British Modern Art and Modernism

This article is both a re-examination of Walter Sickert’s post-1910s work, and a study in artist versus critic (or word versus image) rivalries. The later work of Walter Sickert has often been a problem for critics and historians, with many writing off its oddities as a result of flippancy or even madness. The article uses Sickert’s lifelong dialogue with Roger Fry to show how Sickert’s work and actions in the 1920s and 1930s can be seen as deliberate and highly significant, defending his own vision of modern art through writing, prints, and portraiture in a way that in fact brought him unprecedented popular success. Fry’s rival account of artistic production nonetheless allowed the critic to cast Sickert as an artist ‘in spite of himself’ whose writing and claims about his own work should be ignored, a view adopted by subsequent historians who paid little or no attention Sickert’s own views and the success of his strategies.

[Extracted from the Foreword]

“This is the commencement of a recording made by Cliff Holden on December 12, 1992. It is my birthday and I am 73 years old. ”

It is now seven years since I made the first of the recordings which have been transcribed and edited to make the text of this book.

I was persuaded to make these recordings by my friend, the art historian, Joseph Darracott. We had been friends for over forty years and finally I accepted that the project which he was proposing might be feasible and would be worth attempting. And so, in talking about my life as a painter, I applied myself to the discipline of working from a list of questions which had been prepared by Joseph.

During our initial discussions about the book Joseph misunderstood my idea, which was to engage in a live dialogue with the cut and thrust of question and answer. The task of responding to questions which had been typed up in advance became much more difficult to deal with because an exercise such as this lacked the kind of stimulus which a live dialogue would have given to it.

I have talked about my approach to painting, printing and designing and I have discussed the problem of teaching art to students. But I have also wanted to rectify various lies and distortions which have arisen over the years since the disbanding of the Borough Group.

As it stands now, this page of history has been written by people who either had no direct access to Bomberg or had little understanding of his intentions. 

In the words of David Bomberg: "It is to this page of history that such contributions as I and my followers may make after me through the approach to mass that there should be appended a footnote - and left to posterity to judge whether it was of significance or not. "

C.H. 

Hasslas, Sweden 

7th March, 1999

N.B. This text is being prepared for publication by Douglas Westbury (with licence permission from the copyright holder)

For any further enquires please write to...

"Douglas Westbury" : douglas.westbury@aol.com

The controversial paper explores Kenneth Clark's hostility and outspoken opposition to modern art in the 1930s; then his qualified support for several artists during the war years.  Several direct attacks against modern art he made in the 1930s British media are cited and discussed. 
Identifying specific artists, the paper shows who Clark railed against (including Nicholson & Mondrian) and how it affected their lives; and who he chose to promote, using his official position during the war to advance certain artists he was friendly with (Piper & Sutherland). 
Turning to Henry Moore's underground shelter drawings made during the London Blitz, the article suggests how the artist coped with Clark's narrow views while trying not to compromise his own strengthening modernist work.
9pp.

This talk tackled the problem of how to describe the work of British avant-garde sculptors between the years 1950 and 1953, the years of Britain's involvement in the War in Korea.  Using a unique photographic archive from submissions to the Venice Biennale in 1952, the theme of Britishness was explored by comparison to parallel French and American sculptural identities and the way these were less well poised to achieve international success.

Following on from the CAA conference in Atlanta a month earlier, this paper used Stokes's serious interest in Disney's 'Silly Symphonies' to demonstrate the thought underlying his comparison of the different relief styles of Agostino di Duccio and Donatello.  The talk accompanied a stunning relief sculpture show in the galleries upstairs, representing a collaboration between the Henry Moore Institute in Leeds and the Victoria & Albert Museum in London.