Page 23 - Studio International - October 1972

trials and tribulations of Bryan Kneale at the really does not come any way towards answering the bitter, scholastic bombast of Mr Martin's
RA; but of the work. this. How could it, since it uses the same all- review that I take exception to and that I am
The understanding of any show, whatever its embracing general terms that most critics use ? afraid comes from an excess of hubris. It has led
nature, wherever its position or intentions, It never comes down to attacking particular him to play for snide laughs, attack the integrity
comes from the work, nothing else. In relative problems in particular terms. of other artists and parade irrelevant scholarship.
terms every piece of work in the show could Richard Cork in his article about the RA show No artist should, or usually does, object to
have been placed elsewhere, meaning that not earmarks the question with a contradiction criticism and most are only too well aware (I
one relied intrinsically on its surrounds. They when he talks about the need for critics with certainly am) of their many failures. However,
were more or less contained pieces in the conscience not to do 'a straightforward Mr Martin should not be allowed to elevate his
traditional sense of the word 'sculpture'. (Unlike evaluation of the works alone' . . . and talks well-known prejudices to the level of eternal
the reviewer of The Lady, who thought we about 'issues which extend far beyond the verities.
ought to invent a new word for the exhibits relatively narrow question of individual HUBERT DALWoOD
because sculpture implies carving and the 24 performance', namely the future of the RA; the The International House of Japan, Tokyo
exhibitors were not showing carvings). organization of the current show and the
The galleries of the RA are beautiful, but to 'apparent' generation gap. Yet having talked
ignore the work for the sake of the space seems a about the lack of aggression and cultural Ineffectual gruntings
travesty of value that all the critics took without wilderness that 'we' English have, proceeds to With regard to the comments made on the
exception. I tried to write in a way that would remind us that the heyday of real criticism came subject of my theoretical work by the Art-
give a chance to somebody else who visited the two hundred years ago on that very spot - when Language Group, both in a letter published last
exhibition the possibility of comparing mind and people, critics, artists argued and tossed the coin. month in Studio International and in the 'New
'bodily' experiences with those of mine. A point In fact, the 'heat', the perceptual awareness, is Art' catalogue, it is clear that theoretical defence
of comparison could then be made. Most brought to the boil by open criticism good or is uncalled for, due to the personal and distinctly
critics did not allow us that opportunity. bad - but lots of it; derived from the work. It's emotional level of the comments made.
The usual skimming of the surface, in glib this that we lack - in-depth critical evaluation However, in case confusions should arise,
journalistic terms, and content presented as based on the sculpture itself. q particularly from the naive misinterpretations
anything but the evaluation of the work. Three- BARRY MARTIN, London SWI made by Charles Harrison, who, for some
quarters of all the column inches were given reason, seems to feel that I am engaged upon the
over to describing the organizational problems of same endeavour as that of the Art-Language
the exhibition with such headings as 'Bringing Mr Martin got it wrong Group (insofar as it maintained that I am
down the Burlington House Barriers' or fun I'm afraid I have only just seen Mr Martin's supposed to be proffering 'help' in their
titles like 'New Playground' and what to do review of the 'British Sculptors 72' exhibition, 'searching probes'), I should like to indicate that
with it if you are passing, prevailed. but as I am so severely castigated in it I hope nothing could be more remote from my
'The suspicion, hostility and ignorance which you will allow me one or two observations. intentions. Generally I would regard such work
bedevils the progress of modern art in this Although I disagree with much that he has to as unredeemable from the outset; besides, any
country' is perpetuated by a journalistic say about sculpture in general and with nearly contribution of my own to that sphere would be
tradition of personal compromise and nescience. everything he says about the other exhibitors, to ultimately evince its lack of feasibility, though
I charge them with nescience because where for the sake of brevity I will restrict myself in even this is scarcely necessary in view of the
there is no sensibility little or no attempt is made the main to his attack on myself. succession of wholly retrospective self-
to substitute this with knowledge and awareness. He says 'Allusion to the heroic late Baroque appraisals which now seem to be the only work
Usually their perception and self-questioning classical sculpture of Camillo Rusconi which has forthcoming from the 'analytical' artists.
never raise for them the question of 'What is a soft even handling and to sculpture as a One point perhaps deserves clarification
sensibility', or 'Does it exist in our being ?' symbol of power (e.g. under Imperial Roman) regarding the contention that my work
(A fair answer to the latter is NO anyway.) cannot be fortuitous'. And earlier 'Trabeated' represents an 'interference' to the Art-Language
Compromise, because not one has an idea of (I had to look that up, it means made with 'Geological Probings' (into the Surface of Art
creation that he is prepared to stand by. If it's beams) 'synthetic sculpture with all the perhaps ?!) If my work does represent such an
not the newspaper or magazine, then it's the trappings and luxuries we can afford'. (What interference I suspect that, in the future, the
personality stakes or friendship pattern that does that mean ?). 'That is, the possibility of group will have only myself to thank for saving
decides the content or sway of the article; never looking back historically to pick a style, and them from the inestimable embarassment they
the long, honest and decisive look at the work. mixing them in ways that we can determine would otherwise experience from having
The comparison of critics to an 'impression of without harassment, often with no significant avowed such an intent. Rather 'conceptual' and
a lot of vultures waiting to fly down and pick intentions other than frivolous'. 'analytical' art is itself a diversionary influence
around in something . . .' is a good one, but to Well, firstly, I have never heard of Camillo which can only confuse the issues and, depending,
assuage Mr Kneale's Wagnerian nightmares, I Rusconi I'm sorry to say. Secondly, I've never as it does, on a relatively uninformed public
suggest that he turns the telescope round and been concerned about sculpture as symbol of distracts attention from more rational areas of
views the creature from the right end. I can power so my allusions didn't exist. Thirdly, I enquiry (though ultimately I would not call it an
assure him that the friendly little fellow he now didn't look back historically to pick a style or a interference as reason habitually 'wins through').
sees with the pumped-up chest is a critic, a method of construction. In so far as I had a The level of the remainder of the comments
cheeky sparrow — assured of kindly attention constructual intention it was to use the simplest (which are too mundane and 'art-worldly' to
from all and sundry when preening himself in method I could think of to make what I wanted deserve mention) made by the Art-Language
public places — which brings me to the point of to make. Indeed in so far as any 'allusions' are Group and their art-historical commentator in
lack of interest that most sculptors have about inherent in the piece they are to arbours. residence, reveals an inability to provide
what is said in the most glib way about their In short, about me anyway, and I suspect theoretical backing to what, through the
work. It is, as Richard Cork says, an 'English about most of the other exhibitors, Mr Martin gruntings, sounds like a disagreement and the
sense of reserve', a relish in 'our national gift for got it wrong. But his failings as a critic lie deeper (personal) level of the attack can hardly enhance
reticence and decorum', which militates than factual error or error of interpretation, few the public image the group has of themselves as
`against a truly vital cultural growth.' artists would find mistakes of that kind very theoretical sophisticates.
The petulant ending to Mr Kneale's article surprising or take much exception to them. It is JOHN STEZAKER, London W2
115