Misguided criticism that can spoil great art
SIR – How I agree with both Kath Mcarthur and Richard Cheeseman (Letters, March 18), who say that, while landscapes lack “nationalistic bias”, they can be important historical resources that document particular times and conditions.
Some time ago you kindly printed a letter I wrote in defence of Sir Stanley Spencer, when the Fitzwilliam Museum wished to hide one of his paintings on the grounds of racial stereotyping. Spencer was one of our finest and most technically accomplished landscape painters, who, like John Constable, celebrated his locality.
The French impressionists also recorded their own surroundings, and their works have given great pleasure to millions across the world for many years.
What is the Fitzwilliam’s issue? Why is it so intent on undermining and re-interpreting works of art that have long been enjoyed by many?
Like Mr Cheeseman, I have ancestors who toiled in fields, died in fishing accidents and even one who was blown up in a gunpowder mill.
But I love art for what it is; looking at great works is excellent for mental health and can transport one to a kinder, gentler place, and even give a a glimpse of paradise.
Isobel Greenshields
Billericay, Essex
SIR – I wonder whether the curators of the Fitzwilliam Museum’s latest exhibition have ever been to Goodwood House. There one is greeted in the entrance hall by three very large paintings by the British painter George Stubbs, with landscape views, and at least three portraits by the Flemish artist Anthony van Dyck. The treasures are spread throughout the public rooms.
Among these are a number of landscape paintings from the mid-18th century (about the time of the Battle of Culloden in 1746) by local artists called Smith. These are entitled “Romantic Landscapes”. To put it another way, 300 years ago artists were already airbrushing away the brutal realities of life in rural England. It was ever thus in artistic terms. In the days when most ordinary people’s horizons were limited to the parish or the nearest market town, “nationalism” – dark or light – did not feature in any meaningful way. Most were far more concerned with keeping a roof over their head and food on the table. In wider terms, ordinary people feared dealing with the difficult Scots and the very real threat of countrywide revolution.
It seems to me that the curators of the Fitzwilliam exhibition are trying to impose upon the lives of those from earlier times the prejudices of this modern age, for purposes one can only speculate on.
Martin Coakley
Liphook, Hampshire