As a result of the last course on English modernism I’m reading a lot of Wyndham Lewis lately, whose intellectual capacity and span of knowledge just dazzles. Easily the most cerebral painter I’ve ever encountered. Excellent analysis on society, race (well before multi-culturalism became a mainstream topic), politics, art and the mass-media. He shows you how to review exhibitions too; he can sum up a painter in a paragraph. But it is his ability to detect trends in politics, philosophy and apply them to art which is is most valuable quality I think. In an essay of the 1940s called "Super-Nature Verses Super-Real," Lewis writes:
“The forces of what in politics would be called 'reaction' are everywhere in the ascendant, in England, much as elsewhere. The crescendo of the struggle for mere subsistence in a world of 'want in the midst of plenty'; the universal decline in the intellectual standards of the capitalist class; the impoverishment of the middle-class, the paralysis of the energies of the aristocrats, the peasantry, and the proleteriat- all this has relegated the arts to a position of non-entity. 'Intellectual' has become a term of contempt (as if the only worthy use of the intellect were in money-spinning or in the power-game of the politician): as much among us as in the 'dictator' states is this the case.
All ruling factions are at one in a tacit- or stridently advertised- resolve to discourage irresponsible intellectual attainment, in the unmoneyed and the destitute-of-power. The Bourgeoise- either la haute Bourgeoise enthroned in the democratic states, or the little Bourgeoisie enthroned in the dictator-countries- are of one mind when it comes to the 'uppishness' of what used to be termed, in the bad old days of Liberalism, genius. There are two things: there is Money, and there is Power. Outside of that there is nothing. And both Money and Power are recognised as possessing the right to exploit, without return, all that is creative, or to crush it when it suits their book."
He goes on to rail against: (a) the Honours List (money-makers, not creative endeavour rewarded); (b), examples of "mass observation"= book reviews, concert reports, theatre news, but visual arts are not treated like this. Today, one might mention the exhibition review, but these are, on the whole, badly written and don't effectively serve the visual arts well. According to Lewis, in the 1940s art news could be divided into the following: reports of auctions (with prices fetched); reports of charity exhibitions (with totals obtained for this or that fund); reports of shows by school children (as Educational News); of painting by post-office workers or candlestick makers (Labour item- or 'human interest'); exhibition of pictures or sculptures by members of the Royal Family or by titled persons ('Court and Society')- all these take the place, more every day, of critical articles about picture-shows by professional artists. In the 1940s he became the art critic for the Listener, but blindness (caused by a brain tumour) forced him to give up reviewing in 1951. I can just imagine what he would make of art commentary these days! Hardly any articles in the papers these days by real artists, just self-appointed "experts."
Mutatis mutandis, Lewis certainly could be talking about our times with the overwhelming of artistic expression and genius by the cash nexus and careerist compromises in the realm of culture. Just listen to Radio 3 or take a walk around the National Gallery, or scan the papers for insightful art criticism. As they say in this article, Lewis is badly needed so that he can be set loose on the inanity of our celebrity driven mass culture!
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.