Why History?

In 1976 I arrived from my country grammar school at the Historical shrine of Peterhouse. At the time, although the smallest of the colleges of Cambridge, it had the highest number of History dons.

The study of History was taken seriously and the effect on me was to be lifelong. The key people for me were Maurice Cowling and Brian Wormald. Sitting in front of these strange, intense men reading an undergraduate essay was profoundly challenging. Historical writing involved seeking to understand the reality behind why men acted in the way they did; and that reality was hugely complex and not to be confused with the descriptions of it in the work of historians. For those writing about the past always have an agenda. The identification and evaluation of that agenda is part of the reader’s challenge. The effort to abandon – or at least admit to – that agenda is part of the historian’s challenge.

James Pope-Hennessy

James Pope-Hennessy (1916-1974) was the younger brother of the rather better known Sir John, who was a senior arts administrator and art historian. James was an exceptionally elegant writer. Peter Quennell edited a small collection of his letters (“A Lonely Business”) which show what a great writer/correspondent James could be.

Of course he appears all over the place in books about other people; he was a close friend of James Lees-Milne, until they fell out; and he had the misfortune at one point to be close to Guy Burgess.

His great breakthrough as a writer was his epic biography of Queen Mary, where he was authorised by the Royal Family to use private papers to write the life of the former Queen after she died in 1953. The modern reader needs quite a strong constitution to read it because of the inevitable plethora of German noble and royal titles involved in Queen Mary’s life; these are not easy to assimilate. But as a book it is excellent.

James came to a sorry end in 1974, murdered in his flat. Would people like to read a book about him? It is quite tempting, although his archive is in far-away LA in the Getty Institute.Wondering whether he might make a good book. The only problem is that he has some overlap with Watson, so he may have to come later after some other book or books.

Michael Craig-Martin at the Serpentine Gallery

I went to this solely on the basis of a review in the FT; otherwise I would have casually assumed that he wasn’t for me.

in fact it was a fascinating show, even for someone knowing nothing about the artist. I suppose it is trite to say that there are similarities with Patrick Caulfield’s work. That may at least guide the reader as to what to expect.

Gerald Wilde at the October Gallery

I don’t think I have visited Old Gloucester Street before. It isn’t an obvious route anywhere. It has something about it which screams “typical Central London back street”. There are many such streets north of Oxford Street for example. It contains many types of buildings, shuffling rather uncomfortably together, the mix a result of post-War planning decisions maybe a little helped by some bomb damage. There are some tired old 18th c former houses, as there always are in these central postcodes. They are evidence of the huge building growth in London in the 18th c. Not really gentrified, they show the same exhausted feeling which they would have done at any point in the 20th c; some are divided up, some have office use, some keep some or all of their old sash windows. Some have a bit of all of the above. Other buildings are low-grade 19th and 20th c offices and a converted Victorian school which turned out to be where I was going.

Inside the delightful October Gallery is a show of Wilde’s work which exceeds in quantity and quality any such show I have seen and which may remain the apogee of Wilde retrospectives, on the assumption that larger art galleries will not have the courage or motivation to do a larger show.

The main room is where many of the pictures hang, although one’s attention is a little challenged by the overpowering smell of the adjacent kitchen; it is as if it were still a school and the children have just eaten their lunch. The other room, where the eating has been taking place, has more pictures, but one can’t really see many of these without rudely craning over people sitting at their tables. This is a design fault.

What is the overall impression of the pictures on display? There is no doubt that Wilde is a “hard” painter to appreciate. He makes the viewer work hard to seek to understand  what he is trying to achieve. Occasionally one feels that one has begun to understand. I personally prefer the earlier works from the 1940s. I prefer their intensity of expression when contrasted with the lighter tone of the later work. I find the earlier works easier to place in a context with work by other artists.

It is a mistake to treat Wilde like a great outsider; he had plenty of formal training and was shown in different ways and with varying degrees of success pretty well throughout his career. His work can also be related to that of other artists in a way which prevents an interpretation of him as a loner. And yet, he was not successful in any meaningful way during his long life. The  pictures appeared, but nobody bought them; some significant critics praised him at various times, picking up on features which they happened to like, but it didn’t make any difference. So far as I know, the art market has never taken up Wilde’s work; his reputation languishes in comparative obscurity. Perhaps, as we are so often encouraged to believe about “forgotten” artists, we have all been wrong for a very long time. Perhaps Wilde is another Bacon; it is just that we are too stupid to realise it. But I don’t think that can be right. I think we can place him well enough. He was an interesting artist wrestling in his own way with the issues about life which preoccupied him inbetween drinking and trying to make ends meet. He was a “genuine” artist unconcerned with the commercial reality of day to day life. He achieved in his own way a vision of the world which was hewn out of his personal experience. There is no need to put his achievement any higher than that: it was more than that of many other artists at work in 20th C Britain.

A word about the October Gallery is called for. I cannot praise too highly what they have done here with regard to Wilde. I have in front of me the catalogue for this show and their catalogue for the 1988 show. Both do the gallery enormous credit. There are serious written contributions in both, together with excellent colour reproductions of many of the works. They put to shame the failure of many better-known West End galleries to produce any catalogues at all.

David Jones at Ditchling

 

I visited the art gallery at Ditchling in Sussex today for the first time, in order to see the small show of pictures by David Jones of animals. This is running at the same time as the larger show at Chichester.

Jones was fascinated with depicting animals from an early age and there are lovely drawings by him when he was as young as seven, sketching elephants and lions with amazing skill. He continued to depict animals throughout his career, even if only in the background of other principal subjects.

The small show has a nice selection of works, ranging from sketches to finished pieces.

The gallery has all sorts of interesting things associated with artists and craftsmen working in the area in the 20th century.

Archibald Motley/Edward Burra

Today’s FT reviews a show at the Whitney in New York of an American artist called Archibald Motley. His work looks extremely interesting. There is a full Wikipedia entry on him and his career.I had never heard of him before and therefore can claim no knowledge of his work. But as soon as I saw one of the pictures reproduced in the FT, I thought of Burra’s Harlem scenes.

David Jones at Pallant House

Visited the show in Chichester on Saturday. It is the usual excellent Pallant House show, with exhibits carefully chosen to show the artist’s development. There is a slight problem conveying the multifarious nature of this particulr artist’s output, as he worked in a number of mediums and was also a well-known and highly regarded author. It makes it difficult to do justice to his career without the benefit of an enormous gallery space and huge public funds.

Yet, the smaller, intimate setting of the available low-ceilinged rooms here is right for the delicate nature of much of Jones’s output. The evanescent watercolours need close engagement with the viewer in order to reveal their many qualities. Seen from across a room they are just a wash of pale colours; up close they are full of detail and adventurous brushstrokes. Jones’s imaginative background must be very far from that of most of his viewing public now. One seems to come across few people whose terms of reference are based around the Arthurian legends, for example. So, as time passes,  he is coming to seem like an esoteric artist, almost from another planet. In fact, looked at in one way he can be put in a line of Romantic artists which this country has produced over the years. He can also be put in a highly regarded group of individualistic artists (Stanley Spencer springs to mind), whose work succeeds on its own terms despite being impossible easily to categorize or to compare with the works of others.

A revelation to me was the quality of some of the large, formal portraits. I had not been familiar with these. I was also particularly struck by the grey power of Vexilla Regis.

A number of works have been lent by the lovely Kettle’s Yard in Cambridge, closed at the moment for restoration, but whose works by Jones are one of its many highlights.

Brian Sewell

Yesterday I attended his Memorial Service in St James’s, Piccadilly. Despite its 17th C origins, this always feels like a brand new church inside, with its rebuilding after the War and its clear glass. It certainly has no feel of the 1680’s, apart from the amazing Grinling Gibbons carving around the altar.

Anyway, for some reason it was felt to be the right place to celebrate Brian’s life. There was some lovely music by Bach, Mozart and others and eulogies by an old Christie’s colleague and Sir Max Hastings. Hymns and prayers seemed odd for Brian, who cannot be described as a religious man. The church was full, with many in the balconies.

My own experience of him came late in his life. I was introduced to him by one of my partners who knew him. Brian was thereafter one of the most charming and needlessly helpful people I ever met. He talked on the phone about any art issues I wanted to discuss and he read and commented on the whole of the first draft of Queer Saint. He even wrote a carefully constructed comment for the cover.

Never judge a man until you know him at first hand. Brian had appeared before us all at the time of the public disgrace of the treacherous Anthony Blunt; his public persona had in due course developed in a mildly buffoonish way; in reality he was an extremely generous man to me and, judging by many comments made at the Service, to others as well.

Giacometti at the National Portrait Gallery

This is an excellent show. I prefer Giacometti’s portraits to the sculptures and this exhibition is a revelation in terms of showing the progression which Giacometti made from his earlier work, which was influenced by his more traditional artist father, to the mature work in his typical dry, grey style. It is not a “blockbuster” type of show; more an intelligent focus on one key aspect of a very important artist.

Giacometti’s intellectual struggle with the appropriate representation of the human spirit is everywhere apparent. He is wrestling with something which is difficult to communicate. His words sometimes help; but as so often one gets the best chance of divining what an artist is seeking to achieve by close study of the marks he puts on the paper/canvas. The film showing him working is fascinating in this regard, although one might have hoped for a few more seats to watch from (as at the National Gallery for example). The way he builds an image, following intense scrutiny, is captivating and puts one in mind of the other serious modern portraitists, Freud and Auerbach. All of them struggle to achieve something which is not sui generis with a photograph.

I recommend this show very highly to anyone with a serious interest in modern art. The work is not easy to assimilate and can appear dry and repetitive, but it is the work of a master.

My only disappointment was not seeing Peter Watson’s portrait. I will have to air this grievance with the curator (Paul Moorhouse). In fact, he has surely done a splendid job.