
The greatest decade for British painting since Turner and Constable? The 1970s
Recently I've been reflecting on the 1970s for a couple of reasons. One is that I'm working on a book about art in London at that time, the other is that I've been helping to organise an exhibition of Ayres's work from that era at the Heong Gallery, Downing College, Cambridge. Of course, as L.P. Hartley noted, the day before the day before yesterday is alien territory – and the maps we have of it may not be reliable. It strikes me as a period from which much art and many artists are waiting to be resurrected and re-examined.
Artistically the early 1970s was a period in which painting was out. Everybody knew that at the time, including the painters. But that does not mean that good pictures were not being created, on the contrary. Simply by a count of masterpieces, it ranks as one of richest since Turner and Constable were exhibiting side by side at the Royal Academy. Francis Bacon was still working at full power. David Hockney produced such marvellous works as the two canvases, 'My Parents' and 'Looking at Pictures on a Screen', both 1977, which last year in the National Gallery hung on either side of Piero della Francesca's 'Baptism', withstanding that exalted comparison with aplomb.
Meanwhile Lucian Freud was just entering his late phase, rich in magnificent portraits, with and without clothes, and also painting a group of London landscapes, among the bleakest and most evocative of all images of that city. Among numerous other fine figurative painters, Frank Auerbach, Euan Uglow, Leon Kossoff and Michael Andrews were all working at full power. Then there was a vigorous, and varied community of abstractionists, including not only Ayres, but Bridget Riley, Frank Bowling and Sean Scully.
Nonetheless, the general view was that painting was if not dead, certainly moribund (or smelt bad, as John Lennon is supposed to have put it). At St Martins School of Art, where Ayres taught until 1978, other members of staff used to warn the students: 'Don't listen to her, she'll make you want to paint'. In some cases, she did.
Personally, Ayres reacted against this tide of fashion by luxuriating in her medium. Her environment and – quite frequently – the artist herself were covered in the stuff. The painter Mali Morris recalled attending a party during the 1970s at Ayres's house on Beverley Road, Barnes. The door was opened not by the artist herself, but by her then dealer Kasmin. He was dressed in an outfit startling even for a social gathering in that unconventional decade: 'one of those paper boiler suits that forensic teams wear to the scene of the crime'. This precaution was 'very necessary', Kasmin explained, since he always got covered in paint whenever he visited this dwelling. He was right. When she got home she discovered her party dress was smeared with Prussian blue, probably the result of sitting on a kitchen chair that doubled as a palette.
Later in the decade Ayres changed from paintings of remarkable length to ones with extreme thickness of impasto. 'Handfuls of paint' as she put it – which she did not mean metaphorically. She worked, as her friend the critic Tim Hilton noted, 'in some intimacy with her picture, with fingers, rag and torn-off scraps of cardboard'. The results were paintings with a texture like some sumptuous textile. Ayres remembered how, 'when people came to the house they used to say, what are those? Are those carpets pinned up all over the walls?' At a distance of four decades they look magnificent.
In the early 1970s Ayres's whole house was turned into an extended studio. Her son Sam Mundy remembers how he and his brother Jim sometimes had to crawl under a canvas to get into the sitting-room to watch television. Other works were pinned up in the loft space and, in summer, stretched down the garden.
Not every artist worked at home. This was an era in which artists were searching for larger places to work – partly because art itself, especially painting, was tending to get bigger. Empty space was a commodity which in the depopulated and rundown city of the 1970s was plentiful – and cheap. Peter Sedgley, an op and kinetic artist, briefly considered taking over the decayed remains of the Marshalsea prison, familiar from Dickens's Little Dorrit. When these premises proved impractical he and his then-partner Bridget Riley transformed part of the disused St Katharine Docks into a warren of communal studios. The square footage was enormous but heating was nugatory. Michael Craig-Martin had a studio there, warmed by a portable gas fire. He remembers, 'standing so close to it that my legs were almost bursting into flames and the rest of me was absolutely frozen'.
For much of the 1970s Antony Gormley worked in a squatted ex-factory on King's Cross Road shared with numerous other indigent artists (this was the golden age of squatting). 'None of us,' he told me, 'were making any money.'
Detail of 'Achnabreck', 1978, by Gillian Ayres. JO UNDERHILL
London in the 1970s was a city crowded with artists of every kind, but largely lacking in anyone willing to buy their work. This unbalanced state of affairs had developed after the second world war. Previously in Britain, professional artists had been a vanishingly tiny group. Lucian Freud remembered that when he told people at parties what he did they'd reply: 'I wasn't asking about your hobbies.' But that changed in the 1940s and 1950s. In the autumn of 1945 so many would-be artists flocked to the Camberwell School of Art that extra buses had to be put on from Camberwell Green.
The number of people making art and who wanted to see it both greatly increased, but the tally of collectors did not keep pace. By the 1970s, especially after the oil shock, it was worse. Kasmin, who also represented Hockney and the sculptor Anthony Caro, recalled that at that date, he had to travel to sell. 'I sold pictures in Belgium, a little bit in Germany and a great deal in America.' Art had become a curiously self-supporting activity. With the exception of a tiny handful of stars – such as Henry Moore and Francis Bacon – most artists supported themselves wholly or partly by teaching. Once they'd graduated the best of their students went on to do the same.
The result was a period of remarkable creativity and limitless innovation. Art schools such as St Martins and Goldsmiths fizzed with ideas, all the more so since sales were an improbable outcome whatever kind of art you produced. Highly uncommercial idioms proliferated: land art, performance art, conceptual art. Gilbert & George, star students from St Martins, pioneered the notion of living sculpture.
Even painting, though a more traditional medium, was frequently approached in a highly uncommercial manner. Certainly it was by Ayres. Naturally abstractions like the one we unrolled in Suffolk – along which it was necessary to walk to get the full experience – remained unsold and largely unseen. Few private houses contain a suitable spot for such a work, and not all public galleries either. Many canvases of similar length, perhaps up to 30, remain rolled up in Ayres's old studio. They constitute a reminder that the era of Edward Heath, the Thorpe trial and the three-day week is also an art-historical time capsule full of artists and art awaiting rediscovery.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


ITV News
4 days ago
- ITV News
Bristol Museum outbid in attempt to buy Turner oil painting of city
Bristol Art Gallery's efforts to buy a Turner painting depicting the city have failed after being outbid at auction. 'The Rising Squall, Hot Wells, from St Vincent's Rock, Bristol' was painted in 1792, when JMW Turner was aged just 17. The artwork depicts a former hot spring and spa viewed from the East Bank of the River Avon but before the Clifton Suspension Bridge was built. It was his first oil painting ever exhibited - at the Royal Academy one year later. The work was later 'lost' in a private collection for over a century and only rediscovered in a restoration project last year. The art gallery had launched a crowdfunding campaign to support its bid to 'Bring Turner Home' which raised over £100,000 from 1,700 people in just five days. Although auction house Sotheby's had put the estimate at £2-300,000 the winning bid reached £1.9m - around eight times as much - from a private UK collector. Bristol Museum and Art Gallery says it will explore if the work might be put on loan for display to mark its link and history with the city. All the money received for the fundraiser will be returned to those who donated.


Spectator
4 days ago
- Spectator
The greatest decade for British painting since Turner and Constable? The 1970s
Slowly the canvas was unfurled across the concrete floor of a warehouse on an industrial estate in Suffolk. On and on it went, a flurry of paint marks and brush strokes, yellow, green and occasionally blue, like a cornfield at harvest time. By the time we got to the end some seven metres of it lay stretched out at our feet. It was the first time anyone had seen this unknown magnum opus by Gillian Ayres since it was rolled up in 1974 – and it looked sensational. Recently I've been reflecting on the 1970s for a couple of reasons. One is that I'm working on a book about art in London at that time, the other is that I've been helping to organise an exhibition of Ayres's work from that era at the Heong Gallery, Downing College, Cambridge. Of course, as L.P. Hartley noted, the day before the day before yesterday is alien territory – and the maps we have of it may not be reliable. It strikes me as a period from which much art and many artists are waiting to be resurrected and re-examined. Artistically the early 1970s was a period in which painting was out. Everybody knew that at the time, including the painters. But that does not mean that good pictures were not being created, on the contrary. Simply by a count of masterpieces, it ranks as one of richest since Turner and Constable were exhibiting side by side at the Royal Academy. Francis Bacon was still working at full power. David Hockney produced such marvellous works as the two canvases, 'My Parents' and 'Looking at Pictures on a Screen', both 1977, which last year in the National Gallery hung on either side of Piero della Francesca's 'Baptism', withstanding that exalted comparison with aplomb. Meanwhile Lucian Freud was just entering his late phase, rich in magnificent portraits, with and without clothes, and also painting a group of London landscapes, among the bleakest and most evocative of all images of that city. Among numerous other fine figurative painters, Frank Auerbach, Euan Uglow, Leon Kossoff and Michael Andrews were all working at full power. Then there was a vigorous, and varied community of abstractionists, including not only Ayres, but Bridget Riley, Frank Bowling and Sean Scully. Nonetheless, the general view was that painting was if not dead, certainly moribund (or smelt bad, as John Lennon is supposed to have put it). At St Martins School of Art, where Ayres taught until 1978, other members of staff used to warn the students: 'Don't listen to her, she'll make you want to paint'. In some cases, she did. Personally, Ayres reacted against this tide of fashion by luxuriating in her medium. Her environment and – quite frequently – the artist herself were covered in the stuff. The painter Mali Morris recalled attending a party during the 1970s at Ayres's house on Beverley Road, Barnes. The door was opened not by the artist herself, but by her then dealer Kasmin. He was dressed in an outfit startling even for a social gathering in that unconventional decade: 'one of those paper boiler suits that forensic teams wear to the scene of the crime'. This precaution was 'very necessary', Kasmin explained, since he always got covered in paint whenever he visited this dwelling. He was right. When she got home she discovered her party dress was smeared with Prussian blue, probably the result of sitting on a kitchen chair that doubled as a palette. Later in the decade Ayres changed from paintings of remarkable length to ones with extreme thickness of impasto. 'Handfuls of paint' as she put it – which she did not mean metaphorically. She worked, as her friend the critic Tim Hilton noted, 'in some intimacy with her picture, with fingers, rag and torn-off scraps of cardboard'. The results were paintings with a texture like some sumptuous textile. Ayres remembered how, 'when people came to the house they used to say, what are those? Are those carpets pinned up all over the walls?' At a distance of four decades they look magnificent. In the early 1970s Ayres's whole house was turned into an extended studio. Her son Sam Mundy remembers how he and his brother Jim sometimes had to crawl under a canvas to get into the sitting-room to watch television. Other works were pinned up in the loft space and, in summer, stretched down the garden. Not every artist worked at home. This was an era in which artists were searching for larger places to work – partly because art itself, especially painting, was tending to get bigger. Empty space was a commodity which in the depopulated and rundown city of the 1970s was plentiful – and cheap. Peter Sedgley, an op and kinetic artist, briefly considered taking over the decayed remains of the Marshalsea prison, familiar from Dickens's Little Dorrit. When these premises proved impractical he and his then-partner Bridget Riley transformed part of the disused St Katharine Docks into a warren of communal studios. The square footage was enormous but heating was nugatory. Michael Craig-Martin had a studio there, warmed by a portable gas fire. He remembers, 'standing so close to it that my legs were almost bursting into flames and the rest of me was absolutely frozen'. For much of the 1970s Antony Gormley worked in a squatted ex-factory on King's Cross Road shared with numerous other indigent artists (this was the golden age of squatting). 'None of us,' he told me, 'were making any money.' Detail of 'Achnabreck', 1978, by Gillian Ayres. JO UNDERHILL London in the 1970s was a city crowded with artists of every kind, but largely lacking in anyone willing to buy their work. This unbalanced state of affairs had developed after the second world war. Previously in Britain, professional artists had been a vanishingly tiny group. Lucian Freud remembered that when he told people at parties what he did they'd reply: 'I wasn't asking about your hobbies.' But that changed in the 1940s and 1950s. In the autumn of 1945 so many would-be artists flocked to the Camberwell School of Art that extra buses had to be put on from Camberwell Green. The number of people making art and who wanted to see it both greatly increased, but the tally of collectors did not keep pace. By the 1970s, especially after the oil shock, it was worse. Kasmin, who also represented Hockney and the sculptor Anthony Caro, recalled that at that date, he had to travel to sell. 'I sold pictures in Belgium, a little bit in Germany and a great deal in America.' Art had become a curiously self-supporting activity. With the exception of a tiny handful of stars – such as Henry Moore and Francis Bacon – most artists supported themselves wholly or partly by teaching. Once they'd graduated the best of their students went on to do the same. The result was a period of remarkable creativity and limitless innovation. Art schools such as St Martins and Goldsmiths fizzed with ideas, all the more so since sales were an improbable outcome whatever kind of art you produced. Highly uncommercial idioms proliferated: land art, performance art, conceptual art. Gilbert & George, star students from St Martins, pioneered the notion of living sculpture. Even painting, though a more traditional medium, was frequently approached in a highly uncommercial manner. Certainly it was by Ayres. Naturally abstractions like the one we unrolled in Suffolk – along which it was necessary to walk to get the full experience – remained unsold and largely unseen. Few private houses contain a suitable spot for such a work, and not all public galleries either. Many canvases of similar length, perhaps up to 30, remain rolled up in Ayres's old studio. They constitute a reminder that the era of Edward Heath, the Thorpe trial and the three-day week is also an art-historical time capsule full of artists and art awaiting rediscovery.


New Statesman
5 days ago
- New Statesman
Jenny Saville's human landscapes
Such was the noise generated by a cluster of exhibits at Sensation – the 1997 show at the Royal Academy that announced the Young British Artists to a fascinated-appalled public – that it is easy to forget that there were more than 40 artists on display. Hirst, Emin, the Chapman brothers, Marc Quinn's self-portrait head made from his own blood, Chris Ofili's elephant-dung Virgin and Marcus Harvey's portrait of Myra Hindley simply drowned out many less strident voices. One of those belonged to Jenny Saville, who had five pieces in the show. However, while many of her fellow YBAs have, since that high-water mark, seen a steep downwards trajectory in terms of creativity (though not necessarily fame) Saville's career has followed the opposite path. In 2018, when her painting Propped (1992) – a massively fleshy naked self-portrait showing a ham-thighed Saville on a stool (in reality, she is not a large woman) – sold at Sotheby's for £9.5m, it became the world's most expensive piece by living female artist. And this time it seemed that the market was acting not on whim or media wattage, but on worth. Propped is one of the paintings included in the National Portrait Gallery's new survey of Saville's work. It is an appropriate venue because all her work is a form of portraiture although not of the conventional kind. She prefers to work from photographs rather than the live model and when she draws and paints faces she gives them titles that anonymise the sitter further, such as Stare, Witness or Figure 11.23; when she paints the naked body they are named Odalisque or Couples Study; when it is simply headless but stretched or pitted flesh it becomes Trace or Hybrid. All, however, show real people – or bits of them – but rather than read their personality through their gaze, clothing or setting, Saville writes it in their skin. The abstract expressionist painter Willem de Kooning, an artist Saville greatly admires, wrote in 1949 that 'flesh was the reason why oil paint was invented', and it is a dictum she has taken to heart. Her pictures are about both elements – flesh and paint – and her interest is rarely in the conventionally beautiful but rather in human mass and how best to depict it. For clues she has looked not just at De Kooning but at Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud, Titian and Chaim Soutine, scoured medical textbooks and observed in operating theatres. However, the artist she most resembles in many ways is a less hallowed name, Henry Tonks, the First World War surgeon who produced numerous pastel drawings of soldiers following rudimentary reconstructive surgery. In Saville, as in Tonks, the surface of the skin and the subcutaneous layers are intertwined. Saville has expressed an interest in bodies 'that emanate a sort of state of in-betweenness', such as in her paintings from the 1990s of bodies with marks drawn on them by a surgeon as a guide to operating, or a hefty back and bottom bearing the impress of recently removed bra straps, waistband and knickers. As she told an interviewer about her fascination with imperfect flesh: 'As we go through life, traces or memories both physical and psychological are left on the body; they almost help to produce your body.' This kind of scrutiny makes her a non-judgemental observer. She has also followed Mark Rothko in stating that her pictures should be viewed from a distance of 18 inches. While with Rothko this fills the viewer's field of vision with colour that begins to throb after a few moments, with Saville, a painter who more often than not works at a large scale, it means submersion in flesh. It is rarely a comfortable experience but Saville's particular gift is to make sure it is not a repellent one. One and a half feet is too close perhaps but it forces the viewer to confront the abstract nature not just of her paint but of flesh itself. From her early paintings to her more recent huge and vibrantly coloured heads, Saville treats the body as a form of landscape. Limbs are less objects for propulsion or lifting than elements of corporeal scenery, offering valleys and crests, enclosures and vistas. In some of her head paintings from 2020, such as Cascade and Virtual, she emphasises this non-figurative strand. Like Georg Baselitz's work, they are painted upside down and the controlled marks of her early work have here turned riotous – slashes and rubbings of roughly mixed pigments surrounding disembodied eyes. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The sense of the body as something liminal is most evident in her mother and child pictures which she started to paint following the birth of her own two children in the late 2000s. Although they clearly refer to innumerable depictions of the Madonna and Child, Saville's contain an element of struggle – the naked mother (herself in several) trying to hold on to a wriggling child. The squirming infants are engaged in a battle not to cling on their mother but to escape from her; having been born, they fast-forward to separation. Poignantly, in Aleppo (2017-18), her response to the war in Syria, that struggle has ended prematurely in death. The mother and child has become a pietà. In this picture, as in many, she leaves the drawn outlines of rejected poses, the preparatory studies familiar from Renaissance cartoons. The reason for these pentimenti, she says, is that she is 'trying to get simultaneous realities to exist in the same image'. They don't always work: for example, One Out of Two (Symposium) (2016), a monochrome, Freud-like drawing of naked women on a bed, is overlaid with terracotta swirls that neither enhance the drawing beneath nor indeed refer to it, but are simply a wilful addition, as though Saville felt the picture needed something – more energy? more diversion? – but couldn't quite decide on exactly what. Right from the start of Saville's career, there has been much talk – some by the artist herself – of her work being a response to the old debates about naked vs nude, objectification and reclaiming women's bodies. This retrospective, however, suggests something simpler. She is interested above all in the act of painting and how 'to charge the paint with a sculptural force'; it is why she treats the human body as a canvas as much as a subject. Sometimes, when artists make frequent references to the art-historical canon, it is little more than an impertinence. But not with Saville, who has taken a venerable tradition and moved it on. She is a painter of substance. Jenny Saville: The Anatomy of Painting The National Portrait Gallery, London WC2. Until 7 September [See more: Anna Wintour still rules Vogue] Related