Recent Articles

  • Well Hung?

    JULY/AUGUST 2025

    Every visual arts hack has chipped in their sixpennorth about the re-opening of the Sainsbury Wing and the rehang it has caused throughout the rest of the National Gallery, parts of which have been visible for many months if only they’d bothered investigating. This is claimed as a major event to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the gallery’s opening. Perhaps. Praise from the critics has been so wildly enthusiastic one is left wondering if many of them had actually been there before. But none of the plaudits, concerns or quibbles of these jobbing commentators matters at all to the wider public. For who really gives a stuff about the rehang? How many will even notice? Certainly not the four million tourists who come each year and make up the bulk of the attendance: most of these will be visiting for the first and probably last time. They couldn’t give a monkey’s in which order pictures are hung. You could shuffle the paintings like playing cards then hang them at random and tell them they are in chronological, thematic, genre or nationality order, whatever, and they’d believe you. It wouldn’t make any difference to them in their two-hour traipse providing they got their Sunflower selfie. No, they won’t notice any difference, not least because they haven’t been here before, and the curators’ nose-tapping historical juxtapositions here or clever-clever comparisons there will fly way over their heads. They are here because it is a free central attraction and has some famous pictures worthy of recording on their phones, which in a few days they’ll have forgotten they’ve seen.

    The rehang certainly won’t matter to art students and the usual suspects and eagles of official Contemporary Art, most of whose knowledge of art history extends no further back than the week before last. For such is the rupture of Contemporary Art from the work of its antecedents.

    Those who will notice that the pack has been cut are regular visitors, those increasingly deterred nowadays by queues and charges for everything, who will have to get used to a newish lay-out. These more informed regulars don’t process around the gallery from start to finish but pick and choose and sample and re-acquaint. They might enter to see only one picture and be in the gallery for a few minutes. Curators’ nifty games and speculations will probably interest them only in passing, if they notice at all.

    So who benefits from this much trumpeted rehang? The curators and the director obviously. They have imposed their will and little theories over art history with a few fashionable ‘signals’ thrown in. This momentous attempt to impress their professional colleagues at home and abroad will become a bullet point on their CVs, a legacy item in an obituary. “They oversaw a magnificent, universally applauded rehang of the national Old Master collection while introducing a posh restaurant for rich folk.” Maybe not that last bit.
    Did the gallery need a rehang? Not as far as I could see, but an opportunity for career enhancement presented itself when one wing (only just over 30 years old!) required a structural redesign causing a three-year closure, so why not? Regular visitors will know anyway that this gallery is in a permanent state of modified alteration. Pictures constantly change places: new loans or acquisitions are added; works are sent for exhibition abroad while others are touring the country; a new work may have arrived courtesy of the Exchequer; swathes of paintings might be moved downstairs for inclusion in a paying show, all these possibilities require re-arrangement to fill gaps. This is how a modern gallery must operate. Even the most frequent visitors can be surprised. The new rehang might be presented as permanent, set in stone, but it won’t be many weeks before tinkering starts all over again, if it hasn’t already.

    For my own part, all I want from the National Gallery (and the Tate) is that the works I partly own are where I’m more or less used to finding them without having to ask or search high and low.

  • Free For All; But Intended For The Rich

    JULY/AUGUST 2025

    Racketeering continues at the British Museum: just under a fiver for a small cup of coffee and eight quid for a ham and cheese roll. Cheating bastards you might think, but why should they care when they have a captive audience of six million hungry saps a year to fleece. These are not prices suggesting this is a museum owned by all the people for the benefit of all the people. Is it though, really? It’s all part of the same philosophy that sites a Michelin-starred chef’s restaurant in the National Gallery. Trustees must pay lip service to the belief that museums are most definitely for everyone but they know they’re not really. And so their policies reflect otherwise.

    Also, the provision of women’s lavatories in the British Museum is hopelessly inadequate with routinely long queues back up the stairs from the basement often reaching the shopping centre above. Women should be complaining vigorously about this. This museum needs to get its basic priorities right before embarking on billion-quid revamps.

    They also need to ban photography, which everywhere is a nuisance and an impediment to others’ concentration. Mobile telephones are the scourge of museums. There is an argument, perhaps not an especially solid one but nevertheless satisfying to one’s pique, that the swarms of tourists experiencing exhibits via their mobile telephones deserve to be fleeced when they get thirsty.

  • We Are All Snobs

    MAY/JUNE 2025

    Conceited confessions first: I am far too highly educated, discerning, well-read and knowledgeable about absolutely everything ever to have visited an exhibition of paintings by Jack Vettriano (1951-2025). Neither can I recall ever encountering, even by accident, any original picture by him. To my mind and eyes, there’s nothing there, no one at home, so why bother? Am I a snob? Definitely. Am I prejudiced? Undoubtedly, about all manner of things you wouldn’t credit in so thoughtful, rational and intelligent a person as myself. Jack painted the sort of slick, faintly sleazy poster art I don’t care for; the sort which in reproduction, I imagine, might appeal to self-important minor executives who know the cost of everything and can bore for England about their car’s horsepower. (Don’t get me wrong I love some poster artists, Tom Purvis (1888-1959) being a recent discovery. A century ago he painted similar-ish subjects to Vettriano but with a more developed appreciation of form, colour, originality, design and purpose. He’s yet another fine artist about whom there is no literature.) But, but, I have to confess again to that nagging chip on my shoulder, the one expanding unstoppably like the universe – to a soft spot, an incurable core attraction, for any working class bloke thumbing his nose at the art establishment, and, do you know, they don’t even have to be right to command my resolute support.

    I’m uncomfortable with Vettriano’s subjects, some of whose details, including those in that most famous one (The Singing Butler, 1991, which sold for £740,000 in 2005), were copied from designer pattern books. He paints that swanky nouveau class of which lower income workers are often envious: poshly dressed gangster types splashing cash, supping cocktails and driving Gatsby convertibles alongside arm candy which understands its function as exclusively horizontal. In short, the sort of people post-war working class blokes would have readily emulated if only they’d selected eight score draws last week.
    Prejudice ought not to matter when it comes to public policy concerning visual art, but it does, it matters a lot, and it’s worse now than ever before. Readers of this paper will know that any public body should support excellence wherever it alights on the artistic rainbow and, unfortunately, this includes the likes of allegedly popular figures like Vettriano. As I say, I wouldn’t personally visit an exhibition of his, but only in the same way that I know intuitively and by experience that anything on show these days at the Hayward or Serpentine Galleries will be a waste of the little time remaining to me above ground.

    But the art establishment is not this inclusive or tolerant. Openness and range, and especially wider popularity are ignored. As these pages have documented for a quarter of a century, the official hierarchy is narrowly despotic about the art it will show and support. Public policy, as dictated by the Arts Council and its servile satellites who depend on it for money, has changed from its earliest days. Then it responded to what artists were producing, almost wherever they appeared on the style spectrum, whereas now it dictates what it is and is not prepared to support and exhibit, often for reasons other than purely artistic ones. This volte face is a calculated subverting of the Arts Council’s originally intended purpose. Before its founding in 1946, when an arts body was first proposed and discussed during the war, that seer George Orwell, who had thought hard about precisely this, warned that today’s form of prescriptive dictatorship must inevitably develop Animal Farm, with its similar warnings about evolving, self-serving tyranny, was published in 1945. Yet another thing the great man got right.

    Does this mean that the likes of an allegedly popular artist like Vettriano should be collected and exhibited by publicly owned and funded art galleries? Unarguably yes. I wouldn’t be offended if the Tate owned that picture of ballroom dancers on the coast; after all, they are already undiscriminating enough to have acquired ten (ten!) works by that uniquely talentless idiot Bob and Roberta Smith OBE RA. In 2009 Banksy broke attendance records at Bristol Art Gallery, as did Rolf Harris three years later in Liverpool. I had no objection to either of these displays: while they were on I will have occupied myself more productively elsewhere. As Selby Whittingham recently pointed out, there are many different potential audiences for art which might at different times in varied exhibition programmes be catered to. And there are now a sufficient number of public galleries dispersed nationally for the diversity of the art panorama to be represented somewhere somehow at some time.
    So should there be a posthumous retrospective of Jack Vettriano’s work? What do you think?

  • No Compromise On Seriousness

    MAY/JUNE 2025

    In 2021 Edinburgh decided to recognise suffragette and women’s medical campaigner, Dr Elsie Inglis (1864-1917), with a memorial on the magnificent Royal Mile. Among other things this would help redress, they said, the heavy imbalance in numbers between male and female statues in the capital city. Inglis is a worthy choice. She had an impressive career with lasting consequences in hospital provision for women, especially during maternity, and a distinguished record as a medic working in the Balkan sphere during the First World War, which arduous service contributed to her early death.

    An open contest was announced and quickly abandoned with the commission awarded to Alexander Stoddart, an accomplished and serious Scottish sculptor with already five statues in Edinburgh including two, David Hume and Adam Smith, on the Royal Mile itself. Planning permission is now being sought with the project’s cost estimated at £300,000. There is no doubt that Stoddart is a sound choice and will make an imposing, lasting memorial which also functions as a work of sculptural art – this can’t be said for most statues in these days when ‘Public Art’ is reduced to maudlin light entertainment or is doomed from the outset by box-ticking quotas.
    The choice of Stoddart (his preliminary idea is illustrated here) has not gone down well. He is a controversial figure with views on contemporary culture which set him at odds with State Art and its robotic, social engineering apostles. The main problem advanced by opponents is that he is a male sculptor and the subject is female. How pathetic, you might think, but these days this men-for-men, women-for-women, colour-for-colour attitude has assumed an irrational significance which too often ignores ability. The ‘modern woman’ seems to believe she enjoys copyright over all aspects of women in history. Some in this campaign called for “a child-friendly design”. Why should an important memorial be aimed at a child? Children are an irrelevance when considering art; if they mature and are educated to be sufficiently interested in artistic affairs they’ll catch up later.

    The decision was denounced with special vigour by one Natasha Phoenix as “anti-feminist”. She also claims Stoddart should be excluded because “he has no links to feminism or to Inglis”. Not many can have ‘links’ to Inglis not least because she died 108 years ago. Phoenix calls herself “a feminist sculptor” and falls into the trap of presuming to know what Inglis herself would have thought because she happens to share the same gender. She makes portrait heads which, when they are not unexceptional as likenesses, are at best average for the genre. Additionally, she is miffed that she spent many hours working on her own submission. “It’s incredibly important”, she insists, “that women’s stories are told through the female gaze. When men create sculptures of women, they often portray them through the patriarchal lens, whether intentionally or not.” It would have been instructive here for her to have cited an example or two of sculptures reduced in impact by the sculptor’s ‘patriarchal gaze’ so we knew exactly what she meant. You don’t have to be a woman to recognise the distinction and contribution of Elsie Inglis.

    Let us take two well-known examples among London’s sculptures in which male artists depict eminent women. Where does ‘the patriarchal gaze’ affect, for example, George Frampton’s memorial figure opposite the National Portrait Gallery of reforming nurse and heroine Edith Cavell (1865-1915). I can’t think of any more dignified, defiant female figure in all of 20th century British sculpture … the surrounding pile of granite bombast is another matter. Every time I walk past this carving it moves me as I recognise its simple beauty and remember Cavell’s astounding courage. In Victoria Tower Gardens, appropriately hard by the Houses of Parliament, stands Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928) arguing her justified cause without histrionics. Unveiled in 1930, it was the work of Arthur George Walker (1861-1939) who also produced the bronze of Florence Nightingale for Waterloo Place, that enclave of impressive sculptures. Compare this to the statue by Hazel Reeves of the same Emmeline unveiled in 2018 in Manchester’s St Peter’s Square (the Pankhursts were a Salford family), where the small figure stands on a chair and harangues an invisible audience. The one commands with gravity the other screeches for attention: I don’t believe this can be claimed a triumph for ‘the matriarchal gaze’ over the patriarchal one.
    Cavell and Pankhurst are memorials to individuals who contributed significant public benefits. Are they less revered for having been sculpted by men? I can’t imagine how they might be improved, unless Lysippos were miraculously reincarnated. Would these works feel so different if sculpted by a woman? I don’t believe so. And is the recent addition to Parliament Square of Millicent Fawcett by conceptual artist Gillian Wearing really better for having been ‘designed’ (!) by a woman, even though blokes at Pinewood Studios, where it was made, might have actually been involved in making it? For ‘the matriarchal gaze’ here read computer-scanned, nerveless, sloganising and dead weight … subtle as Trump.

    When we refuse to select sculptors on artistic grounds but by silly gender prejudice we lower the bar and end up with what has happened, the proliferation of insulting, third-rate trash – a plethora of toys, ornaments, sentimental slop and that scourge of modern towns, the colourful animal ‘sculpture trail’.

  • Do We Really Need All This Stuff?

    MARCH/APRIL, 2025

    The British Council is in such serious financial jeopardy it’s been forced to consider selling some of the 8,800-piece art collection it began accumulating in 1938. They borrowed £250 million from the Government during the pandemic and, like thousands of other organisations who accepted the Government’s offer of instant loans, can’t now pay it back – and the debt is accumulating interest at £14 million a year. The Council offered unsuccessfully the whole collection, which they valued at £200 million (the actual figure in their latest published accounts is £188 million), to the Government in exchange for cancelling the debt.

    A fifth of the collection, they say, is on loan at any one time to their foreign offices in over a hundred countries. It is also calculated that well over half the works (those valued at £117 million) are not allowed to be sold anyway because of conditions placed on certain acquisitions especially gifts. Since 2020 they have not added to their collection.

    There is a great deal of minor work by minor artists in the BC collection which will never be shown anywhere and probably can’t be sold, and possibly not even given away (these contingencies also apply to the Arts Council’s flabby holdings). A few of the 1,500 artists featured are represented by over a dozen works each so there is definitely scope for weeding. Unfortunately, if the BC must sell pieces, it will have to be the finest work because the bulk will raise almost nothing – and even if the cream is sold it won’t come close to realising £250 million.

    If they have to resort to flogging stuff it would be sensible to start with items duplicated between collections such as the BC, the Arts Council (8,000 works) and the Government Art Collection (14,000 pieces), pointless overlaps cited many times previously in these pages. It is worth reminding ourselves that these huge hoards are all national assets which most of the public who paid for them never see and to which they have little or no access.
    The amalgamation of the Arts Council, British Council and Government Art collections has always seemed like sound financial sense, not least for the savings in storage alone: The Jackdaw first made this point over 20 years ago. Indeed, later this year the Arts Council and British Council collections will both be housed together for the first time in a former Ikea store in Coventry. What better time than the present, therefore, to combine these troves with their many overlaps as well as quantities of trivia and dead wood – those works, fashionable for 15 seconds, which arguably should never have been acquired in the first place.

    As one example of these duplications, the Tate, the Government Art Collection and the British Council all have the same well-known screenprint called Release: Swingeing London by Richard Hamilton, originally issued in 1972 in an edition of 150 and 15 artist’s proofs. The Tate even has the 19 individual proof stages of this print. Surely one of the finished item is sufficient for the national collection. And if, say, the Government Art Collection needed to borrow it to educate the North Koreans – having first sold their own – the Tate could lend it to them because it isn’t on display anyway. An impression was sold last September by Sotheby’s for £22,500. Pallant House also has this work while the Arts Council also has a sketch of it, which would likely fetch more than the print.

    As is well known, Release is based on a 1967 press photograph (author never cited) taken of Mick Jagger and art dealer Robert Fraser handcuffed in a police van as they arrived at court in Chichester following arrest for possession at Keith Richards’ Sussex pad. Jagger got three months and Richards a year, both sentences quashed on appeal. Poor old Fraser, an old Etonian (albeit expelled), was forced to serve his six months for possessing heroin. In this instance, perhaps it was a first, the Beaks made an example of a toff whilst freeing the oiks; usually it’s the other way round. What can a poor boy do ’cept join a rock ’n roll band?

    Other Richard Hamilton duplicates between collections include In Horne’s House, a 1981 etching (ed. 120), which is in the Government Art Collection and the Tate as well as three impressions and a preparatory drawing in the British Museum; and also the speckled relief print, Guggenheim, of which the British Council have three versions, the Tate two and the Arts Council one.

    Apart from a Simon Brett illustration in a poetry book in the Arts Council‘s collection, there is nothing in the Tate, British Council, Arts Council or Government Art collections by either Brett, Eric Rimmington or Dick French, all highly skilled and original artists remembered in this issue. If you consult online recent acquisitions of the Tate, the Arts Council and the Government Art Collection you’ll quickly realise the reason for their being ignored.

  • When Theories Kill People

    JANUARY/FEBRUARY, 2025

    There are three reasons why this important summary should be recommended reading for all art and architecture students, even if some of them need first to be taught how to read properly.

    First, this lifelong enthusiast’s view gives a solid introduction to our country’s architectural background; how it evolved decoratively from military austerity to beauty and then back to spartan brutalism. It provides a useful foundation on which to build personal knowledge and preferences. Jenkins is especially informative on the battles between proponents of Classicism and Gothic. And he has travelled far and wide: the carbon footprint of this book can’t be much short of a coal-fired power station – incidentally, an impressive class of structures he misses out. All informed readers of this book might niggle – I did – between some examples selected for mention and the omission of their own treasured haunts. For me, I was surprised he didn’t cite Bristol Cathedral’s Norman Chapter House, its eager decorators so keen to articulate bare ashlar they got their measuring wrong and had to squeeze up their zig-zags to fit. He also undervalues, I felt, the best Art Deco, especially in London.
    Second, it exhorts all of us to look up and interrogate our surroundings because, architecturally, from St Bartholomew the Great in Smithfield to Wilkins’s Somerset House and Wallis Gilbert’s Daimler showroom behind Russell Square, London is a thrilling jigsaw, the architectural pieces of which come alive and are at least as rich and detailed as those in any other city. I should have liked Jenkins to have given us the benefit of a lifetime’s expertise in analysing architecture to explain what precisely it is that turns mere ‘building’ into ‘architecture’.
    And third, and perhaps most importantly, the book’s comprehensive coverage of arguments over post-1945 reconstruction will cause architecture students especially, most of whom always think they know best and would subject us unconscionably to their pipe dreams, to adopt a humbler attitude, one more considerate to those whose lives their ideas may blight.

    Jenkins is not liked by the modern architecture establishment whose theories, exposed by his diligent trawling of first sources, have so often been corruptly put into practice at the expense of those whose lives and needs officialdom chooses to ignore as irrelevant. “The aversion to humanity”, Jenkins writes of planners and architects, “was fanatical”. He exposes in pleasing detail the mistakes they made …

    A Tale of Two Sisters

    … I have personal experience of these oversights as a result of which I have even less regard for recent architects than he does. I just hate them, all of them. Soon after the war I was born in the house of my grandmother Alice Wathey. She was one of 13 children, all born in the 19th century into a solid, 3-storey Victorian terrace house (still there the last time I passed) in Moss Side, Manchester; the father drove a horse-drawn omnibus. Alice left school at 12 and worked for over 50 years as a machinist in Cheetham Hill, including war work – caps in the First, parachutes in the Second. Between Openshaw and Belle Vue (!), it was a 2-up-2-down, ‘Coronation Street’ style terrace of smoke-blackened brick – three windows and a door; ‘stripped Georgian’ Jenkins dubs this. It came with a tiny apron of flagged back yard in one corner of which was an outside lavatory whose unlagged pipes burst on cue every winter. The front door opened straight on to the pavement across a proudly donkey-stoned mustard step. Beyond the cobbled street was an extensive croft of flattened rubble, the gift (one of many hereabouts) of Hermann Göring. Everyone in Openshaw paid weekly rent to the same property company whose rent collectors swarmed through like a posse on Saturday mornings. Most of the local men, like my grandfather and great grandfather (who was killed there in 1920), worked at the nearby, vast Beyer Peacock locomotive, carriage and wagon works. When Gran moved here in 1925, the house had no bathroom and, until decades later when a geyser was installed, no running hot water: on Monday evenings she visited Gorton bath house (terracotta-tiled Edwardian baroque) on Hyde Road for her weekly ablutions in the cheaper ‘Second Class’ section. We lived in a similar house round the corner in Jefferson Street but I spent much of my childhood in Gran’s spartan yet spotless little dwelling whose grate blazed in winter.

    In the late-60s she was informed that her house, where she’d lived all her adult life, would be demolished as part of slum clearances which erased most of east and south Manchester. She and her elder sister Connie, who now shared No. 9 with her, were given choices of where they could go; Hulme (locally pronounced ‘Oom’), Glossop and Whitefield were three of the options I recall. This long-standing neighbourhood, where everyone really did know each other, was destroyed by this enforced diaspora. Deprived of this supportive community, these materially impoverished people were left with next to nothing to cling on to.
    Gran chose Whitefield, a sprawling estate at the edge of north Manchester built on marshy moorland between Middleton and Bury: Her ground floor flat was modern by Truro standards – she had a bathroom for one thing – but with erratic underfloor heating over which she had little control. The block was prefabricated and jerry-built; the window frame in the living room was, for example, so badly fitted you could see daylight coming through from outside. She complained most bitterly about fern-like black fungi spreading up the wall in the corner next to her armchair. She knew no one locally and the shops were further away than she was used to walking for her loaf and milk. We couldn’t be there all the time and I remember many tears. On one occasion she sat opposite me and said most pitifully ‘What have I done to deserve this?’ – over 50 years later this exchange still haunts me. Isolation and dislocation soon ushered the arrival of dementia and her removal, albeit briefly, to an old folks home.

    Meanwhile, Connie, fatally, chose Oom. An even worse misfortune was moving into the infamous Charles Barry Crescent (illustrated), of which the Manchester Evening News initially declared that “the design for a thousand maisonettes in long curved terraces will give a touch of eighteenth century grace and dignity to municipal housing.” The reality was different. Connie also knew no one, was condemned to living behind a bolted door and feared venturing out on decks patrolled by scallywags. Unused to the noise, she simply gave up and, having been healthy, was dead within months. Ten years after this complex opened, Manchester Council’s Building Committee, who had previously described it as “one of the finest schemes in Europe”, now considered it “an absolute disaster”. It was demolished inside 30 years of having been built because it was half-abandoned as no one would live there.

    Nobody will convince me that the lives of both these decent, hard-working and formidably independent women, who for all their hardship were welcoming and generous, were not shortened by this regrettable official indulgence of architects and developers who laid waste our major cities without consultation or remorse.

    I salute Simon Jenkins for his perseverance and skill in explaining to us how this enormity of state-approved manslaughter came to pass. His narrative of architectural egos allowed free rein by complicit bent councillors is truly incredible, outrageous; Alice, Connie and their like were the collateral damage of a corrupt, indifferent, get-rich-quick system. And, inevitably, although one infamous Newcastle official was imprisoned for accepting bribes, no one has been brought to book for the billions squandered on architectural theories resulting in instant slums, some of which, astoundingly as though no lesson had been learnt, were then replaced by other instant slums. And still there are ‘heritage’ know-alls of the metropolitan liberal kulturati who wish to preserve some of these architects’ uninhabitable speculations.
    The deeper tragedy of much 20th century mass housing is that in pursuit of novelty allied to a festering hatred of history, so much worthy of preservation was sacrificed, and some of it even illegally demolished. When travelling on the continent it becomes apparent that this crude uglification was unique to our own industrial cities. Nowhere else, excepting perhaps the bleak numbered blocks of monotonous suburbs radiating from Soviet Moscow, allowed this to happen to the same degree.

  • The First Lie Exposed

    SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER, 2024

    Labour’s Election Manifesto proudly announced that art and music will ‘no longer be the preserve of a privileged few’ … Yes, that one again. Like all Sir Barney Rubble’s other promises he didn’t bother burdening us with how he might achieve this impossibility. It is an obvious whopper and their first lie. Labour has form in repeating clichés it imagines will be popular with their more extreme philistine wing.

    ‘The privileged few’. It trips easily enough off the tongue, but who are they? I imagine they mean me, or anyone tolerably well educated with a curiosity beyond the mind-rotting Mesmer of social media. ‘The privileged few’ is a phrase only a Trot would use. To them it means ‘the educated’. Oh yes it does! Place ‘the educated’ on top of ‘the privileged few’ and they form a perfect crustless sandwich. If you troubled yourself to become even slightly educated or, worse, to be naturally more thoughtful than average, you make yourself a target for the resentful commissars of dumbing down. Calumniating the educated was a policy perfected by the Soviets, and is currently enjoying a second wind (third really after Mao’s Cultural Revolution) with the Chinese. It was always a meaningless over-simplification, not least because ‘the privileged few’ often included those whose income and class would normally place them amongst the unprivileged many.

    This sort of cliché is expected of the Left and must look good on paper to those still fighting the battles of Samuel Bamford and Annie Besant … whoever they were. We, you, ‘the privileged few’, are a necessary target to be despised.

    The paradox is that, as a civilised country, we purport rightly to want everyone educated to a high standard, but then slag off those with the impertinence to achieve it. And this while the rest arm themselves with influencers, ignorance, semi-literacy and machetes: those with imaginations informed by snippets of randomly accumulated trivia and catchphrases. Fact: education sets you apart, makes you privileged. But is it not mystifying why we insist on every child being subjected to fourteen years of free full-time education? Why bother encumbering those unprepared to make any effort when all they want is to remain proudly part of ‘the unprivileged many’? For our Labour bosses, education is never a case of raising up, but always one of lowering down; equality not quality the prize. Since 1919 when the school leaving age was raised from 12 (it had been upped from 10 in 1899) to 14 we’ve increased the leaving age incrementally until in 2015 it topped off at 18; it can’t go any higher than that. None of these exemplary ‘advances’ has caused any discernible increase in the percentage of the population joining the large minority that is ‘the privileged few’.

    But hang on a minute. Since when was music the preserve of ‘a privileged few’. Have these people attended a pop festival recently, or ever? What they mean, of course, is classical music, such as is enjoyed only (they imagine) by ‘the privileged few’ who tune in to Radio 3 and Classic FM – both being so ‘privileged’ that, like national museums, they are of free access to all. And if they mean ‘subsidised’ classical music, live opera and orchestras, which they probably do, they will have to buckle down to reforming the Arts Council. And they won’t do that, heavens no, because most of those involved with State Art are enthusiastic Labour voters and therefore powerful lobbyists who the Government won’t want rocking the boat quite so soon after it has set sail.

    It’s a good job the intended Arts Minister, Swingem Dangling, a classical cellist, lost her seat heavily to the Greens. She’d have had to admit to being among ‘the privileged few’. What then? The Trots might have paraded her down Whitehall wearing a placard announcing her shocking individualistic crimes. She would have had to come clean with a public confession of her error in succumbing to the bourgeois attractions of acquiring special skills and the sort of rarified appreciation which made her a despicable privileged outsider.
    But hang on another minute. If Labour is talking about ‘the privileged few’ of State Art – that well-appointed foster home for gullible charlatans who spend all the visual art cash on ‘challenging contemporary art’ – they may have a point. However, firstly, even the word ‘few’ can’t be extended to mean those interested in that area of art; ‘the privileged handful’ more like. And, again, are they going to provoke that vocal lobby amongst their own supporters? Of course not. And so this one vital aspect, so deserving of being targeted for its lack of both privileged and unprivileged appeal, is the one area certain to be preserved from criticism. Labour will support State Art as an example of their open-mindedness, their belief in ‘progress’ and the boldly ‘challenging’, not to mention their loathing of anything traditional … even knowing that if they were asked on the qt for a personal opinion, they’d agree that it promoted mostly artless tosh of interest to hardly anyone.

    So here is their first broken promise. Things will remain the same, with State Art bigotry set in reinforced concrete. ‘The privileged few’, whoever they are, will go on being the hated target of ‘the under-privileged many’, whoever they are. Labour knew all along this is nonsense, but thought they should say it anyway because it has the superficial aura of class tuffness. Pathetic.

  • At Last A Promising Appointment

    MAY/JUNE, 2024

    Bryan Christ, a former cleric, has been appointed Minister of State at the DCMS. He adds intellect to a department overseen by mediocrity. Christ is well-educated, fluent in Spanish, and has written a solid biography of Stafford Cripps, Attlee’s reforming Chancellor. It is thoroughly researched, efficiently written and serves as a primer on Labour history in the first half of the 20th century.

    He has said he will review “the whole package” of arts funding, which sounds positive. He’s also devoted to improving art tuition in schools. Let us hope he is as good as his word and turns his attention also to the shambles of art education at higher levels. Presently, both words in the term ‘Art Education’ are a lie: improving either of them would automatically lift the other.

    In 2022 he said: “It’s a disgrace that over the last 14 years, we’ve seen such a collapse in the number of students studying music and I want every child to have a possible career in the creative industries as well, and we cannot have the creative industries as just a hereditary industry.” Also: “The role of [ACE] should be to nurture and champion high quality, challenging and innovative [oh dear!] culture and creativity across the whole country, engaging people of all backgrounds no matter where they live, so that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy the life-changing power of the arts, whether that’s as artists, participants or audiences, and do that independently of the government of the day.” Admittedly this is mostly flannel, but ACE won’t like to hear this, even though it echoes exactly the rhetoric they themselves spout but, crucially, don’t practice. Christ is more than sharp enough to spot the inconsistency.

    He claims on expenses an annual subscription to The Guardian – the cushy number of being an MP seems to mean you are not expected to pay for anything. Other MPs claim he’s pompous and big-headed. He’s also been in scrapes involving half-naked snaps, getting his facts wrong and flipping properties to claim 92 grand in expenses – he admitted later that he knew this was questionable but did it anyway because everyone else was. More questionable of his negotiable ethics is that last year he accepted a knighthood having previously written a book condemning such ornaments. He’s an intriguing combination of principle and maverick. But age seems to have mellowed him and he now appears reformed, more rational and, a cause for hope, he’s easily clever enough to see through the visual art lobby’s self-serving lies.

    He pockets £91,000 p.a. as an MP and £43,000 p.a. as a Minister of State. He is likeable, potentially a sound appointment and The Jackdaw wishes him luck and good health.

  • Philistine Action

    MAY/JUNE, 2024

    Two days shy of the 110th anniversary on March 10th 1914 of Canadian suffragette Mary Richardson slashing Velasquez’s Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery, a pro-Palestinian supporter cut to ribbons a 1914 painting by society portraitist Philip de Laszlo of A J Balfour in Trinity College Cambridge. Former Prime Minister Balfour was a Trinity graduate and had, in 1917 when Foreign Secretary, written the so-called Balfour Declaration, a short letter to Lord Rothschild in which he confided a recent Cabinet decision agreeing to support “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. 107 years later this has turned Balfour – not the then PM Lloyd George – into another Great Satan. This famous and habitually selective quotation rarely includes the important codicil: “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done that may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. And so it is Balfour who is identified by Palestine Action, whose stated object is to “bring down Israel” and which organises training sessions around the country for would-be vandals (illustrated, incidentally, by pictures of the Balfour assault), as the direct cause of what they describe as genocide and ethnic cleansing, not to mention the various wars and intifadas since the foundation of Israel in 1948.
    The damage was done during College opening hours and police have so far made no arrests. When the perpetrators are found – a co-conspirator filmed the stunt performed by a young woman – they can expect little sympathy. No voice I’m aware of has defended this action. Mary Richardson, by the way, was sentenced to six months in Holloway for her National Gallery stunt.

    This is not the first likeness of Balfour to be attacked. A statue in white French limestone, carved by David McFall in 1962, which stands in a House of Commons lobby, was squirted with tomato ketchup last November by the same Palestine Action group. On that occasion the perpetrators also glued themselves to the statue’s plinth. The two young women responsible were charged with criminal damage and then acquitted at Southwark Crown Court.
    Since the Suffragettes targeted paintings – in their case works depicting naked women drooled over, they assumed, by men – in order to generate publicity for their cause, hitting art is now commonly accepted as the easiest way to provoke outrage. But the stakes have now been raised with the serious injury inflicted on the unprotected Cambridge picture. We have moved on from the relative moderation of anti-oil demonstrators sticking their mitts to the glass, hurling soup or sponge cake and bellowing slogans. During the recent spate of largely climate-change activism any actual harm caused was minor. The present case is more serious, the means more destructive and the target more specific. Undoubtedly helpful to the cause of those invading museums with malicious intent is that juries seem not to consider criminal damage to art that serious an offence – the four individuals responsible for toppling the Colston statue got off.

    Additionally, museums don’t make it difficult for wreckers. Overlooking the frequency with which valuable material in their care is either stolen or ‘goes missing’, museum objects can’t easily be protected – unless, like the Louvre with the Mona Lisa, you bury it in a nuke-proof pill box rendering it more or less invisible except as the blurry nucleus of an installation. So many works of art are hung in places unguarded, from civic buildings and universities to hospitals and schools. Simply by making art visible to large numbers renders it instantly vulnerable. Part of the unwritten contract between any institution and its visitors is that those allowed close to works won’t harm them. And so, unfortunately, museums are places housing precious things which, if you are of an unbalanced mind, are extremely easy to hurt. And so it is that museums have become the main target for anyone with an obsessive grievance. Indeed, at the end of March, Pro-Palestinian and Climate Change demonstrators both descended on the British Museum on the same day causing the place to close. The attraction of museums for activists is perhaps encouraged by their security being a joke. They make a show at the entrance, but it wouldn’t tax an infant to outwit them. Wafting a small torch across the inside of a bag, as is the case at the BM and the National Gallery, is hardly a deterrent to a well-planned team attack.

    What has been achieved by the Balfour incident? True, the Palestinian cause received widespread advertisement on the internet, but it gets that anyway with its regular demos and the daily tally of bombings and casualties on news broadcasts. This action will not alter government policy towards the war: history will not be rewritten; Israel will not cede territory to the Palestinians; and there will be no improvement in the foreseeable future to the demolished lives of Gazans, so comprehensive has been the destruction of their homes.
    On balance it would appear that such extremes of vandalism as that in Cambridge, have the opposite of the desired effect by galvanising opposition. Except, of course, among anarchists, there can’t be many who condone actions like this. And similar performances will not supply a single scoop of flour or phial of medicine to Gazans. Such tactics merely serve to assuage the anger of young hotheads prone to become impetuous when an obsessive rush of feeling blurs reason. Theirs is the compulsion to strike out at something precious; like an infant’s foot-stomping threats to smash an ornament. It’s easy in youth to become riled by injustice; most of us have been there – it was Nam and CND for my generation. Apart from the inevitable tightening of security at museums, all that has been achieved by this act is notoriety for the perpetrators and damage to a work of art by which looks as though it might be invisibly repaired.

    There were, however, mealy-mouthed comments by otherwise diehard supporters of the Palestinian cause. One newspaper columnist implied dangerously that, whilst regrettable, attacking this portrait didn’t matter quite so much because it was only an undistinguished work by someone the writer had clearly never heard of; a perverse case of ignorance fuelling justification. The argument seemed to imply that providing the art attacked is insignificant this makes it kind of OK. Such perversity was also used to defend those who downed John Cassidy’s Colston memorial, which will soon return to display (above) in a museum as a daubed and dented monument to the efficacy of petulant vandalism.

    Owing to Balfour having now been identified as Public Enemy No. 1, it is unlikely we’ll see in the near future any of the three portraits of him in the National Portrait Gallery by Alma-Tadema, Sargent and another by de Laszlo. There is also an imposing 1905 statue of Balfour in Liverpool by Albert Bruce-Joy (1842-1924) outside St George’s Hall, opposite Lime Street Station. (Bruce-Joy it was, incidentally, who modelled for Bow Churchyard the imposing bronze of Gladstone whose right hand has been kept permanently painted red by a succession of persons unknown in memory of exploited matchgirls in the local Bryant and May factory – Theodore Bryant, the company’s rapacious proprietor had paid for the statue.)

    Some perspective: the IDF invasion of Gaza has destroyed art, archaeological sites, historical archives and architecture, including the Norman Christian church of St. Porphyrius in which 18 civilians were killed when it was bombed, to the extent that evidence of any historical tradition in the Strip has been all but exterminated. Inevitably, museums have been ransacked and looted.
    In the face of such ubiquitous and continuing damage, an outsider’s response can only be one of powerless despair.

  • KO to Print: Post Mortem

    MARCH/APRIL, 2024

    In January I travelled into Manchester by crowded tram during the morning rush hour. Of the 200 or so commuters I could see in front and behind the only person reading a newspaper was a young lady standing by a door. The tabloid free sheet, Metro, given away at all stations along the line, occupied her for under one stop. As I’ve discovered for myself, it would be insulting to Beryl the Peril to call Metro a comic – I can’t fathom why they bother printing it. No one I could see was reading either a book or a magazine; instead, nearly everyone was staring as if hexed into their mobiles. The lady next to me was wearing what looked like white clothes pegs on her ears and watching the telly. I don’t know what others were so absorbed with on their phones, but a number impressively speed-typed using only their thumbs. Fifty years ago when I was a clerk in central London I took the Victoria Line to work from Highbury and Islington (it was in the days when the flower stand outside the Tube station was run by cartoon cockney Arthur Mullard) to Warren Street. Half the carriage would be reading a morning paper – it was admittedly a struggle to fold a broadsheet on a busy train, but we managed albeit at the cost of inky fingers. Some had heads buried into books and magazines while others nodded off and a minority stared ahead catatonic.

    Draw your own conclusion from these observations. My own unscientific one is that print journalism is finished. This much has been obvious now for decades. Newspaper circulation is a fraction of what it was even ten years ago, and decreases every year. Most papers make eye-watering losses. As people turn for free news to their phones and computers, and as newspaper titles come to rely heavily on digital subscriptions and website advertising, the demise of expensive paper publications is inevitable.

    Among the complex reasons for this slow death is not just the high cost of newspapers but that those who were brought up to read dailies as a habit are either dying out or have saved money by switching instead to the great information giveaway that is the internet. The former cause is certainly the case with The Jackdaw which, like many recently demised small circulation specialist papers, will, like its subscribers, itself eventually expire.

    As print costs have fallen dramatically courtesy of computer technology and specialist short-run printing machines, postage has accelerated in the opposite direction. The price of a stamp increases at more than the rate of inflation every year while the service delivered is little better (if at all) than one imagines it might be in the Third World. Over the relatively short life of The Jackdaw the cost of postage has increased by over 500%. Additionally, the service has got markedly worse. The Royal Mail never keeps to its promised delivery dates, which, I believe, they simply make up. This is true especially for foreign mail which takes twice the time they say it does to arrive – and in the case of Australia and the USA is at least three or four times the promised seven days. Post-Brexit, many copies sent to the continent are returned for no apparent reason. The Royal Mail is a joke and an immediate deterrent to producing any marginal paper like The Jackdaw. And don’t get me started on the number of copies that simply fail to arrive. A long time ago Private Eye reported that the rings of Saturn were made up of unsold copies of a new (and very shortlived) magazine published by their bête noire Sir James Goldsmith. The Royal Mail must somewhere have its own equivalent rings, its very own landfill perhaps for letters and packages they simply can’t be bothered to deliver. As we’ve recently realised with its malicious prosecution of innocents, the Post Office is unfit and exists for a reason other than public service. And so – if they can afford the effort and expense required by the change – low circulation publications are driven online; or, more likely, most just cease through sheer exhaustion in the face of irresistible economic forces and dying interest.

    160 years ago in Our Mutual Friend, the adorable Bella Wilfers, secretly married the same morning, sends at lunchtime a letter to her mother in Holloway from Greenwich; it would have required a penny red stamp – that is, an old copper penny the equivalent today of under half of 1p. She knows this will be received 12 miles away before she arrives home with her new husband later that same evening. A century later, in the early 1960s, I would write home from a state-run boarding school (usually a pack of censored lies about how happy I was) knowing it would arrive without fail 200 miles away next morning at the cost of a tuppence ha’penny stamp (1p). In 2024, following countless technological revolutions, it takes five days for an envelope costing 154 pence to be delivered three miles from where it was posted – I’ve tested this! I submit that you have to be deliberately trying hard to wreck the efficient system taken for granted by Bella to turn it into as poor, unreliable and overpriced a service as we now receive.

    Perversely, the only art publications to buck this trend of inevitable forced closures will be those kept alive, come what may, by, firstly, wealthy individuals unconcerned (if temporarily, as is usually the case) by losses and, secondly, by those in receipt of annual State Art subsidy via the ‘arm’s-length’, ‘independent’ Arts Council. And so the taxpayer will keep alive those artificially protected against economic realities irrespective of their performance, service or circulation … or even the need for them at all. If you are lucky to be aboard its gravy train, State Art is a brilliant system of self-perpetuating immunity to outside circumstances – as was proved when some of its clients actually prospered during Covid lockdowns when so many independents went bust. State Art carries on regardless while everything around it collapses.

    The British Art Journal, started in 1999 by Robin Simon a year before The Jackdaw, has recently published its last issue (first and last covers opposite). It is an irony that, coincident with its demise, the campaign started decades ago by Professor Simon, which argued for the removal of punitive museum reproduction fees, has at last succeeded. The end of the BAJ is a sad waste of an important resource produced against the headwinds facing all such publications. Over its lifetime it has been a major contributor to the research of historical British art, adding important detail to our knowledge of both well-known and obscure artists. Many young scholars published their first work here. Always run on a shoestring, it appeared courtesy of generous sponsors but especially by the efforts of a few dedicated individuals.

    If public subsidy of the arts was doing its job properly, this crucial resource would be nurtured in preference to papers whose only purpose is to promote a species of contemporary art favoured by a prejudiced, corrupt and flawed State Art system.