More on the Learned Prejudices of the Educated Mind



A favourite custom by Lawrence Alma-Tadema

During my researches for my previous post on "The Art of Cornwall" and what I can only characterize as the learned prejudices of some art historians I came across another interesting example by the maker of the Cornwall film Dr. James Fox relating to this work (above) by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema. I should say I don't believe for a moment that Dr Fox is peculiarly susceptible to this disease of wilful blindness but as he is in the fortunate position of getting to air his views regularly on the BBC they are obviously more apparent that those of his colleagues who have to content themselves with less public platforms.

Now Dr Fox is a specialist in and great admirer of modernism, particularly British modernism of the first half of the twentieth century and as I demonstrated in my earlier piece it is only possible to claim any status for most of the art of this period by appealing not to its inherent artistic qualities as would have been understood at any earlier period since the early 14th century but to the simple fact of its newness and difference from previous art. Less for what it is artistically than for what it stood for intellectually and ideologically. Purely artistic criteria for judging a work of art become useless, worse than useless in fact, as anyone with eyes and an open mind can see that the modernist work of the early 20th century stands hopelessly condemned by them in comparison to the work they superseded. So it follows that if a new edifice of modernism is to be constructed at all it must be on the ruins of the old, the old culture must be destroyed root and branch and the very possibility of comparing the new to the old must be made as difficult as possible. In this the modernists have been successful; even to complain that David Hockney's landscapes aren't a patch on Constable's for example is to risk revealing yourself as an ignorant philistine, "modern art" is not to be compared to "art", we are done with "art" we need something more "relevant" to the modern world.

Road across the Wold David Hockney

Hampstead Heath John Constable

Given this I find it revealing to examine the terms by which the old art has been removed from the discourse of modern criticism. Of course the criteria by which bad art art was identified up until the 20th century, bad drawing, dirty colour, sloppy handling, ugly line etc are not terms that can sensibly be applied to a work such as this:



Captive Andromache by Lord Leighton
 

and no modernist would dare to dismiss such a picture in those terms and then ask us to admire something such as this:



The field next to the road by Jean-Michael Basquiat

No, another way of telling us never to look at these picture again had to be found and it was a more effective way because it didn't appeal to personal taste or judgement, which can be fickle after all, but to our liberal sense of modernity, democracy and reasonableness, You were told that if you liked Alma -Tadema you weren't just a bad critic, most of us could live with that I suppose (especially considering the state of our accusers) but a bad person.
So how does Dr Fox justify his opinion that Alma-Tadema's picture "A Favourite Custom" (pictured at the top of this article) is  "very, very, very bad art"? Well first of all he admits it is "well painted", (enough in itself, one would have thought, to cut out at least one "very"), and he warns us not to be fooled by its charms. It is charming then, in addition to being well painted; most artists would be content enough with producing charming, well painted and popular works but none of this counts for Dr Fox because he informs us it is "reactionary, elitist, sexist, motivated by money alone and completely out of touch with the realities of modern Britain". Now, note that none of these words or phrases  are actually terms of art criticism, they might more logically be applied to a political speech and certainly none would ever be found attached to works of art before the twentieth century.  I would think it rather behoves Dr Fox, therefore, before using them to dismiss a picture as valueless, to make a case as to why a picture need be progressive, democratic, non sexist,  given away for free and in touch with the realities of modern Britain, which I take to be the opposite of his terms and therefore qualities he would require in an admirable painting. To take the financial aspect first as it is the most plainly ridiculous, neither Dr Fox or anyone else can ever know if the picture was painted solely for money. Alma Tadema operated in a capitalist society, he earned his living by selling paintings as did and does every other professional artist so it is plainly absurd to make this statement and then to insinuate that that somehow affects the quality of the work. And besides, where would that leave Damien Hirst?
Moving on to "reactionary" which the Oxford dictionary defines as "opposing political or social progress or reform" Really? it is very hard to see how any picture (barring perhaps a political cartoon) could  be said to oppose any reforms and I assume by the phrase "out of touch with the realities of modern Britain"  that Dr Fox acknowledges its' complete lack of concern with the issues of progress or reform, so how can it at the same time be viewed as opposing them? What right does Dr Fox have to tell artists they should paint pictures concerning the realities of modern Britain or anywhere else for that matter?

On to "elitist" - "relating or supporting the view that a society or system should be led by an elite" according to my dictionary. Well firstly all societies are, and in my view should be, led by an elite, I want the best the brightest the kindest and the wisest to lead any society of which I am a part, but again what possible reason can Dr Fox have for supposing this picture, by his own admission completely unconcerned with modern Britain, can be making a case for an elitist society? They may or may not be the Roman "elite" in the picture, the custom of bathing was widespread, but its a big step from that to assuming any undemocratic motives of the artist! One might indeed, if so minded, make the argument that Alma -Tadema was celebrating the democratic nature of Roman baths and implying a similar democratic attitude to public health would be welcome in Edwardian Britain.  Finally on to "sexist", thrown in, in a very prudish (dare I say Victorian?) manner, presumably because there are some naked women in the picture, though it is not, as he rather oddly claims, "full of them". Well the naked form is a thing of great beauty, surely those battles were fought and won a long time ago. Dr Fox must have a difficult time in most of the great museums of the world if the mere depiction of nudity causes such revulsion. The women are bathing but I hope Dr Fox doesn't infer from the fact they were keen on cleanliness that they were incapable of higher rational thought, for only something on those lines would justify the idea that Alma-Tadema was discriminating against women in any way merely by depicting them enjoying the water.

Here is another picture which might just as reasonably suffer the opprobrium of Dr Fox,

The Venus of Urbino by Titian

It certainly has nothing to do with the realities of 16th century Venice, it depicts  a goddess, how elitist! a nude female and other women who are mere servants, sexist! looks back to a mythical past, reactionary! and as a commissioned work, unlike the Alma Tadema, was painted directly for money, and yet, damn it, despite these terrible weaknesses it has somehow endured in the world's imagination as a great masterpiece for nearly five centuries.  I should say here for the avoidance of doubt that I do not consider the Alma Tadema to be great art, but it has a lot of good qualities and doesn't deserve to be dismissed so witheringly and certainly not for purely ideological reason. Burne-Jones once said "there are two reasons for painting a picture, to please or to exalt; the first is a pretty reason, the second a noble one."  Alma-Tadema's picture falls into the first category but that in itself is no little thing and worthy of appreciation and gratitude. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a peculiar prejudice amongst modernists for Victorian art, the reason being that it was the art that came directly before the modernist revolution and that to which modernism was most often and most directly compared. But it is sad that a class of people exists, and particularly when it is those who job it is to give a full and fair assessment of the story of art, who cannot or will not set aside learned prejudices and really look with an honest eye and an open mind at the work before them. It is not good enough to dismiss Victorian art just because it is Victorian any more than to praise that which came after it just because it did come after it. The modern movement has encouraged the replacement of artistic standards with political ones, the replacement of artists as the arbiters of artistic merit with writers and academics. Indeed it might be argued that this replacement is the modern movement. The proof is in the pudding however and the modernists serve us up such lumpy, dull, soggy pudding it really is time that we all learned we don't have to force it down. A far healthier and more sustaining fare will still be waiting for us when we recover our appetite.




The roses of Heliogabalus by Lawrence Alma-Tadema