Page 16 - Studio International - March 1973

Correspondence shame to play such a game. [Malcolm Le Grice writes :
These are the reasons why I am obliged to Anna Ridley is right in detecting an overt
disregard your invitation. bias . . . a problem with artist/critics and
An exchange of letters Yours sincerely non-artist/critics alike. Point taken about cross
(The following letters submitted by Daniel DANIEL BUREN section of attitudes, a view which I share, but
Buren — an exchange between himself and the PS. I hope you will forgive my English. within the context of full articles in the body of
ICA — explain why Buren is not represented This was, finally, the last effort I could make for the magazine, rather than in the broad-scan/
at the ICA during the present 'French month'.) you. news/opinion/information slot of a monthly
column which needs some continuity, if only at
London 25 October 1972 Film-maker as critic a practical level. As for the Co-op catalogue
I was pleased to see the current interest your item, this was simply information received from
Dear Daniel,
magazine is giving to film and video, and that the Co-op distribution office. However, I
You will have to forgive me for not writing
until receiving your letter today. The reason is you intend to continue regular monthly columns equally declare my own bias (and commitment)
that there have been internal difficulties this end on these independent activities. to the London Co-op, but rather find this
over finance. Could I propose that you do not go However, since you have invited a writer who inhibits my coverage of an organization which it
ahead with a show as we do not have enough is himself a film-maker (rather than a `critic'), should be admitted has been the main centre for
money but instead could you come over during would it not be desirable to extend the this area of film-making/screening/distribution
March to give an illustrated talk on your work. invitation for subsequent coverage to a variety of in the UK for some years. By now this column
We would pay for your travel and hotel plus a artists in the field, so as to give a broader has had more time to display its wares, has
fee of £25. spectrum of opinion ? actually mentioned many of the people listed by
I am going to be in Paris from Wednesday 15 — I have no particular quarrel with Mr Anna Ridley, and will mention others in due
18 November if you would like to see me then I Le Grice's piece (December issue) as far as the course. For my own definition/views on that
would be delighted. pure information went, although I got the feeling misused term 'structural film' see After.
With deep apologies for our indecisiveness. that the rest was voiced with an overtly biased Image 4.]
attitude toward his own interests in film-making.
LINDY DUFFERIN 2211d January 1973.
This is, of course, to be understood when
coming from an artist concerned with specific Dear Monsieur Buren,
Paris 26 Dec. 1972. Attention of Lady Dufferin
issues. I think I prefer this, in principle, but IRA French Programme, March 1973
Dear Sirs, simply wish to be assured that I am to get a fair Lindy Dufferin has'shown me your letter to her
First of all I would like to apologize for my cross section of attitudes, one artist about the dated 26 December which arrived when she was
indecisiveness before answering your letter of next, or an artist on himself. abroad, and I am replying on behalf of the ICA
the 25 October 1972. In your 'News and Notes' (also December since the criticisms you make in your letter
Unfortunately, and I mean it, it is just issue), 'Films for hire' piece, I saw only apply to the ICA as an organization rather than
impossible to accept your invitation, and even information about material available from the to her personally.
the terms of your letter. London Film-makers' Co-op. I realize it may be The ICA regretfully had to make a decision
I thank you for your embarrassed efforts to difficult, due to lack of space, to include all hire that owing to the limits of our budget we are
let me know that my presence in a show sources. Because of this one might assume that unable to commission projects for the French
dedicated to nowadays' French art is so much the Co-op is the only source. This may be true Programme outside the Gallery. We thought it
indesirable that both French and English for most of the American works mentioned, but reasonable instead to invite you to give a talk on
currencies could not even afford the expenses is certainly not for a fair number of English your work, offering to pay your expenses and a
that the exhibition of my work would cause. Am independent films. As well as at least two or small fee. This would I think have attracted the
I supposed to conclude from the above that three small commercial concerns and private London art public as your work is fairly
those you are going to show are worthless ? I am galleries, the Arts Council and even the British well-known here and contains a polemical
however flattered that actually it appears that Film Institute distribute works which would fit element which it would have been interesting to
here and there people know that I am not for the category. From painters' and sculptors' own hear discussed. I am very sorry that you have
sale. documentaries, to films as 'artworks', i.e., works declined to do this.
1. What do you mean when saying that I by Richard Hamilton; Jeff Keen; Derek There is no question of any political pressure
should not go ahead with a show but that Boshier; David Hall; Graham Stevens; Tony being put on us by the French Government as
instead I could come over during March to give Sinden; Anthony Donaldson; Bruce Lacey; regards the selection of artists for this
an illustrated talk on my work ? I hope this is a Nicholas Munro; David Tremlett; Bruce programme; and your charge that we have made
joke! McLean; Ivor Abrahams; and many more. Some the selection with a view to 'pleasing' the French
2. I now know that you have got enough works by a few of these people might equally Government is without foundation .
people to make an illustrated show on their own well be considered as 'English Structuralist' as Yours Sincerely,
talks, and I ought to congratulate you for that. much as the Co-op film-makers listed in your JOHNATHAN BENTHALL
3. This is to be a whole imprecated political notes. However, I am a little dubious about the Head of the ICA French Programme.
show with just the right people to please the implications of this title since I have yet to find
French government and, I am afraid, your own an adequate definition, that is on the so-called News and notes
institution. I therefore must disregard your English faction (not American). It certainly
funny invitation. I believe you will feel much doesn't appear in your entry. If it should be Charles Gimpel, who with his brother Peter
freer that way. made at a future date in your magazine I would opened the Gimpel Fils Gallery in London in
4. Whatever is the relationship between your ask that the writer is not an anonymous one who 1946, died in early February. It is difficult to
contemplated French show in March 1973 and has an obvious bias toward Co-op activities. realise now when international contact is
the French government officials, I could not Because to suggest, quote, 'the complete works' instantaneous and there is such a profusion of
commit myself with such an ambiguous go out via the Co-op is, until shown otherwise, galleries and styles and publicity to a point
enterprise. presumptuous and therefore inaccurate. where the entire art marketing system is
5. I will therefore leave your demonstration ANNA RIDLEY increasingly seen as something akin to and
open to people who, no doubt, will have no London W12 distasteful as property speculation, how much
102