ART PRIZE WINNERS

The Spectator/Adam & Company Three Cities Art Prize

In open competition

Giles Auty

When the jury convened to decide the winner and runners-up of the inaugural Three Cities Art Prize, we did so with a certain trepidation. Some degree of this anxiety was justified fairly quickly: the transport bringing the Scottish entries had broken down overnight and was stuck thereafter in a traffic jam in St James's. Within minutes of our arrival, however, paintings were being unloaded at the Cen- tral School of Art who lent us their premises, very kindly, for the judging.

But our greater fears had yet to be taxed. Whether we admitted it or not, all of us felt worried about the unknown quality of the entries. Much hard work, enthusiasm and thought had gone into setting up the competition both from the donor of the prizes, Adam & Company, a private bank with branches in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and, dare I add, staff at our own offices who did a good deal of the initial donkey-work. Yet the success of the competition lay clearly at the feet of the youngish artists who were submitting the paintings. Would the prize, prestige and publicity encourage a good turn-out? Or might the composition of a slightly fogeyish-seeming jury and the rules of the ,Competition, which restricted the subject matter to any aspect of life in one of the above-mentioned three cities, discourage the younger firebrands?

It would be little exaggeration to say that sighs of relief were audible as the first paintings were paraded past anxious eyes. My own immediate thought was that quite a few young artists (under 35 and at least a year out of college) had approached the competition seriously. Hard work and care were in evidence and the familiar hastily nailed-on battening in place of a frame was thankfully absent. Here we were faced not just with good paintings but generally excellent presentation. We were looking at work by artists with sufficient belief in themselves to back their own abilities: the price of a well-made frame buys a good deal of paint, materials, food or beer. Remembering my own less than entirely organised artistic youth, the sight of such professional pragmatism filled me with hope. It seems that youngish painters, outside the more inward-looking fringes, may be growing up at last.

Of course, it could be that more extreme and supposedly avant-garde elements may have been discouraged by the terms of the award, which had their own subtle pur- pose. Yet is is fair to add that those who try to bottle their thoughts in jam jars, say, or who regard paints simply as strange- coloured muds have hardly been short of patrons or protagonists themselves during the past two decades. Our competition, by contrast, hoped to encourage higher stan- dards of drawing, painting, looking and thinking. We were not meeting simply to reward clever conformity to international fashion — as the juries of more famous art prizes may sometimes seem to have done

First Prize: 'Greenwich', by Robert Morgan, oil on canvas, 24" x 36"

ART PRIZE WINNERS

— nor, not least since we are in our first year, were we searching for Buggins.

In the present, more expansive econo- mic climate, we may hope to see more commercial patrons giving money to the arts. To the money-minded, the raising of funds has tended to overshadow all as the essential priority. While not .dissenting altogether from this view, I suspect never- theless that in the visual arts, at least, less money better spent can prove, in the long run, more genuinely productive. The secrecy surrounding certain major art awards damages their credibility. We know nothing of how or why their juries are chosen, short lists compiled or final deci- sions arrived at.

Although our awards were admittedly comparatively modest — £1,000 plus purchase or commission for the winner, £500 for second, £250 for third — I feel the Three Cities Art Prize gains added value from the overt nature of its aims and conduct. On the day this issue appears I will be recounting why an experienced jury chose as it did at a reception held in Edinburgh to present the awards. Our jury of five — Richard Calvocoressi, keeper of the Gallery of Modern Art in Edinburgh; Peter Greenham RA, former keeper of the Royal Academy Schools; James Lauren- son, managing director of Adam & Com- pany; John Lumley, head of Christie's International Department, and I together represented many years of know- ledge of all aspects of art including its practice. Our backgrounds differed widely yet our final decisions were extraordinarily and agreeably unanimous: winner Robert Morgan, second prize Lesley Banks, third prize Kate Downie. We strongly commended the entries of Mark Cazalet, Les Dalton, Simon Redington, Herbert ROell, Paul Rumsey, Mark Tindell and F. D. Yocum. I would also mention Sarah Beddington, Sarah Butterfield, Peter Hol- land and Robert Soden as among the many artists who gave us all special pleasure.

There were around 150 entries in all and our working method was kept necessarily simple: each member of the panel selected the 15 works he personally thought the pick of the bunch. Any paintings with two votes or more were short-listed for second and final judging. All paintings so chosen plus a few other individual favourites make up the Three Cities Art Prize Exhibition to be shown privately at the premises of Adam & Company in Edinburgh (22 Char- lotte Square) and London (42 Pall Mall, SW1). Spectator readers are welcome to view the exhibition by appointment (tele- phone 031-225 8484 or 01-839 4615). On points of fairness it is worth noting that nearly all the artists were unknown to nearly all of us prior to the judging and that an all-male jury awarded two of the three available prizes to women.

I am pleased to add that none of the prize-winning paintings could be described as fashionable, although Lesley Banks's painting of Glasgow University (second prize) was chosen for its vitality, humour and panache, qualities strongly associated with Glasgow and its current art. Yet, while loosely expressionistic, this painting comes over as an honest and personal statement. Moreover, the echoing of the girl's russet hair in the autumn trees and her crimson nail varnish in the rose-tipped clouds and roofs showed an artistic sophis- tication which argued against patches of almost naive handling. The jury felt this painting said something about Glasgow no less strongly than Kate Downie's ambitious painting of the backs of Georgian houses in Newtown (third prize) was redolent of Edinburgh's faded yet elegant glories. Downie's painting is broad in handling but fundamentally well structured and gives a sensation of real light and atmosphere by clever modulation of a limited palette.

Robert Morgan's winning work, painted in Greenwich, is a mature and meticulously considered painting; it was no great shock to learn the artist first considered training as a lawyer. While concerned with accura- cy in drawing, this painting avoids the pitfalls of becoming niggling or unduly tight. There is real space, atmosphere and light in the artist's rendering of the miscel- lany of domestic and commercial buildings so typical of many areas of London. The artist has understood what he was looking at and tackled this experience with care and feeling. In so doing he has also provided a valuable historic record of contemporary London. All three artists merit wider exposure and the backing of sympathetic dealers.

I have just learned that Whigam's Wine Cellar in Edinburgh is pressing a magnum of champagne on Mr Morgan. He has a good deal to celebrate and be proud of.

Second Prize (left): 'Figure looking towards Kelvingrove Park and Glasgow University', by Lesley Banks, oil on paper, 44" x 33". Third Prize (right): 'City nature', by Kate Downie, oil on canvas, 47' x 60".