Exhibitions 2
225th Summer Exhibition (Royal Academy, till 15 August)
A multi-sided face
Giles Auty
The event which is one of the more dif- ficult to write about in the annual calendar is with us once more. In the past, my attempts to explain the less obvious strands which underlie the final selection of works on the walls at the Summer Exhibition have resulted merely in my extreme unpop- ularity in certain quarters, so that there are functions at the Royal Academy from which I am effectively excluded now.
Critics are not expected even to notice, much less to comment upon what is really taking place in British art. The few who do so are likely to find all possible perks or privileges withdrawn, not least by publicly 'Untitled', 1991-2, by Allen Jones RA funded bodies such as the British Council. Perhaps it is for such reasons that the true stories behind a number of significant artis- tic events are so seldom brought to public attention. Thus an attempt to hype the career of the relatively unrated and untal- ented Tony Bevan — currently on view at the- publicly funded Whitechapel — as a new British master is merely the latest example of otherwise uncommented-upon activities which take place largely behind closed doors. The many writers who make themselves available to push the causes of this kind of Realpolitik in national and international art may expect to find their rewards here rather than in the hereafter. I suppose the motives of writers who wish to serve the causes of gods other than Mam- mon must be a profound mystery to such folk — but I digress.
In spite of the foregoing, the welfare of institutions such as the Royal Academy continues to concern me, which is why I worry that the face that institution reveals in recent Summer Exhibitions may be less well favoured than it seems. The aim of late has been to attract artists of interna- tional celebrity — rather than necessarily of talent — to take part in an event which is almost certainly meaningless to them. What Jasper Johns, Mimmo Paladin°, Anselm Kiefer, the late Richard Dieben- korn and Roy Lichtenstein may think or have thought of the Royal Academy sum- mer show is anybody's guess. Naturally their work is insulated by eight intervening galleries from the kind of amateurish art to be seen for the most part in Gallery 9, say.
How and where works are shown at the Academy has more than a symbolic signifi- cance, often reflecting the extremes of prej- udice, pride and touchiness of that institution's decision-takers. Why the view- ing public should be overwhelmed with gratitude that Californian celebrity David Hockney has condescended to be repre- sented in the summer show by five works which imply his marbles may have been mislocated for almost as long as those of Elgin is a further mystery. Today, the Royal Academy fawns on celebrity while generally discouraging true talent of achievement, unless of the more superficial and fashionable kinds. The causes the Academy attempts to save now seem to be those largely of modernism and powerful modernist dealers. I cannot and do not believe that art of a more traditional kind, except sometimes from members, is repre- sented or hung with any fairness.
Even here, some of the more accom- plished work in the former category, bY such as Gus Cummins, Norman BlatneY, David Tindle, John Ward, Leonard McComb and and the late Peter Greenharn is pushed out into the less prestigious parts of the circuit of galleries. Meanwhile, those who are not Academicians but merelY excellent British artists, such as Johl! Lessore and John Wonnacott, are treated even worse by being hung badly in the got' erally shambolic Central Hall. Those right- ly keen to see John Lessore's large and very distinguished painting 'St Ferreol II' should bring personal step-ladders.
Hanging of such a kind is mean-spirited and insulting to good art which, as ever, is in pretty short supply at the Summer Exhi- bition. I fear a good deal of the figurative or supposedly perceptual art on show reveals the low or non-existent quality of much recent teaching, being distinguish- able by stiff or weak drawing and structure, imagined rather than seen colour, reliance on photography and general ignorance about tone. Gallery 9 is full of amateur efforts of such a nature and it is very bad luck for any decent painter, such as Geof- frey Burrows, to find himself lumped into such company. His `Roy's Widow in His Garden' is a thoughtful and well-made small work which would be a joy to own.
I know little of Mr Burrows, whereas some other painters of small works I liked especially are well known to me: Alexander MacKenzie for `Trevilley Farm, Sennen' Edmund Fairfax-Lucy for 'The Cairn Hill over Snow' and Carol Sutherland for 'Young Horse Resting'. Artists to watch who are entirely unknown to me include Oliver Warman ('South Munich Land- scape'), Fiona Payne ('Anglesey'), Sheila Findlay ('Cottage Interior, Wester Ross'), Victoria Crowe (`Dialogue in Volterra') and Tessanna Hoare (Waterloo Eurotun- nel').
Among artists of major reputation, Michael Andrews reminded me of his true quality by the large landscape `Oare, the Vale of Pewsey', while Gillian Ayres emphasised only a growing unevenness by the large tondo 'Maritime' which seemed structureless and vapid. However, the prize for the silliest and more pretentious work must surely go to 'Gloria Patti (Six Tro- phies)' by Mary Kelly — this even in the face of some generally appalling sculpture. Regrettably, in the brave new Royal Academy of the future I expect work of Ms Kelly's kind to predominate. Those who foolishly believe that critical and artistic values exist no longer may wish to console themselves with the trendiest tinselry in town.
Previous page
