Vol. 13 No. 12 · 27 June 1991

Andrew Forge writes about the painter Frank Auerbach and the writer Robert Hughes, and about works of art in a dark age

1651 words
Nothing if not critical 
by Robert Hughes.
Collins Harvill, 429 pp., £16, November 1990, 0 00 272075 2
Show More
Frank Auerbach 
by Robert Hughes.
Thames and Hudson, 240 pp., £25, September 1990, 0 500 09211 7
Show More
Figure and Abstraction in Contemporary Painting 
by Ronald Paulson.
Rutgers, 283 pp., $44.95, November 1990, 0 8135 1604 8
Show More
Show More

The New York art scene in the Eighties presented spectacle of almost unrelieved decadence, in which the ‘virtues’ of the Reagan era ruled. In this desert of greed, vanity and corruption one could always rely on the tonic of Robert Hughes pieces in Time and the New York Review of Books, now collected. He lays about him splendidly, not sparing any link in the chain that tethers artists to their time, from the studio to the dealers and their pimps, and to the final rings in the wall, the museums He writes with a marvellous fluency and variety of voice – Sancho Panza of the outback, baggy-eyed fashion freak who has seen absolutely everything, measured historian, joker, unruffled lover of painting. If only there were more like him, one thinks sentimentally. But how could there be?

Most of these essays are reviews of exhibitions and they are sandwiched between longer pieces of sustained attack, the first about the fall of New York’s centrality, the last about the art boom and its consequences. And as a hilarious tail-piece he reprints his Popeian pastiche, the SoHoiad that appeared in the New York Review of Books in 1984:

As Fame’s posterior bugle softly blows,
What stench now fills the unsuspecting nose?
Pervasive, fruity, sulphurous, full and ripe.
It is the odour of an Art World Hype!
The statue shudders and is proven soon
No solid monument, but a Balloon!

It took six more years for the balloon to burst and for the frenzied dashing of the Eighties to give way to today’s gloomy freeze. Dealers despair, yesterday’s stars and their collectors look angrily this way and that, nobody knows what anything is worth and honest painters, used to hard times, tell each other that it is all for the good. But I doubt if anything has changed. The targets of Hughes’s scorn may be reeling now but his analysis remains topical and they will soon be back. The art machine will crank itself up for another round of frenzied business. For it to do otherwise, to shrink, to look about for criteria other than fashion, would be inimical to the state of the culture – just as painting itself in any serious sense is inimical to the culture.

The condition that Hughes is describing is the mutation of creative experiment into fashion. This is the mortal sickness that did for Paris and will do for New York and London and any other city that is carried away by the imperialist myth of an art centre. Hughes surveys its symptoms. There are two in particular that I should like to bring out. First, the loss of continuity represented by the inability of so many of today’s stars to draw. Second, the matter of photo-reproduction.

Comparing our fin de siècle with the last one, he reminds us that in the 1880s painting was still the dominant visual code. There was, so to speak, a contract of representation, based on drawing. Deviations, experiments, were registered against that contract. The camera rendered the contract obsolete Abstract art annulled it. Painting was no longer ‘our index of the real’. Experimental painting, having surrendered its purchase on the real world, lost its radical potential and was ripe for takeover by fashion. A generation of abstract artists grew up who had been taught by abstract artists: the discipline of formal investigation from nature through drawing was dead. Here it should be pointed out that Hughes is overstating the case: there are schools in America where drawing is taught with great intensity; there are others where it is not taught at all.

Meanwhile, the mechanical media offered representations that were more immediate, more ‘stupidly compelling’, than painting could ever be, even at its most propagandist. TV deals with imagery, not substance, not presence, and this ‘combined with the abstractness of institutional art teaching produces a fine art culture given over to information and not experience’ – a culture without a past. Speaking of the typical collector of the Eighties, Hughes says: ‘The idea of a present with continuous roots in history, where artists’ every action is judged by the unwearying tribunal of the dead, is as utterly alien to them as it is to the average American art student, raised like a battery chicken on a diet of slides.’

He gives a funny account of being an art student in Australia when the hegemony of New York was unchallenged. Everything – Leonardo, Barnett Newman – had to be learned from slides and reproductions. ‘But reproduction is to aesthetic awareness what telephone sex is to sex: in Australia, without knowing it, we were anticipating that worthless “freedom” from the original art object, the sense of floating among its media clones, which would be so lauded in Eighties New York as part of the post-modernist experience.’

One can’t help reflecting that when Walter Benjamin first diagnosed the effects of mechanical reproduction sixty years ago, it was to welcome it as a liberation. Works of art were being released from their aura, their unique place in space and time, their roots in the past, their ties to social ritual. Reproduction universalises, moving art towards the masses. His optimism contrasts sadly with the ‘worthless freedom’ of latter days.

There is no mystery about what gets left out in a slide of a picture: its actual size. This means that the physical link between picture and its maker is gone, and with it, the on-looker’s relationship to it as an object in the world. What is left is information, stylistic information, compositional information, iconographic information and so on, all disembodied. And yet it is on the basis of this often trivial information that an overwhelming proportion of the discourse about painting takes place, from the art historian in research to critics, collectors and curators making crucial choices. Far from being liberated by photography, a painter is likely to feel trapped in an obligatory misrepresentation. Some painters, that is. For there is a choice: to swim with the current or against it. To swim with it is to agree that painting is merely one (classy) way among many of mediating images. This is the Warhol line, and it ends with the deplorable Jeff Koons in charge. To swim against it is to insist that there is a certain channel for the imagination, a way of relating to the world that is defined uniquely by painting. Where does such a belief come from? It is easy to rehearse sociological arguments, to attribute it to the prestige of museums, to art classes at an early age, low-level cultural brain-washing. But these accounts have come to seem less and less convincing. One has known too many people whose attraction to painting, whether as viewers or as painters, seemed unbidden and inexorable, and to whom the symbolic manipulation of form in the light and substance of paint on a flat surface seemed like a biological necessity.

The counter-example to everything Hughes excoriates in SoHo is Frank Auerbach. His monograph is extremely well illustrated. The drawings come across with depth and range and the paintings have been photographed with close and unexaggerated attention to their surface. The colour is remarkably well-balanced, although there is a certain picked-out effect in places. For Hughes, his subject is exemplary His account is centred in the coaly fastness of Auerbach’s studio but one is continually reminded in negative, as it were, of that other world beyond, of the art scene and its failures. Hughes brings out Auerbach’s persistence, his self-critical unease, the depth of his roots in the culture of painting, his allegeiance to drawing, the carnal presence of his work. A lesser critic might have made myths out of all this – the thick paint, the fanaticism, the terribilita. But there is a realistic steadiness and an accuracy about Hughes’s account that make the book compelling, not only because of how it studies the artist but because of how it reflects the needs of an integrated and highly imaginative mind, the author’s.

At times, face to face with pictures, even the most sophisticated rhetoric will sound strained. Then it seems that the project of translation is an impossible one, given the unstable, feverish interaction between word and image, the endless ways in which meaning flickers between name and not-yet-named, the nature of recognition itself, its boundaries stretching all the way from brute perception to the most elaborated reaches of pictorial culture.

The greatest art writers have often side-stepped: Ruskin going on about clouds and rocks in order to capture his Turner, Baudelaire writing his greatest piece around a minor illustrator whom he could re-invent. Ronald Paulson is at his best when he is hammering out parallels between writers and painters, when he can lay a text over a picture and work up a fit. The essays collected here were written between 1977 and 1984, at the same time as he was writing his Representations of Revolution. The Ideas in that book provide the schema he brings to the art of his generation and the one before. He is interested in two kinds of fiction in relation to painting: the stories that artists tell themselves in order to shape what they do, and the stories critics tell the artists in orer to shape what they have done; and in particular, how the traffic between these two kinds of fiction has touched on the ebb and flow between abstraction and figuration. It is a promising theme but these essays are so weakly organised and his language so awkward and rebarbative that one’s interest tends to collapse. Mine revived when he discussed the titles of de Kooning’s paintings. Surprisingly, he sees ‘a crisis of the visual and the verbal’ in Abstract Expressionism – and he is very good on Balthus and Bacon, bringing writers, Artaud, Bataille and Eliot, into close conjunction with the pictures.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN


Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 13 No. 15 · 15 August 1991

While having no quarrel with Andrew Forge on his appreciation of the writings of Robert Hughes (LRB, 27 June), I would like to take issue with his elaboration of the ‘symptoms’ of malaise, initially diagnosed by Hughes, in the contemporary art scene. His account itself shows signs of the malaise of traditional art criticism. Forge writes of the loss of some experimental art’s basis in representation (drawing skills) as the cause of its decline into ‘fashion’, suitable for the frenzied markets, rather than retaining a ‘radical’ potential in relation to the real world. It happens that I agree with his implicit aesthetic defence of abstraction, that it is somehow based in representation, although I see nothing ‘radical’ about it. However, to move from this argument to one about ‘fashion’ and markets is problematic. Despite Forge’s later dismissal of ‘sociological arguments’, the processes leading over this century to a mass market in art, and to ever more powerful waves of changing ‘fashion’, require sociological and economic analysis. They do not correlate clearly with this or any other stylistic change. Rather, it may be that aesthetic developments are themselves conditioned by the changing institutions and markets for art, not least the recent nostalgic return to figuration. But they are not somehow debased by being thus conditioned, and only a critic concerned with rejuvenating a discourse in which art is autonomous from the social would propose so.

It is to Hughes’s credit that, against the reactionary tide of some art criticism, he does not disdain to concern himself with these issues. Forge’s resort to ‘biological necessity’ in trying to understand the unique attractions of painting is unfortunate, appealing as it does to some dubious physiological, and yet transcendent, art-empathic essence.

Forge’s second main theme, after Hughes and against Benjamin’s famous thesis, is the responsibility of mechanical media (photography, TV) for the aesthetic superficiality and amnesia of the Post-Modern present. There are two sub-themes. First, under the pervasive influence of mass visual media and their ‘stupidly compelling’ realism, fine art also became obsessed with ‘information and not experience’. One could easily develop the opposite thesis: that, with the ‘pure’ informational function siphoned off to mass media, painting was finally freed from this onerous duty to engage with its own preoccupations – which were never simply or primarily representational. But both theses rest on a misapprehension, since there are no such things as ‘purely informational’ mass media: they themselves have an aesthetic dimension, different to, but as complex as, that of fine art.

More importantly, it is no good laying the blame for the aesthetic impasses of Modernist fine art on the coincidental rise of new mass media, which do not displace, nor aesthetically rival, fine art. If painting has lost its way aesthetically over the century, its ambivalent relations with other cultural developments must first be explained in terms of the aporias and crises of its own internal dynamics and periodic urge to turn outwards for ‘solutions’ – unsuccessfully, in my view.

The second sub-theme is that painters, critics and viewers are brought up on diets of slides which misrepresent and reduce the original painting, so producing an ahistorical, superficial pseudo-freedom of access to the total world history of art. We must accept the fact that slides are transformations – representations of paintings in which certain phenomenal qualities of the originals are lost. The question is what this implies. For Benjamin, it was a price worth paying. Forge’s view seems based on a view of culture as a ‘zero-sum game’: the more we have mass reproduction, the less is left for the appreciation of the artwork. How can Forge defend against Benjamin’s other major insight, sociological and aesthetic combined, that the problem with fine artworks is precisely their uniqueness in space and time; and that in a world like ours, these objects inevitably become rare commodities caught up in an ever-inflating traffic of prestigious goods? In other words, that by their very nature as objects, fine artworks become symbols of cultural stratification, so that for the majority of people the choice is not ‘slides or paintings’, but ‘postcards and slides or nothing’?

What Forge misses is the sheer phenomenological specificity and difference of fine art, of photography and, indeed, of written and verbal discourse; and of the translation and transformation inherent in any congress between them. It is not true that painting is somehow demeaned or robbed by the existence of photographic slides. Ironically, this repressed truth returns in Forge’s own appreciation of the photographs of paintings in Hughes’s ‘extremely well-illustrated’ book on Auerbach. We are faced with various forms of translation: literary, discursive, photographic. Each is ‘artificial’: and yet each has a function. Each ‘robs’ – if that is the word for not being the same as: and yet each expands the universe of the original artwork, the particular qualities of painting. Surely this is the way forward.

Georgina Born
Goldsmiths’ College, London SE14

Vol. 13 No. 17 · 12 September 1991

Georgina Born’s letter (Letters, 15 August) does not take issue with Andrew Forge’s piece about Robert Hughes and the state of modern art. Had their paths crossed, they might have got on well. They agree on the new 20th-century mass market in art, whatever that is. They agree on the ever more powerful waves of changing fashion. But I have to say to Forge’s critique of modern fashions that before fashion there was also fashion. This can be difficult to detect in some of the comments which issue from universities and colleges on art markets and their vogues.

What particular nostalgic return to figuration is Georgina Born mentioning? I have seen more shows this summer by artists from Goldsmiths’ College, where Georgina Born teaches, than from all the other art schools in total – either new graduates or, as a friend of mine put it, ‘rehabilitated old hippies’. They share a common nostalgia for the distant revolutions of Marcel Duchamp, and though he may have been kind enough to sign the work of young admirers, he finally preferred playing chess to making art.

Daniel Miller
London E8

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN


Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences