Pippa Young

Ist year Fine Art part-time

Describe in your own words the main case for and against the kind of painting
that was presented at A New Spirit in Painting in 1981-2
This exhibition, staged at the Royal Academy London in 1981 and in Berlin in 1982,
sought to reassert the relevance of European painting against what was viewed as
an unfair New York domination since the 1960s and an increasing view that painting
was somehow irrelevant in the contemporary world. The Cold War had influenced a
cultural emphasis that was increasingly US-centric and, in addition, for several
decades minimalism had gradually pared back figurative imagery abstraction
became the accepted language of art. The picture had become an object with no
representation, simply a flat surface with paint on. Ad Reinhardt described his
monochrome surfaces (circa 1963) as the last painting possible. The organisers of
A New Spirit in Painting promoted the view that minimal and conceptual art was too
austere, cheerless and bleak and that it was inevitable that painting would return to
figurative imagery that this was somehow right, natural and universal.
Much of the intent of A New Sspirit in Painting was laid out in a previous exhibition,
Human Clay, in 1976. (Taylor 2005, 64) Kitaj described the shows display of painting
and drawing in very traditional terms praising the manual skill, used in representing
the human form; claiming that painting in this way represents an instinct in the lives
of men (men being the operative word!).
Critical Debate
Although not the only exhibition which sought to promote painting, A New Spirit in
Painting worked particularly well in igniting a debate about whether painting was
relevant in the context of the prevailing art scene.
Writing in The Burlington Magazine in March 1981, Richard Shone posed the
question Will it (A New Spirit in Ppainting) be regarded as an influential exhibition in
a few years or decades from now? (Shone 1981,183) He takes issue with the
selectors for their over-emphasis on German artists, glaring omissions and an
apparent lack of belief and understanding of its intentions. He does however find
some value in the choice of older artists: Bacon, for example, can invest a light bulb
with hieratic power.

At the end of his review he answers his initial question (whether, in the future, the
show will be regarded as influential) by saying: ...yes but sadly for quite the wrong
reasons.
It seems that his statement has turned out to be somewhat prophetic given that this
exhibition is included as part of our critical studies curriculum. And for several
reasons (outlined further on) I think I agree with him.
Stuart Morgan, writing in Art Forum in April 1981 was highly critical: it isnt just a
turkey but the same old turkey dusted off and disguised. Morgan believed the show
to be synthetic, symptomatic, even representative. Not New
(Morgan 1981, 46) Commenting on the stance of the selectors of the show and, in
particular, Christos Joachimidess assertion that: for all its apparent conservatism,
the art on show here is, in a true sense, progressive he states: backwards equals
forwards isnt a paradox; its an untruth. (Although, writing in an American Journal
might he naturally criticize any diversion of attention from the American art scen?)
Just a quick glance at the work of some of the better known artists included in the
show seems to support Morgans view. Was the work shown by Lucien Freud, David
Hockney or Howard Hodgkin, for example, really so different from previous work
completed ten or even twenty years earlier?
In his essay, The Persistence of Painting: Contexts for British Figurative Painting.
1975-90. James Hyman wrote: As critics at the time recognised, this was no new
direction for painting, as was especially apparent from the British artists selected
Rather, it revealed a reorientation of critical and curatorial attention towards forms of
artistic practice that had become marginalised. (Hyman 2002)
This was not a show about painters and paintings, it was a show about reclaiming
gallery or institutional control, reinstating the commercial and reasserting a
conservative establishment tradition.
However, both James Hyman and Stuart Morgan are not entirely negative. In Art
Forum, Stuart Morgan goes on to say: any turkey is better than no turkey at all.
And in his essay, James Hyman adds:

such criticism, although valid, hid the fact that in significant ways the painting of
even such long-established artists was changing. There was indeed a new spirit in
painting.
A backwards step?
The exhibition seemed to put aside all the arguments that had been raised in recent
history. Traditional values were promoted: men returned to painting (mostly) women;
artists produced tangible objects with intrinsic quality; the product of the artists
labour was a commodity, which could be consumed by the wealthy and powerful.
The show also sought to promote the idea of national tradition that resulted, in the
opinion of many, in a heavy-handed stereotyping of national characteristics. All the
artists in the exhibition were men (chosen by an all male panel) It was as if recent
feminist history had not taken place hardly representative of the new spirit in
painting where were women in this revolution? It seems almost astonishing to me,
at a time when feminism should be influential, that there are no women included in
the exhibition. Although, as the average age of the artists represented was fifty and
second wave feminism was barely in its teens, maybe it is not so surprising. If
painting was so clearly viewed in such traditional male terms it would seem natural
that women would want to adopt media untainted by maleness and establishment
expectations and pursue a more radical means of expression.
Tradition and commodification
An establishment such as the Royal Academy would want to promote painting in a
traditionalist way. I would imagine that it was important to the organisers of this
exhibition that an interest in painting should be revived and promoted; otherwise the
Royal Academy would become an increasingly outdated and irrelevant institution.
A return to wall-based art also represents a return to commodity-based saleable art
art that can be consumed by newly minted Thatcherite Yuppies. While I have
certain distaste at the idea of the huge profits enjoyed by the fat cats of the (nonproductive part of the) art market, I would support anyroute that allows an artist to live
by their art.
Artistic cul de sac
A vigorous critic at the tim, Benjamin Buchloch wrote: expressive painting was
reactionary in intention and complicit in its support of elite and undemocratic power
bases within both art and the wider political process. (Taylor 2005,69) Buchloh
implied that a return to figuration was an attack on experimental art which had a

greater potential for ideological criticism and that this type of European painting
legitimised conservative style politics.
I think there was a danger that minimalism and conceptual art was heading down a
cul de sac of elitist inaccessibility, which, I believe, alienated the general public. This
may be a populist view, and although I would defend the right of an artists to express
them selves in any way they choose, I dont believe that traditional modes of
expression should be discounted through academic, avant-garde snobbery.
Also I wonder, if the art form is generally inaccessible by ordinary people, could it be
argued that it doesnt matter how ideologically critical the art is, if the message isnt
getting throug? If the medium is more accessible might it be considered more
effective? I realise that there are always plenty of critics and academics ready to
translate and interpret the more difficult ideas for the lay person, but isnt there a
place for both approaches?
Nothing is new
Brandon Taylor says in Art today that counter-culture had argued that paintings were
physically redundant objects; a related suspicion was that all figurative styles had
taken place. (Taylor 2005,75) This seems to me to imply that it has all been said or
done before so it isnt worth bothering about any more. Of course there is nothing
new in art and design,but isnt it in subject matter, gender, context and historical or
chronological position that we can discover something new? Julian Schnabel was
criticised for his theeffects and juxtapositions in his work I like the idea that he was
considered an enfant terrible (Taylor 2005, 79) because critics couldnt quite pin him
down. Isnt that how it should be? Why should critics, or indeed anyone, feel the need
to box things? Perhaps the exhibition might have received less criticism if it had
been called A Celebration of Painting, rather than trying to revive an interest in
painting with the spurious use of the word New in the title and awkwardly trying to
jam the subject into a clever curatorial box
I can appreciate the academic arguments of whether or not this kind of painting was
innovative, breaking new ground, a new spirit. And I am interested in the discussion
on whether, in the contemporary, post-modern world, painting has had its day and
there are more appropriate media for expression. All of this provides a context for my
own studies. However, at the risk of being written off as a traditionalist, I have to say
that I want to communicate my ideas through the medium of paint. I dont really care

whether my work is considered innovative or derivative by critics, I want to be helped

to produce work that is meaningful, articulate and the best I can do. Although the
exhibition, to paraphrase Richard Shone, is influential for all the wrong reasons, it
has succeeded in returning painting, maybe not to centre stage, but, at least, to the
arena.

References
Taylor, Brandon (2005) Art Today London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.
Shone, Richard (1981) London A New Spirit in Painting at the Royal Academy
Current and Forthcoming Exhibitions, The Burlington Magazine, Volume CXXIII
Number 936, London: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.
Morgan, Stuart (1981) Cold Turkey A New Spirit in Painting at the Royal Academy
of Arts, London, Art Forum, April 1981,
Hyman, James (2002) The Persistence of Painting: Contexts for British Figurative
Painting. 1975-90 in From Blast to Freeze: British Art in the Age of Extremes,
Wolfsburg, Germany, Kunstmuseum, at
http://www.jameshymangallery.com/pages/archive/information/76.html
(accessed 15th May 2008).
Its excellent! Its clear and very thoughtful, insightful, and engaging. What more
could I want!
Indicative mark: 75