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?
