29 JANUARY 1972, Page 20

Will Waspe's - Whispe It was a relief to the top

brass of Council that no Parisian observers were4 the other day when Lord Clark (of Civilisti was pontificating genially to some intecre,_ pressmen about the attitudes of the Fre no, wards British art — and especiallY e ) ignorance of it. Clark chaired the committe.coi chose the 340 paintings going on exhibitt.,[ the Petit Palais this Friday under the tie peinture romantique en Grande Bret0gn't0 Gainsborough aux Pre-Raphaelites, and has written the intrOdU 0 to the catalogue. He has been somewhat more tactful in Pri,..11.tt he is orally. He hoped, without any great confidence, tu'd French critics and public were a bit better informed than thet4 been in 1938 when he mounted a similar show of English Pain-ere Paris and when the local reaction was mostly that "there Woe enough ladies in big hats — which is what they thought all %Ili painting was and could be." He still thought the range and Li of the painting would be an eye-opener to them. . e When Richard Cork (of the Evening Standard) disputed 1115.00 tention that the Turners in the exhibition would be a revelettot French critics, his lordship responded urbanely that theY 0 " incredibly insular and know nothing about any art thatoit French" and that even the Louvre does not know, and P°01 does not care, that apart from one recent acquisition "n0 0. ' Turners' are genuine." Evidently even Lord Clark, who Ilasby on the Louvre council for thirty years or so, has been Una guide them to the light. r,ovi I was surprised to learn, incidentally, that the British -,et ment is taking a hefty insurance risk in connection with turoo hibition. The pictures are valued at nearly £7,000,000, an,c1 ocf than that the British Council should be put to the strain or 1 the insurance premium (perhaps about £30,000), the Treastle. stand the racket on any loss, damage or theft there might The home front d When Lord Harlech gets back from his opinion-sounding Iallti,t ejthe Pearce Commission in Rhodesia, he might — but alrne'. , tainly will not — repeat the exercise in Kent in the neighbou_ 0 of the village of Bishopsbourne, whose inhabitants find feL01 acceptable the idea of the pop festival that Harlech's cel" Great Western Festivals, is to inflict upon them at Whitstin:(01 Possibly, however, Jerry Wiggin's Night Assemblies Bi0 a second reading last week) will come to the rescue of„..'he f bourne and give the Harlech crowd pause for thought. ""ncii will make the organisers of open-countryside assemblies firia,,roi responsible for both property damage and pollution. David MP for the constituency that includes Bishopsbourne, reckorld half a million pop fans would produce 63,000 gallons of se,,‘ iciii day. Question: will Lord Harlech and his partners, Colonel 'apt Underwood (who owns the site) and actor Stanley Baker, vici„d be responsible for that, when all they thought they had to v book rock groups and count money?

Hook, line and sinker

The Evening Standard naturally declined the film prodnc,del quest that its film critic, Alexander Walker, should not re's? forthcoming film on the grounds of his alleged prejudice Dti the producer's work. No paper, no editor, would give the consideration to such a request — as the film producer 111V course, have known. So why was it made? Clearly for 01011 purposes, for the producer also knew that the paper wolie tif at the chance to publicise its independence and, at the SO his film. The Standard took the bait — on the front page,