ART
Dark dangers
BRYAN ROBERTSON
The Kinetics show planned and presented by Theo Crosby for the Arts Council at the Hayward Gallery should have been an his- toric event since information in this field of art, through direct exposure, has been sparse and haphazard in London during the past decade. With precise definitions and the highest standards in selection, the exhibition might well have been a riveting experience in its disclosure of unexpected, indeed hither- to unknown, extensions of aesthetic possi- bilities as well as a coincidental insight into technical processes. In reality, the show- lacks precise definitions and seems wholly without standards. Judging by the cata-- logue insert of acknowledgements, the shosk seems to have been formed largely by an international consortium of dealers; and the catalogue itself is kinetic in a thoroughl unhelpful manner since it arrives packed in a polythene sack, like shampoo or break- fast food, and when opened shoots in loose- leaf, unstitched, exasperating chaos all over the floor.
The show is doubly dangerous because at an uncomprehending and superficial level it is undeniably entertaining: most of the galleries are in darkness (which always raises hopes); you feel your way through doorways screened by dangling fronds like bead curtains in an Arab market; coloured lights flash on and off, various objects rotate or spin or quiver- several others hum, moan, clatter or whine with accelerating or dimin- ishing degrees of noise: in general, the at- mosphere of the amusement arcade pre- vails, and it is at this level that the slims may well prove to be a popular success. It's a pity the show couldn't have opened in the school holidays, though schoolboys nowadays know a thing or two about pro- grammed mechanisms and might be scorn- ful of many of the trite little happenings at the Hayward Gallery. But for the public at large, the show is a relatively cheerful and painless form of indoor entertainment (not cheap though: twelve shillings for a catalogue, six shillings entrance) and because this is so, the survey constitutes a real dan- ger. If you concede that there is an inter- national movement in art based on kinetic research, and that its motives are entirely serious then this show is an active betrayal of the movement.
It contains no work by Len Lye, Dan Flavin, Soto or Sedgeley, to mention four names at random from the many omissions —and these are four artists who have made radical contributions to kinetic art. If they were invited to participate and refused. then something must have been wrong with ' the terms offered them. As it stands, the exhibition will probably push back any serious recognition of kinetic art in England for another decade whilst the public will be led one stage further towards the dangerous conclusion, already steadily gaining ground. that modern art is at worst arid and mean- ingless, at best trivial or mildly amusing. The Kinetics show is a major instance of good intentions hopelessly mislaid: the Arts Council is a thoroughly idealistic and hard-worked organisation; Theo Crosby is certainly no enemy of modern art. I can only conclude that insufficient time was given to gathering information and not enough outside knowledge sought over the list of artists. Above all, works should have been selected and only commissioned in the rarest instances. Disliking spleen as I do, let me end by commending the delightful and ingenious `Square Dance' by Peter Logan in which four red, angular units do exactly what the title suggests; and the Calder mobile which. depending as it does upon stray currents of air to revolve, breaks the premise of the ex- hibition that the works should `concentrate on mechanical movement' but emerges with rare dignity because Calder is a genius ex- hibiting among artists of mainly dubious talent. And it's not even a particularly large or spectacular Calder,
Previous page
