Defending Hockney

Regarding his latest exhibition at the Royal Academy, poor David Hockney has been described as ‘overrated’, ‘overindulged’ and with a ‘predilection for the limelight’ (Andrew Lambirth, The Spectator ) and his work called ‘repetitive’, ‘shallow’ and ‘discordant’ (Brian Sewell, Evening Standard).

Hockney’s work is, as everyone must know by now, currently overtaking the entire ground floor of the Royal Academy. A Bigger Picture does just want it says on the tin – landscapes of Yorkshire are spread over 32 canvases and 51 blown-up prints from an iPad, and sprawled over 18 digital camera projections.

The work is gigantic, crude, sloppy and repetitive. It plays on, or utilises, pointillism, Van Gogh’s circular strokes and surrealist humour. For all of the above, the exhibition has been slated as unoriginal, unwarranted and poor, at best.

But, as a younger critic educated amid the cynicism of postmodernism, I don’t have a problem with his references to other great artists. I enjoyed his loose and energetic strokes and playful fauvist colors.

Hockney’s work has always been ‘naïve’ – using a limited colour palette, lots of linseed oil, annd heavy black outlines. It is this very same simplistic approach that makes his work accessible, popular and inspiring.

Indeed, when I was touring the epic show, I overheard people that I would never have expected to form articulate opinions on art claim, ‘he makes the earth look hot’, and ‘I feel as though I am among this landscape’.

Just because the work is ambitious does not mean it is ‘unsuccessful’. Before we can judge that, we have to determine what the criteria of success are. For Lambirth and Sewell, they might be originality and ‘draughtsmanship’. For me, they are about encouraging members of the public to engage with an institution that has long been seen as elite and aloof.

I agree that there are too many works on show and that, were the individual canvases isolated, they would be insignificant. But this attack on Hockney is futile: the canvases are not isolated and, should anyone be to blame for the overhanging, it is the curator.

Why should an artist be criticized for having obsessively studied his subject matter, in pencil, iPad, paint and person? Yes, the show should have been edited to best represent his ‘better’ pieces. And, yes, the Royal Academy has ‘sold out’. But to whom? The public?

The public has generated a sell-out show and wants to engage in British art. If the entrance price is considered too expensive, this is only a reflection of the current financial climate and the decline in arts funding.

If critics want institutions like the Royal Academy to better adhere to their charity status, perhaps they should invest more time in complementing the old masters. We cannot forget that the same critics, myself included, are responsible for the initial exhibition ‘hype’.

Hockney’s Yorkshire landscapes are, if nothing else, fun – and they encourage creativity, in every shape and medium. They do not change the world, and they do not single-handedly represent all that is English, but neither does much other art when it is viewed on its own. I have no doubt that the Hockney is immodest, but his work exists and, whether this exhibition is all hot air or not, it has prompted a great debate.

I hope A Bigger Picture has encouraged British museums to consider how they might stage more experimental exhibitions, ones that are not necessarily grouped by movement, generalised themes or capitalised retrospectives, all of which are too grand in scope and shallow in investigation.

A Bigger Picture runs at the Royal Academy until 9th Apri

ShareThis