Page 18 - Studio International - February 1968

A kind of of his approval to an ootire generation of British you make an effort to see that in Europe, and particu­
painters. In point of fact, this article is really doing
larly in Britain, there is a pictorial scale of values
cultural something quite different: it is designed, it seems to which differs very considerably indeed from your
me, in the best tradition of the new American
own.' Mr Baro is clearly incapable of heeding this
'cultural imperialism' (as I'm afraid we must now label
warning.
imperialism? so much art criticism-or, rather, art promotion-now painting in general is by no means the full extent of
But pontificating pompousness towards British
emanating from the United States). That is to say, it
seeks to 'divide and conquer', by giving an undiscri­ Mr Baro's sins in this article: he also enlightens us
minating blanket approval to twelve British painters on the changing scene In Britiain; as if we didn't
of one generation in order to use them as a stick to know a great deal more about it than he does:
beat all their British predecessors with. The painters ' ... the new generation is born into a promising time.
Mr Baro seems concerned to go on record as having The art schools have a more democratic atmosphere
praised-en masse, rather than as individuals, it may •.. There is increased opportunity for education and
be felt-are Peter Blake, Patrick Caulfield, Bernard for economic betterment ... there is a bit more money
Cohen, Harold Cohen, Robyn Denny, David Hackney,
Patrick Heron John Hoyland, Allen Jones, Peter Phillips, Bridget about ... etc.' Yet even such breathtaking banalities
cannot compete with his thoroughly false and mis­
Riley, Richard Smith and Joe Tilson. This is excellent leading setting of the scene for his discussion of
as far as it goes: by all means let Mr Baro lend a hand modern art in Britain. Consider this: 'These painters
in publicizing the achievement of this brilliant genera­ [the twelve already mentioned] were born too late to
I think it is about time that we all became more con­ tion of British painters. In my own article I made it be asked to believe in the innate superiority of British
scious of what Is happening in the sphere of American crystal clear that my claims for British painting were art, a legacy of nineteenth century academism that
art promotion. The only occasion in the last ten years made on behalf of 'three generations': and I have was still supporting a few tottery heirs in the thirties
when I have been driven to write was in December, recently assisted at the awarding of prizes to some of and forties.' What in the blazes is this al I about? Is he
1966, when Studio International published my article, the twelve painters on Mr Baro's list. But let me name referring to aged Royal Academicians? Or is Mr Baro
The Ascendancy of London in the Sixties. In that piece just one of the points where I find his whole exercise just plain ignorant? Because, as everyone knows, the
I did five things: I asserted that London now leads suspect-it is where he is giving reasons for singling most oppressive and ever-present psychological
New York in painting; I accused New York of 'intense' out this after all very varied and diverse group of obstacle for ALL British painters and sculptors In the
artistic chauvinism, giving examples from the twelve: he seems to be saying that they are less thirties and forties the universal assumption that
writings of leading American critics ('For twenty years influenced by America than their predecessors are! British art was innately inferior. The long battle
or more almost all the best new painting and sculp­ 'They are certainly less derivative and imitative than towards recognition and fulfilment of such artists as
ture has been done in America:' Michael Frled's earlier generations [of British painters]. American Moore, Nicholson, Hepworth and Hitchens was
idiotic claim, made in 1965, remains undefended and influence, where it has reached them, has been primarily a battle against this assumption of national
unexplained); I accused British art critics of dis­ special and personal, relevantto individual sensibility, inferiority in the visual arts-and their ultimate victory
playing 'gutless obsequiousness' towards the not just a good idea to try .. .' The clear implication is the more heroic in the light of this. The same battle
Americans; I analysed the failure, after 1950, of being that the 'middle generation' painters reacted to awaited my own generation of painters: the inter­
American painters to develop their own discoveries­ American painting with an abjectly uncritical accept­ national triumphs of Henry Moore had paved the way
a development which younger British painters had ance I for younger sculptors; but not for the painters. We
therefore taken over from them; and I showed in some All this means that Mr Baro thinks that the twelve had to start from scratch-after first losing five or six
detail how it was that a very small group of what are painters just named are further removed from Ameri­ years at the outset of our careers, due to the war.
now called British 'middle generation ' painters-of can influence than, say, Pasmore, Davie, Scott, Frost, Nicholson's great international success was delayed
whom I was one-did in fact render the first Abstract Wynter, Hilton, Lanyon or myself. As anyone can see, -and was thus not a factor In our early struggles.
Expressionist generation of New York the uniquely the very opposite Is the truth I I could be specific It Is impossible to 11st all the tendentious nonsense in
useful service of giving them their first enthusiastic about the European characteristics of many of the Mr Baro's article. But one should not omit to mention
foreign acclaim-without which their recognition in younger painters on Mr Baro's list (and Bridget that he prefaces his comments on what is going on at
New York itself would have been delayed, as many RIiey's brilliant inventiveness owes nothing to this moment in British painting by reminding us that
over there have admitted. Mr Clement Greenberg America), but on the whole the more prominent 'The dominating strain in English painting has been
now challenges this point-but I will deal with that among them are still more visibly related to New York romantic and narrative, at least since Tudor times'
later on. (though rapidly moving away from it) than is the case and 'The romantic disposition in English art is per­
One might think that this attack would stimulate with any member of the 'middle generation'. And, of vasive'. Now, this sort of analysis was frequently made
some defensive response, especially as my article course, most of them have worked in America at some immediately after the war, when it was both percep­
was forwarded, as a courtesy, to a number of New point, whereas my own generation have tended only tive and pertinent to the situation which then existed.
York critics in advance of publication. There have to visit. So Mr Baro is demonstrably wrong in his And it was we ourselves who made itl For an Ameri­
indeed been lengthy references to this article by principal claim. He is also so outrageously patronizing can now to drag us all back into that sort of discussion
British critics; but Dore Ashton is· so far the only towards British painting as a whole, throughout his in 1967 is either just stupid or wilfully obtuse. It is in
American to have made an explicit reply-and the article, that one can only imagine the recipients of his any case totally irrelevant to any consideration of 90
burden of what she has had to say is that perhaps I imprimatur wincing under the sheer weight of his per cent of what is taking place NOW. Equally irrele­
am becoming a British chauvinist. Actually, a dash of condescension. Again, it is obvious throughout that vant is another hoary generalization made by Mr Baro
chauvinism on the part of the British would be a very Mr Baro is eager to imply that any painting of singifi­ -the suggestion he solemnly makes that 'a good deal'
salutary thing right now: I would welcome it pro­ cance in Britain exists solely under the aegis of of British abstraction (prior to his 'post-war generation'
foundly, as an antidote to bur almost universal over­ American painting: indeed his final pat on the head of course) is only landscape imagery in disguise. This
reaction away from our imperial past, which takes for his chosen promising twelve is typically insulting is a hangover from the days of Alloway's anti-St Ives
the form on all sides of insidious self-denigration. -let us look at his words: 'The post-war generation is campaign. Does it apply to William Scott in 1952? To
Denigration of ourselves can safely be left to foreig­ asserting an independence within the broad spectrum Hilton in 1953? to Pasmore since 1951? To my own
ners at the moment. Anyway, it has recently been of what might be thought of as characteristically vertical stripe· paintings of March 1957? The
suggested to me that, if no American has been either British interests. At the same time, it is connected British had a great master of total abstraction in Ben
able or willing to refute the perfectly explicit criti­ with the international scene in a healthy way' (My N lcholson in the early Thirties-a master whose stature
cisms which I made a year ago. there is nevertheless italics). And so on. Could condescension and pom­ is now seen to be greater than that of his friend,
a sort of 'reply' visible in Gene Baro's very muddled posity br more obviously expressed in every word ? Mondrian :yet Baro, byimplication,sweepsNicholson's
article on British Painting: the post-war generation The American critic hereby concedes to British white reliefs aside with the following: 'The avant garde
published in Studio International in October, 1967. At painters the freedom to operate within the limits of of those decades [the Thirties and Forties] had felt
first glance this article would seem to constitute a Britishness, as preconceived by the Americans! I attracted to programmatic artistic internationalism.
partial refutation of my charge of chauvinism among ended my article last year with a warning to Americans: They busied themselves in defining an aesthetic
American critics, because Mr Baro is American, and 'There is still time to stop yourselves becoming the absolute in the wake of Gabo and Mondrian, or they
what he appears to be doing here is giving the stamp Mid-Victorians of the Twentieth Century-but only if jol111ed one department or another of the School of
62