, 8111,--1 suggested that the Royal Academy could Pegin to recover
its proper authority by confining as members' exhibitions to the ample Diploma Gallery, and letting its main galleries—where its 1,.inage is created—to instructive causes and un- familiar art-school enterprises. Mr. Humphrey Brook replies that without the open summer miscellany the outside aspirants would quickly join together in organising another ornnium gatherunt. If they stood for anything, why not? Technical competency finds a place anyhow in other royal 4,t3cieties as well as the discreet New English. The London Group stands for an almost aggressive Probity. Mr. Bratby's belief that the 'Royal
"
emy summer show is the artist's one refuge today _ ay from the proliferating pound-pots of Bond Street argues an equal ignorance of the Artists' International Association and independent alliances throughout the country.
The Academy's standards are lowered by the deprivation of most of our distinguished artists in the summer. But they could still be brought inside, independently of an anachronistic show (which countenances amateurism) whose disappearance would injure no artist of any worth, with oppor- tunities elsewhere. The role of enlightening public taste, not simply catering for it, would be properly asserted. And the public would still come in such numbers to serious contemporary enterprises as have rewarded the Le Bas Collection.
4 Hedlev Court, SW/5
NEVILE WALLIS
Previous page
