A word from our sponsor ARTS
BRYAN ROBERTSON
The collection of recent English painting formed by the Peter Stuyvesant Foundation since 1964 is now temporarily installed at the Tate. There are no immediate concrete plans for any permanent home : clearly, a moment has arrived for a provisional assessment of the col- lection as it stands so far, as well as for con- sideration of this aspect of the Foundation's policy. An immediate response must be one of thankfulness for its existence. The 'Foundation' title and a large part of its activity, including the 'New Generation' shows at Whitechapel, were initially proposed by me, in 1963—a part I mention only to make it clear that my obser- vations are not strictly neutral. But it would be hard even for a newcomer to fault the collection which has accomplished exactly what it set out to do, namely, to represent the main tendencies in British painting since the late 1950s—as seen by the purchasers: Alan Bowness; Norman Reid, the director of the Tate; and Mrs Somer- ville of the British Council's Fine Art Depart- ment.
If no two critics, or artists, or collectors, would entirely agree on what these main ten- dencies have been, the statement in the cata- logue that, 'if many excellent artists do not appear in the collection this is partly because they do not quite fit into the general picture that we wanted the collection to present' is entirely permissible. What is an open question, of course,. and a legitimate subject for debate, is the precise character of these 'general tendencies' and whether the shape that emerges from the collec- tion with such deliberation is really valid, or even complete in its circumspection.
First of all, though, it should be recognised that the collection represents about £100,000 and artists in this country have benefited from a considerable proportion of that sum—which, as a present day estimate, is optimistically rather in excess of the actual outlay. Any source of native patronage for English art is welcome and it is encouraging to learn that the collection may be extended to include sculpture. Some major purchases from the 'New Generation' sculpture show of 1965 (made by Sir Herbert Read, among others) included work by Phillip King. William Tucker, Tim Scott, Derrick ..Woodham and Christopher Sanderson: a fair foundation for any sculpture collection describ- ing recent tendencies. This possible extension of the collection would be crucial for English sculptors whose domestic market is even more restricted than the painters'. The same strong starting point to the painting collection was made still earlier by Sir Kenneth Clark in 1964 when, in awarding bursaries to a number of young artists in the first 'New Generation' sur- vey, he also bought examples from Bridget Riley, Allen Jones, Derek Boshier, John Hoy- land, and Paul Huxley: a strong beginning.
The subsequent purchasing committee has added work by each of these artists to the col- lection : at the other end of the scale, paintings by Nicholson, Bacon, Sutherland, Hitchens and Richards have been included. Given the extremities of the collection, then, what rests in between? With due allowance for an occasional and perfectly human eruption of partiality, the collection as a whole is rather more than un- exceptionable: it compares very favourably indeed with the Tate's own collection, though it lacks the roots provided by the Tate's his- torical perspective. On the other hand, the Stuy- vesant collection seems stronger in some ways when it comes to that general assault of colour and scale which, a decade ago even, seemed so unthinkable for English painting.
What may be regretted, reasonably in my view, is the exclusion of a small handful of artists whose work as individuals does not 'fit into the general picture of English art at any given moment.' Artists, it should be remem- bered, do not work in order to fit into a general picture and sometimes make great paintings which positively deny the authority of any dis- cernible tendency. What I mean, in fact, is that if the catholicism of any collection which ranges from Hockney and Blake through to Riley and Pasmore is undeniable, there is still a danger that a collection formed by two art officials and one intermediary may have a some- what 'commissar' flavour. And this fine collec- tion does indeed give the impression of having been formed by an official commissariat with a somewhat ruthless opinion of 'in' and 'out' so far as talent is concerned, or individual identity. I don't believe, on the other hand, that this is completely avoidable if the collection— any collection—is to have a strong identity.
As it stands the collection will certainly dis- concert visitors with any sense of the general restraint of English art, let alone the pastoral concerns that have restricted its character for so long—though only if you limit your view by cutting out stained glass, illuminated books, embroidery and ancient sculpture. English painting is already recapturing the sensuality, the rich decorative qualities, boldness and urgency of earlier English work, so long over- looked.
In the absence of any suitable Stuyvesant office buildings to house the collection, my own inclination would be to consider the various education authorities in England: children and students should be given the chance to live with the art of their own time. Most school buildings are without decoration and lack the excitement and the extended horizon that a large modern painting could provide. And lack of education in this area has contributed to the general Eng- lish failure to understand, let alone enjoy, the twentieth century—which is why there are no other comparable collections in London formed by industry or commerce.
It is tantalising that the painting collection as a whole has now come to a halt. A visit to the Tate makes it clear that, with few exceptions, the scale, confidence and much of the style and imagery of these paintings have come from American influence. The youngest artists repre- sented—Hoyland, Huxley and Riley with a few others—mark the beginning of a new indepen- dence and originality, and artists a year or so younger than these are continuing the emanci- pation. What was consciously added to English art at one time is now unconsciously absorbed by young artists from infancy as part of the air they breathe. Twenty key American paintings hung alongside the Stuyvesant collection right now would cause a veil of unmistakable pro- vincialism to descend over many works, but it wouldn't if the collection continued. The best is yet to come.
Previous page
