ART VERSUS STYLE

The Month of May in Paris-1968 by Raymond Mason

In my limited thinking about the nature of art I often find that I believe that artists are too concerned about style and not enough about content. It seems to me that the instant aesthetic of the poster and graphic art has commonly triumphed over any possible content. You can see this in amateur or semi-professional work. You can surely see it in the productions of many who exhibit at the Royal Academy. Here is a quote from Raymond Mason which just about sums up my view of the situation,

"Most artists do not seek truth,which being independent of their own person would gradually transform their art, but the perfecting of a style which will glorify their name."

This comes from a passage concerned with Bacon's late work and Mason's misgivings about it.
Whether or not there is a truth independent of the artist is a moot point but I hope that you will get my drift.There is not enough seeing, looking or loving in most landscape artists' work.

At Work in Paris, Raymond Mason on Art and Artiststs, Thames & Hudson ,2003.page 176.

For further remarks about this artist see another post here .

Current Exhibitions

Much is written about Bacon, Rothko and Hirst at the moment. It is hard to take the last two very seriously. I have some respect left for Bacon and there was a time when he was worth looking at and there seemed to be some integrity left. It now seems to me that Bacon became a "method" painter. By which I mean that he found a formula and stuck to it because it was the easy thing to do-and the quickest way to manufacture work. But just as a symphony would be unendurable if the direction was to play at ffff for several movements there are problems in painting where everything is blasted out .

As for Rothko. He was always a timid painter in terms of colour combinations. The early work is dreadfully weak and clumsy and the colour field represents an easy way out.  In a way I am not surprised that Howard Hodgkin is envious of Rothko. But  then Hodkin has so little to recommend him as a colourist. His work is certainly crass in comparison to the Indian miniatures he loves. I'm not suggesting  that he should have used their palette-though Rothko might have learned something colourwise from them. A tame critic or two was certainly helpful in Rothko's case. They were  able to excite themselves over very little. But the message has been conveyed and the art-loving public has been educated into seeing the numinous aspect of Rothko - at least this appears to be the message of the article in yesterday's Observer.

From the same newspaper I learn that Peter Conrad  has had a moment of conversion: he now sees Hirst as a "thinker". Is Mr Conrad really so impoverished?