Comments on: William Scott, Garth Evans, Haroon Mirza, John Constable Abstract Critical is a not-for profit company aiming to establish a new critical context for all generations of artists involved with ambitious abstract art. Sun, 09 Nov 2014 17:23:33 +0000 hourly 1 By: Rupert Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:32:24 +0000 I don’t want to be seen as defending something that i haven’t seen and i suspect I wouldn’t like anyway, but surely the point of this type of curated show is to reassess and recontextualise the work curated in this way?

I tent to like paintings hung on white walls in quiet galleries, but that is only one way of looking at things. And it is as unnatural and as curated as a show with flashing lights and bells on it where the work is clustered and grouped, even to the extent of blocked sightlines.

Art works have to look after themselves in the world, like stories and poems. (I’m a writer and painter.) They have to be strong enough to deal with strange neighbours and readers/curators. I think disrespect is a very strange choice of word here.

I agree with Alan about it being ok when shows work because of the sum of their parts rather than individual paintings.

& I think the Scott St Ives show was due to change and grow as it tours. I was certainly most fascinated by the relationship between his drawing and what they became in the paintings; also by a long wall of work [in Tate St Ives] that showed how landscape and the harbour slowly simplified and changed into blocks of colour.

By: Robin Greenwood Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:17:31 +0000 Well, firstly, I didn’t choose to see the Mirza, it kind of threw itself in my face (and ears) as I walked through to see the Scott. As for noise, I find it rather difficult to concentrate on painting or sculpture with that kind of distraction – maybe that’s my failing, but I do need to concentrate on what I’m looking at.

You seem to have missed my point about the curation – perhaps you haven’t thought it through – that if you can’t actually see what you are looking at, then that is worse than pointless, and disrepectful to the artists..

The Hepworth show is the same show as was at Tate St. Ives, though it may be tweaked a bit. There is another different Scott show at the Jerwood in Hastings.

By: Rupert Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:38:03 +0000 Why choose to go and see shows curated in a way you can’t cope with, or why not get over it? The white box reverence format is just as annoying to other people as noise and sound is to others. Judgement based on ‘this kind of thing is not my kind of thing’ seems a little unthought through. I mean, I tend to agree with you on not wanting clusters of work with additional neon/noise, but in the end they’re just works of art waiting to be seen and perhaps discussed. Do we start with taste, or something a little more substantial?

It would be more interesting to know how the Scott exhibition contrasts with the version [? or different show?] at Tate St Ives. Certainly, here, one of the most interesting parts of the exhibition was the relationship between exhibited drawings and how they changed to become pantings.

By: Alan Shipway Thu, 30 May 2013 19:31:02 +0000 I’ve seen good paintings by William Scott, though at the same time they’re few and far between – too many pots and pans, too much anthropomorphising. Almost invariably, the good ones are the most abstract – but Scott seemed to shy away from uncompromisingness, from pushing his art too hard in that direction.

Isn’t there, though, an undeniable pleasure in seeing a group of work gathered together, even if you know it adds up to more than the sum of its parts?