After some investigation, I have realised that Mauritian Artists can be defined or grouped in many ways. There are off the top of my head:
1 dead ones particularly pre-independence ( 12th March1968)
2 those who were alive and working at the time of independence.
3 There are those who live in Mauritius but who's family paid for them to go and study in Western Europe or the US.
4 second generation Mauritians who's parents emigrated and grew up with free or subsidised University education
Monday, October 13, 2008
Possible Mauritian Art as a Dissertation
Art and Mauritius, I recently went to Mauritius on holiday with my girlfriend, for me it was a chance to see family I haven't seen in years and to re-aquaint my self with the country of my mother's birth. For my girlfriend it gave her an extra insight into me.
One of the justifications I gave for my trip was that I would investigate the art scene and the new art school in Mauritius . I met a Mauritian artist, Krishna Luchoomun, 2 years ago. He had a residency as an overseas artist at the Gasworks a community gallery in Oval, at the time he was talking about playing a founding role in said school.
He seemed very nice more of a statesman than an artist. The work he was exhibiting seemed a little naïve, like a community participation art project, very much passe to a London eye, but I did think about how it might seem from a foreign perspective. What I thought of as cliché such as red buses and telephone boxes are exotic and iconic to a Mauritian especially one who, unlike my family, has not either lived here in London or visited countless times over the years.
I later looked in to his background and he studied art in the USSR pre the fall of the iron curtain. This gave him a very different outlook from the Western European and US arts educated artists I am used to. So
I haven't seen the artists work from the organisation that Krishna has been setting up but I did get to look at some art while I was in Mauritius.
I arrived with my own prejudices particularly towards 'tourist' art, because all I had ever seen of the Mauritian art and handicrafts was hollowed out porcupine fish, minature ships and dodo t-shirts. I actually have bought all of these at one stage or another so it is a little hypocritical, but I did. I was worried that all the painting would be stylised beach scenes and that pop art and conceptualism would have missed Mauritius. It wasn't that I thought it would be backwards but I was worried that the work ethic particularly of those like myself of Indian origin would be so strong that there would be no room for art aimed at Mauritians.
One of the justifications I gave for my trip was that I would investigate the art scene and the new art school in Mauritius . I met a Mauritian artist, Krishna Luchoomun, 2 years ago. He had a residency as an overseas artist at the Gasworks a community gallery in Oval, at the time he was talking about playing a founding role in said school.
He seemed very nice more of a statesman than an artist. The work he was exhibiting seemed a little naïve, like a community participation art project, very much passe to a London eye, but I did think about how it might seem from a foreign perspective. What I thought of as cliché such as red buses and telephone boxes are exotic and iconic to a Mauritian especially one who, unlike my family, has not either lived here in London or visited countless times over the years.
I later looked in to his background and he studied art in the USSR pre the fall of the iron curtain. This gave him a very different outlook from the Western European and US arts educated artists I am used to. So
I haven't seen the artists work from the organisation that Krishna has been setting up but I did get to look at some art while I was in Mauritius.
I arrived with my own prejudices particularly towards 'tourist' art, because all I had ever seen of the Mauritian art and handicrafts was hollowed out porcupine fish, minature ships and dodo t-shirts. I actually have bought all of these at one stage or another so it is a little hypocritical, but I did. I was worried that all the painting would be stylised beach scenes and that pop art and conceptualism would have missed Mauritius. It wasn't that I thought it would be backwards but I was worried that the work ethic particularly of those like myself of Indian origin would be so strong that there would be no room for art aimed at Mauritians.
Dissertations notes all in a Jumble
I'd like to investigate the snobbery of fine art. Fine Art is a very odd distinction, for an area that is supposed to be creative and open there is an awful lot of closed mindedness, snobbery is inate in the very name, Fine Art rather than Craft. Somehow the name means 'un-applied' art, art for its own sake, in its own right. For years it meant painting and sculpture and then later it grew to include conceptual art such as performance art and video.
What is strange is the gradual edging out of certain genres. For some reason the figurative work has been 'relegated' by many to craft or illustration
There has been a split in the artworld into a traditionalist supposedly commercial area and a contemporary 'edgy' area.
Painting has been stranded between the two it seems a painting must not actually have taken any craft to be considered Art, well not from the credited artist. And if it does then it may grudgingly be allowed if the work shocks. If your work does none of the above and only if you are old like Hockney or Lucien Freud and haven't had the decency to die, can you be considered a 'respectable' artist.
Why does the art world have such a problem with Charles Saatchi. Is it there own impotence and a self loathing that he brought British art into the late twentieth century from its cottage industry status constantly playing catch up to a dynamic New York post avant garde scene, and he did it by By buying and showing young British artists, while they were still championing elder statesmen and doddery Americans. The fact the nineties is dominated by art that was to his taste is not his 'fault' but his success if he had not put his money in was anyone else going to, did anyone else? Is what galls the critics of the time that he made a new art fashionable rather than the friends who they had been name dropping in 'all the right places' for years.
But was it Saatchi that made it Fashionable or was it that Saatchi was the Zeitgeist, he had been Thatchers Adman understanding what it took to catch the attention of modern masses. So is it surprising that his art that fit his taste in art caught the public imagination.
Some of the work may have been shocking but so was his own work such as the anti-smoking ads, shocking but hellishly effective.
Why is an advertisement not art?
The subliminals of adverts have to communicate to a wide market, but also to a target market.
Who are art subliminals communicating to?
What is the point of a subtle obscure message particularly if it only communicates to an exclusive market ( maybe that is the point)
I'm not saying art should not have subtlety but that it should not be all subtlety, the audience should not have to have contemporary art explained if they are from the same period as the work it should explain itself. If the work cannot get the attention, the artist or the art world should not blame the audience.
The differentiation between high art and low art is entirely artificial, there is no intrinsic reason one artform should survive by right. It is totally subjective, a matter of personal preference Lucien Freud is no more worthy than Jack Vettriano. Its like saying cricket, as much as I love it, is more important than football. I may prefer it, so to me it is, but there is majority that follow football. There is no point in me complaining about it, Football has the audience, I can choose to do something about it to Complexity is not necessarily a good thing Has art been marginalised because of a refusal to be accessible or to communicate with a mass audience ? Are complaints about supposed dumbing down of art just laments for the exclusivity of art . Based on art where the main market was an educated elite and an aspirational 'nouveau riche'.
Hence just a way of protecting its vested interests, by keeping the exclusive status symbol nature of owning Art.
Is the reason art has resisted being mainstream because art intellectuals fear for their careers , why should contemporary art need explaining, by its very nature art should be expressing its own meaning. I have a view that the only explanation an artist should give is a title and only if they want to, if art needs to explain itself then hasn't it failed. Maybe the purpose of art writing is like journalism to inform and to document ?
Why is art not mainstream along with the other creative media like music, film and TV, and books Who are the artists that the art world respects that are not regarded as High Art Lite, is there a lament for the romantic struggling artist figure who only makes it famous at his death or in his late years? The career model is not very appealing, it only allows for the gifted amateur which is a lovely ideal the pure and uncorrupted artist. But like amateur sport it completely prohibits the working class, and the only ones who prosper are those with independent means or rich parents as they are known. There are those who work as lecturers and tutors but this is restricted to those who can afford the education either through privilege of money or being lucky enough to be born in the right country, and have the background that will allow them the freedom to do so.
What is strange is the gradual edging out of certain genres. For some reason the figurative work has been 'relegated' by many to craft or illustration
There has been a split in the artworld into a traditionalist supposedly commercial area and a contemporary 'edgy' area.
Painting has been stranded between the two it seems a painting must not actually have taken any craft to be considered Art, well not from the credited artist. And if it does then it may grudgingly be allowed if the work shocks. If your work does none of the above and only if you are old like Hockney or Lucien Freud and haven't had the decency to die, can you be considered a 'respectable' artist.
Why does the art world have such a problem with Charles Saatchi. Is it there own impotence and a self loathing that he brought British art into the late twentieth century from its cottage industry status constantly playing catch up to a dynamic New York post avant garde scene, and he did it by By buying and showing young British artists, while they were still championing elder statesmen and doddery Americans. The fact the nineties is dominated by art that was to his taste is not his 'fault' but his success if he had not put his money in was anyone else going to, did anyone else? Is what galls the critics of the time that he made a new art fashionable rather than the friends who they had been name dropping in 'all the right places' for years.
But was it Saatchi that made it Fashionable or was it that Saatchi was the Zeitgeist, he had been Thatchers Adman understanding what it took to catch the attention of modern masses. So is it surprising that his art that fit his taste in art caught the public imagination.
Some of the work may have been shocking but so was his own work such as the anti-smoking ads, shocking but hellishly effective.
Why is an advertisement not art?
The subliminals of adverts have to communicate to a wide market, but also to a target market.
Who are art subliminals communicating to?
What is the point of a subtle obscure message particularly if it only communicates to an exclusive market ( maybe that is the point)
I'm not saying art should not have subtlety but that it should not be all subtlety, the audience should not have to have contemporary art explained if they are from the same period as the work it should explain itself. If the work cannot get the attention, the artist or the art world should not blame the audience.
The differentiation between high art and low art is entirely artificial, there is no intrinsic reason one artform should survive by right. It is totally subjective, a matter of personal preference Lucien Freud is no more worthy than Jack Vettriano. Its like saying cricket, as much as I love it, is more important than football. I may prefer it, so to me it is, but there is majority that follow football. There is no point in me complaining about it, Football has the audience, I can choose to do something about it to Complexity is not necessarily a good thing Has art been marginalised because of a refusal to be accessible or to communicate with a mass audience ? Are complaints about supposed dumbing down of art just laments for the exclusivity of art . Based on art where the main market was an educated elite and an aspirational 'nouveau riche'.
Hence just a way of protecting its vested interests, by keeping the exclusive status symbol nature of owning Art.
Is the reason art has resisted being mainstream because art intellectuals fear for their careers , why should contemporary art need explaining, by its very nature art should be expressing its own meaning. I have a view that the only explanation an artist should give is a title and only if they want to, if art needs to explain itself then hasn't it failed. Maybe the purpose of art writing is like journalism to inform and to document ?
Why is art not mainstream along with the other creative media like music, film and TV, and books Who are the artists that the art world respects that are not regarded as High Art Lite, is there a lament for the romantic struggling artist figure who only makes it famous at his death or in his late years? The career model is not very appealing, it only allows for the gifted amateur which is a lovely ideal the pure and uncorrupted artist. But like amateur sport it completely prohibits the working class, and the only ones who prosper are those with independent means or rich parents as they are known. There are those who work as lecturers and tutors but this is restricted to those who can afford the education either through privilege of money or being lucky enough to be born in the right country, and have the background that will allow them the freedom to do so.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Diamonds and Skulls part one
On a very simple level these two main components of 'For the love of God' have a long history as symbols not only in art but in human society. The skull could almost be said to be culturally insignificant, because of it ubiquitous nature as long as there have been humans there have been human skulls, and by their very nature they have always been associated with death for the most obvious of reasons. Only from the 20Century has it been possible to see the complete skull, human or otherwise without death being involved.
The skull has long been used as an emblem to represent danger or instill fear, the poison bottle, most famously in the Jolly Roger, skull and cross bones flag, however this seems to be a fictional flag that has been adopted in retrospect. Pirates’ supposed use of it seems to have been picked up on. Its later use has been to associate the flyer with pirates and the no prisoners taken ethos. The Pirate flag itself has been adopted by so called alternative culture. This pirate association has also come to mean alternative from the establishment, and rather than use an accurate depiction it tends to use a styalised ‘pop’ version. The ‘real’ skull is taken to be still taboo it is still a symbol of actual death
There are some wonderful examples of how this has sometimes been elaborated to the whole skeleton, and been used to personify death in European or Western culture. The scythe weilding figure the grim reaper that appears to collect the soul, is rarely completely defined in literature, but has been interpreted as a shrouded skeleton by many artists and film makers. This has in turn been parodied by many, notably and famously by Terry Pratchett in his Discworld books which defined and showed the ridiculousness of the practicalities of this literal interpretation of the metafor. Attempts to make the image more intricate and more scary are dispelled by the parody, it some how returns the gravity and effectiveness of the simple skull.
The skull has long been used as an emblem to represent danger or instill fear, the poison bottle, most famously in the Jolly Roger, skull and cross bones flag, however this seems to be a fictional flag that has been adopted in retrospect. Pirates’ supposed use of it seems to have been picked up on. Its later use has been to associate the flyer with pirates and the no prisoners taken ethos. The Pirate flag itself has been adopted by so called alternative culture. This pirate association has also come to mean alternative from the establishment, and rather than use an accurate depiction it tends to use a styalised ‘pop’ version. The ‘real’ skull is taken to be still taboo it is still a symbol of actual death
There are some wonderful examples of how this has sometimes been elaborated to the whole skeleton, and been used to personify death in European or Western culture. The scythe weilding figure the grim reaper that appears to collect the soul, is rarely completely defined in literature, but has been interpreted as a shrouded skeleton by many artists and film makers. This has in turn been parodied by many, notably and famously by Terry Pratchett in his Discworld books which defined and showed the ridiculousness of the practicalities of this literal interpretation of the metafor. Attempts to make the image more intricate and more scary are dispelled by the parody, it some how returns the gravity and effectiveness of the simple skull.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
What is Damien Hirst's Medium?
Damian Hirst is among the few contemporary artists who is known to the 'general public'. He has acheived notoriety along with his contemporary Tracey Emin, even if people cannot name him they would recognise his work. For me the real sign is when work has gained a tabloid newspaper name like Carl Andre's 'Tate Bricks', Emin has 'The Unmade Bed' and 'The Tent' while Hirst has the 'Dead Sheep' the 'Shark' or the 'Pickled Shark' and now the Skull.
If taken literally Hirst seems to have no specific or consistent medium or genre, his series of dead animals from, the Skull, and the Pharmacy, part of the Tate Modern's early hangs would suggest sculpture/installation but his spots and spin paintings would seem to make that sugggest he is also a painter. I would suggest he has to mediums that he is consistent to, which are Sensationalism and Plagiarism.
I should probably illustrate the plagiarism first, as it could be taken to be libellous except for the fact he has had to pay out once to an original artist over a piece which he based on their work. Hymn a 6m tall bronze interpretation of an anatomical model by the toy compay Humbrol and he has been accused of tracing an penguin book illustration for the piece Valium. In a way what Hirst has done is alway to bring these images to a new audience, he particularly takes children toys and brings them out of there original context into a new context. Does he change them enough to make the work his own well that is for the courts to decide, for me it is a new take on the traditional concept of Art holding a mirror to life.
The Easter Assignment - Damien Hirst's Skull
I first saw Hirst's piece "For the Love of God" on the news, it was billed as the most costly piece of contemporary art ever made, and expected to make 50 million pounds. Hirst reputedly put 11 million pounds of his own money, in to the setting of god knows how many diamonds into the platinum cast of a human skull. It seemed appropriate that it should be on the evening news rather than an arts programme because it always seems to be that his work is about the sensational impact of a piece than the artistic merit of it. It is conceptual art because the description of the work is as important as what the work itself looks like, a radio description of the work is all that is needed we need never actually see the piece for it to have the desired effect.
Having said this I have actually seen the skull itself. I slightly resented it really and if I was not studying Fine Art I would not have bothered. Well actually I would have not bothered on principal, Hirst has quite enough publicity without adding me to the statistics. I was however 'gallerying' with my course mates that day, seeing the retrospective of his work at both White Cube galleries, I didn't realise it was still on display.
Even though there was no charge to see the work, we had to get tickets, give our name and contact details, queue round the block, leave our bags and were only allowed to in a few at a time. Once in, the skull itself was on a plinth (obviously behind glass) it in a pitch black room sparkling like a gaudy sparkly thing. For all its crown jewels build up, profound title and stupidly expensive materials it was trashy and vulgar. The physical artifact could never live up to the hype, it could never be sublime or amazing because there was no surprise. The same visual effect could be got with 8000 holographic sequins and a plastic Halloween toy. It reminded of Robbie Williams who when he moves on stage wants to be Mick Jagger or Iggy Pop but ends up, by his own admission, looking by like Norman Wisdom.
Having said this I have actually seen the skull itself. I slightly resented it really and if I was not studying Fine Art I would not have bothered. Well actually I would have not bothered on principal, Hirst has quite enough publicity without adding me to the statistics. I was however 'gallerying' with my course mates that day, seeing the retrospective of his work at both White Cube galleries, I didn't realise it was still on display.
Even though there was no charge to see the work, we had to get tickets, give our name and contact details, queue round the block, leave our bags and were only allowed to in a few at a time. Once in, the skull itself was on a plinth (obviously behind glass) it in a pitch black room sparkling like a gaudy sparkly thing. For all its crown jewels build up, profound title and stupidly expensive materials it was trashy and vulgar. The physical artifact could never live up to the hype, it could never be sublime or amazing because there was no surprise. The same visual effect could be got with 8000 holographic sequins and a plastic Halloween toy. It reminded of Robbie Williams who when he moves on stage wants to be Mick Jagger or Iggy Pop but ends up, by his own admission, looking by like Norman Wisdom.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Easter Assignment
This is an attempt to figure out my art history assignment by blogging it. The brief is to observe a single artwork of the post war period that can actually be observed in a museum, gallery or collection, and critically discuss it.
As ever I have come at this with a combative mindset and I'm picking apart the whole concept of the piece, but that's more to do with my opinion of the lecturer than the essay. This piece of coursework is fairly representative of him, it is pedestrian and narrow minded. He guides without meaning to, defining what is an isn't art in a way that is reminiscent of the art schools of the 19th Century. He doesn't seem to realise that there is a whole world out there and that some of us have seen more of it than we have seen his conventional art academia. Some of us are trying to bring our own thoughts and experiences to the table.
Me, I'm probably just awkward. The basic idea of the essay is quite appealing, but I like to argue.
As ever I have come at this with a combative mindset and I'm picking apart the whole concept of the piece, but that's more to do with my opinion of the lecturer than the essay. This piece of coursework is fairly representative of him, it is pedestrian and narrow minded. He guides without meaning to, defining what is an isn't art in a way that is reminiscent of the art schools of the 19th Century. He doesn't seem to realise that there is a whole world out there and that some of us have seen more of it than we have seen his conventional art academia. Some of us are trying to bring our own thoughts and experiences to the table.
Me, I'm probably just awkward. The basic idea of the essay is quite appealing, but I like to argue.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Long Awaited Return
So my computer was stolen and i had to move and I've just been avoiding updating my website and the journal. America was amazing a real eye opener, I feel that the more important part of the trip wasn't experiencing the Art scene, but the US itself. I have more of an understanding of what is the most influential culture in the world, and so a greater understanding of the world. I'll expand on this in the future but at least this is a start
Friday, May 18, 2007
New York Optimism
I've made some progress in my search for New York galleries since my break through in the understanding of the scale of the city. I have discovered http://www.artupdate.com/ which produces a brilliant map of London galleries, which can be found in the small independent galleries, produces a New York Edition. After my chat with Mike (mentioned a couple of posts earlier) the map means a lot more to me. I think I've gained some confidence, and with a couple of comment on my early posts (thank you), I feel a lot more optimistic.
This is important for me, I'm very mood lead, strangely I see parallels with an obscure X-Men character called Long Shot, not one that those of you who only know the movies will have heard of, Long Shot was a from the comics of the late eighties and early Nineties when comics were my biggest distraction before 'wimmin and drinkin'. His powers were very different from the showy, loud powers we are used to, his power was "Luck", but not just good luck; it was dependent on his mood emotion and motives. If his motives and emotions were noble, happiness or love, his luck would be a wonder to behold! But if his motives were, negative; selfish, fearful or angry his luck would be BAD!
It was very strange to have a power that actively worked against a character, but it was fascinating to have emotional depth to a comic character in a period when I was growing up and forming my own personality. It seemed to (and still does) reflect in my own life, when I'm unsure, depressed or when I go against my best instincts things go wrong, and luck goes against me. Yet when I'm confident and happy everything goes right. I'm getting more and more excited about this trip and somehow I'm finding useful people with useful information about places to go and things to see. All I need now is a few connections, so if you know anyone who would be interested in meeting a charming British artist from London drop me a comment.
This is important for me, I'm very mood lead, strangely I see parallels with an obscure X-Men character called Long Shot, not one that those of you who only know the movies will have heard of, Long Shot was a from the comics of the late eighties and early Nineties when comics were my biggest distraction before 'wimmin and drinkin'. His powers were very different from the showy, loud powers we are used to, his power was "Luck", but not just good luck; it was dependent on his mood emotion and motives. If his motives and emotions were noble, happiness or love, his luck would be a wonder to behold! But if his motives were, negative; selfish, fearful or angry his luck would be BAD!
It was very strange to have a power that actively worked against a character, but it was fascinating to have emotional depth to a comic character in a period when I was growing up and forming my own personality. It seemed to (and still does) reflect in my own life, when I'm unsure, depressed or when I go against my best instincts things go wrong, and luck goes against me. Yet when I'm confident and happy everything goes right. I'm getting more and more excited about this trip and somehow I'm finding useful people with useful information about places to go and things to see. All I need now is a few connections, so if you know anyone who would be interested in meeting a charming British artist from London drop me a comment.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Art of England - The Daily Express of Art Magazines
I bought Art of England for a contrast to Art Review and Art Forum. It has a very strange editorial policy, no apparent worries about integrity or credibility. Its target audience I would say is the retired water-colourist and the evening class taker.
This month the theme seemed to be Rolf Harris, as you will all know, Britain's most famous artist. The cover story was about the TV portrait programme he presents and the second was about the portrait of the Queen he was commissioned to paint for her 80th birthday celebrations. The cover feature is about the portrait equivalent of Ready Steady Cook Where three established portrait artist are challenged to paint a surprise guest in a place of the Celeb's choice. I can't really knock it as, although I don't really watch TV if I stumble across it, I will watch it through to the end, as I did with the article. As well as talking about the programme in general, it interviewed three of the most recent artists who had Barbara Windsor as a subject. What they had to say echoed my own feelings, they were in it for mostly three reason firstly and probably most importantly, fiscal the exposure and PR was worth it on its own, secondly to get out of the studio and work along side other artists and Thirdly for the challenge. I know it is very easy to slip into habits and close your mind it's why I came to University to open myself to new ideas. But a little less about me, and more about the article. It was really to promote a TV programme, which is a little like going to see artists in a zoo and watching them jump though hoops. At least the artist were getting their bit out of it too. It's like any relationship it can be boiled down to who's exploiting whom, this is not touched on at all by the magazine there is very little critical depth or opinion, it's input is more "just grateful to be here with the lovely Rolf”
The rest of the articles followed similar lines, one about a show of celebrity portraits from the National Portrait Gallery in a gallery in Walsall another on some anniversary or other show of the Royal Society of portrait Painters, no critical discourse just a mostly factual gently sycophantic description, big adverts really. But here is where I confuse myself a little, I quite admire the brazen “middle of the road-ness” of the magazine, the total lack of pretension, its ability to be self-sustaining to a mass audience. I wish there was a middle ground where a magazine tried to lead the evening classers away from the safety of the Royal Society of Portrait Painters. But that is just another battle in my own personal art war."
This month the theme seemed to be Rolf Harris, as you will all know, Britain's most famous artist. The cover story was about the TV portrait programme he presents and the second was about the portrait of the Queen he was commissioned to paint for her 80th birthday celebrations. The cover feature is about the portrait equivalent of Ready Steady Cook Where three established portrait artist are challenged to paint a surprise guest in a place of the Celeb's choice. I can't really knock it as, although I don't really watch TV if I stumble across it, I will watch it through to the end, as I did with the article. As well as talking about the programme in general, it interviewed three of the most recent artists who had Barbara Windsor as a subject. What they had to say echoed my own feelings, they were in it for mostly three reason firstly and probably most importantly, fiscal the exposure and PR was worth it on its own, secondly to get out of the studio and work along side other artists and Thirdly for the challenge. I know it is very easy to slip into habits and close your mind it's why I came to University to open myself to new ideas. But a little less about me, and more about the article. It was really to promote a TV programme, which is a little like going to see artists in a zoo and watching them jump though hoops. At least the artist were getting their bit out of it too. It's like any relationship it can be boiled down to who's exploiting whom, this is not touched on at all by the magazine there is very little critical depth or opinion, it's input is more "just grateful to be here with the lovely Rolf”
The rest of the articles followed similar lines, one about a show of celebrity portraits from the National Portrait Gallery in a gallery in Walsall another on some anniversary or other show of the Royal Society of portrait Painters, no critical discourse just a mostly factual gently sycophantic description, big adverts really. But here is where I confuse myself a little, I quite admire the brazen “middle of the road-ness” of the magazine, the total lack of pretension, its ability to be self-sustaining to a mass audience. I wish there was a middle ground where a magazine tried to lead the evening classers away from the safety of the Royal Society of Portrait Painters. But that is just another battle in my own personal art war."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
