Backwater again? Contested histories of St Ives Art

[admin]

Backwater again? Contested histories of St Ives Art

 

St Ives: dead or alive?

Recent books by Peter Davies have presented St Ives as a thriving art colony. ‘Innovators and Followers’ and more particularly ‘Art Colony in Transition’ depict the galleries and artists of St Ives as part of a living tradition, in which artistic truths discovered by earlier artists have been handed down - intact and unchanged - through 4 or 5 generations. In the latter book he describes this process as the ‘the successful transformation of the post war modern movement into a fin-de-siecle revivalism which provided continuity through the accommodation of a new generation’.

Davies seems to be telling a story that challenges more conventional accounts of St Ives such as Tom Cross’s original book of 1984 ‘Painting the warmth of the Sun’, which first presented the view that St Ives art was spent as a force by around 1975; the year that Hepworth, Hilton and Wynter died. Cross describes pop art and large scale abstraction in London in the early sixties - especially the show ‘Situation’ in London in 1960 – as ushering in the end, claiming: ‘from about 1960 the St Ives artists were…an embattled group’.

The important Tate show of 1985 was entitled St Ives 1939 -1964, and so dated the end even earlier. David Brown, the curator, put it thus: ‘Nicholson’s departure in 1958 and Lanyon’s death in 1964 removed two leading figures from the scene, and the sudden change in the art climate that occurred with the appearance of pop art in London in the early 1960’s led to an increasing suspicion that St Ives was becoming a backwater again’.

So who to believe? Which version of history is correct? Should we now think of St Ives as a spent force, and therefore as a kind of living art museum or theme park? Or is it, in other ways, still a thriving and vital centre for art in the sense suggested by Peter Davies?

 

Differing perspectives

In including a large number of contemporary artists in Cornwall in his most recent publication, Davies’ work highlights the differing perspectives of the Tate-promoted orthodoxy and that of others in St Ives: perspectives that more than once have brought the two of them into conflict.

It should be remembered, of course, that the Tate is part of an international art scene, and the art history that it tends to promote has to be seen in that context. For a generation after the war St Ives art was the most important art produced in Britain: it was challenging, new and of its time, and it made an impact internationally. St Ives art, and Cornish art generally after 1975, has not done so to anything like the same extent.

Yet for many visitors to St Ives and for locals living in Cornwall, who might take little or no interest in the international art world, the art scene here is more vibrant than ever, and the notion that it might have died or lapsed into a coma, in, or around, eg 1975 is insulting and flies in the face of the evidence to the contrary, given the number of art galleries, artists and visitors now in the area.

It is reasonable on this basis to conclude that the colony of St Ives is still going strong, even if it makes little or no impact on opinion-formers and art-critics living in London. It is these differing perspectives (ie regional perspective v international (=London) perspective) that gives rise to much of the conflict.

There is a very strong case for resisting the move towards internationalism in the visual arts, and for challenging grand narrative accounts of art history that, in the way described by Lyotard, will always tend to overwhelm and silence smaller 'local' narratives. In other words the idea of a local regional art scene where culture is made and shared is very valuable, and in these days of corporate expansionism and globalisation the discourse that supports it deserves to be cherished and defended tenaciously.

There is therefore most definitely a place for alternative histories of Cornish art, written from the perspective of those directly affected by them.

 

Is the colony in transition?

So what is the problem with Davies writing? The book ‘Innovators and Followers’ is fairly well balanced. ‘Art Colony in Transition’, however, is so lop-sided that it doesn’t stand up. His own allegiances art-wise seem hugely biased, as evidenced by a letter to the St Ives Times and Echo following ‘Art Now Cornwall’, in which he singled out some painters, generally painting within traditional genres, for praise whilst condemning other forms of practice. Not that there is anything wrong with abstract or genre painting per se, but the idea that that is all that is happening misrepresents Cornish art in a way that is ultimately damaging to it, and gives ammunition to its enemies or critics.

By focussing on a narrow range of painterly activity in his books he seems to reveal an ignorance of the full extent of artistic practice in the area: including the increasing importance of artist-led projects in Cornwall in the last 10 or so years. These projects, which probably started with artsurgery and PALP in the early 90’s and continued more recently with projects like ‘more’ are a reminder that much of the most interesting and challenging art made in Cornwall does not necessarily have an obvious exchange value i.e. it is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

Failing to acknowledge this, or other spheres of activity, reinforces an impression that art in St Ives and elsewhere in Cornwall has not changed significantly in 30 or 40 years. In fact to people unfamiliar with the Cornish art scene, it would appear that St Ives has completely failed to respond to artistic developments post 1960, and instead is continuing to plough its own lonely post-cubist- abstraction furrow.

Davies also does not explain how this might have come about, and by failing to do so he leaves it to the reader to draw their own conclusions: the most obvious and insidious one being that the art scene in Cornwall is attached leech-like to the legacy of St Ives; at best trapped by commercial interests and in thrall to an art market that is simply part of the heritage industry, at worst the Theme Park we all dread.

 

What is important about artist-led activity?

Recognition of diversity, including the existence of artist-led activity, is the obvious way to counter such a negative conclusion. It is the best way of demonstrating that art from Cornwall is evolving and changing, not held captive by the legacy and undergoing the process of healthy transition promised in the title of the book. (Fairly reflecting this was, incidentally, probably the most successful aspect of the Art Now Cornwall show).

Artist-led activity - ie activity not led by the commercial sector - is important. It can serve as a test bed for new ideas. It can be a form of research activity where art is made unencumbered, at least initially, by the need to sell. It thus helps sketch out the full range of possibilities for art, and it challenges artists to go in new directions and push boundaries. By creating a dialogue with private galleries, artist-activity outside them can help develop new audiences and cross-fertilise with art that has already proven itself as commercial. It is through these kinds of processes that art evolves.

Artist-led exhibitions in Cornwall are not more important than private gallery exhibitions, which are of an increasingly high standard in the county.  But where change is most apparent it is, arguably, in those galleries, private and public, that are able to recognise the role of artist-led activity in helping to create new, innovative work. There is great potential for the two sectors to work more closely together, and there were signs of this beginning to happen with shows this year such as MOVE, Second Nature and Revolver.

Here is the real evidence that the art scene in Cornwall is in transition - after all.
 
   
 

 

[chris Neal]

Really interesting feature. What initially looks to be review of Peter Davies latest book actually raises issues that, in my view, go well beyond and are more important than the eternal debate about St Ives.
Anyway heres my response. Grouped for convenience under your original headings and with your words in quotes ...

St Ives: dead or alive? Seems to me to be possibly the least impor-tant of the excellent issues that you raise.
St Ives, the artist colony, home of quaint cats and whitewashed cottages is a geographical cliche so well polished that it will always reflect whatever the audience would like to see.
Thriving and vital centre for the arts? Possibly. But there has always been a slightly smug self satisfied air to the St Ives art scene – even back in the supposed heyday of the early sixties.

Differing perspectives: Hooray! Never mind St Ives, this is where you really start to deal with issues that matter to all artists wherever they are. It’s all in the last para’s ...
“There is a very strong case for resisting the move towards inter-nationalism in the visual arts, and for challenging grand narrative accounts of art history ... the idea of a local regional art scene where culture is made and shared is very valuable ...it deserves to be cherished and defended tenaciously.
Absolutely, spot on, write it on the rooftops – resist, challenge, cherish and defend. If Art Cornwall adopts this as it’s credo (and I suspect that it already has) then it deserves all the support we and the Arts Council can give it.

Is the colony in transition?  Enough about St Ives, though the idea that the art scene in Cornwall is attached ‘Leach-like’ to the legacy of St Ives is worth a thought...
Again you hit the real issue in the closing para’s...
“the art scene in Cornwall is ...trapped by commercial interests and in thrall to an art market that is simply part of the heritage industry, at worst the Theme Park we all dread.”
Very neatly put. All artists in Cornwall are in danger of being rolled into the same tired cliche that St Ives is saddled with.
Not dissimilar to the Newquay effect that became the bane of the tourist industry. Been to Cornwall? Yeah we go to Newquay every year. We know what that kind of thinking did to tourism in Corn-wall, and its taken millions of pounds and miles of Guardian news-print to dig us out of it.
Back to the plot, you’ve identified the danger and to your ever-lasting credit you go on to outline the solution - artist-led activity
 
What is important about artist-led activity?
"Recognition of diversity, including the existence of artist-led ac-tivity, is the best way of demonstrating that art from Cornwall is evolving and changing, not held captive by the legacy etc."
Good stuff, art from Cornwall is still fresh, alive and well...
"Artist-led activity - ie activity not led by the commercial sector - is important. It can serve as a test bed for new ideas. It can be a form of research activity where art is made unencumbered, at least initially, by the need to sell.”

All true again - but, and there’s always a but.
Freed from the encumbrances of commercialism, no longer captive of the St Ives legacy, challenging and resisting international-ism, artists holding their own shows largely independent of the private galleries. Fine.
But where is the driver for quality, the critical external audience, the outside objective constraint - and how do we avoid becoming a bunch of well-meaning self indulgent amateurs proudly showing each other our latest conceptual doodle?

[Julia Cooper]

I did read Peter Davies's book.  You are right, The Warmth of the sun seemed to be more up beat about the current state of art in Cornwall. Perhaps regional galleries across UK should promote as a combined force on the world scene.  Has there been such a study yet?

[Veronica]

"Artist-led activity - ie activity not led by the commercial sector - is important. It can serve as a test bed for new ideas. It can be a form of research activity where art is made unencumbered, at least initially, by the need to sell.”

All true again - but, and there’s always a but.
Freed from the encumbrances of commercialism, no longer captive of the St Ives legacy, challenging and resisting international-ism, artists holding their own shows largely independent of the private galleries. Fine.
But where is the driver for quality, the critical external audience, the outside objective constraint - and how do we avoid becoming a bunch of well-meaning self indulgent amateurs proudly showing each other our latest conceptual doodle?

That is exactly what I've been wondering about... Critical dialogue around practice whether it be 'artist-led' or any other form is essential. We chuck around these terms sometimes as if just the process of using them, of labeling work, somehow by magical osmosis validates the work. And I am not arguing against 'artist-led activity' (seem to have ended up in the thick of it myself) but we do need to question both the terms we use and the work we make...

[admin]

Well of course I would argue that this is what artcornwall.org was set up to encourage: a position or platform from which to reflect critically on what is happening artwise down here...

but maybe we need to be harder on ourselves and have higher standards etc, and maybe artcornwall.org should be more critical in its criticism...

My hope though is that just by being aware of what others are doing a process of evolution will occur naturally

[andy w]

On November 13th, 2007 on http://invigorate.org.uk    Andy Whall said:

Dominic Thomas has some good points to make about artist led culture here http://aliasarts.org/aboutaliaseditorial.htm

Specifically the need to maintain an understanding of why artist led projects are so popular amongst funders/instituitions etc.

Also I found this; For kant art was defined as purposefulness without purpose (1790)
For Adorno and Horkheimer the culture industry was defined as “ puposelessness for the puposes declared by the market” The traditional and enlightenement view of culture implies a critical attitude towards the status quo. However I think it can be argued that artist led culture sits fairly comfortably within a mainstream cultural context. The radical purposefullness of artist led culture has been eroded and as Adorno and Horkheimer suggest now displays significant displays of purposelessness.

I agree with Veronica, there is a sloppy and lazy application of supposed critical practice/activity of which artist groups are particularly guilty. Commercial galleries generally don't bother at all.

I also agree with Admin, when he suggests that we need  to be harder on oursleves and that artcornwall.org should be more critical in its criticism....I would go so far as to say it needs to be much tougher.

St Ives, St Ives, what is there left to say about it. It is as good as dead! Because it's impossible to live there now. The generation represented by  http://www.artcornwall.org/feature%20chris%20short.htm
have all left, bar one. Cheap studios and alternative spaces dried up several years ago. Dialogue with the Tate is a thing of the past as is collaboration with commercial galleries. I may be wrong, there are I know a few things happening, Film makers, young artists using shop spaces, Mariners Gallery having a stab. But for me the heart went out of the place some years back. All thats left is a jostling for power and legitimacy within what Pierre Bordieu would have described as the St Ives field!!!

[admin]

I agree that terms like 'artist-led' can be bandied around a bit too freely - and I would also agree that it is not a guarantee of quality...

But a show like Freeze which was the show that launched the career of Damien Hirst and many of the YBAs was 'artist led' or independent of established private or commercial galleries. And in London this sector of activity is very important and it keeps the big commercial galleries on their toes...it keeps things fresh and ticking over...

Anyway thats how I see it others may disagree.

As you say Andy there are very few genuine artists living in St Ives now. Penzance seems to have had a second wind though...

[cyberduck]

It seems to me that much of the discussion I see presented in the local media mainly focuses upon the 'practice of artists' for urban renewal and economic growth, these drivers seem to be either up front or very much 'the force behind the systems of patronage etc'. Did anyone see the Nick Capaldi interview on BBC spotlight last night ?

He made it clear that funding from 'arts council' has shifted from 'support' to 'new audiences'. What's a new audience.?.lets face it many consumers of art in however one would like to discuss it are 'educated and middle class' - of course there are exceptions, but most of the public couldn't give a t*ss about 'art'.

[andy w]

Admin, I don't think there is a backlash against artist led projects. I think that there is a questioning process taking place amongst some of those artists involved in artist led projects. The questions were covered during Invigorate, which I hope will produce a document of some kind in the future. Personally for me its the relationship between artist led projects etc and the public institutions, that is important. If what started out as a critique becomes absorbed, what new critical spaces can be occupied if any?

I would also question your assumption that the role of artist led projects is as indicators for galleries to keep on their toes. I guess you mean commercial galleries. If thats the case then artist led projects need to devise strategies that the galleries find impossible to appropriate and assimilate, this goes for the public galleries and institutions as well.

In your review (was it a review) of revolver you say 

"Whilst artist-led projects have, in the last twelve months, made good use of the unique and dramatic landscapes of Cornwall as a setting for making and showing work, the relationship of art to the neutral space of the gallery remains central."

Why does the relationship of art to the gallery space remain central?

[admin]

I suppose I mean it in the sense that when you look at the art that is shown across the world it is predominantly shown in galleries - galleries that aspire to be neutral exhibition spaces...And I still think that the majority of artists think in terms of showing in galleries rather than in public spaces...

[Veronica]

galleries that aspire to be neutral exhibition spaces...

I'm not sure how a gallery could possibly be a 'neutral' space. Galleries are always going to have their own agendas to meet that are bound whatever the good intentions of those who run them, to set up particular dynamics that are not related to the work, whether it be the needs of a commercial space to balance the books at the end of the financial year in order to pay the rent, or the public institutions need for 'public accountability'.

Not sure that there is any such thing as a neutral space at all... even working outside of the gallery context in non-art spaces comes heavy with layers of history before you even take into account the people who normally use/frequent the spaces etc.

The difference with artist-led activity in non-traditional art spaces is that it tends to be set up to confront these dynamics head on - the context from the physicality of the building/open space to the relationships with stake-holders and the layers of previous histories (both in terms of site but also in terms of art context) are all part of the territory for making work.

I would suggest that artist-led activity in non-traditional spaces is therefore a very different beast to 'thinking in terms of showing in galleries rather than in public spaces'. The intentions are very different. And when working in non gallery spaces the artist explicitly takes on the layers of socio/political context, it becomes unavoidable (and if this is not the case then surely it raises serious questions about the work.... that quality/value issue?)... and so we are back to Andy's "The radical purposefullness of artist led culture has been eroded and as Adorno and Horkheimer suggest now displays significant displays of purposelessness." Perhaps its through a depth of enquiry and engagement with the layers of context that  creates the conditions necessary for radical purpose-fullness within artist-led culture.

And perhaps one of the things that artist-led activity outside of galleries has contributed in terms of critique is to question just what the relationship of art is to galleries... and without wanting to open up too many 'large issues', the relationship of art to the consumerist/capitalist society that dominates the world we live in.... So 'does the relationship of art to the gallery space remain central'?

[andy w]

I was just going to ask that very question.....galleries that aspire to be neutral exhibition spaces...no such thing.

I suppose I mean it in the sense that when you look at the art that is shown across the world it is predominantly shown in galleries - galleries that aspire to be neutral exhibition spaces...And I still think that the majority of artists think in terms of showing in galleries rather than in public spaces...

Also saying that most artists want to show in galleries is stating the obvious down here. But there is a minority of artists engaged in artist led projects who do not aspire to show in galleries. I imagined that you were talking locally anyhow and not about the international.

[Veronica]

... or perhaps its a case of artists who are happy to work in a variety of contexts - sometimes a water tight invigilated space can seem quite attractive, not to mention the CV effect (if we're being honest!)... but that in so doing they are aware of the various agendas at play and make conscious decisions in which games they want to engage... but neutral - never!

[admin]

When I say neutral I mean visually neutral not politically neutral.

This is stating the obvious but if youre an abstract painter you cant just put your paintings in a wood or on clifftop or something because - generally - you need reasonably even light and simple (eg white) walls in order that people can see your work properly...Its become the convention now that most people sign up to.

Conversely if youre a sculptor working in a public location with a strong history or strong identity you have to engage with or make the work suit the space you dont really have a choice...

So galleries are in this sense relatively neutral

[andy w]

Admin I think most galleries aspire to be more than visually neutral spaces.