The Great Art Debate

[William the White]

I saw the Paul Klee exhibition at Tate Modern today.

I liked something in each of the 17 rooms, and liked much more in total than I didn't. And in this kind of 17 room pretty exhausting/exhaustive exhibition that is a result... Some of the work was outstanding... I could list a dozen (and might). but I'm pretty knackered atm - for art loving wanderers in that London - it finishes - I think - March 9th... but check!

I went this morning without having read your post and enjoyed it much more than I thought I would.

I hardly liked any of his early stuff... though they are interesting as almost heroically small doodles given the scale of events unfolding around him.

I don't buy that his trip to Tunisa in 1914 was his big breakthrough. For me that came when he stopped doing bad cubism and found a style of his own - a turning point that is marked by 'Redgreen and Violet-Yellow Rhythms' in 1920. Teaching at the Bauhaus and having a daily audience for his ideas seem to have brought the best out of him for that decade. His 'gradation' still lifes on the black background of Dutch or Spanish still life painting were a beautiful surprise. His 'Suspended Fruit' (which doesn't look good in reproduction, so I won't post it) made me think he must have known of Cotan's amazing baroque paintings.

If the exhibition were 1920-1934 I think I would agree that I liked more than I didn't, but, like the early work, the late stuff did nothing for me either. What a joy, by the way, to have a chronologically hung exhibition so you can follow the development of the work for yourself. They should all be like that unless there are really compelling reasons to do something else.

Yes, agree with you on chronology... His career certainly had its obsessions. The 'magic squares' period got a little tedious, I thought.

I'm more appreciative of his post-1934 work than you... I liked 'Catharsis' very much, for instance, and 'Walpurgis night' and 'Looking out of a Cave'. The dismembering of the elements of his work seems to me to emerge from the shock of Nazism, being included in the infamous 'Degenerate Art' exhibition, escaping to Switzerland. Those thick black lines that start to appear in his work seem to hint at swastikas to me. It's interesting that his titles change - 'Catastrophe', 'Fear' rather than the literal or enigmatic titles of his previous works.

I'm also more patient with some of the early cubist work - though none of it is in the same league as Picasso or Braque.

What did you make of the pointillist experiment? The only one I really liked was 'Lowlands'.

Edit: Just checked - 'looking Out of a Cave' was 1929...

[bobo the clown]

Glad you said that Billy. I quite like his Cubist works.

Not to the extent of feeling comfortable in that Airship Hanger they call the Tate, what an awful "space".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Glad you said that Billy. I quite like his Cubist works.

Have you got an example of one that you like, Bobo - just to make sure we're using the terms to mean the same thing?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Yes, agree with you on chronology... His career certainly had its obsessions. The 'magic squares' period got a little tedious, I thought.

I'm more appreciative of his post-1934 work than you... I liked 'Catharsis' very much, for instance, and 'Walpurgis night' and 'Looking out of a Cave'. The dismembering of the elements of his work seems to me to emerge from the shock of Nazism, being included in the infamous 'Degenerate Art' exhibition, escaping to Switzerland. Those thick black lines that start to appear in his work seem to hint at swastikas to me. It's interesting that his titles change - 'Catastrophe', 'Fear' rather than the literal or enigmatic titles of his previous works.

I'm also more patient with some of the early cubist work - though none of it is in the same league as Picasso or Braque.

What did you make of the pointillist experiment? The only one I really liked was 'Lowlands'.

Edit: Just checked - 'looking Out of a Cave' was 1929...

You've said it yourself... not in the same league as Picasso, or Braque, or Gris... so it's second or third rate cubism at best?

As for the later stuff, I agree that the shock of Nazism (combined with serious physical affliction too) had an effect - but what effect? For me it meant he lost all his subtlety and sensitivity of touch. It looks like outsider art or primitive art (or, worse - Keith Haring!). An interesting historical moment, no doubt... but not pleasing as pictures. I agree that it seems unlikely to be a coincidence that 1937 was the year he became hyper-productive with his bad paintings.

Personally I don't see a strong case for the black lines hinting at Swastikas. Is it too easy to look back and impose that hindsight on the work? How about the black shapes with regular black limbs in 'With the Rotating Black Sun and the Arrow' from as early as 1919?



The 'pointilism'... doesn't feel like quite the right term for those pictures but I haven't got a better one. I quite like them and I think they fall in the tail end of the period in which he still had an eye. So Lowlands I like, and so too the Castle Garden and Tanzerin.

[William the White]

Yes, agree with you on chronology... His career certainly had its obsessions. The 'magic squares' period got a little tedious, I thought.

I'm more appreciative of his post-1934 work than you... I liked 'Catharsis' very much, for instance, and 'Walpurgis night' and 'Looking out of a Cave'. The dismembering of the elements of his work seems to me to emerge from the shock of Nazism, being included in the infamous 'Degenerate Art' exhibition, escaping to Switzerland. Those thick black lines that start to appear in his work seem to hint at swastikas to me. It's interesting that his titles change - 'Catastrophe', 'Fear' rather than the literal or enigmatic titles of his previous works.

I'm also more patient with some of the early cubist work - though none of it is in the same league as Picasso or Braque.

What did you make of the pointillist experiment? The only one I really liked was 'Lowlands'.

Edit: Just checked - 'looking Out of a Cave' was 1929...

You've said it yourself... not in the same league as Picasso, or Braque, or Gris... so it's second or third rate cubism at best?

As for the later stuff, I agree that the shock of Nazism (combined with serious physical affliction too) had an effect - but what effect? For me it meant he lost all his subtlety and sensitivity of touch. It looks like outsider art or primitive art (or, worse - Keith Haring!). An interesting historical moment, no doubt... but not pleasing as pictures. I agree that it seems unlikely to be a coincidence that 1937 was the year he became hyper-productive with his bad paintings.

Personally I don't see a strong case for the black lines hinting at Swastikas. Is it too easy to look back and impose that hindsight on the work? How about the black shapes with regular black limbs in 'With the Rotating Black Sun and the Arrow' from as early as 1919?



The 'pointilism'... doesn't feel like quite the right term for those pictures but I haven't got a better one. I quite like them and I think they fall in the tail end of the period in which he still had an eye. So Lowlands I like, and so too the Castle Garden and Tanzerin.

Those black lines are a regular pattern within what is to become a familiar way of working... entirely different from the fractures of the later work - their opposite in fact, artistically...

It would be great to have this kind of discussion at the gallery, of course...

Tanzerin, I have to say, was, i thought, the only piece in the entire exhibition that TANGO might like on his wall... I might also. but I have Ballarina 2 already...

I did like Castle Garden though...

[bobo the clown]

I can't attach as I'm not on the lappy but 'A young ladies adventure' and 'Summer House', 'Cityscape', 'Brother & Sister' amongst others I find to my taste which does, oddly, reach into Cubism. I find they aren't lazy with their corners !

I don't dislike his pontilist works either, but just distrust them as derivative rather than honest and from hus soul. Maybe I do him a disservice.


... & yes, I did see what you did there. Cheeky monkey.

[William the White]

Mummy - seriously - you really think 'The Perplexed Ones' or 'Outbreak of Fear III' or 'Catastrophe in a Dream' or 'Catharsis' are 'bad'???

I also like - hugely - Le Rouge et le Noir' but am aware that this lays me open to tidal waves of mockery because many posters have four year olds that could do that in their sleep...

So I'll try and face it bravely...

I also think that to be not as good as Picasso or Braque in your Cubist experiments doesn't reduce you to third rate.

Other than... We are all third rate when faced with genius...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I can't attach as I'm not on the lappy but 'A young ladies adventure' and 'Summer House', 'Cityscape', 'Brother & Sister' amongst others I find to my taste which does, oddly, reach into Cubism. I find they aren't lazy with their corners !

I don't dislike his pontilist works either, but just distrust them as derivative rather than honest and from hus soul. Maybe I do him a disservice.

I think I mostly remember those, Bobo - and if I recall they are after the 1920 watershed I am arguing for.

I think that's a good way of describing the pointilist works and gets towards what I think about the early cubist work. As a rule I'd say he was at his best when he didn't look like other early 20th century artists.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Personally I don't see a strong case for the black lines hinting at Swastikas. Is it too easy to look back and impose that hindsight on the work? How about the black shapes with regular black limbs in 'With the Rotating Black Sun and the Arrow' from as early as 1919?

Those black lines are a regular pattern within what is to become a familiar way of working... entirely different from the fractures of the later work - their opposite in fact, artistically...

It would be great to have this kind of discussion at the gallery, of course...

I'm not talking about the black elements of the pattern (the rectangles).

I'm talking about the thing in the middle and the triangle in the top left, both of which recall the triskelion of the Isle of Man and, perhaps, the Swastika.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Mummy - seriously - you really think 'The Perplexed Ones' or 'Outbreak of Fear III' or 'Catastrophe in a Dream' or 'Catharsis' are 'bad'???

I also like - hugely - Le Rouge et le Noir' but am aware that this lays me open to tidal waves of mockery because many posters have four year olds that could do that in their sleep...

So I'll try and face it bravely...

Of those first four, my memory is failing me and I can only remember 'Outbreak of Fear' for sure, which is an interesting picture.

Perhaps I need to go back - it's possible I was flagging at the end!

This is a good review and I think he is right in saying that one visit to this sort of thing isn't really enough:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... ern-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also a good explanation there of why Le Rouge et le Noir is interesting.

[Worthy4England]

Personally I don't see a strong case for the black lines hinting at Swastikas. Is it too easy to look back and impose that hindsight on the work? How about the black shapes with regular black limbs in 'With the Rotating Black Sun and the Arrow' from as early as 1919?

Those black lines are a regular pattern within what is to become a familiar way of working... entirely different from the fractures of the later work - their opposite in fact, artistically...

It would be great to have this kind of discussion at the gallery, of course...

I'm not talking about the black elements of the pattern (the rectangles).

I'm talking about the thing in the middle and the triangle in the top left, both of which recall the triskelion of the Isle of Man and, perhaps, the Swastika.

You could contend that it's not far off German Aircraft markings from WWII

[Bruce Rioja]

Personally I don't see a strong case for the black lines hinting at Swastikas. Is it too easy to look back and impose that hindsight on the work? How about the black shapes with regular black limbs in 'With the Rotating Black Sun and the Arrow' from as early as 1919?

Those black lines are a regular pattern within what is to become a familiar way of working... entirely different from the fractures of the later work - their opposite in fact, artistically...

It would be great to have this kind of discussion at the gallery, of course...

I'm not talking about the black elements of the pattern (the rectangles).

I'm talking about the thing in the middle and the triangle in the top left, both of which recall the triskelion of the Isle of Man and, perhaps, the Swastika.

You could contend that it's not far off German Aircraft markings from WWII

Or the BA tailfin markings that Maggie so rightly covered with her handkerchief on the grounds that they were fecking awful - as is that. Why's it got a squashed spider in the middle?

[William the White]

Mummy - seriously - you really think 'The Perplexed Ones' or 'Outbreak of Fear III' or 'Catastrophe in a Dream' or 'Catharsis' are 'bad'???

I also like - hugely - Le Rouge et le Noir' but am aware that this lays me open to tidal waves of mockery because many posters have four year olds that could do that in their sleep...

So I'll try and face it bravely...

Of those first four, my memory is failing me and I can only remember 'Outbreak of Fear' for sure, which is an interesting picture.

Perhaps I need to go back - it's possible I was flagging at the end!

This is a good review and I think he is right in saying that one visit to this sort of thing isn't really enough:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... ern-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also a good explanation there of why Le Rouge et le Noir is interesting.

Thank you for that - I've never read a review that so exactly mirrored my own experience. And I'm near-ecstatic that at least one other person shares my response to 'The Red and the Black'.

[William the White]

I also saw the Richard Hamilton exhibition as the second part of my double-header at Tate Modern this morning.

Another excellent show which I think sets up as one of the towering figures of British art.

I sometimes voice my opinion that Turner is the only major British-born figure in art history... perhaps with Hogarth thrown in too, but I now think Hamilton deserves to be considered in that company.

Youngest daughter is off to London tomorrow and intends to catch this. She's a big fan.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I also saw the Richard Hamilton exhibition as the second part of my double-header at Tate Modern this morning.

Another excellent show which I think sets him up as one of the towering figures of British art.

I sometimes voice my opinion that Turner is the only major British-born figure in art history... perhaps with Hogarth thrown in too, but I now think Hamilton deserves to be considered in that company.

Youngest daughter is off to London tomorrow and intends to catch this. She's a big fan.

In which case she is in for a treat.

It's difficult to overstate what a pioneer he was an what a great eye he had - both for a picture and a cultural movement.

More impecunious than I would like to be, I couldn't afford both the Klee and Hamilton catalogues on Sunday, so it had to be the Hamilton.

[William the White]

I also saw the Richard Hamilton exhibition as the second part of my double-header at Tate Modern this morning.

Another excellent show which I think sets him up as one of the towering figures of British art.

I sometimes voice my opinion that Turner is the only major British-born figure in art history... perhaps with Hogarth thrown in too, but I now think Hamilton deserves to be considered in that company.

Youngest daughter is off to London tomorrow and intends to catch this. She's a big fan.

In which case she is in for a treat.

It's difficult to overstate what a pioneer he was an what a great eye he had - both for a picture and a cultural movement.

More impecunious than I would like to be, I couldn't afford both the Klee and Hamilton catalogues on Sunday, so it had to be the Hamilton.

Sounds unmissable. She's broke and the cost of the trip, two nights in a hostel dorm and Megabus from Manchester for £8 return (!) is only just covered. She's taking old oystercards from us to get around. But I might give her the cash to get the catalogue. Is it the usual £25?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Sounds unmissable. She's broke and the cost of the trip, two nights in a hostel dorm and Megabus from Manchester for £8 return (!) is only just covered. She's taking old oystercards from us to get around. But I might give her the cash to get the catalogue. Is it the usual £25?

£29.99, and it's only a paperback, but it's quite the tome and I expect it will be the definitive text for quite some time.

Waldemar wrote a good review over the weekend, which I'll email to you as it's good pre-reading.

Whilst looking for that, I also found this quote from him from a while back:

Hamilton has a surgical understanding of the zeitgeist, an umbilical connection to his times that allows him simultaneously to participate in them and step back from them, to evaluate them while he lives them. [He] was the first to understand the dynamics of the media. The first to understand the consumer revolution. The first to acknowledge the unstoppable power of the image.
Waldemar Januszczak, The Sunday Times, 7 March 2010

[bobo the clown]

I can't attach as I'm not on the lappy but 'A young ladies adventure' and 'Summer House', 'Cityscape', 'Brother & Sister' amongst others I find to my taste which does, oddly, reach into Cubism. I find they aren't lazy with their corners !

I don't dislike his pontilist works either, but just distrust them as derivative rather than honest and from his soul. Maybe I do him a disservice.

I think I mostly remember those, Bobo - and if I recall they are after the 1920 watershed I am arguing for.

I think that's a good way of describing the pointilist works and gets towards what I think about the early cubist work. As a rule I'd say he was at his best when he didn't look like other early 20th century artists.

I like much of his work. He's not my dream artist, but I can warm to it. However, I do have a nagging feeling (as I remark above about the Pontilism) it seems that he saw a style and then produced some work in it. Hardly ground-breaking but In terms of the actual art it's good.

Brother and Sister ; It was 1930, so yes. Except I would still see it as cubist. However, it's more rounded features may argue against that.


A young girl's adventure fits more maybe, from 1922 ;

[William the White]

I also saw the Richard Hamilton exhibition as the second part of my double-header at Tate Modern this morning.

Another excellent show which I think sets him up as one of the towering figures of British art.

I sometimes voice my opinion that Turner is the only major British-born figure in art history... perhaps with Hogarth thrown in too, but I now think Hamilton deserves to be considered in that company.

Youngest daughter is off to London tomorrow and intends to catch this. She's a big fan.

In which case she is in for a treat.

Indeed -the text I got from her yesterday afternoon: Just been round the Richard Hamilton. buzzin.

[bobo the clown]

Well. well, well ... Brian Sewell a cheating, lying bggr. Who'da thought ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26335543" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shouldn't he be liable for fraud over this ? .... & he can't use the "it was a long time ago" defence any more. Or is it a case of caveat emptor ?


We need answers mummy.