So where did it all go wrong? Was it that it is an idea that clearly works better as a book than an exhibition? As a book it could have little images throughout and the pairing-ness that goes on in the exhibition could thus become thought provoking rather than irritating. Perhaps it is because it is curated by two curators-one an artist and one a scholar the ideas don’t seem to come together coherently either.
The idea that generations of British sculptors, as their peers in France, could be influenced by the exoticness of the dark continent would be worthy of exploration if only it did not mean the inclusion in the first few rooms of artists such as Leon Underwood, Eric Gill and Gaudia Brezka. These artists are clearly, as the late critic David Sylvester would say, were mere major minors. I fear they may well prove to be decorative footnotes in an art history that looks at the influence of the primitive on the great continental sculptors, Brancusi, Matisse and Picasso.
Jacob Epstein’s Adam is undeniably a great work, and it is wonderful to see it after emerging from the cluttered room of the historic works but I would put forward the argument that it owes more to the artist’s assimilation of modernist architecture and Cubism than it does to sculpture from the British Museum. Unflinching in its enjoyment of materials, and carving and unflinching in its depictions of a man with his manly impressive tackle intact. It might have been a perfect place in the juxtaposition game played here to place an Antony Gormley figure opposite, an artist who does not appear in the exhibition at all. Instead for some really inexplicable reason we have the Snake of Henry Moore that because of its phallus resembling head I assume is there only to remind woman what snakes men really are?!
Moving on to the core of the show we are told that Anthony Caro’s piece shown here is not really risk taking for being on the floor but owes more to Moore and Hepworth than to modernism. Why we need to de-emasculate Caro in order to support this theme is beyond me. The choice of Early One Morning is odd too. While it again is a great work, it would make far more sense in this context to show one of the great rusted steel works of the 60s which show that England was capable of producing works of strength and power capable of taking on any of the Americans like David Smith through to Richard Serra.
Again and again the right artists are chosen with the wrong works or the right artists are just omitted. Tony Cragg is represented by Stack, a work from 1975 which I fear, while an interesting work, has been chosen merely as a link to the recreation of the Schwitters Merzbaum in the courtyard and a quasi way of demonstrating his importance on artists like Rachel Harrison. Better to have shown Cragg with a tower piece, or a selection plastic work where he demonstrated the hunting gathering tendencies that along with sorting were to have such an influence on decades of other artists from David Bachelor through to Gabriel Orozco. And for that matter why not have the contents of the Merzbaum not the silly recreation in the courtyard. It is here in the UK after all.
I wonder at the inclusion of Richard Hamilton and Victor Pasmore’s work at all. They are neither key sculptors after all and the work depicted is a three dimensional painting not a sculpture after all. Again and again the curators have included works that should have been left out. Trying to artificially squish performance into sculpture with the inclusion of photographs by for one illustrate a stretch too far.
Comparing British artists to their American brethren here simply diminishes the work of the Brits. Why was a weak work Chalk Line by English romanticist, Richard Long, chosen at all, and to really emasculate it place it near to Equivalent VIII, Carl Andre’s. Iconic work? The aesthetics of these two artists are far apart and here are put together crassly seemingly because the works are both rectangular showing again a lack of understanding on the part of the curators in their placing them cheek by jowl.
 |
| Damien Hirsr, Let's Eat Outdoor Today |
Damien Hirst is represented with Let’s Eat Outdoors Today, a large work from 1990-91, that is again undermined by placing it near to Jeff Koons, One Ball 50/50 Tank (Spalding Dr. J Series) from 1985, a seminal work. Here Hirst survives with his reputation intact largely due to the fact that the Koons piece, rather than demonstrating ‘ the high production values that would cause a rupture with young British artists’ woefully here has condensation on the inside of the tank and a rather sad and deflated looking basketball, a far cry from the usual crisp and impressive works we associate with this series.
Again and again we question the selections- why we have Cragg and Bill Woodrow here but no Richard Deacon? Where is Shirazez Housiary? Anish Kapoor, the aforementioned Antony Gormley? Why do we have Sarah Lucas, again represented by Portable Smoking Area, another weak piece but where is Tracey Emin or Simon Starling?
The most surprising work for me Line 3’68 is by the wonderful late Barry Flanagan. Something that chimes in my mind with Gabriel Orozco’s Lintels, a wash line piece constructed of lint from launderettes in New York and then mounted onto washing lines, a wonderful piece in his show that recently opened at Tate Modern. If you have a few hours to spare I recommend visiting this triumph rather than throwing your money away on this disappointing melange.
 |
| installation shot of Lintels by Gabriel Orozco |
Scariest is to think that Penelope Curtis, one of the two curators, is the new recently appointed Director of Tate Britain. Perhaps this explains the terrible re-hang at Tate Britain. I fear for the future reinstallations north of the river.
