8/14/2019 880326

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/880326 1/4

London. A New Spirit in Painting at the Royal AcademyAuthor(s): Richard ShoneReviewed work(s):Source: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 123, No. 936 (Mar., 1981), pp. 182-183+185Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/880326 .

Accessed: 18/10/2012 16:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

 .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

 .

The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

to The Burlington Magazine.

8/14/2019 880326

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/880326 2/4

CURRENT AND FORTHCOMING EXHIBITIONS

In the so-called 'wide-angled' draw-

ings of the Venetian scene, of which thereare three remarkable examples at Wind-sor (two exhibited, Nos.66-67), the dis-tortion arising from the use of more thanone viewpoint is far more apparent- thanin the six large early paintings to which Ihave already referred. In the View of the

Piazza from near the Clock-tower (No.67),for instance, not only is the view

panoramic - that is, embracing muchmore than could be taken in by the eye ina single focus - but the architecture onthe flanks, with the Basilica on the leftand S. Gimignano on the right, is openedout at an obtuse angle like an old-fashioned stage-set. It is not necessary to

suppose that Canaletto was here using acameraoptica, though there is some con-

temporary evidence that he did use that

ingenious apparatus, which was warmlyrecommended to artists by Count Fran-cesco Algarotti. J. G. Links, our leadingauthority on Canaletto's topography, hasscouted the idea that he ever used it at

all; but even if he did, he needed only to

shift its aim to obtain the panoramiceffect - or alternatively, to use a cameraof a revolving type, like that used nowa-

days for photographing the 'school

group'; and therefore it seems to me mis-

leading to speak of a combination oflenses or 'manipulation with different

lenses', as Sir Karl Parker did in 1948and the authors of this catalogue do now.In fact, the appreciation of the theatricalelement in these drawings, and in theoverdoor paintings, and in drawings thatare almost aggressively capricious, suchas No.96 with its fantastic terrace andstaircase and loggia overlooking the

lagoon, is necessary to the full under-

standingof Canaletto's art.3

JAMES BYAM SHAW

3I should like to add a comment on No.42, the

painting of S. Cristoforoi MuranoromtheFondamentaNuove, the only exhibit that is not from ConsulSmith's collection, hung at the bottom of the stairs

leading down from the uppergallery. I do not agreealtogether with Michael Levey's strictures, whichare repeated in the exhibition catalogue; but I can

see a certain looseness of form, in the figures par-ticularly, which is not quite characteristic ofCanaletto. It might be worth recalling that theVenetian Procurator Pietro Gradenigo, in his diaryfor24th April 1764, wrote of Francesco Guardi as a

pupil of Canaletto; and that Missaglia, a perceptivecritic, went so far as to say (Bibliografia, 826, vol.

xxvi, p.421) that Canaletto often requiredGuardi toexecute a painting that had been designed or laid in

by himself, to which he would add some finishingtouches. Could not this be such a painting, done

mainly by Guardi soon after 1755, perhaps inCanaletto's studio? There is evidence that bothCanaletto and Guardi painted this unusual view;and a small pen sketch by Guardi of the church ofS. Cristoforodi Murano is in the museum of Dijon.Of course this is not the familiar Guardi in his

sparkling impressionist style of the 1770s and 80s;the figures here are much more like Canaletto's.But then so are the figures in certain paintings and

drawings by Guardi that can be shown to be hisearliest essays as a vedutista,c. 1755-65; when,though he was over forty years old, he may haveworked for a time, I suspect, in Canaletto's studio,after the master's return from England, in order tolearn the profitable business of

view-painting.

London, National Portrait GallerySir Francis Chantrey

An exhibition - the first ever - dedi-cated to Chantrey has infiltrated the

Regency Room at the N.P.G. It remainsthere until 15th March, after which itwill be shown at the Mappin Art Gal-

lery in Sheffield, the city near which the

sculptor was born 200 years ago.Although the display is in parts rather

crowded, we are able to see the busts ofRaphael Smith, Watt and Canning nextto their portraits in paint and pastel, andthe exhibition will catch the visitors tothe permanent collection, most of whomwould have been repelled by a room fullof marble alone. The selection by AlexPotts is both judicious and enterprising.There is a careful balance between earlyand late works; the full range of sittersfrom Tory peer to self-made civil

engineer is represented; and familiar

masterpieces, such as the busts of HorneTooke and Raphael Smith and a versionof the first bust of Walter Scott (notunfortunately the one at Abbotsford), are

coriabined with several surprises. Amongthese is the bust of Sir William Blizard of1816 from the Royal College of Surgeonswhich has an almost ferocious expressionreminiscent of Wilton. The characteristic

heavy drapery and even the stylisation ofthe hair may however already bedetected. The biggest surprise is the bustof Watt (reproduced as Fig.66 in the

January number of this magazine) whichcomes from Lord Gibson-Watt's collec-tion. It is strikingly less generalised andmore care-worn than are the publicstatues which Chantrey later based onthis model. Two of Chantrey's originalworking models from the Ashmolean

Museum are shown - one ofthem,

of

James Scott, accompanied by prelimi-nary studies, made with the camera ucida,and by the finished marble.

Readers of Potts's succinct introduc-

tory essay in the catalogue (which is fullyillustrated and very good value at ?1.90)will wish to scrutinise the surface of each

piece seeking for the traces of chisel, fileand rasp, for which Potts has so keen an

eye. On the whole, the lighting is good,although it is impossible to appreciatethe subtle expression of the bust of Nol-lekens, because of the double shadowscaused by the spot-lights; and, as usualwith lighting of this sort, the more heroic

images look best. We can see that Potts is

right about Chantrey's changing ideas offinish (the argument is however mademore complicated by the abrasive clean-

ing to which some of the busts and in

particular that of Strutt from Derby Art

Gallery (Fig.40) seem to have been sub-

jected). But he may overestimate Chan-

trey's involvement in carving and I amnot convinced that it was usual for thereto be a final sitting when the artistfinished his marble busts. Such a sittingis specially mentioned in the case of thefirst bust of Scott in both copies of Chan-

trey's ledger. Why do so if this was 'a

fairly standard practice'?A higher percentage of Chantrey's sit-

ters were men than is the case with any

other portraitist of equivalent stature,but this exhibition includes busts of

Mary Somerville and Queen Victoriaand its chief attraction is the full-sizedseated figure of Lady Liverpool (Fig.42)from All Saints, Kingston-upon-Thames.This, however, is an idealised posthum-ous portrait. The hands are arranged inimitation of the antique Pudicitia of theVatican and Potts suggests that Chan-

trey had Canova's Madame Mkrein mind.He also points out that the huge sumthat Chantrey was paid even exceededCanova's prices. It must be the mostbeautiful piece of carving by Chantrey tobe seen in a parish church; but was it

originally intended for such a setting? Toread the inscription one has to peerunderneath the back of the chair. Appar-ently it is repeated on the front of the

pedestal in the church, so one might sup-pose that it was put here for the AcademyExhibition in 1824. However, the marbleis dated 1825 so it was the plaster thatwas shown at the Academy.

Also exhibited are the exquisite Lady

Louisa Jane Russell with her dove, fromWoburn (Fig.41) and the dead wood-cocks from Holkham. How wise not toexhibit the Homeric reliefs from theformer house and the Grantingof MagnaCarta from the latter; for, when lookingat this exhibition, one might never guessthat Chantrey's imagination would everfail him.

NICHOLAS PENNY

LondonA New Spirit in Painting at the RoyalAcademy

Before considering some of the indi-vidual exhibits which make

upA New

Spirit in Painting at the Royal Academy(until 18th March), it is worth looking atcertain questions aroused by such anambitious show. What is its purpose and

why has it been staged at this particularmoment? What does it signify in terms ofthe state and status of painting now? Is ita didactic exhibition? And if so, what isthe connecting thread between theartists? Will it be regarded as an influen-tial exhibition in a few years or decadesfrom now?

There has been plenty of painting inthe last decade but it has generallyremained in abeyance in favour of otherart forms. The exhibition selectors

(Norman Rosenthal, Nicholas Serotaand Christos Joachimides) feel that therehas been a bustling return of late to easel,paints and canvas; they wished to tell usabout it. They have seen that some olderartists can be revalued in terms of what

younger painters are now doing and thatthere is a middle range of artists, in mid-

career, who have been making substan-tial contributions to painting whileothers were occupied with (deflected in-

to?) other media - performance, videoand conceptual art. So they chose

thirty-eight painters, mainly from Italy,Germany, Great Britain and America.Two are dead (Picasso in 1973 and Gus-

tonin

1980). The oldest artists at work182

8/14/2019 880326

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/880326 3/4

:.-.:-.--:-:::-:-:-:--:::ij:::::a:i

: ~~:-_--:::::::::i:::':I ?~

-i~-i-i-i:i.i:i-i-i'i-i:,iii:I-iil:i-i-i?i:-:::~:::::

::::::::::--_i:ii-_:i:-::::::::::::::-::-ii-iiiiir-?i-i.i:i-iii?"-i-i--i-i:l:i-iir?

~iii-~i-i::iiiii:,iz:ii,:i-::::: :I

ik:i.i'-

::::::~ i:-::::: ::::::-::--::::~::i: :li-i:,;:i:i~i::iiiii.~

:.:::.::-

:i

:~:::_:i?liiii:

--

i--~:i-i~l----::i-i-i-i:-:i?i-i-_-:ili:i~i-i-irs~Bis~S~::: ::::::-::-::::::::::: -:-:-;-

---lx:i-ai-~:::::.i2~61~::-:1--:.:-:'::.:.: -_--i-i:ici?i

::--:--

43. Black-Red-Gold, y Markus Liipertz. 1974. Acrylic,one of three panels, 259 by 203 cm each. (Private

collection,Cologne;

exh. Royal Academy).

44. Young Bather with Sand Shovel, by PabloPicasso. 1971. 195 by 130 cm. (CollectionBernard Ruiz Picasso; exh. Royal Academy).

45. Fountain f Youth, yJuliancollection, New York; exh

46. TheArtist'sMotherResting II, by Lucian Freud. 1977. 59 by 69 cm. (Private

collection, exh. Royal Academy).

47. Talking, by Philip Guston. 1979. 174 by 198 cm. (Artist's estate; exh. Royal

Academy).

8/14/2019 880326

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/880326 4/4

CURRENT AND FORTHCOMING EXHIBITIONS

are de Kooning and Jean Helion; the

youngest is the American JulianSchnabel (born 1951). The majority ofexhibitors are between forty and fifty,some with growing reputations, althoughmany of the foreign artists are not muchknown in England (where little is known

anyway of art soon after its production).Several traditions in Western paintingare represented - from 'blue chip' indi-

vidualism to identifiable if disguised'isms' familiar over a long period. Thereis a preponderance of German exhibitors

(and the exhibition is funded in part bythe West German Government and theBerlin Senate). Baselitz, Liipertz(Fig.43) and Richter were all seen inindividual shows at the Whitechapel Gal-

lery in 1979-80, and Rainer Fetting is

shortly to be seen at the Anthony d'OffayGallery. There are eight British artists

ranging from Bacon, Freud, Auerbach,

Hodgkin and Hockney to Alan Charlton,Bruce McLean and Malcolm Morley who

lives in America. Stella and Warhol,Brice Marden and Robert Ryman,

Twombly and Kitaj (living in England)are the American exhibitors.We could all add and subtract, air our

prejudices and question the selectors fortheir choice. The German contingentseems to have caused most irritation andindeed pruning could only have been

beneficial, cutting out a heavy repetitive-ness of feeling if not of approach. It hasbeen pointed out that Karel Appel wouldhave been, within the supposed prog-ramme of the exhibition, an ideal choice;others that come to mind might or mightnot include Richard Diebenkorn, JohnWalker, Sutherland in his last phase,Miro, Guttuso and a stronger representa-tive of the Warhol generation. Althoughrecently undervalued, Warhol does littlefor his reputation with his present seriesof portraits. And it would be invalid to

say that because Johns and Rauschen-

berg are both having shows at the Tate

Gallery this year, they could not be seenat the Academy. A selection of Johns'srecent paintings would have added a

buoyant weightiness to that group ofmid-career artists so lightly representedby Warhol and Stella. As it is, althoughnot a bland 'committee' show and not

one without its compromises, the exhibi-tion appears to lack some central, per-meating belief in and understanding ofits intentions. This is manifest in the

great fluctuations in quality, the peculiarchoices (determined by numerous fac-

tors, including practical problems) andthe selectors' interpretation of the 'new

spirit' in painting as work that shows adefinite figurative impulse.

Recent debate and acrimonious

exchange have centred on art which doesor does not concern itself with figuration.Each line of argument seems to want toclose the situation with the rightness ofits own convictions. We recently saw an

exasperating example of this with the

Hayward Annual last year. From

Chicago, New York and Italy we havebeen offered further alternatives, all withtheir

pressingadvocates. In

England,

where non-figurative art has rarely beenunderstood or practised with real distinc-

tion, the debate has not been helped bysome of the proposed native alternatives.We have Bombergians, Coldstreamers,New Onanists, individuals marooned bya chorus of well-wishers, the my-(common law) wife-in-bra-and-panties-by-the-fireplace-school. In some ways,this is as it should be; a great deal goes on

and there is much less rigidity in what isand is not acceptable and visible. Butwith a few exceptions there seems to be,to this writer at least, a lack of mature

thinking about the subject matter of

figurative painting, an inability almost toimbue the chosen subject with a large-ness beyond the specific. And this iswhere the Academy exhibition, in spite ofits shortcomings, has something valuableto say. If we go to the top branches of thetree and consider the four late Picassos,we find perfectly familiar subjects - a

bather, an old man, a landscape, a childon a beach (Fig.44). But how he investsthese commonplace themes with strong,

accessible emotions His child with asand shovel is comparable to similarchild paintings of the 1940s, First Steps(Yale University Collection) for example- awkward, tender, anxious, combative,with a dignity that is essentially tragic. Ichoose this last word deliberately, for this

tragic vein surfaces throughout theexhibition. It has to do with a solemnityof image and, although it is not of coursean emotion exclusive to all good paint-ing, it is a useful one when trying to

gauge what homogeneity there existsbetween the artists exhibited. To greaterand lesser extents it is present in Picassoand de Kooning, in Bacon and Guston,Auerbach and Marden and some of theGerman artists. Bacon, for example, caninvest a light-bulb with hieratic power(Fig.48). Guston's witty, pessimistic lateworks convey a similar largeness of feel-

ing (Fig.47).The artists I have just mentioned

belong, in the main, to the older genera-tion of exhibitors. If we look at the

younger ones - Keifer or Schnabel, Cal-zolari or Fetting - there is virtually no

trace of this, in spite of individual merits.What we see is a certain turgid melo-

drama, drawn rather than painted, withthe Germans; with the Italians, a dilat-

ory plundering of others' ideas, stylishlypackaged but different enough from the

Germans to cause momentary relief.Paladino has a huge, striking three-panelpainting Rosso

Silenzioso.But where are

the young English? In the catalogueHugh Casson makes a connection bet-ween the present exhibition and the

Post-Impressionist exhibition of 1912. Ofthe ten English painters who showed

then, the average age was nearlytwenty-nine; Spencer, Wadsworth, Goreand Lewis were among them. In the pre-sent exhibition, the average age of the

eight English artists is nearly fifty. WhileI admire most of these artists and see the

point of showing their achievement in aninternational context, I regret that one or

two younger painters were not found for

inclusion, difficult though it may havebeen to avoid something small-beerishand low key. But it would have given amore even-handed picture of, in Casson's

words, 'the state of painting today'.So, finding the programme of the

exhibition insecure, we are left with sev-eral rooms of often large paintings,among which is work we may be thankfulto have seen. Bacon, Guston, Picasso, de

Kooning (though not the best), Hodgkin(underrepresented, alas), Marden,Stella, Baselitz, Auerbach (a little

dwarfed) - all seem to be showing, in

varying degrees, good paintings. I usedto admire Balthus and there is a group ofhis paintings, caressingly pretty and withan ingratiating charm but little of hisformer power. Mario Merz's two big-boned animals (including Rhinocerosllus-trated in the February issue) seem

totally out of place in a painting show;

Twombly has long been a blind spot withhis trespetite sensation and there is a roomdevoted to him. I could easily spareKounellis, H6dicke (shades of

Schmidt-Rottluff) and Kiefer. Kitaj'srecent handling, a sort of baked impasto,is certainly a way of filling in between hislines. Hockney is trying something newbut leaning heavily on the past (ratherthan gathering it up to go forward) to do

so; his panoramic Mulholland Drive con-tains flashes of the old stylishness amidsome truly awful short-cuts; the finaleffect is a spectacular disaster. He con-tinues to be more at ease in the manner ofVan Dongen as in his Portrait of Divine.

Julian Schnabel, hot-property, seems tobe inept on most levels, yet curiouslycompelling (Fig.45); Fetting, in two GrosseDusche paintings is a sort of Sturm und

Drang Keith Vaughan; and Freud in his

strangely impressive figures (Fig.46)with their Scandinavian colour andworked-over surfaces, appears to be tidy-ing up Soutine for home consumption.

Enough has been said to indicate the

range and variable quality of this essen-

tially conservative exhibition. There are

interesting connections between some ofthe artists; there is some memorable

painting. But the overriding feeling is

that the selectors' not uninterestingblue-print for the show went awry when

they were confronted with the actualwork available to them. (The veteran

Helion is an example of this miscalcula-

tion). So, in answer to the last question

put in the first paragraph, the reply is yes- but sadly for quite the wrong reasons.

RICHARD SHONE

London ExhibitionsThe Tate Gallery is host to two exhibi-

tions by American artists this year, bothof the shows having originated in Ger-

many. Working Proofs by Jasper Johnswas arranged by Christian Geelhaar ofthe Basel Kunstmuseum and closes atthe Tate on 22nd March. At the end of

April a large retrospective of Robert

Rauschenberg will be seen, originally

shown at the Kunsthalle, Berlin, follow-185