PICASSO AND MODERN BRITISH ART at the TATE MODERN
PICASSO AND MODERN BRITISH ART at the TATE MODERN
This exhibition is the story of how modern British art became embalmed at a certain point in its evolution, constrained obviously by the assumptions, precepts and conventions of the British class system. Which is not to say that Picasso had a class system to contend with but ultimately choose to side with 'beastly Communists'. Eventually he appeared in Britain in two guises. The first time in 1919 with Diaghilev's Ballet Russe as a set designer, hardly an artist in his own right but a member of an extended group who represented one trend of the European avante garde. In the second incarnation he was the political Picasso, invited to a peace conference in Sheffield organized by the Communist Party then banned by the British government. Picasso came and went on his way, probably thinking rightly that the British government consisted of pathetic, ignorant philistines and hysterical anti-Communist phobics. Perhaps he intended to return but never did. This exhibition represents six artists who were supposedly influenced by Picasso: Wyndham Lewis, Duncan Grant, Ben Nicholson, Graham Sutherland, Henry Moore, Francis Bacon, David Hockney. The paintings that personally moved me the most were the works by Wyndham Lewis, probably because he felt the influence of Picasso only lightly and still had plenty of energy and ammunition of his own. The other artists represented seemed to be overwhelmed by Picasso, as in the case of Grant and Nicholson, or terrified or excessively careful not to be seen to be associated with his work or allied aesthetic movements like Cubism. Perhaps Henry Moore finally achieved the kind of greatness that Picasso can rightly be said to have earned through his left-leaning sympathies, questioning of the means of representation and palpable contrasting decency. In the case of Henry Moore, converting to Socialism after terrible experiences in WW1 and Picasso's two fingered salute to Franco encapsulated in his Guernica are similar actions, deeply felt and with an obvious political fall out. The exhibition represents some very great works by Picasso who looks light years ahead of British art mostly in his sense of the complex geometry and spatial relationships which are often folded within multiple planes. By contrast the British artists seem a bit one dimensional and pedestrian with the exception of Lewis. Dour, dull, in the case of Grant whose sense of colour and the effects of colour seem extremely undeveloped. His works seem like the scrap book of a good GCSE student in contrast to the ease and fluency of the Picassos. So too Nicholson who seems to have enjoyed copying the same Picasso still life over and over again. British artists were constrained within a class system that insisted on marginalising Picasso for his progressive aesthetics and progressive politics but, ultimately, Picasso isn't marginal but central. British art, like British life, seems stunted, mis-shapen, alien, alienated, constrained.
Paul Murphy, Tate Britain
This exhibition is the story of how modern British art became embalmed at a certain point in its evolution, constrained obviously by the assumptions, precepts and conventions of the British class system. Which is not to say that Picasso had a class system to contend with but ultimately choose to side with 'beastly Communists'. Eventually he appeared in Britain in two guises. The first time in 1919 with Diaghilev's Ballet Russe as a set designer, hardly an artist in his own right but a member of an extended group who represented one trend of the European avante garde. In the second incarnation he was the political Picasso, invited to a peace conference in Sheffield organized by the Communist Party then banned by the British government. Picasso came and went on his way, probably thinking rightly that the British government consisted of pathetic, ignorant philistines and hysterical anti-Communist phobics. Perhaps he intended to return but never did. This exhibition represents six artists who were supposedly influenced by Picasso: Wyndham Lewis, Duncan Grant, Ben Nicholson, Graham Sutherland, Henry Moore, Francis Bacon, David Hockney. The paintings that personally moved me the most were the works by Wyndham Lewis, probably because he felt the influence of Picasso only lightly and still had plenty of energy and ammunition of his own. The other artists represented seemed to be overwhelmed by Picasso, as in the case of Grant and Nicholson, or terrified or excessively careful not to be seen to be associated with his work or allied aesthetic movements like Cubism. Perhaps Henry Moore finally achieved the kind of greatness that Picasso can rightly be said to have earned through his left-leaning sympathies, questioning of the means of representation and palpable contrasting decency. In the case of Henry Moore, converting to Socialism after terrible experiences in WW1 and Picasso's two fingered salute to Franco encapsulated in his Guernica are similar actions, deeply felt and with an obvious political fall out. The exhibition represents some very great works by Picasso who looks light years ahead of British art mostly in his sense of the complex geometry and spatial relationships which are often folded within multiple planes. By contrast the British artists seem a bit one dimensional and pedestrian with the exception of Lewis. Dour, dull, in the case of Grant whose sense of colour and the effects of colour seem extremely undeveloped. His works seem like the scrap book of a good GCSE student in contrast to the ease and fluency of the Picassos. So too Nicholson who seems to have enjoyed copying the same Picasso still life over and over again. British artists were constrained within a class system that insisted on marginalising Picasso for his progressive aesthetics and progressive politics but, ultimately, Picasso isn't marginal but central. British art, like British life, seems stunted, mis-shapen, alien, alienated, constrained.
Paul Murphy, Tate Britain
Comments