In making my selection for the exhibition, I followed no rigid policy or preference, which is not to say that I had no policy at all. I was resolved not to be seduced by imagery or pattern for its own sake, which flatters so often only to deceive, in small pictures most of all. The more obviously illustrative the work, the more resistible I found it. On the other hand, abstract work on this necessarily small scale so often gets lost in the crowd, and indeed its comparative rarity in the submission was perhaps tacit recognition of this truth. I made a point of looking out for it.

But, abstract or figurative, in the event it was the actual quality of the work itself, in the drawing and in the handling of the paint on the surface, its technical command andauthority, that had to be persuasive. There proved to be more than enough of such stuff to make for a harsh and difficult final choice.

If I was disappointed, it was only in the paucity, indeed virtual absence of distinguished objective painting worked directly and unself-consciously from the subject, especially the figure - but that is a sign of the times. What was fascinating was to see how my fellow selectors set about the same task, each in his own way - but that is another story.

William Packer August 1996 ~ William Packer has been the art critic for the Financial Times since 1974.
He is also a painter, having studied at Wimbledon School of Art, and his recent shows include a solo show at the Piers Feetham Gallery and "Critical Landscape" with Giles Auty and William Feaver at Cadogan Contemporary.

 

Copyright © 2002-2010 The Discerning Eye  ~  Web site by Shepperton Software