Page 18 - Studio International - March 1974

would be admirable qualities for a critic to Masson; and so on ? 9 A15 uopuoi caoomliaatin inva
1
keep in mind when writing a review. It is probably significant that the only •tpaads jo sumi pasod atp awrouaape
ALAN WOOD painting of mine she describes is the one in the IITM Aranqap asod ieturou tp!m U0sfiadulo3
Matlock, Derbyshire catalogue. ptre crsol uaaq 2uptuti rano3 asod crq2ll rsauoq
If an artist were to give such slight attention aroul a ir! Sap sup uo apeut satpaads Aue ssassu
On reading the review, by Cara Montgomery, of to his work as this butterfly does to hers, he 01 aicosod aq 'um 1I -sappuapt asod ayatp
my November exhibition at the Whitechapel would be rightly condemned by his fellow artists. jo paqqor uaaq 2u!Aug uopeindod aip csasod
Gallery, published in your January edition, I She'll sink without trace in no time, so we jo uopeultuexa-ar jupti2notp a araryssmau
feel forced to make a response to what I feel is a needn't worry about her, but the annoying llym 1! 'Lap a Jo.; uopeu aioqm alp orur rnoumg
complete misunderstanding of my work. thing is that what she has written appears in poo8 pue lsaz jo lyruls a 2upnpu! moat.;
It is totally irrelevant to attempt to relate my print after the exhibition is finished, when the Iredv pua.redde Aprelpaururt aq llym alp:Isar
work to that of Frank Sta - we both use paintings can no longer redress the balance. jo Lap sup jo sa2Bruenpe sno!Aqo atu,
shaped forms, and that all that can be said. An accompanying colour reproduction would •s,aai asou AsdiD put: suoaiodeN joruaturrosse
I have developed my work, using active help, but here the only illustration is a ur ptmora Auaj yllm sratuptj-1td uo sian!Jp urn
edges during the past fourteen years, but it is chopped-off black and white photo of a work by 3.symm csaoqs pue sgoqs 2uutunr z0 saultoso3
necessary to point out that Frank Stella is a Trevor Bell - with the artist standing in front tretu-reg u! uauraDqod o1 Augaul ABM
much publicized and commercially promoted of it. !pm sluts 433tp pnoi 2upeam sraricppors
artist and I am not. Isn't there anybody on the editorial staff 'sup. pue slurs ssaap to sapanypp rptp
To criticize my work, it must surely be who reads this stuff ? Or has editorship at alum uaunllyur crryqs HemeH pavau-uado
necessary to come to terms with my own Studio International become merely a concern syq tr! As, uo read& iiia rarsytqw amp, atp Lap
principles and the reasons for the paintings for meeting deadlines ? sup uo retp padotj s!1! sma •tuatp sallow rpIds
taking the form they do. My demand that the ALBERT IRVIN atp se ssaap pue 'Lep a roj sasod aumrso3 iTatp
paintings are dynamic, and activate space, does London SWI 1.1a!ar o161Jaqtj is aq Rya uopeindod aryl=
remove them from normal painting criteria, and atp uaqm ‘raciorao oI 'Lap asod-do Immo
the very activities that I seek are disregarded Unproductive discourse uE u! oleu!ullup II!Ai 2u!o2aroj atyr jo
by the reviewer. Mr Wood has inadequately assessed my review •a8uiano3 2m2tregaxa do.t.i.zpv pue satuu aryl
I find the definition of my use of colour as of Trevor Bell's exhibition at the Whitechapel at 'Lap a roj sappuapy2upuutp sradedsmau
mannerist - or architect-taste orientated - as Gallery (Studio International, January 1974). or '.31a cAlleuo2elp 2upupd crapear atp map
unconstructive, and must point out that my Quoting it out of context by section cannot lend Senn pauado sr 1! lutp os 'Jaded atp jo ipp!m
deliberate use of colour as energy, to pulse credence to his argument. uetp Jaipur tpSual atp 2uoie smau arp 2upupd
from the canvas, and use of size to deny Mr Wood implies I was 'looking' for an luau a2trer ppg sup ti! suopsaans •aspclins
over-all reading is a conscious act on my part. adaptation of Frank Stella - why in the world jo matuap Aop a tp!m rapear aip 2upuasard
The exhibition was not a work-in-series should I ? I pointed out an association calcussod se corm se spymer pue =wig'
show and many different pictorial principles which seemed implied in the pictorial terms parnouoq-atup .harp Aran ol paRamoDua
were used; but the deliberate use of spacial of reference both artists use. Having granted aq 'pm oor sradedsmaN •ala small Arealp oioui
sensations in front of, and out from, the canvas, colour, shape and scale to Mr Bell, he finds it zip la mopaioci a! csBulpaj ieuopeu 2upoatjar
which in its shape supports that dynamic, is meaningless of me to discuss those issues. ‘jiasr! rcIpps alp co tpecadde paxeyar arm a or
where I stand, and is an area of painting which I I suggest that because Mr Wood and I have PmIll!At Apjaclou sfql, •03!on airljo suopoap!
fully intend to pursue in the future. made different evaluations of Mr Bell's work ,Aupilana, 2u!sn pue ‘smau atp o1 sasuodsai
TREVOR BELL does not to me mean one of us has been lazy Te.mreu 2uparspiar csrdps pasraatprun
Winchester with his eyes. tuorj sruatua3tmouur pew or pa2egioDua aq
Mr Irvin has also responded to my !pm Aatp ssaBord slaw& alp se rig "31a patuni
I object very strongly to the sort of discussion of his exhibition in the same review. cpa40010 saperaads 'sap csruatursn!pe
impoverished reviewing that my show at the In it, I criticized his work; he has criticized rouuu Am° tp!At uoIs!napl uo noddy
New Art Centre in November 1973 was given my right to do mine. !um sioDunotrue put S.Iolsmslikau svolit maj
by Cara Montgomery (along with exhibitions Disregarding the incivility of tone in which lszg alp ioj sma •atupan a jo sasod 2tiplearq
by Basil Beattie and Trevor Bell), in the Mr Irvin brings his grievances forward, I would jo iDadscad 2upunep am 1u uo!snjuop pue volts
January 1974 issue. be happy to clarify that (1) I did attend his jo arms a cout uopeindod arp 2u!monp prone of
Slick and condescending, it has nothing to exhibition at the New Art Centre, (2) did not 'saw, anperuar Allep!ut up& casod pauopysod
contribute to informed and concerned time myself while there and (3) have no Aiinjarea atp Aearq o1 sgoga sas0d-c10
discussion. recollection of viewing another exhibition in 'paw ociaDEFI buSSanii alp =paid 02 'duo
I thought Studio International was more the gallery that day. 2131°2 are s)yiel, ‘sprom. alp tpym paidnop 'mu°
responsible than to employ fly-by-night I certainly examined the paintings thoroughly oI oN 1mm roop vulq ejo -a2aul! ug tiseij or
try-outs to write shallow nonsense about the enough to surmise what Mr Irvin would smau AL alp roj amssod syr! cAueugap or lysyn
work of serious artists. call an influence. My principal criticism of his marsymw auifid alp IplAt soppu!o3 ApsialkuoD
According to the staff at the New Art Centre, work, however, was not that the devices of a uoyspap are!pauntly tre puetuap or
she was in the gallery for less than five minutes painterly language were employed, but that stuaas tpulm sysyn jo aural a la sntti •uopsanb
(some of which time she spent in another they were negotiated unsuccessfully. The review rnotp!m palclana are rppp t'sasod 2upaojulop
exhibition downstairs). But however long she states quite explicitly what I deemed weak, ie, preptrers Lq v!paut sseui alp ut paruasard
took, she obviously hasn't the equipment to the way space is handled in the imagery. are aM Arapos u! os '09 prom alp uo ipuag
look at and to respond to the substance of a I would like to add that I deeply regret that JOAO dEaf a! cuopsanb rnotyrym pueuruloa
painting. She triumphantly detects an influence. Mr Irvin's letter focused attention on uan!S u co puodsai or %ulna' uompuo3
I would be pleased to point out several. Painting discrediting myself rather than my opinions. 01 basso= st l! `21rurps4 Luna ut se isnf
is a language, like the one we speak, which is I believe personal attacks of this nature are the • ajrno Aem mo lug quiou aiqurdame tit rsnt
learnt. Does she dismiss Turner because she quintessence of unproductive discourse. rou auloaaq seul as0c1 araqm auo 'Appos tn
recognizes the influence of Claude; Titian CARA MONTGOMERY samas.mo pug ate 113p:in& to uouunms iols!u!s
because of Giorgione; Pollock because of London SW3 *soap apis Jaispiis atm
104