John Hoyland
Sir; A recent article presenting John Hoyland as a European 'Hans Hofmann' has several points to which I take issue.
The reader would be quite wrong in assuming that something in the nature of a confessional took place between Mr McEwen and myself. It did not. I can only guess therefore that his description of myself as a "self confessed follower" to Hoyland refers to an article I wrote on that artist's work published in Studio International in May/June of this year and to which Mr McEwen is Deputy Editor. I deliberately attached an importance to the artist's work which, I note, is emulated in Mr McEwen's own. article. Perhaps a similar title of "follower" could be levelled about his thinking in respect to mine.
However, my concern is not to point to originality in such a pedestrian way.
Of course I admire Hoyland's work, I wrote about it, but then I admire Hans Hofmann's work too. Mr McEwen should have spent more time commenting on and if it isn't too much to ask, looking at my work to see how different in style and intention it is to Mr Hoyland's.
But perhaps of more importance is the marvellous opportunity missed by the reviewer. The picture-going public had the opportunity to see at once, four contemporary painting exhibitions. Perhaps a celebration towards the act of painting. His article could have celebrated this fact with works which would have gone a long way to help British painting. Instead, this mealy-mouthed review follows the old line of 'knocking' one artist (three in this case, Irvin and Golding), to support another. It doesn't do any of us one bit of good.
Barry J. Martin
10 Westmoreland Terrace, London, S.W.1.
Previous page
