|
I was a practising art critic for 35 years, and I have been a gallery-goer
since my teens; I still am one, though more discriminating (I hope) than
I was. By gallery going I do not mean simply making the rounds of current
shows, but also long and often solitary hours spent in art museums many
of them quite obscure and provincial. These last, in fact, are sometimes
the most rewarding since they allow you to look at neglected or unfashionable
works (particularly of the 19th century) and since they cannot afford
expensive restorations, you can see certain paintings more or less in
their original state, before the restorers get at them and ruin them for
ever.
I have strong feelings about restoration. I know that in many cases it
is simply essential maintenance, since paint and canvas are mortal like
ourselves, but in general it has become little better than licensed vandalism.
All over London, for instance, you can see pictures in the windows of
art-dealers, which have been skinned and then coated with
a nauseous kind of shiny plastic varnish. Many or most of these pictures
date from the late 19th and early 20th centuries - landscapes, still lives,
flower pieces, genre scenes etc. Some are utterly minor and conventional,
but others are very good; however, pictures from these particular periods
have become ultra-saleable, and the dealers know what the nouveau-riche
buying public likes - paintings which superficially look new-minted and
in a pale, bright tone with no depth. So what can you expect?
I grew up in a time when there was supposed to be no Irish painting of
real value before Jack Yeats, who always stood alone and in most respects
still does. That attitude has changed entirely, of course, and now Lavery,
Orpen, John Butler Yeats, Osborne et alii have rocketed upwards in the
auctions rooms. Scholarly reappraisal has gone hand in hand with this,
so that there are good studies and biographies of these men to be had
and read. The old idea that we were merely a provincial tributary of British
art has been thoroughly discredited; in fact, as we know, Irish artists
for several generations looked mainly to France. Roderic OConor,
for instance, is essentially a French artist, and although there has been
a tremendous cult of him in recent decades (launched originally by a few
London dealers) I simply cannot believe that he is as good as they say
he is, outside a handful of very good pictures. Whereas Nathaniel Hone
(equally Frenchified, but he painted his own North Dublin estuary country)
has somehow never been as well loved in Ireland as he deserves.
Probably this is largely a matter of his palette; we are not trained any
longer to appreciate the nuances of low tones and earth colours, the area,
which Hone particularly cultivated. At any rate, he remains a firm favourite
of mine, along with the early Paul Henry who has made us see the West
of Ireland through his eyes. There was a time when I admired W J Leech,
but the big exhibition mounted at the National Gallery a few years ago
showed that much or most of his late work was relatively academic and
conventional. At his best Leech was very good, but not quite a major figure
- he never quite got the Royal Academy out of his system.
However, all these names are slowly drifting more or less into the Old
Master category. It is in our judgments of living people, after all, that
we register ourselves either as competent critics or shortsighted asses.
Blind spots are unavoidable, of course, but it is essential to be able
to admit that we were wrong at times, and even quite often. At one time,
for instance, I badly misjudged Patrick Collins, who admittedly was going
through a bad patch and was producing too many of what my late colleague,
Paddy Glendon of the Irish Independent, aptly called gin-and-tonic paintings.
Collins was a genuine original, one of the central figures in Irish art
since Jack Yeats (of whom, incidentally, he didnt think a great
deal). Today, he would certainly rank high on my list of home favourites.
Louis
le Brocquy? I greatly admire his Táin drawings, the earlier tapestries
and certain of his paintings, but I experience little gut-reaction before
his art as a whole. William Scott? He is a really fine painter who looks
better and stronger with time, but I have rarely hungered to own a Scott
- not that I have had the option in any case. Tony OMalley? There
is an artist who has made his own language and is especially expressive
in the lower ranges of colour. He is uneven, admittedly, but then he is
enormously productive, and the range of his work; paintings, gouaches,
and drawings, is beyond that of any of his Irish contemporaries. He goes
easily to the top of my list.
Mary
Swanzy, who had seemed by then to belong to past history, was rediscovered
in this country with an exhibition at the Hugh Lane Gallery in 1968. In
retrospect it was not very well chosen, but it began her rehabilitation,
and she was kind enough to write me a letter of thanks for my review in
the Irish Times. I still have it, written in a firm though rather spidery
hand, and in a slightly faded blue envelope. But much as I admire her
idiosyncratic, ultra-personal imagination, I give first place to Nano
Reid, another artist who, like Hone, has somehow not been taken to the
publics heart, as she should be. Those who still find her oil paintings
too involuted and opaque, even muddy, should balance against them her
marvellous watercolours, which are luminous and joyful. (Both of these
women, by the way, owed a lot to the late Leo Smith and his long-vanished
Dawson Gallery.)
The Northern Irish generation of Colin Middleton, Gerard Dillon, Dan ONeill
and George Campbell was a distinguished one, forming an essential segment
of the now-defunct Irish Exhibition of Living Art. They created an important
chapter in Irish art of the middle and later twentieth century, but their
earlier work was generally much stronger and more individual than that
they produced in their later years. Middleton might be excepted from this
and he was always a dedicated craftsman, yet his output overall is oddly
disparate and some of it now looks repetitive and almost mechanical. In
general, William Scott has lasted better than any of these, and somehow
his work has an international (in the better sense) dimension to it which
theirs ultimately lacks.
Of
all the Northerners, the one I respond to most is Basil Blackshaw. In
fact, at times I have felt him to be the best painter in Ireland - North
or South. Precociously gifted as a draughtsman, he was already painting
like a veteran in his early twenties and got into public collections early.
He could have put most academic artists here or in England to rout on
their own pastures, but he refused to stand still and developed a style,
which has something in common with the so-called New Image painting of
the Eighties. Some years ago he suffered the loss of whole stacks of paintings
and drawings in a studio fire, but he came back from that near-knockout
blow and is now painting better than ever. He must surely be on anyones
shortlist, not merely on mine.
By the late Fifties, and certainly by the early Sixties, it had become
apparent that the Living Art Exhibition and the generation it represented,
broadly speaking, were running out of juice. That vigorous wave of the
Forties and the immediate post-war years seemed largely spent; some people
were repeating themselves, others were casting round restlessly for a
new style without finding one, others again started well but did not fulfil
expectations. Individuals of genuine talent appeared, including Edward
McGuire who became a portraitist of genius, Barrie Cooke whose glowing
early work I still prefer to his late, Camille Souter with her poetic
intimacy, Patrick Scott (rather older than these) with his elegant, quasi-minimal
abstract style. In sculpture there was Gerda Fromel, though Ian Stuart
petered out in middle age after a hugely promising beginning. But gifted
though all these were, they did not constitute a group in any sense, or
a major switch in taste and direction. And later in the Sixties, Irish
art in general was almost submerged by a tidal wave of Americanism.
From this it ultimately emerged, and certain artists, such as Charles
Tyrrell, were able to take American-style abstraction in their stride
and even learn from it. Tyrell had a striking exhibition at the Project
Arts Centre when he was only twenty-four, and he has built steadily on
that achievement, climaxed by an important exhibition recently at the
RHA Gallagher Gallery. He is a perfectionist worker who lets out of his
studio nothing with which he is not wholly and absolutely satisfied. Attempts
to import quintessentially New Yorker styles such as Pop and Photorealism
turned out to be blind alleys, but Abstract Expressionism in a generalised
sense could be absorbed and married to a native sensibility.
This
proved particularly true of landscape painting, in which an outstanding
figure was, and is, Sean McSweeney. Although a Dubliner born, almost from
the first he proved himself in tune with the Irish countryside and its
very special aura first in Wicklow, then in Sligo where he lives and paints.
McSweeney is a man who has followed his own star, quietly and stubbornly,
working in a relatively confined area of subject matter but mining it
with considerable resource and a steady yield. He, too, goes on my shortlist.
The New Expressionism both in Europe and America - went up like a rocket
and came down like a stick, as the saying goes, but at least it threw
out plenty of sparks and cinders in its passage. In this country the three
painters most associated with it are Patrick Graham, Michael Mulcahy and
Brian Maguire three very different figures, in fact, and their later careers
too have been very different. Graham did not accept the New Expressionist
label and is closer to the anti-form trend of the Seventies
though unlike most of the people associated with that rather inchoate
phase, he largely bases his style in graphic elements and is a rarely
gifted draughtsman. Mulcahy, by contrast, is a notable colourist and is
drawn to primitive cultures in Africa, Australia and parts of the Orient;
his recent work is more decorative than angry or intense, but he has always
been a man with a rich flow of ideas. Maguire has ably represented Ireland
at the Sao Paulo Biennale. At times, it seems to me, he becomes a little
incoherent in the formal sense, but this seems to stem from having too
much to say rather than too little; and his work has a very individual
sense of emotional urgency and real guts.
Irish art since the Second World War has been fortunate in attracting
talented people from abroad, and the trend luckily continues. (Probably
it was Ireland and its landscape, rather than its relatively provincial
art world, which was the real magnet.) Imogen Stuart, Gerda Fromel and
Alexandra Wejchert in sculpture, Charles Brady, Barrie Cooke, Camille
Souter, Hilda van Stockum and Veronica Bolay in painting, are all figures
that come immediately to mind. All of them have, as it were, naturalised
their art here and have widened our terms of reference. Another notable
case is William Crozier, a Scot who has identified strongly with the Irish
landscape, yet another is Stephen McKenna, who of course is Irish only
a generation or so removed, but was originally perceived as being English.
Both these distinguished painters have, of course, reputations extending
well outside Ireland. And another again is Hughie ODonoghue, born
in Manchester of Irish blood, who has an international standing (he is
much admired in Germany) and who now lives and works in Co Kilkenny.
However,
all these have received their due, though in some cases belatedly. A figure
that remains underrated, or it might be more accurate to say is too often
merely taken for granted, is my sister-in-law, Nancy Wynne-Jones. Welsh-born,
London-trained but largely shaped by study under Peter Lanyon in Cornwall,
she has now lived and worked in Ireland for thirty years. She, like certain
other painters of her generation, has absorbed the lessons of abstract
art and has turned them skilfully to landscape, still life and figure
painting - but to landscape above all. A considerable artist at her best,
and never marking time over a long career, she qualifies for my final
vote. And so, shall we agree to leave it at that? I am getting rather
too old for arguments particularly arguments, which, by their very nature,
can have no conclusion. n
|