-instant blanket recognition? An­
ism?' in February's edition of Studio seems to me to Greenberg in his interview (in which 'sense' is other Prize? Everyone to pretend they understand?
be inspired by the rather dubious values of the present deliberately sacrificed to ·casualness'), gives a des­ What does he think that American 'appreciation' will
London art world. cription of ·avant-garde' essentially similar to my do for Caro's work? It is obvious that he re.quires that
In reply to his five assertions I would like to ask five own, that is. as what was once called academic or very publicity which his position of engagement
questions: philistine. And this can be related to the idea, all too should require him to despise. Let us then accept
1. What does 'the ascendancy of London in the briefly raised by D. Thompson. of the distinction Caro just because he is different.
Sixties· mean; and whose ladder are we climb­ between the promotion of art and its criticism ; but I I am drawn by this sort of bloodless commitment to
ing? will return to this. In the meanwhile, as Heron points the conclusion that criticism is endangered by its
2. Why is it important to develop artistic dis­ out. Greenberg's assessment of Moore seems to be professional hack-writing status: we have many
coveries? fashionable rather than critical. I would not much publicists but few critics whose minds are themselves
3. What is meant by the statement 'London now mind if the history of twentieth century art had to of intrinsic interest like Ruskin, Baudelaire or the pre­
leads New York in painting'? What race does be rewritten with Moore as a minor figure, as Heron ministerial Malraux. No one would think Baudelaire's
this refer to, and who are the judges? strangely does, because that is an irrelevant con­ assessment of Constantin Guys an accurate one, but
4. What does it matter what American critics think? sideration. I agree with him that the reaction against it transcends accuracy and publicity, right or wrong;
5. What does it matter what British critics think? Moore is to do with saturation and an increasing it is profoundly interesting and at least defends a type
R. Hamer awareness of and sensitivity to his bad or not good of art. Worse, if critics are indifferent, artists seem
Manchester works. Butagain. as Greenberg spoils whatever argu­ prepared to go along with them. If, as Mr Thompson
ment he might have with too many clever asides that
Sir. are no more than flourishes, so Heron spoils his with
I hold no brief for the views of either Mr Greenberg a questionable reference to Picasso: and later in his
or Mr Heron. The one seems prejudiced to the point work. Heron denies his own important assertion that
of narrowness, the other subjective to the point of self-respecting art critics should plod on to a con­
prejudice. But I am delighted to see them come out­ clusion, by pulling out a barrage of uncritica�defences,
as does Jean Clay in your February issue-and say viz: prizes won. to defend Chadwick. Armitage, etc.
what they think without pulling any punches. Only Again and again, criticism v promotion i� implicit.
when artists and critics are prepared to express them­ To turn to D. Thompson's letter. He points out in a
selves thus with frankness (and, if you like, sub­ curious argument (full of insights like that about the
jectivity) will worthwhile and creative discussion emulation of difficult art) what is hardly worth im­
arise. plying-that at any period-and more so this-95 per
Yours, etc. cent of art is bad. but that some of it can be enjoyed.
John Ross But if 95 per cent of art is bad. 95 per cent of criticism
Bristol is worse and cannot be enjoyed. His last sentences
defending critics are hardly borne out by their writing
Sir, which must be. hopefully. at a nadir. whether it
I appear in my letter published in December Studio appears in Dailies. Sundays or glossy serious Month­
to have strayed, albeit with unwitting ignorance and lies. For one thing is really obvious-critics are never
splenetic haste, somewhere near the seeming centre prepared or never allowed to plod to a conclusion; a
of an art critical dispute which has raged in this few slick questions on BBC. 2. a review dashed off
journal for some fifteen months. There were two between a private view on Thursday and the paper on
separate issues, that of American v British art, and Sunday, a marked lack of thought or commitment, all
that of art and art criticism. With P. Heron's article ineluctably leads to the conclusion that critics are
this February, they have become intimately fused; first and foremost publicists. Unlike the publicists of
partly because the contestants have proved unable tinned beans or soup. they are allowed to slate another 75yearsago
or unwilling to stick to one point or theme, and throw product which they think not quite so good. Even if
into their discussion of criticism lush value judgments critics follow the work of an artist. and I am sure they The Westminster Gazette of April 5 records the appear­
on individual artists, or use an artist as a cover for do between exhibitions. the pressures of their profes­ ance of The Studio, 'it is nicely produced' and is kindly
mutual attack. And in part and more rightly, they call sion can hardly allow them to notice any difficulty in anxious concerning its success. This is quite 'up to date'
reviewing, for even the first sheet had not left the press
in doubt each other's critical methods whatever they a painter. Recent reviews of Hackney's admirers seem
write. The whole affair at last seems to be taking a to substantiate this; they still love the gimmicks or by that date, and no human being had seen a copy, for
shape, and from desultory mud throwing, we have wit; they stick firmly on the surface. Like many others the simple reason that no copy existed.
moved to mud diving. Mr Heron is the latest to arise I reiterate-good art is not easy. But blanket recogni­
in majesty, and somewhat cleaner than the rest. Now tion is worse than none. for it smothers meaning and
I am sure of what is happening, I would like to join so escapes it. 50 years ago
in again. Let me illustrate further by replying to Charles The Committee formed under the chairmanship of
I speak of my ignorance because when I wrote I had Harrison's pathetic cries for Caro. He blames other Sir John Lavery to obtain a characteristic example of
not followed the build-up of the discussion. My critics for not according the Kasmin show the im­ the work of I van Mestrovic for a public collection
attention was only drawn to P. Gavagan's letter by portance in which he himself held it. Most simply, invites subscriptions to make up the amount already
D. Thompson's reply to it last month. The most part of there can be genuine divergence of opinion. I myself subscribed (£350) for the purchase of the relief in wood,
D. Thompson's defence was as classic a cliche as Mr sometimes wonder if Caro does not link technical Descent from the Cross, which has been chosen both as a
Gavagan's attack, and though I agree with much of facility with a bent for evocative titles: e.g., Early fitting symbol of the measureless sacrifice of the Serbian
what he says, the two letters demonstrate the mul­ Morning is really more effective than the twigs and race, and as representing one remarkable side of the
tiple wrong-endedness of any stick. Also I was branches amongst which it is photographed. But Serbian sculptor's art.
173