Page 108 - Studio International - July August 1975

at Chichester Theatre. I recently possible to refer back to the last
collected the painting, which was issue, and to begin to make sense
returned as an unsuccessful entry, of it.
only to discover that the original Timothy Hyman
packing had not even been Steyning,
removed in order to view the Sussex
painting at the judging.
It is not 'sour grapes' on my Corrections (May/June): Further
part to complain because the to Timothy Hyman's letter we
painting was rejected. Admittedly would add that John Hoyland's
the packing was of heavy painting 20.2.75 was printed
polythene which is transparent upside down, Allen Barker's
(just about). Admittedly there were Christian name was misspelt and
4,000 works entered which must the photograph of the site model
have made judging difficult. of the Burrell Museum was
I am complaining because I cropped to eliminate the building
entered the competition and paid (see correct illus. below). In the
my £1.50 entry fee believing the Graphics Directory the following
judgement would be fair and on a entry should have read :
professional level. The judges Nigel Greenwood Inc Ltd
were: Peter Blake, Alan Bowness, 41 Sloane Gardens, London
Godfrey Pilkington and John SW1 (Tel. 01-730 8824). Gallery
Piper, so I think it was reasonable dealing in graphics. Stocklist
to expect this. available. Do not hold regular
The only explanation 1 can graphics exhibitions.
suggest is that the judges took my Occasionally publish graphics
work to be a 'package' piece, a la by own artists.
Christo (see Laurence Preece's
painting in the exhibition). We apologize to all concerned
Perhaps there is some other for any inconvenience caused by
explanation. If so, I would like to these errors.
hear from the organizers, or Avant-Garde Film at the Tate
judges, what it is. In reply to Anthea Kennedy's
Mick Stanley (painter!) review of the 'Avant-garde
London SE 20 British Landscape Film' show at
the Tate Gallery I would like to
Howard Hodgkin
Most readers will certainly have bring to attention a basic point
been bewildered by my article on she seems to have missed in
writing about my films. This is
Howard Hodgkin, as it appeared
in your last issue. I write in an that the films are LANDSCAPE
films and should be seen with this
attempt to clarify.
fact in mind. What it boils down
(1) The illustrations to is that the films have been made
My article was meant to primarily on a perceptive level
present to a wide public an artist where the visual/comparative/
whose work is not well known, cross-referential themes are of the
and whose paintings 1 praised for most importance, the structure
their specificness, their being secondary to this. I feel Miss
particularity of content. Without Kennedy has based her comments
discussion or notification, you too closely on a critique of
went on to print my article `formalist' cinema. Deke
unaccompanied by any of the Dusinberre (the organizer of the
works I had mentioned and chose programme) actually mentions
instead to reproduce two paintings the mistake of drawing this
I had never before seen in my life. parallel in his notes tO the show:
(2) The text `As content-influenced films,
Ignoring my corrections to the they reappropriate some of the
galley-proofs, you mangled the characteristics of the earlier
structure of my article. The essay `formal' film: condensation,
was divided into sections, and in recurrences, overall rhythms. But
each case you have merged the the nature of the landscape
beginning of one section within content — minimal, non-narrative,
the final paragraph of the last. non-thematic — limits any close
e.g. p. 181, Col. 1 lower, new comparison with the aspirations
section begins "There is a of 'formal' cinema. The trend of
sense here" ... condensation (of time and
p. 181, Col. III, middle, new imagery) does, however, offer a
section begins "The areas of critique of the structural
feeling" ... precepts of 'duration' and 'real
p. 183, Col. 1, middle, new time".'
section begins "Although The reviewers rather over-
Hodgkin's subject matter" .. postulated comments give a
p. 183, Col. III, top, new mistaken idea of what these films
section begins "Mr. and Mrs. are essentially about.
E. J. P. was one of" .. . Renny Croft
London
(3) The misplacing of a Hoyland
illustration in the middle of my
article must have finally rendered
the whole piece quite
incomprehensible to all except
initiates.
I cannot ask you to reprint my
article, although I would have
withdrawn it rather than see it
appear in this state. But I can
suggest that you print the
illustrations I supplied you with, Burrell Museum: site model
so that it becomes at least from the east
88