It is often said the best Game Keeper is a poacher turned Game Keeper

In the same spirit I will be an artist forced to turn critic.

The people to whom the Roger Fry and Herbert Reid interpretation will appeal, will have a certain psychological predisposition. I hope it does not seem too scathing to say it is the people at the lower end of the spectrum who would welcome the reassurance that if their work was like Cezanne’s that this was a good thing. These people can often be spotted grouping together to foster and reinforce this belief. As we have established that painting is not photo realism and that the slash of paint for a button hole in the painting Jan Six was a good thing then who could argue that the dislocated shoulder in Cezanne’s painting, The card player, was a bad thing. And to the many practitioners who find figures difficult it must seem a welcome relief to find a less rigid stance or one which emphases composition. Plus if the dictate is from a higher authority it often brings with it an irresistible force. Also we can not ignore the constant refrain of out with the old and in with the new from each successive generation. A demand for what they see as the staid painting of old to be invigorated with a touch of wild abandonment. I was that solider. As a student one of the posters in my bedroom was a painting by Vermeer and to my shame I thought why is this boring painting supposedly of some artistic value. Strangely enough the staff at college seemed just as confused. Few would deny that the Cezanne shoulder was anatomically incorrect or that the feet and hands in virtually all of Seurat’s work were too small. To say that these anomalies are artistically justified takes some not inconsiderable clever footwork on the part of the claimant. First I propose to outline or reiterate parameters of art, which are not in contention. And secondly to deal with the ever-present defence of composition, used for example to validate why this arm is anatomically incorrectly positioned. This belief that is fostered, that these are the works of a genius and these anomalies are artistically justified does not hold water when faced with the unremitting artistic incompetence of every other aspect of these works. The consistency of the unrelenting feebleness of a lower order of ability is too compelling, there is never any aspect that a non-artist or beginner would do. No aspect from the long list of drawing, colour, structure, anatomy etc etc etc is ever more clever more interesting more artistic or handled any differently than if done by a beginner. To any visual illiterate who either can not see this or does not understand its relevance let me assure them that from a more visually literate stance, no doubt remains.
There is an undeniable inner voice of objective acknowledgement, which says a good drawing is a good drawing and a poor drawing is a poor drawing. If when comparing these two drawings the question were put would it ever be right to say that the poor drawing is better than the good drawing, I dare say the answer would be an overwhelming no. A brilliant drawing by Michael Angelo appeals to some objective understanding of good drawing, it is an affirmation of an ability which is higher up the ladder of what has been defined by the word art. Its is measurably superior: in the translation of the retinal image, proportionally, anatomically, in the creation of 3D illusion and in the deft handling. The poor drawing says by exposition that these abilities either have not been acquired or have not been acquired to the same degree: there is a demonstrable lack of visual literacy and a lack of understanding of the medium and an inability in the handling of that medium. These facts are not in contention.
There is perhaps a presumption that it is only the top end of the ability spectrum that speaks so loudly and eloquently about the author. The Taoist philosophy of calligraphy would say, irrespective of the subject matter, 'any mark made says something about the author'. People should think of this when they argue that the new generation will introduce a wilder, less inhibited kind of painting. A most revealing case is that of Jackson Pollock, of whom his wife said, in the book 'Look at yourself'" He had no talent 'just ambition'". This lack of talent is very evident in his figurative work, such as his self portrait and this rather embarrassingly juvenile painting of big eyes and even big eyelashes, which seams more reminiscent of a young girls note pad doodle than any thing to do with art. But the interesting point is his decision to produce the drip paintings. I presume in an attempt to disguise these failings. But due to his visual illiteracy he was unaware of the signals this was sending out. So I should add was virtually the entire art service industry.
It is a well known fact to every child not to mention disappointment that mixing all the colours of the rainbow far from making a bright vibrant effect as hoped, results only in a muddy depressing mess. Unfortunately Pollock did not seem to notice this, also Pollock’s decision not to use the right paint for the job, for reasons best known to himself, results in a nasty effect often leaving the paint to pool and form a most unpleasant rippled skin.
In 2006 (I will confirm or amend this date later) a woman in America bought a drip painting from a car boot sale. The seller was asking $7 she knocked him down to $5 and happily returned home with the painting. Sometime later a male friend said what if that was a Pollock, to which she relied ‘what the heck is a Pollock’. After explaining he suggested she should contact an expert from Sotherbys New York. Although reluctant she eventually called them, on arriving to view the painting the expert laughed and said ‘of course it isn’t, anyone could have done that’. Not one to give up, her friend suggested they phone an expert from Christies New York. The expert obliged travelling all the way out there and again laughed and said 'anyone could have done it’. After being persuaded a third time she eventually called a Pollock expert, who said exactly the same. However, the friend pointed out fingerprints, which had been left in the wet paint. He said ‘shall we check them with the fingerprints on the Pollock in the Guggenheim’? And yes believe it or not they were the same. Not surprisingly it was soon up for sale. How much did it fetch?
$147 million.
First, what price experts?
Secondly, no one can tell.
Thirdly, there’s a clue here, if you want a Pollock do your own.


The idea that any of this is the result of free and wild abandonment is a fallacy in fact the reverse is true. This work does not correspond to the confident uninhibited bravura of our bench mark Jan Six's exhibition of genius in observation, ability and in the deft handling of the medium. These paintings scream out, at least to anyone steeped in painting which should include the arts service industry, that these works are by an anal retentive visual illiterate who lacks the insight to understand what they are screaming. This would not cut the mustard in the Taoist circles and neither should it in any circle remotely connected to art. So with a view to removing what seems to be a refuge for the hangers on who find it a cushy number which gives a bit of arty kudos I suggest we begin the elimination of those who lack the ability to operate in the art world by saying: any one in the arts service industry who has not noticed at least one of these expositional signals and exclaimed it at the top of their voice from the nearest soap box should either be forcibly removed or resign forthwith, repaying the money they have earned under false pretences.