What would Alannah Coleman have had to say about this latest show of Australian art at the Royal Academy, in 2013?
I've recently made my first visit to the huge show. This is an effort to put myself in Alannah Coleman's shoes, and imagine how she would have seen it.
I think the first thought she would have had was that this had some similarities with the official show put together for the Tate back in 1963. Her own response to this show was Australian Painting and Sculpture in Europe Today, a large and comprehensive overview of the work of the Australian being done at that moment, in Europe (but mainly London). More about her show a bit later.
Coleman always held an open mind on new movements in art, and this can be seen in the way she embraced Kinetic art in London, in the 1960s, so I can imagine she would have loved the very first thing you see as you enter this exhibition - the video artist Shaun Gladwell. It was always more about 'good art' than particular styles or artists for her. Her appreciation of the new was one of her strength as a critic and supporter of Australian art.
The second room, with those large works by contemporary Aboriginal artists would have stunned her I think. In 1988, when a number of exhibitions of Australian art where being shown around London, Coleman asked me what I thought about the work of these artists, and more particularly the international success of this movement. She was puzzling out where they fitted into the business of Australian art. She had not come to any real understanding by the time she died, but I think if she saw this room she would have found a way of absorbing these into her view. As I said, for her it was about 'good art'. Like some of the other critics, I think she would have drawn the parallels with Pollack and others. She would have taken it further though, and looked for links into the development of Australian art, but I don't know how succesful she would have been.
If at this point I am going to skip the early Colonial rooms and move into the Australian Impressionists and make a few comments. In a conversation back in the 1980s she told me about a visit made by Penrose to Sydney (when she was briefly running Bonython Gallery). She had instigated an invitation for him to judge an art prize and this was his first visit to the country. As he had met a number of the Australian artists in London, she took him to Melbourne to see Tucker. At this time a show was on at the National Gallery of Victoria, hanging Streeton and Fred Williams side by side. This was Penrose's first look at both of these artists. He was impressed with Streeton but not at all by Williams. Discreet as Coleman was, she seemed to be telling me that one was a giant of art and the other's reputation overblown. Would she have changed her mind after viewing this exhibition? I don't think so. Like many of us I think she would have preferred to see a few more Streetons and a few less McCubbin sentimental narrative works.
She would her paused in the next room showing the Moderns (of 1920-1930s) as she was very familar with most of these artists. There would have been disappointment at the selection of some works and some artists and a quiet effort to form an overall opinion of how this show represented this period. My view is she would have hoped for more ...more works by the better artists, more quality in the selection, and more discretion in showing those not quite up to scratch.
Here critical senses would have been on alert walking into the next few rooms with the Nolan's, Boyd's - her contemporaries. She had walked with Sidney Nolan through The Angry Penguins show in 1988, and I imagine she would have walked straight up to those Ned Kelly paintings in the R.A. and taken a long long look again. I think she would have judged it a good thing to represent him with a series where most others only had a look in with one or two works. She was shrewd and knew Nolan was and still is a draw card with any exhibition in London that is showing Australian art. Those two early Arthur Boyd's would have caught her attention next. Once again I think she would have taken a careful and long look at these. Both images where familiar to her, but it would have been a very long time since she had seen them. Would she have agreed with me that they seem somewhat diminished in this show? When she turned and looked down the gallery to the wall at the end with the very large and loose Boyd, I think she would have nodded to herself in acknowledgement of his well earned place in Australian art. I don't think Coleman knew the work of Tony Tuckson, although i might be wrong here. His work was very seldom seen until he retired, and this would have been well after she returned to London in 1970. My guess is she would have not missed the one example of his work, and would have wanted to see more. I have no doubt she would have been somewhat bewildered at the absence of so many significant artists of the 1960s and 1970s. Where were so many of those she included in her 1963 show, and that Robinson had included in his 1961 show?
I doubt the gallery of political works would have excited her at all. I imagine her looking around and not quite knowing what to say....except it was not 'good art'. She may have taken a careful look at the work of a few artists, but would have largely walked on. As for the most recent works, she would have been looking and seeing one or two examples of the work of artists she thought had something to say and said well, but needing to see more to make a judgement.
When I see this exhibition again tomorrow I will post another blog, with how I think she might have overviewed the show. I will also talk a bit about her own 1963 show.
