17th March 2008
In a recent article, Peter Blake likened Abstract Expressionism to Damien Hirst's spin paintings, where paint is simply poured in a completely arbitrary way. On reflection this is a somewhat flippant statement that underestimates the sensibilities of this mainstream art movement. Moreover he goes on to comment that Hirst has 'pretty much brought the two main branches of abstract painting to a conclusion'. This is an assertion that the 'Three Generations' exhibition will challenge and thereby conclude that gestural painting is still a force to be reckoned with in contemporary art.
Although diverse, the visual vocabulary of Hoyland, an established Royal Academician, Stewart, a mid-career painter, and Francis, a recent RA schools graduate, is as considered and relevant in Contemporary art as it was when abstraction was first conceived. Gottlieb, Rothko and Newman stated that 'There is no such thing as a good painting about nothing. We assert that the subject is critical."
Indeed what can abstract painting be without a subject or intention? Hoyland was described as a visual poet by Mel Gooding - with titles such as 'Place of Miracles' and 'Love and Grief' you can appreciate the analogy. There is poetry in his work, as with loaded symbolism and harmonised composition he conveys his impassioned relationship to the real and spirit worlds. Likewise Francis considers similar notions, but with a less structured preconceived approach to painting. It is the act of painting and the physicality of paint that provides a gateway to philosophical notions of phenomenology; a state of being that the artist visualises through his painting. Stewart's canvases reverberate with a similar structured spontaneity. Rosenberg suggested that 'what was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event.' For Stewart this is especially relevant, as the event becomes visual theatre infused with autobiographical references...
