Dexter Dalwood

[maryfletcher4@hotmail.com]

The Dexter Dalwood show at the Tate - at least there’s a lot to see - acres of paintings - several rooms of them, - overblown versions of his small collages, which, like many artists, he enlarges to make neater finished versions which lack the spontaneity and tighter composition of the small ones.
I like the labels, I like his intentions to refer to events in the world, to be in touch with life. However the tiltles seem to be a habit, a ‘starting point’ in the language of art GCSE examinations, an excuse to paint, to try tricks of style, borrow from other artists, when he actually has nothing to say about the subject in the title.
An example is “Greenham Common”. Maybe he never went there, never talked to women who did, never saw the film ‘Bringing Greenham Home’. His picture shows an enclosure in the countryside with a mass of targets inside it. There are no people, no items on the fence, no missiles. It seems to him its just an event long over. Similarly the paintings of empty rooms refer to people and events, famous people, but show nothing of them.

In the curved gallery there is a collection of works by different artists, like old friends, a   Gabo, a Hodgkin, a Kokoshka - each enjoyable. The Picasso next to the Warhol done in the same year, 1971, shows us how the old Picasso was still using a well tried style in yet another reclining woman; the Warhol looks so much newer - the screen print of an electric chair.

Why can’t we see Dalwood similarly in context, contrasted with three or four of his contemporaries to illuminate his way of thinking and his milieu?

Instead we get a lot of imagery and paint but a rather empty playing with style, entertaining like a slick advertisement but lacking a lot of what one may seek in art  -  its a celebration of a meaningless meander through cultural landmarks in which the labels are more informative and evocative than the works next to them.




Mary Fletcher

[maryfletcher4@hotmail.com]

I see Richard Dorment in the Telegraph rather agrees with me, 4 October. He says,'For example, you wouldn't look twice at the image of a tree and full moon against a plain blue ground, but the work's title," Death of David Kelly" neatly exploits that good man's death for the smug consumption of the art world's least thoughtful fashionistas"
He then likens him to Mantovani.

[admin]

The artworld is full of smug fashionistas. Twas ever thus...

[jondavey]

Instead we get a lot of imagery and paint but a rather empty playing with style, entertaining like a slick advertisement   -  its a celebration of a meaningless meander through cultural landmarks

...sounds like he's onto something, I'll have to check this guy out!