Art criticism and history

Press, 10 September 1985, Page 12

Art criticism and history

Sir,—Your reviewer’s comments on the photographic exhibition by

Ken Griffiths make intriguing reading, and not only for the sense of unease they generate regarding Mr Hurrell’s understanding of the subject. In referring to the prints, your reviewer states flatly that “as art they are seductive but not significant.” I stand in awe of such a pronouncement, conscious of the bones of similar comments by critics down the ages, and which now lie bleached on the battlefield of art history. It would appear that Mr Hurrell is in possession of a remarkable faculty — a kind of visual carbon-dating device capable of quantifying “significance.” If this is so, and Mr Griffiths’ work scores a nil, I wait with bated breath for your reviewer to cover an exhibition of top “significance” so I may note the award of what must surely be a magical score. Who knows, perhaps the answer to the Universe is indeed 42. — Yours, etc TONY BRITTENDEN. Lincoln, August 30, 1985.

[John Hurrell replies: “Mr Brittenden’s letter contains many wild and unsubstantiated claims far sillier than those he is accusing me of. He claims I do not understand the subject but he does not state why it is that I am ignorant. He takes umbrage at my comments that Mr Griffiths’ prints were not significant, yet that point was argued at length in the last two paragraphs of my review. I certainly did not imply that the works ‘scored a nil.’ After all, I wrote these ‘elegantly crafted images, packed with information (about Italy and Spain) ... are enjoyable because of their novelty to a

Christchurch audience, and the care that has been taken over their manufacture.’ If critics were fearful about the pronouncements of art historians, they would be too timid to publicly elucidate on their responses to exhibitions. However, not only the bones of comments by critics, but also those by art historians ‘lie bleached on the battlefield of art history’ for this battle is always raging. Art history, like art theory, is never fixed but constantly under re-examination and reassessment, like many other disciplines.”]