Fine Prints

Comment

Fine Prints

THE SPECTATOR WORLD EDITION, December 2021

Fine Prints

Amid the turbulence of modernism, British artists made art for themselves. A review of Modern Times: British Prints, 1913-1939 is on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art until January 9, 2022. 

The print is a curious category in the world of art. Prints are not singular, of course — not typically at least. They are not ubiquitous, either — at least, again, not typically. They exist somewhere between art objects and art products. Printmakers often use the tools of sculpture to create works on paper. Three-dimensional carved objects become two-dimensional printed products. Think about it and you realize prints are far more curious than they let on.

While art history typically does not know what to do with its curiosities, artists can sometimes make much out of the opportunities of hybrid creation. A century ago, a selection of British artists made the most out of the process at a time when war, strikes, the Depression and modernization were all sapping the opportunities of their generation. Printmaking was theirs for the print-taking. With inexpensive materials, at first wood and later the same linoleum blocks you might find on your kitchen floor, they cut forms in relief with simple sculpting tools and used them to print bold, inexpensive images. Their woodcut and linocut works captured and gave their buyers ownership over the accelerating speeds and abstractions of the times. In simplified line, color and form, the modern British print made sense out of modern British life.

Edward Alexander Wadsworth (British, 1889–1949), Liverpool Shipping, 1918, Woodcut on Japanese paper

Modern Times: British Prints, 1913–1939, a major exhibition of one hundred of these works now on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, reveals the senses and sensibilities of Sybil Andrews, Claude Flight, Christopher Richard Wynne Nevinson, Power and Edward Wadsworth, among others — the artists who made British printmaking modern. The exhibition also pays tribute to Leslie and Johanna Garfield, the husband-and-wife collecting team who pursued these rare works over three decades and gathered them together. They lived with them among tens of thousands of other prints in their Upper East Side apartment, tucked away in special drawers and sliding walls, before transferring 700 of them to the Metropolitan in 2019. It was a significant acquisition, instantly making the Met a leading collection for British prints. This is our first chance to see it all together — including for Leslie Garfield himself, as he told me at the opening.

“You go to books on modernism — nothing. You go to books on British modernism — nothing.” That’s what Jennifer Farrell, the exhibition’s curator, suggested to me about the lack of notoriety for these works. Modern art in Britain often gets overlooked for its Continental and American cousins, and unfairly so. In form these British prints could go toe to toe with their Italian Futurist or French Cubist relatives. A generation later, British artists such as Richard Hamilton — another Garfield focus — were manufacturing Pop art before Warhol’s American factory ever cranked out its first soup can. In many cases, British artists’ turn to form over function took on “modern times” in ways that other modernisms rejected. Faced with the true shock of the new, and sometimes battling psychological demons, these artists printed form in order to function in Britain’s twentieth century.

A hundred years later, up against far different challenges, Farrell just about had to unlock the Metropolitan herself to get these acquisitions inventoried and photographed in time for this exhibition, the print department’s first since winter 2020. But I could think of worse ways to spend the pandemic. The dynamism of this work — the colors, the energy, the crowds depicted — speak to what we were all missing.

The selection begins in the early 1910s with Wyndham Lewis, Edward Wadsworth and Vorticism — the short-lived British response to Futurism, so named by Ezra Pound for the vortex “from which, and through which, and into which, ideas are constantly rushing.” “Newcastle,” a tiny print by Wadsworth from 1913 and among the earliest in the show, turns the gears of industry into rotating, gnashing, zig-zagging teeth of black and white. The deadly engine of World War One would soon make that vortex all too real. As artists were called up to camouflage ships at sea, Wadsworth’s “Liverpool Shipping” of 1918 turns an entire image into a dazzle pattern of lines that energize and confound their forms.

Such lines — centrifugal and confounding — followed British printmaking through the interwar years. Now, instead of simply black and white, we see artists use all sorts of stunning colors, printed through an increasingly complex arrangement of blocks. At the Grosvenor School of Modern Art, a London school founded by the engraver Iain Macnab in Pimlico in 1925, Claude Flight practiced, taught and popularized linocut techniques. Flight wanted the price of a print “to be equivalent to that paid by the average man for his daily beer or cinema ticket.”

Such a democratic impulse did not make his students rich, but Sybil Andrews, Cyril Power, Lill Tschudi and other Grosvenor School artists went out to apply Vorticist swirls and jags to the circles of the Tube, the curves of the concert hall and the eddies of the crew oar. Tschudi’s “Underground” (1930) uses forms of color to trace the tunneling curves. Andrews’s “Sledgehammers” (1933) swings and dazzles in clanking colors of green, blue, orange and brown. Meanwhile, Power’s “The Merry-Go-Round” and “Whence & Whither?” (both c. 1930) turn crowds, whether on a carnival or escalator ride, into swirling masses.

Cyril E. Power (British, 1872–1951), Whence & Whither?, ca. 1930, Linocut

Is all this activity enough for Garfield? Surveying the exhibition opening, he admitted to me that he is still collecting. “It’s terrible, I am. I bought something yesterday.” He said he was setting his alarm for six the next morning in order to be up in time for the London sales. “Come,” he says, taking me by the arm.

He brings me over to Robert Gibbings’s “Dublin Under Snow.” This small black-and-white print from 1918 falls outside the purview of Modern Times but was nevertheless included here as a last-minute addition. “Dublin Under Snow” turns the snow-covered rooftops as seen from Gibbings’s barracks into an abstraction of alternating angular forms. Gibbings was a master of printmaking’s negative spaces, with its reversals of carved and inked forms.

Farrell suggests that the work evokes the famous final lines of James Joyce’s “The Dead,” published in Dubliners just a few years before in 1914: “His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.”

Sybil Andrews (Canadian (born England), 1898–1992), Sledgehammers, 1933, Color linocut.

While Leslie was the initial collector of prints — he purchased his first Erich Heckel woodcut in 1954 — it was Johanna who directed their interests to British printmaking and the more colorful works of the Grosvenor School. “If we had different pictures on this wall, our children would be different,” she once told Leslie. Johanna passed away in August, just as the exhibition of her collection was being finalized. While it could not appear in time in the catalog, “Dublin Under Snow” serves as a quiet tribute to her. “This,” Leslie tells me, “is Jo’s favorite.”



Comment

Portrait of the scam artist

Comment

Portrait of the scam artist

THE SPECTATOR WORLD EDITION,

Hunter Biden: portrait of the scam artist

I can’t think of many other art shows that have been more heavily discussed than seen

“Put your phone in your pocket and keep it there.” So I was told by the guard blocking the entrance of the Georges Bergès Gallery. I wasn’t going to argue. That’s because I was about to become one of the few to see The Journey Home: A Hunter Biden Solo Exhibition.

I can’t think of many other art shows that have been more heavily discussed than seen. This critic is guilty as charged. But the press, and the public, are not all to blame for the ratio’d attention. The Journey Home has been open “by invitation only” for just about its full run. Invitations have not been abundant. You will not find the show listed on the gallery website or given any sense of its start or end. After a vandal painted “Daddy” on the gallery walls in hairspray, it’s been a soft launch and soft close for the hard-living show. Instead the paparazzi have swarmed outside. Last month the political painter Scott LoBaido unveiled his “Portrait of the Scam Artist” on the street; the work depicts Biden painting doodles in bed with his crack pipe while collecting communist cash. But Biden, born again and again and again, has been undeterred. That’s what this show, at least for him, is all about. “Biden attempting to save his soul,” is how the critic Donald Kuspit has put it, “not simply express it.”

Hunter himself arrived at the gallery earlier this month with his new wife Melissa Cohen and new legitimate heir in tow, landing on the front page of the New York Post. “Vincent Van Dough,” declared the tabloid, “He’s in the Monet: Hunter Biden’s Corrupt Art Show Opens in NYC.” As it happens, just as soon as it opened, the show has closed. It could have been last week. Or maybe it was yesterday. In any case, one Friday evening, the doors were open, and I went in.

“Hunter will go down as a great artist for this century,” Georges Bergès has told the press. “If anything, his father will be known as the father of a great artist.” It has been quite a fifteen-minute run for Berges’s Soho shop. The New York Times gave The Journey Home the full review treatment at the start of November. “Emotionally Honest, Generically Smooth,” ran the headline. Jason Farago described this Hunter Biden Experience as “rather random, rather personal, rather ingenuous.”

Not to be outdone, Kuspit has called Biden a “master of color” making “masterpieces of what has been called transcendental abstraction.” He compared the president’s son to Kandinsky, only better: “Biden plays the keyboard of colors as deftly as he does, however different his abstract music, for it has a more urgent sense of purpose.” When I read this review, my first thought was that Kuspit must be the Zodiac Killer. I can’t imagine anyone writing such words who is not also looking for a presidential pardon. Now we see that Kuspit is curating the next show at Bergès. You don’t need to be Burisma to take a bite out of Biden.

The gallery was eerily empty for my visit. The house lights were dimmed save for a spotlight on each of the works. A brick of incense burned in a side room next to a small tinkling fountain. There were quoteworthy sayings written on the walls and right on the paintings. The gallery, the art, and the presentation all conveyed the impression of a physical-therapy office that doesn’t take insurance. Only Bergès’s occasional high-pitched cackle, echoing across the gallery from some undisclosed location, was there to break the spell.

It is the spell of privilege, of permanent adolescence, of living life high above common concern and plastering it all with bongwater symbols and sayings that The Journey Home tries to cast. As non-fungible tokens of grift and graft — such considerations dwell beyond the event horizon of what you see on the gallery walls. Instead what you get are tattoo-like symbols of snakes, birds, dragons and Celtic writing all stenciled in gold pen. You read the saying by Joseph Campbell that “we have only to follow the thread of the hero-path.” The pre-socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides of Elea informs us that “one path only is left for us to speak of, namely, that It is.” This one, also written in gold pen, appears on a painting featuring a bald female figure resembling the V’Ger robot from Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

When Biden descends from this astral plane, he lets his paints run in bloody patterns. He drips out pointillist landscapes trip-trap. His blows pigments into floral patterns, in particular across “Untitled #13” — arrangements that are inoffensive but inauthentic. The wild artist is falsely tamed.

You find a sweep of styles and techniques presented here across two floors, none of it dated, none with any sense of direction. But those works labeled “mixed media” seem to convey a truer artist. Here through computer manipulation, Biden has distorted images, mostly of himself. He prints them out and doodles on top of them. When I entered the exhibition, there was a velvet rope closing off the downstairs half of the show. At some point it came down and I descended. A gallerist followed close behind. “One of us has to be downstairs with you,” he explained, “just in case…you never know.” Here, in “Hockney,” we catch a glimpse of the pool of Biden’s Hollywood Hills home — and Ms. Cohen-Biden’s derriere floating therein. There it is again, in “Self Portrait,” behind some crystal schlock, another bikini-clad babe next to Biden, all covered in paint.

In Freudian psychoanalysis, it is said that an anal stage follows the oral stage in early-childhood development. Biden has lived life as the anal-explosive son, but many of his paint-the-dots numbers are fussy, restrained, retentive. It seems more honest to start with those digital images that made him famous and manipulate them further, as he does here, pouring paint or wherever else on the end result. If your art is crap, it’s best not to pull the handle.

Comment