ART IN I946-AND AFTER
By M. H. MIDDLETON
I I' is worth a retrospective glance, this first year of peace, which
entered on the crest of so excellent a jest as the formation (who has heard of it since?) of a league to rescue art, and went out on one nearly as good in the threat of a 76-ft. Churchill on the cliffs of Dover. It has embraced such diverse excitements as the return of the National Gallery pictures and a querulous correspondence in The Times concerning their cleaning ; such administrative measures as the appearance of the Massey Report on the reorganisation of the national collections and the allotment to the Tate of its first purchase grant ; such exhibitions as that of the King's pictures at the Academy and Britain Can Make It at the Victoria and Albert. It has seen a marked improvement in the quality of Arts Council exhibitions, an overwhelming influx of students to the art schools, and a welcome resumption of many overseas contacts.
There have been losses, of course—and first among them I would put that of Paul Nash, a painter of genius who towered above most Englislunep of his generation—but to balance these we can point to the demobilisation of much exceptional talent. And the most encour- aging thing of all is that the extraordinary growth of interest in, almost craving for, the arts which was aroused during the war shows as yet no sign of slackening. Let me instance, as one example, the astonishing feat of the Contemporary Art Society in more than trebling its membership during the past eight months (a trend surely to be continued during the coming year in view of the tempting baits held out to members). In short, in the face of every con- ceivable difficulty, not least the shortages of exhibition-space, of materials and of printing paper, (which leads to such anomalous situations as having to turn to a Swiss periodical, Graphis, for a respectable exposition of British commercial design), the twelve- month has shown a vigour and vitality in the visual arts that is more than mere reorientation towards peace.
But to say simply that would be doing less than justice to a situation of which the possibilities are potentially illimitable. The work of the younger generation in this country today is more assured, more technically competent, more independent than at any time within the last century, with the possible exception of the Pre-Raphaelite interlude. I believe that within the space of a generation there is a good chance—and I will rate it no more highly than that—of a great British school arising to succeed the toppling Parisian colossus. It may be that we shall shed, within the next decade or two, some of the political commitments of a great world Power, but I believe that culturally we may well come to hold a position of leadership we have never previously known as the artistic centre of the world. But only if we play our cards right. We must avoid artificial ferti- lisers and hothouse forcing, of course, but at the same time we must ensure the existence of such conditions as will allow of development if it is possible. Once our machinery is in working order—to change the metaphor—we have but to tap the great sources of energy represented by the new public demand and the wheels will keep turning of their own accord. The present urgent need is for means with which to effect this marriage between producer and consumer, between artist and public, before the demand loses its impetus, as inevitably it will if it is not met and satisfied. During the present period of transition we shall defeat our object if we are too ambitious, however, and I am therefore going to propose three modest new-yeag
resolutions, all of which could be implemented before next Christmas without unduly upsetting the balance of national recover;
The most urgent need of all is to decentralise the present concen- tration of artistic wealth in London. All too often the provincial art gallery exerts, not merely a negative influence.on the. taste of the community, but a positively harmful one. I see that Mr. Geoffrey Grigson, in an article in an admirable though costly new symposium, The Pavilion, analyses the acquisitions between 1935 and 5939 of the City of Birmingham art gallery—famous for its boast, quoted in the P.E.P. report, that "not a penny out of the rates has been spent on purchases." It Makes sad reading. If directors of local ,art galleries are to do their job, they must be allowed a measure of freedom, and they must have money to spend—on purchases, administration and upkeep. Many galleries are at the moment totally unfitted even to receive the more valuable of the Arts Council's exhibitions, from which instrument, it 'follows, we are not getting out full money's worth. But though the construction of new arts ;centres. must inevitably be delayed, much can be achieved- by the adaptation of existing premises. Surely there is a clear case- for a
• "Treasury grant to approved authorities, under proper supervision and on conditions which will ensure a measure of independence for the local director. Cannot the Parliamentary Arts and Amenities Group press Mr. Dalton to make this one of his new-year resolutions?
London itself will always remain a special case. Today, to its own citizens and to its visitors from overseas it presents the visual -arts in a strangely careless manner. Two resolutions' ought to be • Made. The first, a compendium one, concerns the national collec- tions. The war-damaged museums and .galleries must be repaired and restored in full ; the recommendations of the Massey Report should- be implemented as soon as possible ; a new, central gallery must be obtained for temporary exhibitions organised jointly by the ' trustees of the national collections, by the Arts Council, the British Council and similar bodies. At the moment, such exhibitions are either not seen in London at all, or else the Tate has to offer house- ' room to the detriment of its own collections. Could not the Arts Council take over, say; the New Burlington Galleries, which I believe are empty and unused at the moment; My third resolution I would offer to the proprietors of the private and commercial galleries which piovide almost the only outlet for contemporary art of vitality. have, on a previous occasion, suggested that -they might sometimes co- ordinate their work: Tar more important is it that they should extend 'their hours of opening, which are at present based upon outmoded assumptions. The fact is that a normal Londoner who works for his living has to choose between their exhibitions and, his lunch. Who can complain that modern art is out of touch with the general public, when the general public's opportunities for contact are so limited? The Band Street galleries would, I suggest, be serving not only their country but themselves if they would remain open until eight or nine c'clock on several weekday evenings, including Saturdays.
Of course, were one peddling resolutions to all and sundry, one -could fill a whole issue of The Spectator. How nice it would be if one could be sure that all Government departments availed them- selves of the expert advice of the Council of Industrial Design on each and every possible occasion (and, having found it, followed it). How much nicer, even, to think that local authorities sometimes sought its views. How nice if all memorial statues to great men were made the subject of open competition. How nice if the Arts Council would make available to the _public the lithographs it com- missioned during the war, and then commission alot more. How nice if the reigning kings of commerce would not only re-establish in their advertising the standards once set by Shell-Mex and London Transport, but act sometimes as patron as well as employer. There would be no end to such a list. The truth is that the painter in his studio, pursuing as he does what appears to be a self--sufficient end that serves no specific purpose; nevertheless affects a whole inti- mately reactive complex of society. A flowering culture implies, at its lowest, level, a source of national wealth as important as ,a coal- field ; at another it represents the highest attainment of mankind. So if we limit our resolutions for 1947, let it be only on the grounds that we are more likely to stick to those we make.
Previous page
