‘Reforming Academicians’, Sculptors of the Royal Academy of , c.1948-1959

by

Melanie Veasey

Doctoral Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University, September 2018. © Melanie Veasey 2018.

For Martin

The virtue of the Royal Academy today is that it is a body of men freer than many from the insidious pressures of fashion, who stand somewhat apart from the new and already too powerful ‘establishment’.1 John Rothenstein (1966)

1 Rothenstein, John. Brave Day Hideous Night. : Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1966, 216.

Abstract Page 7

Abstract

Post-war created by members of the was seemingly marginalised by Keynesian state patronage which privileged a new generation of avant-garde sculptors. This thesis considers whether selected Academicians (Siegfried Charoux, , Maurice Lambert, Alfred Machin, and Charles Wheeler) variously engaged with pedagogy, community, exhibition practice and sculpture for the state, to access ascendant state patronage. Chapter One, ‘The Post-war Expansion of State Patronage’, investigates the existing and shifting parameters of patronage of the visual arts and specifically analyses how this was manifest through innovative temporary sculpture exhibitions. Chapter Two, ‘The Royal Academy Sculpture School’, examines the reasons why the Academicians maintained a conventional fine arts programme of study, in contrast to that of industrial design imposed by Government upon state institutions for reasons of economic contribution. This chapter also analyses the role of the art-Master including the influence of émigré teachers, prospects for women sculpture students and the post-war scarcity of resources which inspired the use of new materials and techniques. Chapter Three, ‘The Royal Academy as Community’, traces the socialisation of London-based art societies whose memberships helped to identify sculptors for potential election to the Royal Academy; it then considers the gifting of elected Academicians’ Diploma Works. The empirical mapping of sponsorship for elected sculptors is investigated to determine how the organic profile of the Royal Academy’s membership began to accommodate more modern sculptors and identifies a petition for change which may have influenced Munnings’s speech (1949). Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’, explores the preparatory rituals of the Selection and Hanging Committees, processes for the selection of amateurs’ works, exhibit genres and critical reception. Moreover it contrasts the Summer Exhibitions with the Arts Council’s ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibition series to identify potential duplications. Chapter Five, ‘Sculpture for the State’, considers three diverse conduits facilitating the acquisition of sculpture for the state: The Chantrey Collection administered by the Royal Academy and exhibited at the Gallery; the commissioning of Charles Wheeler’s Earth and Water (1951–1953) for the new Ministry of Defence, London; and the selection of Siegfried Charoux’s (1959) for ’s ‘Patronage of the Arts Scheme’. For these , complex expressions of ‘Britishness’ are considered. In summary this thesis argues that unfettered by their allegiance to the Royal Academy of Arts its sculptors sought ways in which they might participate in the unprecedented opportunities that an expanded model of state patronage presented. Preface Page 8

Preface

The inspiration for this thesis began with the illustrated catalogue for the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ at in 1948 which presented an unequivocal contrast between traditional and modern sculptures. This exhibition inspired the subject of my Master’s thesis Humanising the Landscape: The outdoor placement of twentieth-century sculpture and its aesthetic impact upon the viewer (2014). Subsequently, as a volunteer at the Foundation, I began to reflect further upon how the nascent Arts Council and the post-war British Council privileged the work of modern artists including Henry Moore and the New Aspects sculptors; this prompted my curiosity about those who were seemingly excluded. My ideas began to coalesce around the possibility of whether there was an alternative scholarly narrative to the established discourse on post-war state patronage, and if so, who were the leading protagonists and how might they have accessed new opportunities for state patronage. Therefore, when analysing the institutions and sculptors who were apparently marginalised, I began to explore how the Royal Academy and its sculptors, had responded to the modernising influence of state patronage and its contemporaneous effects upon British sculpture.

Commencing the research for this thesis, I had anticipated that, given the longevity of the Royal Academy, an extensive and robust scholarly corpus of publications would be extant. However, to date there are remarkably few publications in contrast with those narratives which chart the concept, development and history of post-war state patronage. The Royal Academy archive proved to be a bountiful resource although at the beginning of my research it was infrequently accessed for subjects later than 1945. With the celebration of its two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary in 2018, interest in the Royal Academy has grown due to the agency of the incumbent Royal Academy Council who have secured funds and have overseen the completion of a significant programme of building works for new educational facilities, exhibition galleries and social spaces, suggesting the possibilities for a metamorphosis of a ‘new Royal Academy’. The Royal Academy has also recently partnered with the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art which inspired art historians to contribute to a digital resource, The Royal Academy Summer Exhibition: A Chronicle 1769–2018, leading to a surge in academic interest in this institution. To this project I have contributed essays on ’s Spring (1947), Siegfried Charoux’s The Pedestrian (1951) and Maurice Lambert’s Dame de Arias (1956). My research has also led to the presentation of conference papers for the Paul Mellon Centre and the Henry Moore Institute together with a forthcoming article in the Sculpture Journal. The submission of my thesis is therefore timely and is intended to contribute to new thinking about the post-war narrative of the Royal Academy, some of its sculptors and their engagement with the Keynesian model of state patronage.

Preface Page 9

Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed their unreserved support and the generosity of their time to assist my research and in so doing made the experience meaningful, informative and rewarding. They include Academicians, academics, curators, museum staff, members of the PMSA and private collectors. Notably Bill Woodrow RA for his candid insights into the display of sculpture at the Summer Exhibitions and Anthony Gormley RA who generously permitted the Courtauld ‘Sculpture Processes Group’, including myself, to view a scale model for his 2019 exhibition at the Royal Academy. Special thanks are due to the staff of the Royal Academy and in particular to the Archivist, Mark Pomeroy, without whose assistance this thesis would lack the depth and quality of research that I was able to undertake, also to MaryAnne Stevens for her inspirational comments. Additionally, thanks are due to Jennifer Camilleri; Karine Sarant-Hawkins; Tania Moore; Andrew Potter; Miranda Stead; Helen Valentine and Waterton;

members of the Henry Moore Institute especially Clare Mayoh, Rebecca Wade and Jon Wood and members of the Henry Moore Foundation particularly Emma Stower. The Henry Moore Foundation kindly provided a grant which enabled me to visit the archive of the Henry Moore Institute in to research the papers of Frank Dobson, Alfred Hardiman, , and Charles Wheeler. This significantly enhanced my understanding of each artist’s legacy.

Importantly Gregor-Anatol Bockstefl, Manager of the Langenzersdorf Museum, Austria, has provided significant support both during my visit to the Charoux Collection and throughout our ongoing correspondence and meetings. The research staff of and the are also offered my appreciation.

My thanks are also extended to the staff of the Doctoral College of the University of Loughborough and more widely Joanna Barnes; Neil Bingham; Jonathan Black; Ruth and Mark Beedle; Robert Burstow; Jonathan Cable; Katie Campbell; Paul Capewell; Lisa Cole; Cathy Corbett; Sarah Crellin; Nicola Day; Jessica Feather; Joy Fleischmann; Emma Fleming; Margaret Garlake; Mark Hallett; Jenny Hand; Sarah MacDougall; Ben Read (1945–2016); Philip Ward- Jackson; Alexander Massouras; Anna Meadmore; Dawn Pereira; Jenny Powell; Kirsten Simister; Oliver Teale; Christian Waltl; Karen Waddell and Timothy Wilcox.

Sincere thanks are offered to my supervisors Professor Alison Yarrington and Dr Julia Kelly for their guidance, support and good humour which made the researching and writing of the thesis so thoroughly enjoyable.

Colin, Maria, Sylvia, Clare, Isabella, Melissa, Nicholas, Natasha and Nathan have inspired my commitment and my deepest thanks are offered to my husband Martin for his patience, kindness and unfailing encouragement. Abbreviations Page 10

Abbreviations

The following are the abbreviations used throughout this thesis to denote the referenced archives, councils, corporations, institutions, societies, organisations:

ACGB Arts Council of Great Britain AIA Artists’ International Association ARA Associate of the Royal Academy of Arts (‘Associate’) ARBS Associate of the Royal Society of British Sculptors BBC British Broadcasting Corporation BLSA British Library Sound Archive, London CAS Contemporary Art Society CEMA Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts CH The Order of the Companions of Honour CoID Council for Industrial Design DAH Directory of Art Historians DSO Distinguished Service Order FoB FRBS Fellow of the Royal Society of British Sculptors FRIBA Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects HMF Henry Moore Foundation HMI Henry Moore Institute ICA Institute of Contemporary Arts ICAA Institute of Contemporary Arts Archive (at TGA) IG Independent Group IWM KCB Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath KCVO Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (Sir) LCC London County Council LEMU Langenzersdorf Museum, , Austria LMA London Metropolitan Archive MoI Ministry of Information MoMA , New York. NA Public Records Office, National Archives, Kew, London NEAC New Club OBE Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography PMC Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Arts PRA President of the Royal Academy of Arts PPRA Past President of the Royal Academy of Art PRBS President of the Royal Society of British Sculptors RA Member of the Royal Academy of Arts (‘Academician’) RAA Royal Academy of Arts RAA Annual Report. Annual Report from the Council of the Royal Academy to the General Assembly of Academicians and Associates. RAA Council Minutes Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Royal Academy of Arts RAA GA Minutes Minutes of the Meeting of the General Assembly of the Royal Academy of Arts RBS Royal Society of British Sculptors RCA Royal College of Arts RFAC Royal Fine Arts Commission RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects RSA Royal Society of Arts RSBPS Royal Society of British Portrait Sculptors SRA Senior Member of the Royal Academy of Arts (‘Senior Academician’) TGA Tate Gallery Archive, Hyman Kreitman Research Centre, London UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization VAM Victoria and Albert Museum VB Venice Biennale WAAC War Artists Advisory Committee Table of Contents Page 11

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 13

Chapter One ...... 31

The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage ...... 31

The ‘Heritage of Culture’ ...... 31

The Royal Academy of Arts ...... 40

The Arts Council ...... 47

Twentieth-Century Sculpture’s Reformation ...... 54

Chapter Two ...... 66

The Royal Academy Sculpture School ...... 66

Politics and Purpose ...... 67

A Conventional Curriculum ...... 74

Masters ...... 78

Women Students ...... 89

Material Changes...... 98

Chapter Three ...... 106

The Royal Academy As Community ...... 106

An Artistic Community ...... 107

Nominations and Elections ...... 114

Diploma Works ...... 122

A Petition for Change ...... 129

Chapter Four ...... 139

The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions ...... 139

Burlington House ...... 141

Selection and Hanging Committees ...... 146

Exhibits ...... 152

Critical Reception ...... 161

Annual Dinner ...... 163

Table of Contents Page 12

Chapter Five ...... 171

Sculpture for the State ...... 171

The Chantrey Collection ...... 173

Charles Wheeler’s Earth and Water (1950–53) ...... 187

Siegfried Charoux’s The Neighbours (1959) ...... 194

Epilogue ...... 207

Appendices ...... 212

Appendix 1.1 Summary Biographies ...... 212

Appendix 2.1 Prix de Rome Winners 1950–1958 ...... 216

Appendix 2.2 Royal Academy of Arts Sculpture Prizes extracts 1948–1959 ...... 217

Appendix 3.1 Nominations of Associateship ...... 218

Appendix 4.1 Summer Exhibition Submissions, 1948―1959 ...... 220

Appendix 4.2 Attendance for selected exhibitions, 1948–1959 ...... 222

Appendix 5.1. Chantrey Acquisitions: Sculpture and selected , 1947–1959 ..... 224

Bibliography ...... 226

List of Images ...... 279

Introduction Page 13

Introduction

Where there is an avant-garde, generally we also find a rear-guard.2 Clement Greenberg (1939)

Happily the English ... have no sense with logic; so the Academy may well accept the theory that salvation lies in welcoming the magic horse of without for a moment intending to open the gates of the citadel. 3 Perspex (1951)

During the Second World War and its austerity aftermath, artists, whatever their medium, were compelled to explore every available opportunity for the commission, exhibition and acquisition of their works. This financial necessity applied to both Academicians and non-Academicians alike and similarly to the diaspora of émigré artists who were keen to re-establish their reputations and professional practice in a new homeland. Sculptors in particular were challenged not only by the cost of scarce materials but, more significantly, by the demise of patronage for the genres of sculpture that had been popular during the 1920s and 1930s. These had included: commissions from monarchs; state funded memorials especially for the Great War; architectural and ecclesiastical ornamentation; and the private commissioning of portrait busts for aristocrats, civic, military and political dignitaries; many such works had been completed by the sculptors of the Royal Academy.

Academicians were also acclaimed household names as British representatives at international events including the Prix de Rome competitions, Venice Biennales and World Trade Fairs.4 Most notably: ; Frank Dobson; Maurice Lambert; Gilbert Ledward; John Skeaping and Charles Wheeler were all popular because of their cautiously modernist persuasion,5 see Appendix 1.1. Summary

2 Greenberg, Clement. "Avant-garde and Kitsch (1939)" http://sites.uci.edu/form/files/2015/01/Greenberg-Clement-Avant-garde-and-Kitsch- copy.pdf, accessed 24 May 2018.

3 Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: Youth Must Be Served." Apollo LIII, February 1951, 31.

4 RAA/KEE/13/12. Announcement of the RAA Schools’ re-opening included as ‘Statement of Publication’ in a letter of 13 December 1946 from Sir Walter Lamb KCVO to R. G. Barrington-Ward, Esq. DSO.

5 Frank Dobson (together with the work of the late Henri Gaudier-Brezska) represented the country at the Venice Biennale in 1924 and again in 1926. Introduction Page 14

Biographies. However Dobson was disappointed when, having prepared his sculpture for shipping, declared for Germany in the Second World War thus frustrating the opportunity to exhibit at the Venice Biennale (1940).6 After the war the invitation was not extended again to Dobson because the prevailing aesthetic had altered.7 However, by the end of the war, some of these more liberally minded Royal Academy sculptors recognised the artistic interest that cultural, political and social disruption offered. Their post-war challenge was to remain relevant when a revisionist côterie of artists came to prominence as ‘outsiders’ assertively promoted by a new ideology for state patronage.8

State art institutions were beginning to be identified with the personalities and values of those who were responsible for their ethos, policies, decision making and — importantly — for actions taken, which brought those institutions to public attention. Thus, when twentieth-century state patronage was dramatised by the agency of a small number of intellectual, committed and influential people, the construct and authority of state patronage accelerated. Preziosi (2002) observes of such transitions that ‘a time when time itself didn’t seem to pass could itself pass — and that in its passing, not only would a particular time (an epoch) have passed, but time itself was at stake, passing

Jason, Neville. The Sculpture of Frank Dobson. Aldershot: The Henry Moore Foundation, in association with Lund Humphries, 1994. 59 and 70. Maurice Lambert also furnished cruise ships including the RMS Queen Mary (1936) and a for the New York World Fair (1939) however the equestrian statue of (1939–1948) commissioned for was not cast until 1948 due to the war. Nicolson, Vanessa. The Sculpture of Maurice Lambert. Aldershot: The Henry Moore Foundation in association with Lund Humphries, 2002. 72–74. Gilbert Ledward, famed for his Great War Memorials was Professor of Sculpture for the (1926-9). Moriarty, Catherine. The Sculpture of Gilbert Ledward. Farnham: Lund Humphries Publishers Ltd, 2003. 58. John Skeaping was arguably as well known for being a sculptor as for being ’s first husband. Blackwood, Jonathan. The Sculpture of John Skeaping. Aldershot: The Henry Moore Foundation, in association with Lund Humphries, 2011. Charles Wheeler was perhaps best known for his work on the Bank of (1928–1931). Crellin, Sarah. The Sculpture of Charles Wheeler. Farnham: Lund Humphries in association with the Henry Moore Foundation, 2012. 36–47.

6 Alternatively British entries to the Venice Biennale Works for 1940 were shown at Hertford House (the ). British Council. "Venice Biennale 1940s." https://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/history/1940s, accessed 25 October 2015.

7 Op. cit., Jason, Neville. 1994, 93.

8 RAA Council Minutes, 18 April 1881, 127. The term ‘outsiders’ was noted for the first time in the Council Minutes when ‘it was resolved on the outsiders varnishing day admission should be given at 9 a.m.’.

Introduction Page 15 away’ (original emphasis).9 Evocatively then as an apt description of this new age of patronage, John Rothenstein (1962) described as a ‘jungle’, ‘those places where the arts are made, evaluated and sold’.10

This thesis examines the unprecedented challenges that arose for the Royal Academy as a consequence of post-war Government interventions in the art world which had the effect of destabilising the pre-eminence of the Royal Academy with unintended though exacting consequences for its elected sculptors.

My principal aim is to appraise the post-war agency of the sculptors of the Royal Academy. The reason for my choice of period, c.1948 to 1959, is specifically to reconsider the established scholarly focus on post-war state patronage and . Events organised nationally by the Arts Council afforded opportunities for the exhibition of sculpture in publicly-funded national collections such as the Tate Gallery, at pioneering open air exhibitions and at promotional events intended to increase the purchasing of sculpture for domestic placement. Simultaneously the British Council commanded the international platform for the resumed Venice Biennales from 1948 onwards. However, the agency and exhibition practice of the Royal Academy sculptors during this period has been neglected.

My selected Academicians were chosen because they were active in the pre- and post- war decades and specifically because post-war they were elected as members of the Council of the Royal Academy and therefore in a position to influence its governance, decision making and aesthetic evolution, whilst also curating the Summer Exhibitions as members of the Selection and Hanging Committees. They include: Siegfried Charoux; Dobson; Lambert; Ledward; Skeaping and Wheeler; other less active Royal Academy sculptors are discussed where appropriate. Charoux, in particular, extends the commentary upon the arrival of émigrés in Britain (Garlake 2004; MacDougall, 2010) to further explore the significance of the Royal Academy as an important constituent in the re-establishment of émigrés’ professional practice. Additionally the professional welcome that the Royal Academy extended to émigrés, particularly to European sculptors, and the émigrés’ influence upon the organic growth of the Royal Academy’s membership is also considered. The fact that, unlike the Royal Academy’s painters, the post-war work of Royal Academy sculptors lacked the suggestion of

9 Preziosi, Donald. "Hearing the Unsaid: Art History, Museology, and the Composition of the Self." In Art History and Its Institutions, edited by Elizabeth Mansfield, 28-45. London: Routledge, 2002, 29.

10 Rothenstein, John. British Art since 1900. London: Phaidon Press Ltd, 1962, 1.

Introduction Page 16

‘consensus’ was an important facet of the Royal Academy’s progress.11 Notwithstanding these important considerations, the extent to which Royal Academy sculptors may have explored a broader definition of ‘state’ patronage in pursuit of their livelihoods has been rigorously examined. Therefore in seeking to address these lacunae this thesis examines the agency of these selected sculptors of the Royal Academy at a time when nationally the Arts Council and internationally the British Council were perceived as dominating the sculpture landscape.

My chosen methodology has been the exploration of selected art-historical archives for the purpose of discovering a broad range of germane archival materials, specifically those held by: the Arts Council Archive and the Festival of Britain Archives held at the National Archive; the Henry Moore Foundation Archive; the Henry Moore Institute Archive and Library; the Langenzersdorf Museum, Vienna, Austria; the London Metropolitan Archive; the Munnings Museum Archive; the Royal Academy of Arts Archive; the Tate Gallery Archive (including the Institute of Contemporary Art papers) and the Victorian and Albert Museum Archive (for the ACGB’s early documentation). The results yielded a considerable number of documents, many previously unreferenced. However it was not always possible to cross reference nor corroborate findings due to omissions in the records and a lack of consistency in the recording of contemporaneous minutes, for example the diverse reading of the same events documented by both the Royal Academy’s Council and the Tate’s Board of Trustees, each arguably recorded to their own advantage.

With regard to research process, my early career experience of working with corporate teams responsible for the ‘due diligence’12 of potential corporate mergers and acquisitions informed my approach to data gathering. Applying a structured process by which I reviewed the Royal Academy and its state ‘competitors’ — other art schools, artists’ networks and organisers of temporary exhibitions in the late 1940s and 1950s — I systematically evaluated: funding provisions; legal entities; governance protocols and decision making structures; annual reports; minutes of meetings; files for significant individuals and a range of documents from which knowledge of social networks, professional relationships and even friendships may be established such as

11 Brighton, Andrew. "Consensus and the Royal Academy since 1945." Studio International, November 188, no. 971 (1974): 174-76.

12 Due Diligence pertains to the process of comprehensive appraisal whereby a potential authority or prospective buyer will be granted access to an organisation’s most significant and confidential information concerning: legal structure, hierarchy, commercial prospects, financial data, personal files for key individuals, tangible and intangible assets and liabilities.

Introduction Page 17 nominations for election; personal correspondence and the Royal Academy’s Annual Dinners folios. Ultimately scrutiny of the exhibition catalogues for events held by the Arts Council, the ICA, the Royal Academy, the Tate Gallery, the Gallery and other smaller venues provided the opportunity to assess the diversity of sculpture, sculptors and their exhibition practice. Consequently the rigour with which the records were appraised revealed a wealth of anticipated as well as unexpected research findings. My experience as a volunteer for the HMF archive (2015–2016) provided a detailed understanding of the materials held; these relate not only to Henry Moore13 but to many of the contemporary sculptors and art executives with whom Moore was in contact.

Importantly the Langenzersdorf Museum Archive, Vienna, Austria, as the custodian of Charoux’s paintings, sculptures and papers, had not previously undergone detailed scholarly research from a British perspective; I concluded that the reason for this was two-fold, the first being the relative absence of Charoux in the British art-historical memory, the second that the majority of his papers, predominantly in the German language, require translation into English for a broader academic appreciation.

The British Library Artists’ Lives recordings re-vivified the vibrant, insightful and frequently poignant commentary of individuals whose lived experiences are addressed within my thesis. I have referred to the House of Commons transcribed debates in order to verify the widespread political and cultural questions of the period. In this regard I have endeavoured to synthesise a scholarly yet imaginative source of research materials. Notwithstanding the breadth of research, my primary focus was to review all available relevant materials in the Royal Academy Archive. I have also endeavoured to engage with existing Academicians, archivists, art historians and curators to gain a deeper, undocumented, perspective on personalities, artworks and events.

To clarify the use of terminology in my thesis, generically I have used the term Academicians for all those who are members of the Royal Academy, unless otherwise specified as Academicians (RAs), and separately, Associates (ARAs). I have used the word ‘executive/s’ to identify those art professionals who were responsible for the selection and display of works for the Arts Council, British Council and Tate Gallery, where previously the term ‘administrator/s’ has been the art-historical norm. My reason for so doing is that the term ‘administrator/s’ does not represent the degree of authority that had actually been bestowed upon these Government-appointed officers.

13 Henry Moore (1898-1986).

Introduction Page 18

For clarity, I have acknowledged the significant degree to which the LCC relied upon the Arts Council for guidance and selection, for example at the Open Air Exhibition series and the Arts Patronage Scheme (1956–1965). As civil servants who were not art specialists the LCC formally engaged the Arts Council’s professional services; a dependency which in my view nullified the LCC as a genuinely separate entity of state patronage.14 I have continued to use the denominations BC and AD, rather than the contemporary BCE or CE where original documentation and exhibition titles apply. Concerning the presentation of my thesis, to aid the fluidity of reading, summary biographical details for key personalities have been included in the Appendix 1.1. as Summary Biographies, whilst biographical dates have been included in the footnotes for all other individuals. In my application of the term ‘Britishness’ I refer to Crinson’s (2004) discourse on ‘national projection’15 together with Vaughan’s (1990) observation that ‘there is a cultural unity whose essence is English, but which can be seen to spread throughout the different communities that form this country [Britain]’.16 The terms ‘English’ and ‘England’ will be used where necessity requires differentiation from British and Britain. For consistency I continue Burstow’s (2000) and Powell’s (2008) convention of identifying as ‘British’ sculptors living in the UK or sculptures made in the UK, regardless of place of birth or citizenship. The term émigré is applied where it is necessary to emphasise geographic origins.

The centuries old existence of the Royal Academy might suggest a robust scholarly corpus of publications17 on its history; however, remarkably few accounts have been written. Those of relevance include Coningham’s (1850) An Inquiry into the Establishment of the Royal Academy: A Letter to the Earl of Bute from Robert Strange

14 LCC/CL/HSG/1/99. Memorandum Members only information HS 724. from LCC Clerk, W. O. Hart.

15 Crinson, Mark. "Architecture and 'National Projection' between the Wars." In Cultural Identities and the Aesthetics of Britishness, edited by Dana Arnold, 182-99. : Manchester University Press, 2004, 182. Also see Miller, Roland. "International Art and National Identity." CIRCA 18 (1984): 20-24.

16 Vaughan, William. "The Englishness of British Art." Oxford Art Journal 13, no. 2 (1990): 11-23.

17 Rather than a narrative history of the Royal Academy, Joshua Reynolds’s Discourses on Art (1769–1791) were intended to inspire his fellow Academicians and Royal Academy pupils to greater technical accomplishment and grandeur by offering art criticism pertinent to the eighteenth century. In effect these lectures became the Royal Academy’s artistic truths and were conscientiously applied until the mid twentieth century. Reynolds, Joshua. "Discourses on Art." accessed 25 March 2016, https://archive.org/stream/sirjoshuareynold00reynuoft/sirjoshuareynold00reynuoft_djvu .txt, accessed 25 March 2016.

Introduction Page 19

177518 and Laidlay (1898) The Royal Academy. Its Uses and Abuses.19 These titles were suggestive of the controversy with which the creation of the Royal Academy had been received. In the twentieth century prior to the Second World War four pertinent publications were: Leslie (1914) The Inner Life of the Royal Academy: With an Account of Its Schools and Exhibitions Principally in the Reign of ; Wake-Cook (1924) Retrogression in Art and the Suicide of the Royal Academy; Lamb (1935) The Royal Academy: a short history of its foundation and development to the present day and Lamb (1938) ‘What The Royal Academy Stands For’ in Lambert’s (1938) Art In England.20 However it was not until Hutchinson’s post-war publication The History of the Royal Academy 1768-1968 in 1968, which marked the Royal Academy’s two- hundredth anniversary, that a comprehensive narrative was written; this chronicle confirmed Hutchinson’s status as ‘de facto’ Royal Academy historian.21 In the same year Wraight’s (1968) similarly celebratory though less reverent Hip!Hip!Hip!RA was published.22 Stevens’s (1988) ‘A Quiet Revolution’ in The Royal Academy 1900-1950 questions whether the Royal Academy might have been a more liberal community than may have been assumed.23 Thereafter followed a hiatus until, in the twenty-first century, scholarly interest in the Royal Academy was revived. Fenton’s (2006) School of Genius A History of the Royal Academy of Arts compliments Leslie’s (1914) publication.24 More recently Savage (2011), Saumarez-Smith (2012) and Monks (2013)

18 Coningham, William. An Inquiry into the Establishment of the Royal Academy: A Letter to the Earl of Bute from Robert Strange 1775. London: John Oliver, 1850.

19 Laidlay, W. J. The Royal Academy. Its Uses and Abuses. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co., 1898.

20 Leslie, George Dunlop. The Inner Life of the Royal Academy: With an Account of Its Schools and Exhibitions Principally in the Reign of Queen Victoria. London: John Murray, 1914. Op. cit., Wake-Cook, Ebenezer. 1924. Also see Lamb, Walter R. M. The Royal Academy: A Short History of Its Foundation and Development to the Present Day. London: Alexander Maclehose and Co., 1935. Op. cit., Lamb, Walter R. M. 1938, 47-54. Sir Walter Rangeley Maitland Lamb (1882-1961) was Secretary of the Royal Academy for thirty four years from 1913 until his retirement in 1951.

21 Op cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968. Hutchinson’s publication was commissioned by the RAA and therefore arguably provides a sanitised reading of events. Hutchinson held various RAA roles and became the Librarian in 1949 and then Secretary, retiring in 1982 after a total of fifty two years service. DAH. "Sidney Charles Hutchinson." https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/hutchisons.htm, accessed 26 November 2017.

22 Wraight, R. Hip!Hip!Hip!RA. London: Leslie Frewin Publishers Ltd., 1968.

23 MaryAnne Stevens, art historian, curator and Secretary of the RAA retired in 2013. Stevens, MaryAnne. "A Quiet Revolution." In The Royal Academy 1900-1950, 15-21. London: The Royal Academy of Arts, 1988.

24 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006.

Introduction Page 20 addressed the Royal Academy’s artistic community and aspects of their exhibition practice.25 Contemporaneously Simon and Stevens (2018) published The Royal Academy of Arts History and Collections.26

With regard to the sculptors’ histories, plausibly Jacob Epstein’s (1940) autobiography Let There Be Sculpture was the first publication through which a sculptor articulated his or her own meaning without an interlocutor such as Read’s (1934) Henry Moore Sculptor.27 Thereafter British sculptors’ own voices became prevalent, particularly Moore, to a lesser extent Barbara Hepworth and Wheeler, followed by and Anthony Caro. In writing Affirmative action: British Sculptors and Sculpture, Compton (2013) addressed the significance of the monograph in the context of ‘how an artist was seen to be positioned’ [original emphasis] to be portrayed as either ‘inside the Royal Academy or in opposition to it’.28 Individual monographs of sculptors have therefore provided a wealth of critical information that has helped to enhance the textual quality of my thesis, specifically the British Sculptors and Sculpture series published by the Henry Moore Foundation in association with Lund Humphries, including The Sculptures of: Jason (1994) on Dobson; Nicolson (2002) on Lambert; Moriarty (2003) on Ledward; Blackwood (2011) on Skeaping and Crellin (2012) on Wheeler.29 Compton (2012) also called attention to the importance of the University of

25 Savage, Nicholas. "Exhibitions and Academies: The Royal Academy of Arts." In Palaces of Art: Art Galleries in Britain 1790-1990, 121-34. London: , 2011. Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012. Monks, Sarah. "Introduction: Life Study ". In Living with the Royal Academy: Artistic Ideals and Experiences, 1768-1848, edited by Sarah Monks, John Barrell and Mark Hallett, 1-23. London: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.

26 Simon, Robin, and Stevens Mary Anne. The Royal Academy of Arts History and Collections. London: In association with the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art and the Royal Academy of Arts, 2018.

27 Epstein, Jacob. Let There Be Sculpture. 2000 ed. : Lightning Source, Hesperides Press, 1940. Also see Read, Herbert. Henry Moore: Sculptor. London: Zwemmer, 1934. Also see Wade, Rebecca. "‘Learning from Moore between the Wars: Henry Moore as a Teacher at the Royal College of Art and Chelsea School of Art 1924–39’, in Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity, Tate Research Publication." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/henry-moore/rebecca-wade-learning- from-moore-between-the-wars-henry-moore-as-a-teacher-at-the-royal-r1151310, accessed 25 November 2017. Wade (2015) noted Moore’s statement ‘It is a mistake for a sculptor to speak or write very often about this job. It releases tensions needed for his work’ which contradicted his later plethora of interviews, articles and books.

28 Compton, Ann. "Affirmative Action: British Sculptors and Sculpture and the Monographic Form in Twentieth-Century Sculpture Studies." The Sculpture Journal 22, no. 2 (2013): 77-88.

29 Op. cit., Jason, Neville. 1994. Op. cit., Nicolson, Vanessa. 2002. Op. cit., Moriarty, Catherine. 2003. Introduction Page 21

Glasgow’s internet project: ‘Mapping the Profession and Practice of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland, 1851–1951’ which has provided information that I was unable to address through hard copy publications.30 The literature review has traditionally referenced written histories documented in printed publications, however, due to the advances made in the digitisation of research materials, for example the Tate Research Publications, the scope of the literature includes significant use of internet publications as indexed in my Bibliography. The autobiographies of sculptors such as , Machin, Skeaping and others have also contextualised the narrative.31 Notable absences from this list however remain the neglected women sculptors of the age, as exemplars: Josefina Alys de Vasconcellos; Rita Ling; Winifred Turner and Muriel Wheeler.32 Additionally, the autobiographies and biographies of past Presidents of the Royal Academy, Gerald Kelly, Alfred Munnings, Albert Richardson and Wheeler have proved essential.33 Studies of other notable establishment figures for example ’s (1977) autobiography and more recently Stourton’s (2016) biography of Clark, together with John Rothenstein’s two autobiographies (1965 and 1966) described events of the period — if not altogether comprehensively — pertaining to exchanges with the Royal Academy.34

At the end of the Second World War as the Royal Academy prepared to resume its accustomed course, the Academicians had not anticipated the political and cultural

Op. cit., Blackwood, Jonathan. 2011. Op. cit., Crellin, Sarah. 2012.

30 Glasgow, University of. "Mapping the Profession and Practice of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851–1951." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/, accessed 9 September 2015.

31 Frink, Elisabeth. The Art of Elisabeth Frink. London: Lund Humphries, 1972. Machin, Arnold. Machin Artist of an Icon. 2010 ed. Norfolk: Frontier Publishing, 2002. Skeaping, John Rattenbury. Drawn from Life. London: Collins, 1977.

32 Josefina Alys Hermes de Vasconcellos (1904–2005). Her name was occasionally spelt Josephine and she was also known as Mrs Delmar Banner. Rita Ling (1922–unknown). Winifred Turner (1903–1983). Muriel Wheeler (1888–1979).

33 Hudson, D. For Love of Painting: The Life of Sir Gerald Kelly. London: Geoffrey Bles Ltd., 1975. Of Munnings’s trilogy, the most relevant is: Munnings, Alfred J. The Finish. London: Museum Press Ltd., 1952. Houfe, S. Sir Albert Richardson: The Professor. Luton: White Crescent Press, 1980. Wheeler, Charles. High Relief: The Autobiography of Sir Charles Wheeler Sculptor. Feltenham: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., 1968.

34 Clark, Kenneth. The Other Half: A Self Portrait. London: John Murray Ltd., 1977. Stourton, James. Kenneth Clark: Life, Art and Civilisation. London: William Collins, 2016. Rothenstein, John. Summer Lease. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1965. Rothenstein, John. Brave Day Hideous Night. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1966.

Introduction Page 22 fault lines that the war had driven between artists, the London-based art institutions and art critics. The art critics, initial post-war scripts of dissent were to dismiss the Royal Academy’s authoritative influence when emboldened by the political shift to the Left in 1945.35 Thus the cultural verve of Chesterton’s (1950) ‘common man’ may have been awakened by ‘the black coffee of criticism’.36 Amongst the most notable British art critics of that period were: ; ; Stephen Bone; Wyndham Lewis; Herbert Read and David Sylvester37 in particular Sylvester and Read, both of whose defence of modernism and Read’s ‘anarchist politics’ — despite accepting a knighthood in 1952 — were publicly critical of the Royal Academy.38 Of these Mellor (1993) discounts Read and held Sylvester to be ‘the single most important critic involved in this new sensibility’.39 Moreover, Lewis (1954) described the Royal Academy as ‘trying to be a little vapidly go-ahead’.40 Importantly, these art critics promoted the fashionable rise of modern sculpture which subsequently became associated with expressions of national identity — especially the work of Moore and Hepworth — then later, Read’s (1952) constructed collective identity of the New Aspects sculptors.41

35 Indeed Wake-Cook had confessed to his ‘dread of antagonising either the critics or the Academicians’, suggesting that members of the Royal Academy could be equally scathing. Op. cit., Wake-Cook, Ebenezer. 1924, xii.

36 Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. The Common Man. London: Sheed and Ward, 1950, 12.

37 As influential voices in the rapidly changing art establishment: Lawrence Alloway (1926–1990); Stephen Bone (1904–1958); Herbert Read (1893–1968) and David Sylvester (1924–2001).

38 Honeywell, Carissa. A British Anarchist Tradition: Herbert Read, Alex Comfort and Colin Ward. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011, 31.

39 Mellor, D. "Existentialism and Post-War British Art." In Post War: Art and Existentialism 1945-55, edited by F Morris, 53-62. London: Tate Gallery, 1993, 54.

40 Wyndham Lewis (1882–1957). Lewis, Wyndham. The Demon Progress in the Arts. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1954, 22–23. The Royal Academy had rejected Lewis’s portrait of T.S. Eliot (1938); a matter over which (1878–1961) resigned his membership.

41 Barbara Hepworth (1903–1975). The eight New Aspects sculptors, also named by Read as the ‘’ sculptors, who were at the time all under the age of forty included: Robert Adams (1917–1984), (1916–2002), (1913–1981), Lynn Chadwick (1914–2003), (1924–2014), (1915–2005), (1924– 2005), William Turnbull (1922–2012). Read, Herbert. "New Aspects of British Sculpture, in British Council." In The XXVI Venice Biennale: The British Pavilion. London: Press, 1952, introduction: ‘These new images belong to the iconography of , or of defiance; and the more innocent the artist, the more effectively he transmits the collective guilt. Here are images of flight, or ragged claws ‘scuttling across the floors of silent seas’, of excoriated flesh, frustrated sex, the geometry of fear.’

Introduction Page 23

Press coverage of national and international events including the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ series (1948; 1950; 1954; 1957; 1963; 1966), the Festival of Britain (1951), the competition for the Unknown Political Prisoner (1953) and the Venice Biennales (especially those of 1948, 1952 and 1956) together with some radio and television broadcasts and art documentaries in the 1950s, contributed to a perception that there was nothing and no one of interest at the Royal Academy. Consequently, the art- historical narrative has continued to overlook the Royal Academy and the Academicians except for the predictable and inescapable recounting of Munnings’s speech at the Royal Academy’s Annual Dinner of 194942 and Pietro Annigoni’s crowd- pleasing iconic portrait of Her Majesty The Queen (1955).43

Art periodicals of the era including Apollo, the Burlington Magazine edited by Read (until he founded the ICA) and Cyril Connolly’s Horizon ‘a magazine of today for the men and women of tomorrow’,44 The Studio45 — later Studio International — which offered an insightful representation of many of the less well known sculptors including, for example, Ling, have also been referenced, together with political and cultural journals namely The New Statesman and Nation (Berger and Read) and The Listener (Sylvester). An illustrated social photo-journalism of the period, Picture Post, has also been reviewed.

In questioning the temporality of art history Williams (2002) reminds us that Read and others were writing ‘when there was a wider effort to rehabilitate sculpture as an intellectual and artistically respectable practice’.46 To these names the later twentieth- century British cadre of: Banham and Hillier (1976); Farr (1981); Hewison (1981); Read and Skipworth (1986); Cork (1985, 1987); Bowness (1991); Causey (1998); Garlake (1998); Conekin (1998 and 1999); Curtis (1999) and Taylor (1999) should also be added, see Bibliography. These art historians published towards the end of the

42 For a transcript of Munnings’s speech see op. cit., Munnings, Alfred James. 1952, 145–147.

43 Pietro Annigoni (1910–1988). RA Illustrated (1955), listing number 227, 23. Her Majesty The Queen (1955).

44 Connolly, Cyril. "Horizon." Horizon 16, no. 12 (December 1950): 94. Horizon ceased publication in December 1950 because ‘in spite of the serious condition of the war we have been able, with God’s help to produce Horizon ... we have to announce with very great regret that this issue must be the last, at least until more favourable conditions return’.

45 The Studio’s subtitle until 1960 was ‘the leading art magazine’ which it ceased to use in February 1960. The magazine was rebranded as Studio: International Art in January 1962 and was renamed Studio International from June 1964 onwards.

46 Williams, Richard J. "Sculpture's Anxieties." The Sculpture Journal 8 (2002): 4-11.

Introduction Page 24 twentieth century; however in some cases the subsequent release of new materials from papers recently made accessible has provided the opportunity to supplement, enhance and in some cases revise earlier research. Additionally, although Taylor (1999) details the eighteenth-century institutional history of the Royal Academy, in Art for the nation he excludes a robust discourse on the Royal Academy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: therefore Taylor’s work does not fully address the evolution of state patronage.47 Further twenty-first century publications such as those by: Burstow (2000); Fyfe (2000); Gray (2000); Mansfield (2002); Stephens (2002); Forster, Krauss et al (2004); Little (2006); Pereira, (2008); Powell (2008); Atkinson (2012); Tickner and Corbett (2012); Davies and Sinfield (2013); Massey (2014) and Greenberg, Llewellyn and Williamson (2015) continued to overlook the Royal Academy. Consequently three prevailing art-historical themes emerged: the post-war political democratisation of the ‘common man’; the conception and creation of the Arts Council as the dominant model for official state patronage; and the subsequent employment of avant-garde sculpture as international propaganda. Nonetheless, detailed scrutiny of the established art-historical narrative stimulated the basis of my premise that the sculptors of the Royal Academy may have been more engaged than had previously been acknowledged. Accordingly a judicious re-reading of seminal texts which lauded twentieth-century state patronage through the agency of the Arts Council and its preferred sculptors, prompted my inquiry: ‘were the sculptors of the Royal Academy of Arts marginalised by the post-war expansion of state patronage?’.

Extensive reference has also been made to the exhibition catalogues for the Arts Council, the RAA, the Tate Gallery (now Tate Britain) and the for the period c.1948–1959 because they provide an invaluable inventory of the sculptors whose works were exhibited. The comparison of these exhibition catalogues facilitated the cross-referencing of exhibition practice and in some cases the pricing of the work of selected individuals, revealing some unexpected conclusions. These exhibition catalogues also documented the significant sculptural events of the period and are an instrument by which it may be navigated, not only chronologically but also by means of the curated lists of exhibits progressively shifting from Old Masters48 intended for stately homes towards more modest domestic pieces offering a sense of British

47 Taylor, Brandon. Art for the Nation: Exhibitions and the London Public, 1747-2001. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999, 21–28.

48 . "Old Masters." https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/glossary/old-master, accessed 22 May 2018. ‘Old Masters a term widely applied to painters and their work which comes from the period between the thirteenth century and the eighteenth century.’

Introduction Page 25 modernism. Many of these events took place in the dynamic period 1946 to 1959 and included: the first ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibition series (1946–1958); ‘Forty Years of Modern Art’ (1948); the ‘Open-air Exhibition of Sculpture’ series; ‘Forty Thousand Years of Modern Art’ (1948–1949); the Venice Biennales (1948, 1952 and 1956); the ‘Unknown Political Prisoner’ exhibition (1953) and the ‘New Look’ RAA Summer Exhibition (1958). Surprisingly, as a review of the Arts Council’s exhibition catalogues of the late 1940s and 1950s evidences, their painting exhibitions demonstrated remarkably conventional offerings with a significant bias towards the traditional, for example, Sir Joshua Reynolds (1949) — the Royal Academy’s first President and perhaps still its ‘patron saint’, (1951) and Renoir (1953) together with the controversial works of Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud with the ‘absurd human’ and Graham Sutherland’s (1953) abstraction prevailed.49

The Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition Catalogues record a remarkably broad church of sculptors, many amateurs — including women — whose identities and works have been lost over time, together with the works of Academicians and those soon to be elected. The RA Illustrated offered invaluable images for sculptures which have been misplaced or destroyed; however a wartime paper shortage prohibited this publication from 1940 to 1947 therefore, unfortunately, a gap exists in the visual recording of some of the exhibited artefacts of this period.50 Considered as an ensemble, the exhibition catalogues of all of the London art institutions that I reviewed facilitated a comprehensive survey of the sculptural practice of post-war artists and established the events through which the sculptures of the Academicians were widely distributed. For this reason I consider that the exhibition catalogues form a critical corpus of published materials that are pertinent to my thesis.

In structuring a relevant scholarly framework for my research the work of Janet Minihan (1977); Nicholas Pearson (1982); Inyang Ebong (1986)51; Margaret Garlake

49 Francis Bacon (1909–1992); Lucian Freud (1922–2011); Graham Sutherland (1903–1980). Op. cit., Mellor, D. 1993, 57.‘Like Freud, Bacon set out to imprison for observation the absurd human’.

50 The rationing of paper was introduced in 1940. Holborn, Margaret, Emma Golding, Elisabeth Thurlow, and Elli Narewska. "Paper Rationing." https://www.theguardian.com/gnmeducationcentre/paper-rationing-second- world-war-teaching-resource-gnm-archive, accessed 4 December 2017.

51 For the most comprehensive survey of the Festival of Britain see Ebong, Inyang. "The Origins, Organisation and Significance of the Festival of Britain 1951." Unpublished thesis (PhD) University of , 1986. Inyang Ebong went on to apply her knowledge of the Festival as a stimulus for trade and development through her appointment as an Associate Director for the United Nations. Conekin’s publications are better known than Ebong’s (1986) original research. Introduction Page 26

(1998); Robert Burstow (2000); David Solkin (2001); Penelope Curtis (2003); Mark Crinson (2004); Victoria Newhouse (2005); Jennifer Powell (2008) and Dawn Pereira (2008), amongst others, has informed the narrative and debate of generations of sculptors, their publicly exhibited sculptures and concepts of state patronage.52 These scholars enabled me to identify situations in which some of the sculptors of the Royal Academy notionally tethered their profession and practice to the Royal Academy whilst simultaneously, as unfettered professionals, exploiting Arts Council events where and when a duality of approach was potentially beneficial.

The construction of my thesis identifies the fundamental components of the Academicians’ professional practice, pedagogy, community, exhibition practice and the provision of sculpture for the state. This intentionally defines the scope of inquiry and overcomes the compartmentalisation of aesthetics, generations and genres to address complex aspects of the Royal Academy sculptors’ post-war liberalisation. Furthermore the work of a variety of salient theorists pertinent to each section has been identified, around and in context with which my research analysis has been framed.

In Chapter One, ‘The Post-war Expansion of State patronage’, I review concepts of monarchical and state patronage which informed, constrained and overlapped the others’ sphere. Moreover, I consider to what extent their mutual endeavours in supporting post-war sculptors, were influenced by a series of innovative temporary sculpture exhibitions. Pertinently, I explore Pearson’s (1982) The State and the Visual

Also see Conekin, Becky E. The Autobiography of a Nation: The 1951 Festival of Britain, Representing Britain in the Post-War Era. 3rd (2003) ed. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1998. Conekin, Becky., F. Mort, and C. Waters. Moments of Modernity: Reconstructing Britain 1945-64. London: Rivers Oram Press, 1999.

52 Garlake, Margaret. New Art New World: British Art in Postwar Society. New Haven and London: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, Yale University Press, 1998. Burstow, Robert. "Modern Public Sculpture in 'New Britain', 1945-53." Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Leeds., 2000. Pereira, Dawn. "Art for the 'Common Man': The Role of the Artist within the London County Council, 1957-1965." Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of East London., 2008. Powell, Jennifer. "Constructing National Identities through Exhibition Practices in Post- War London: Anglo-French Exchanges and Contemporary Sculpture on Display, C. 1945- 66." Unpublished thesis (PhD) , 2008.

Introduction Page 27

Arts53 together with Minihan’s (1977) The Nationalization of Culture,54 and Crinson’s (2004) ‘Architecture and 'National Projection' between the Wars’.55

Chapter Two, ‘The Royal Academy Sculpture Schools’, assesses the post-war political environment with regard to its consequence for the Royal Academy’s pedagogy and investigates the co-mingling between London-based art educational institutions, their art-Masters and students and offers an assessment of their divergent curricula at a time when the Royal Academy remained committed to fine arts, rather than addressing the growing nationalistic demand for industrial design. Here I refer to James Fenton’s (2006) School of Genius56 and Matthew Potter’s (2013) The Concept of the Master57 which both inform my exploration of the Royal Academy’s use of the term ‘Master’ for those who taught in its Schools and also frames its traditional programme of study, a consequence of which was the students’ participation in the annual Prix de Rome competition. Garlake’s (2008) ‘Materials, methods and modernism’ facilitates the narrative concerning the use of new materials available to the students and the emergency of a generation of untrained sculptors whose successes challenged the necessity of the Royal Academy’s Sculpture Schools.58

Chapter Three,‘The Royal Academy as Community’, explores patterns of socialisation and the extent to which London-based sculptors were known to each other and exhibited together at various art societies such as The New English Art Club, the London Group, the Artists’ International Association, the Seven and Five Society and the Royal Society of British Sculptors, whose memberships potentially led to nomination for Royal Academy election. The Royal Academy’s election procedure is analysed to establish how patterns of nominations were simultaneously a gateway and a barrier for candidates — particularly women — yet served to open the Royal Academy to controversial modern artists. The elected Academicians’ gifting of Diploma Works

53 Pearson, Nicholas. The State and the Visual Arts: A Discussion of State Intervention in the Visual Arts in Britain, 1760-1981. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, 1982.

54 Minihan, Janet. The Nationalization of Culture: The Development of State Subsidies to the Arts in Great Britain. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd, 1977.

55 Op. cit., Crinson, Mark. 2004.

56 Fenton, James. School of Genius a History of the Royal Academy of Arts. London: Salamander Press Ltd, 2006.

57 Potter, Matthew. The Concept of the 'Master' in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present. : Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013, 1-24.

58 Garlake, Margaret. "Material, Methods and Modernism: British Sculpture C.1950." The Sculpture Journal 17, no. 2 (2008): 51-62.

Introduction Page 28 also provides a remarkable, if limited, survey of sculpture of the period. Reflecting upon my preparations for Chapter Three, I considered at length a number of alternatives for how best to describe the Academicians. As alternatives to ‘company’, ‘côterie’, ‘guild’ or ‘colony’, my decision to use ‘community’ was finally validated on reading Saumarez- Smith’s (2012) writing in The Company of Artists:

Perhaps most importantly, the RA still views itself as a community of the most important painters, sculptors, architects, with a small number of engravers, printmakers and draughtsmen.59 (emphasis inserted).

Elisabeth Manfield’s Art History and Its Institutions offers a robust and scholarly perspective upon the dynamics of art institutions as the ‘loci of social, or specifically political, power’ as pertinent to the Royal Academy, although it was not included in Mansfield’s study.60 Additionally the observations of Leslie (1914), Lamb (1938) and Fenton (2006) have contextualised complex associations and networks within the sculpture community.61

Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’, investigates the timeworn rituals and protocols of the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibitions and evaluates its display practice against innovative temporary exhibitions including those organised by the ICA (1948–1949) and the Whitechapel Gallery (1956). Moreover I assess the extent to which the Academicians utilised the Summer Exhibition and unfettered access to state sponsored initiatives such as the Arts Council’s ‘Sculpture in the Home’ series which enabled them to exploit new opportunities to promote their works. Critical reception of these events is also considered. Notably, I also examine how the Royal Academy’s Annual Dinners were utilised as an important strategic instrument to facilitate greater diplomacy across the London-based art executive and the international political forum. Accordingly I refer to three seminal works: David Solkin’s (2001) Art on the Line; Penelope Curtis’s (2003) Sculpture in 20th Century Britain: Identity, Infrastructures, Aesthetics, Display, Reception (volume I); and Art and the Power of Placement by Victoria Newhouse (2005).62

59 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012.

60 Mansfield, Elizabeth. Art History and Its Institutions. London and New York: Routledge, 2002, 3.

61 Op. cit., Leslie, George Dunlop. 1914. Op. cit., Lamb, Walter R. M. 1938. Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006.

62 Solkin, David. Art on the Line: The Royal Academy Exhibitions at 1780- 1836. New Haven and London: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 2001. Introduction Page 29

Chapter Five, ‘Sculpture for the State’, reviews three channels through which sculpture created by Academicians was procured for the Chantrey Collection, national Government and local Government. The evolved protocols of the Chantrey Bequest are analysed to establish if and how the Royal Academy privileged the sculpture of Academicians particularly because at that time the Tate Gallery was the reluctant custodian of the Chantrey Collection. This analysis contributes to an understanding of the institutional identities which differentiated the Royal Academy from the newly independent Tate, courtesy of the Massey Commission’s recommendation of the Tate’s Royal Assent (1954). As a consequence of London’s post-war regeneration the commissioning of buildings of ‘national importance’63 included the new Ministry of Defence (1939–59) embellished by Wheeler’s monumental Earth and Water (1950– 53). By contrast the LCC’s ‘Patronage of the Arts Scheme’ led to the selection of Charoux’s The Neighbours (1959). Both of these state commissions may be considered to characterise a vibrant portrayal of ‘Britishness’ when juxtaposed to the more universal concept of the ‘geometry of fear’ sculptures or Butler’s contemporaneous Unknown Political Prisoner (1953). Accordingly, Crinson’s (2004) ‘Architecture and 'National Projection' between the Wars’64, Taylor’s (1999) Art for the Nation: Exhibitions and the London Public, 1747-200165, and Burstow (2000) Modern Public Sculpture in 'New Britain', 1945-5366 were appraised to review concepts of state patronage, nationality and ‘Britishness’.

Concerning the parameters of my thesis, the Royal Academy’s location as a London- based art institution, of necessity, excluded the broader consideration of regional themes and issues relevant to the post-war period and the exhibitions of sculpture which were held in provincial towns beyond the metropolis. Further, it was not my intention to undertake a comprehensive survey of sculpture practice for all sculptors of the Royal Academy but to consider the actions of a select few, some of whom Burstow

Curtis, Penelope. Sculpture 1900-1945. , 1999, 107-139. Also see Curtis, Penelope. Sculpture in Twentieth Century Britain: Identity, Infrastructures, Aesthetics Display, Reception. Vol. 1, Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Newhouse, Victoria. Art and the Power of Placement. New York: The Monacelli Press, 2005.

63 RAA/KEE/13/12. The reference to buildings of ‘national importance was included in the Announcement of the RAA Schools’ re-opening included as ‘Statement of Publication’ in the letter of 13 December 1946 from Sir Walter Lamb KCVO to R. G. Barrington-Ward, Esq. DSO.

64 Op. cit., Crinson, Mark. 2004.

65 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999.

66 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000.

Introduction Page 30

(2008) described as ‘reforming academicians’67 — acknowledged in the title of my thesis — whose practices led them to engage with the wider London art community and alternative forms of patronage available beyond . Nor was it my intention to examine every sculpture exhibition held in London during the period 1948–1959 but simply to provide the most relevant comparisons between those organised by the Royal Academy and the Arts Council, the ICA and the Whitechapel Gallery. Moreover, constrained by the format limitations of the thesis, I have of necessity had to make difficult decisions concerning the scope of the content and to reassess those subjects of great interest which regrettably have had to be either constrained or wholly excluded especially the sculptural and cultural significance of the Royal Academy’s exhibition ‘Art from Indian and Pakistan 2400BC to 1947AD’ (1947). Also substantively including coverage of the Arts Council’s regional programmes, the Festival of Britain (1951) and Group; all of these were dynamic influences during the period under review. Additionally, it has been necessary to exclude the research that I had undertaken on the British Council for the Venice Biennales (1948–58) and simply to summarise the significance of these international events and the identities of winners of the International Prize for Sculpture: Moore (1948), Chadwick (1956) and Armitage (1958) who won the David E. Bright Clarke Foundation Prize for under 45s.68 As Lillian Somerville (1952) noted of the New Aspects sculptors ‘it was undoubtedly Armitage who excited the most interest’.69 Similarly the influence of notable dealers, commercial galleries and private collectors of the period have had to be omitted, though it should be noted that, prior to the war and once re-established afterwards, the majority of London art dealers and commercial galleries were clustered on and Cork Street as proximal satellites to Burlington House.

67 Burstow, Robert. "'Sculpture in the Home': Selling Modernism to Post-War British Homemakers." The Sculpture Journal 17, no. 2 (2008): 37-50. 41.

68 British Council. "Venice Biennale 1950s." https://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/history/1950s, accessed 25 October 2015.

69 Lillian Somerville (1905–1985) was Director of the Fine Arts Department for the British Council (1947–1970). Lillian Somerville, British Council Fine Arts Committee Report, 1 July 1952 see footnote 64 In Scott, James, and Claudia Milburn. The Sculpture of Kenneth Armitage. London: Lund Humphries, 2016, 32.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 31

Chapter One

The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage

They [the Royal Academy] conceded some proposals but resisted most, retaining the aura of association with the Monarch and securing the Royal Academy as a place beyond the rationalization associated with the state, which was seen as a centralizing agency.70 Gordon Fyfe (2000)

We observe nowadays that ‘culture’ attracts the attention of men of politics; not that politicians are always ‘men of culture’, but that ‘culture’ is recognised both as an instrument of policy, and as something socially desirable which it is the business of State to promote.71 T. S. Eliot (1948)

In this chapter I identify the ministrations and motivations of nascent state patronage and locate this in parallel with the pre-existing model of monarchical-patronage enjoyed by the Royal Academy. Both institutions were arguably promoting the interests of their selected artists and an initially vague sense of ‘Britishness’ that was represented in their art. Here Crinson’s (2004) ‘Architecture and 'National Projection' between the Wars’,72 suggested aspects of ‘Britishness’ whilst Pearson’s (1982) The State and the Visual Arts73 together with Minihan’s (1977) The Nationalization of Culture,74 offer constructs of monarchical and state patronage which provide context for the Royal Academy’s liberties and constraints.

The ‘Heritage of Culture’75

A Conservative Government led Britain for a decade from 1935 until the end of the Second World War in 1945,76 after which Clement Atlee’s Labour Party (1945–51) swept

70 Fyfe, Gordon. Art, Power and Modernity: English Art Institutions 1750-1950. London and New York: Leicester University Press, 2000, 98.

71 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. Notes Towards the Definition of Culture. London: Faber & Faber, 1948, 83.

72 Op. cit., Crinson, Mark. 2004.

73 Pearson, Nicholas. The State and the Visual Arts: A Discussion of State Intervention in the Visual Arts in Britain, 1760-1981. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, 1982.

74 Minihan, Janet. The Nationalization of Culture: The Development of State Subsidies to the Arts in Great Britain. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd, 1977.

75 Labour. "Labour Party Manifesto 1945, Let Us Face the Future: A Declaration of Labour Party Policy for the Consideration of the Nation." Labour Party, http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab45.htm, accessed 17 January 2017.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 32 to power on the manifesto Let Us Face the Future.77 This new political era promised a ‘tremendous overhaul’ of state infrastructure with education and recreation identified as priorities, ‘we desire to assure to our people full access to the great heritage of culture in this nation.78 (emphasis inserted). Thus, all that had gone before was open for review and a ‘New Britain’ was promised (Burstow, 2000).79 The introspective reflection of this battle-hardened nation prompted a plethora of inquiries, reports, legislative changes and charters for Britain during and after the Second World War, not least for arts institutions. Under these auspices the Beveridge Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services (1942), authored by economist and Liberal MP, William Beveridge, instigated the formation of the welfare nation on the mantra of full employment and the ‘abolition of want’ in recognition of the efforts made by British citizens during the war.80 Government policy introduced the Welfare State to conquer the five ‘giant evils’ of disease, want, squalor, ignorance and idleness.81 These measures were introduced as the National Health Service (5 July 1948), new housing initiatives, educational reforms with student grants and targets for full employment. As Garlake (1998) observes, Labour’s philosophy intended to ‘nurture the whole person, intellect as well as body’.82 However some of Labour’s social achievements were actually founded upon Conservative legislation, particularly the slum clearance Housing Act (1938) and the Education Act (1944) which raised the school leaving age to fourteen years and introduced the eleven-plus grammar school examination.83 (1950) surmised that ‘the Welfare State does not have to know what it wants ... it has to decide

76 As Prime Ministers: Stanley Baldwin (1867–1947)(1935–37); Neville Chamberlain (1869– 1940)(1937–40); Churchill (1874–1965)(1940–45 and 1951–55). Gov. "Past Prime Ministers." https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime- ministers, accessed 11 January 2018.

77 Op. cit., Labour. "Labour Party Manifesto” 1945.

78 Ibid.

79 RIBA. Towards a New Britain. London: The Architectural Press, 1943, 142. Also see op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000.

80 Sir William Beveridge (1879–1963). Beveridge, William. "Social Insurance and Allied Services” (The Beveridge Report), Cmd 6404, London: HMSO". 1942.

81 ODNB. Harris, Jose. "William Beveridge." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb- 9780198614128-e-31871, accessed 10 January 2017.

82 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 7.

83 Callahan, Raymond. Churchill: Retreat from Empire. Tunbridge Wells: Costello, 1984, 253.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 33 what it thinks we [its citizens] ought to have’ (original emphasis),84 and considered that, ‘the future of the arts in a Welfare State is wrapped ... in an impenetrable mist’.85

With reference to the review and amelioration of arts institutions The Art Enquiry: The Visual Arts, a Political and Economic Planning (PEP) report sponsored by the Dartington Hall Trustees in 1946, identified and summarised the benefits and detriments of the four post-war models for British schools of art, but regarded the Royal Academy as beyond the scope of Government intervention.86 Similarly the Massey Commission (1946) scrutinised the purpose, policies and procurements of key art institutions including the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery and others. This culminated in the separation of the Tate Gallery from the National Gallery’s supervisory oversight and ultimately concluded with Royal Assent in 1954 granting ‘statutory independence to Tate’.87 However the Massey Committee also deemed the Royal Academy to be independent of Government and therefore was hesitant to include this seemingly ambiguous institution within the scope of their inquiry. Accordingly by 1946 a clear demarcation existed between the Royal Academy and those more overtly state controlled art agencies. Importantly too, the Massey Committee had identified those features which made each art institution unique: the type of art it preserved, conserved and sought to acquire; the type of individuals who might knowledgably be appointed as director or trustee and the type of person who might be inclined to visit. This may have contributed to each art institution concluding that they had the right to acquire only those artworks which met their professional standards and acquisitions policy; a belief which had significant consequences for the Tate Gallery as custodian of the Chantrey Collection administered by the Royal Academy. Perhaps inevitably post-war state patronage became increasingly complex due to subtle and opaque state interventions and the ambiguity of the Royal Academy’s assumed independence.

84 Newton, Eric. "The Future of the Arts in the Welfare State." Royal Society of Arts 99, no. 4835 (8 November 1950): 29-43.

85 Ibid.

86 PEP. The Art Enquiry: The Visual Arts, a Report Sponsored by the Dartington Hall Trustees. Oxford: Political and Economic Planning (PEP), Oxford University Press, 1946.

87 The Massey Committee (1946) was commissioned to review the scope, activities and loan practices for: the Arts Council; the British Council; the Contemporary Art Society; the ; the National Gallery; the Victorian and Albert Museum and the Tate Gallery. The Massey Committee’s recommendations received Royal Assent in 1954, resulting in statutory independence being granted to the Tate Gallery setting the institution free from the oversight of the National Gallery. Gov. "Tate Gallery (Administration)." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1955/feb/11/tate-gallery- administration#S5CV0536P0_19550211_CWA_6, accessed 24 August 2017.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 34

Internationally political tensions endured as European countries struggled towards a fragile social and economic stability. For instance, Italian parliamentary coalitions led by the Christian Democratic Party (1948–94) and the Provisional Government of the French Republic (1944–46) which, in a manner similar to Britain, sought to provide social relief and to nationalise selected industries. These nascent Governments were also simultaneously embroiled in bringing to trial the perpetrators of war crimes against humanity. Moreover, the West’s Cold War distrust of the Soviet State and the death of the influential American President Franklin Roosevelt88 brought new political ideologies and shifting political threats articulately evoked by W. H. Auden’s Pulitzer Prize, ‘The Age of Anxiety’ (1947), extract :

What fear of freedom then Causes our clasping hands To make in miniature That Earth anew, and now By choice instead of chance To suffer from the same Attraction and untruth suspicion and respect?89

The cultural and artistic authority that Paris-based artists had enjoyed before the war had declined. Over time, New York would become the new due to the influence of, amongst others, the art collector Peggy Guggenheim, the American Abstract Expressionists painters and the sculptor .90 Consequently, the French sculptors who had dominated French state art such as Despiau and Maillol91 before the war had begun to fall out of favour in this transitional ‘moment of interregnum’.92 British sculpture came to the international fore through the British Council’s sculpture selection when Moore won the International Sculpture Prize at the Venice Biennale (1948) leading him to acknowledge that ‘the British Council did more for me as an

88 President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945).

89 Spoken by Rosetta, one of four personas in the poem. Auden, W. H. The Age of Anxiety. 2011 ed. Princeton, New : Princeton University Press, 1947, 59.

90 Guggenheim, Peggy. Out of This Century. 2005 ed. London: André Deutsch, 1946, 314. Peggy Guggenheim (1898–1979) advised by art dealer Howard Putzel (1898–1945) opened Guggenheim Jeune at 30 Cork Street, London in 1938 and promoted the work of the avant- garde and Abstract Expressionists including Jackson Pollock (1912–1956) and Roland David Smith (1906–1965).

91 Charles Despiau (1874–1946), Aristide Maillol (1886–1944).

92 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 22.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 35 artist than any dealer’,93 thus priming the international art world for future British Biennale candidates. Although Hepworth94 did not have the same degree of success at the Venice Biennale in 1950, it was to be the New Aspects generation through their ‘geometry of fear’ that captured the imagination with modern art at the Venice Biennale of 1952 (Read, 1952).95 This younger generation were consistently promoted by the Arts Council, the British Council, the ICA, the Independent Group and the Whitechapel Gallery prior to the ascendancy of Caro’s British Constructivists in the 1960s.

Additionally, the demise of the Empire had further diminished Britain’s international standing despite Churchill’s (1942) protestation ‘I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British empire’.96 Illustrative of the scale of decolonisation over three decades were South Africa 1931; Burma (Myanmar) 1947; India 1947; Sudan 1956; Somalia 1960 and Sierra Leone 1961. India was a particularly significant loss. On 15 August 1947 The Times front page announced ‘The End of An Era’ marking an historic transition ‘The Indian Empire disappears from the political map’, continuing that ‘the British official in India was like the British climate, more than trying at times, but very healthy to live with’.97 The Royal Academy had for many years been planning a grand exhibition of Indian treasures loaned by the Maharajas of Jaipur and Udaipur however this was undermined by the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. The exhibition became the ‘Art from Indian and Pakistan 2400BC to 1947AD’ (1947–48) where one thousand exhibits were seen by almost 118,000 visitors although the exhibition made a significant financial loss.98 The exhibition ran from 29 November 1947 to 29 February 1948 and prioritized the contribution that sculpture had made to culture; in that regard the Royal Academy’s exhibition preceded the ICA’s concept of ‘Forty Thousand Years of Modern Art’ which opened to the public on 21 December 1948, more than twelve months later.99

93 Op. cit., British, Council. "Venice Biennale 1940s." 2017.

94 Barbara Hepworth (1903–1975).

95 Op. cit., Read, Herbert. 1952.

96 Op. cit., Callahan, Raymond. 1984, 155.

97 Anon. "Editorial: The End of an Era " The Times, 15 August 1947, 5. Also see Goldsworthy, David. Colonial Issues in British Politics 1945-1961. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

98 RAA Annual Report, 1948, 10. The exhibition’s financial loss was covered by the British and Indian Governments and the RAA.

99 RAA Commemorative Catalogue. "The Art of India and Pakistan at the Royal Academy of Arts." Edited by Leigh Ashton. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1947.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 36

Visible again after a seven-year wartime hiatus (1939–46), due to security concerns about the enemy’s exploitation of radio signals from transmitters, the BBC resumed television transmission on 7 June 1946 at 3 p.m. with presenter Jasmine Bligh’s question ‘do you remember me?’ followed by a repeat of the American cartoon ‘Mickey’s Gala Premier’ which had concluded programmes on 1 September 1939.100 The distinctive clipped diction of the BBC presenters’ ‘received pronunciation’ was not only recognisable to listeners but also provided essential informal English language tuition for émigrés including Charoux who had listened to Children’s Hour for that same purpose.101 BBC radio and television broadcasts were to contribute to the public’s developing cultural and intellectual awareness. Newton (1950) wrote of the BBC’s influence that it was ‘gradually extending their public from the Third Programme level to the Home Service level’.102 Here Newton probably counters a statement about the Third Programme made by the BBC’s Director General Sir William Haley ‘its whole content will be directed to an audience that is not one of class but that is perceptive and intelligent’.103 The BBC’s supposedly apolitical cultural publication The Listener ― the title indicative of the original radio audience ― detailed scheduled programmes together with transcripts and articles intended to contribute to ’s cultural appreciation, reaching a circulation peak of over 151,000 in 1949.104 Britain was accustomed to tuning into the BBC News radio programmes, however a dramatic increase in the purchase of televisions was attributed to the Coronation of Queen

100 Marcus, Laurence. "BBC Close Down." http://www.teletronic.co.uk/bbcclosedown.htm, accessed 11 January 2018.

101 Sangster, Catherine. "Received Pronunciation and BBC English." http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/yourvoice/rpandbbc.shtml, accessed 11 January 2018. Also see Sorrell, Mary. "Charoux." The Queen MLD45 (8 August 1945): 12-40.

102 Op. cit., Newton, Eric. 1950. Also see Whitehead, Kate. The Third Programme: A Literary History. Oxford: Oxford English Monographs, 1989. ‘The Third Programme’ was an important state patron of the arts launched on 29 September 1946 offering classical music and a platform for the broadcast of experimental literary works and discussion. Also see Rohrer, Finlo. "Back after the Break." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5054802.stm, accessed 10 February 2017.

103 BBC. "The Third Programme 29 September 1946." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p046hx0c, accessed 4 January 2018. Also see Long, Paul J. Only in the Common People: The Aesthetics of Class in Post-War Britain. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008, 139. In considering its potential audience, as Long (2003) argued, ‘while the BBC did not invent the social prejudice upon which it was founded it did a lot to perpetuate and spread it, particularly via its own cultural paternalism’.

104 Cain, John The BBC: 70 Years of Broadcasting. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1992, 61–63.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 37

Elizabeth II on 2 June 1953 at .105 This event was proclaimed as the dawning of the ‘New Elizabethans’ supposedly intensified by the ‘youth and radiance’ that the Queen and her consort Philip, Duke of Edinburgh brought to an impoverished nation.106 The Academicians were amongst the first of the civic dignitaries invited to to swear allegiance to Her Majesty.107 Ledward was honoured with historic commissions for the newly crowned Queen Elizabeth II, including the ‘Great Seal and Counter Seal of the Realm of Elizabeth II’ (1953) and the commemorative ‘crown’ coin (1953) of which five million were minted; preparatory works for which were exhibited at the Summer Exhibitions.108 Significantly the office of the President of the Royal Academy had to be sanctioned by the Monarch and Gerald Kelly became the first President to be invested in office by Queen Elizabeth II in 1954.109 The televising of the Coronation and the new Queen’s public engagements undoubtedly highlighted the culture of heritage that Britain now offered. The BBC may therefore be considered essential to post-war Britain’s political, social and cultural dissemination of a national identity and a construct of ‘Britishness’. A preoccupation with social class as a form of short-hand for assumed intelligence had gained traction even before the war. Taylor (1999) addresses the ‘class constitution’ noting the surveys undertaken by Mass Observation’s ‘2,000 voluntary civilian

105 Ibid. ‘The sale of black and white television sets, costing £90, increased between 1951 and 1954 the number of combined sound and vision licenses (at £2) had doubled to well over 3 million.’

106 Hopkins, Harry. The New Look. London: Secker and Warburg, 1963. Philip, Duke of Edinburgh received the title Prince Philip on 22 February 1957.

107 RAA/PC/1/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 12 February 1952, 9. The RAA closed on 7 February 1952, the day after King George VI’s death and Professor Anthony Blunt’s scheduled Royal Academy lecture of that evening was rescheduled; the RAA porters were issued with black armbands.

108 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1953, listing number 1195 (2). Coronation Crown Piece, obverse by G. Ledward and reverse by E. G. Fuller and modelled by C. Thomas. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1954, listing number 1229, Great Seal of the Realm: impression from the silver dies engraved by the Royal Mint, diameter 6 inches. RA Illustrated 1954, 80. Also see op. cit., Moriarty, Catherine. 2003, 125. Royal Mint. "Crowns." http://www.royalmint.com/help/help/how-can-i-dispose-of- commemorative-crowns, accessed 16 October 2017. ‘Crown’ coins, of pre- five-shilling denomination, were issued to mark special occasions. Other notable sculptors who also frequently portrayed Queen Elizabeth II for coinage were Mary Gillick (1881–1965) and Paul Vincze (1907–1994) both of whom were regular exhibitors at the RAA.

109 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 4 January 1955, 117. Gerald Kelly was received by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on 16 December 1954 and ‘invested with the medal and chain of his office’. Kelly was ennobled as KCVO in the New Year’s Honours List (1955).

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 38 observers’110 at art institutions between 1938 to 1941. These illustrated a generic — though un-scientific — coupling of categorised social class, physical appearance, presumed intelligence and an interest in art, examples of which included: ‘very ultra- suburban ... hair over-permed ... more intellectual school-teacher ... definitely arty’.111 These meaningless class categorisations persisted beyond the war and were made explicit by the black and white pen illustrations included in the exhibition catalogue for ‘Britain Can Make It’ (1946), which depicted various types of stereotypical families such as those of the managing director (with servants), the doctor, the young architect, the County Borough Councillor, the railway engineer, the coalminer and the artisan. Moreover the Government’s promotion of a higher level of education as desirable was matched by an increase in uptake of places and the availability of student grants for later learners and whose who had missed tertiary education due to the war. Turner (2011) elaborates how post-war egalitarianism evolved with a heightened sense of equality of opportunity and the assumption of increased living standards that ‘also imposed on the intellectually advantaged a duty to inform and instruct’.112 The increased number of applicants to art schools, including the Royal Academy Sculpture School, should have resulted in a new generation of celebrated artists. However innovation and success favoured untrained sculptors including Butler and Chadwick; although the not inconsiderable interventions of art executives including Clark, Read, Rothenstein and Somerville brought these little known sculptors to public prominence. This selective patronage was enlivened by the debate between the merits of the academically trained versus the self-trained; the latter modernists whom Wheeler described as ‘charlatans’.113 This crisis of pedagogy was further complicated by tuition in sculpture provided by European émigrés including Charoux, Nimptsch and Soukop, many of whom were to have considerable technical influence upon the sculptors of the 1960s.

110 Mortimer, Raymond. "The Islanders: Britain by Mass Observation." The New Statesman and Nation XVII, no. 411 (1939): 62. Mass Observation (1937-1950s) was an independent social research agency with the purpose of examining the ‘culture of the British Islanders’. The book cover of Britain written by Charles Madge and Tom Harrison identified ‘Mass Observation, a movement started early in 1937 by two young men and now embracing some 2,000 voluntary observers all over the country, exists to study everyday behaviour in Britain - The Science of Ourselves’.

111 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 172–173. Also see Council, East Sussex County. "Mass Observation Archive." http://www.thekeep.info/collections/mass-observation-archive/, accessed 4 January 2018.

112 Turner, Barry. Beacon for Change: How the 1951 Festival of Britain Shaped the Modern Age. London: Aurum Press Ltd., 2011, 12.

113 RAA General Assembly Minutes, 20 October 1958, 335.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 39

Cartoons, especially those by David Low, ridiculed the apparent incomprehensibility of modern art, alluding to both the lack of apparent meaning but also, more subtly, the need for the education and intellect to be able to appreciate modern sculpture’s intended symbolism.114 This nuanced association between intellectualism and art became a dominant narrative articulated before the war by art critics such as Greenberg115 then exacerbated by the choices of the newer state patrons. Although for Read (1939) his early connection between culture, art and the intellectual may be traced to his article ‘Intellectuals in Exile’ which highlighted the pre-war plight of European academics dismissed from their posts, 1,400 from Germany, 418 from Austria and 140 from Italy.116 Increasingly contemporary sculpture frequently required the interpretative voice of — ideally — the artist, for example Moore’s many articles, books and broadcasts or at a minimum the visual translations of informed experts, most frequently the art critics: Alloway; Berger; Sylvester and Read.117 Although the LCC were aware of the need for a pragmatic compromise in their choice of public sculpture under the ‘Patronage of the Arts Scheme’ which it decided must be mainstream, inoffensive and readily comprehensible to local residents (Pereira, 2008).118 Yet this synergy between intellectual prowess and modern art became an instrument by which some of London’s art executives manipulated the differentiation between their preferred artists and those pursuing more traditional genres submitted to the Royal Academy’s annual Summer Exhibitions, which Taylor (1999) describes as:

close to the tastes of old landed gentry and the new industrial patrons, the armed services, the Church, and , as well as to the sensibilities of a predominantly provincial intelligentsia who supported them politically and morally119

That many Academicians came from modest, even humble, origins was well known; they were often situated in stark contrast to the privileged educational and cultured

114 David Low (1891–1963). Also see op. cit., Taylor, B. 1999, 180–189.

115 Greenberg, Clement. "Avant-garde and Kitsch." http://sites.uci.edu/form/files/2015/01/Greenberg-Clement-Avant-garde-and-Kitsch- copy.pdf, accessed 24 May 2018.

116 Read, Herbert. "Intellectuals in Exile." The New Statesman and Nation XVII, no. 417, 18 February (1939): 244-45.

117 John Berger (1926–2017).

118 Op. cit., Pereira, Dawn. 2008.

119 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 174.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 40 circumstances of leading arts executives such as Clark or Rothenstein.120 Moreover the work of the abstract painters who flourished during the 1950s, including those as socially diverse as Bacon, Freud, Lowry and Sutherland, required an intense degree of scrutiny beyond the picturesque immediacy of the Academicians’ canvases such as those of Munnings or Kelly. In this campaign for aesthetics and intelligence Hyman’s (2001) The Battle for Realism portrayed the participants of the period and their art- historical interlocutors as: ‘Pioneers’ (Margaret Garlake amongst others); ‘Combatants’ (broadly the ‘School of London’ artists) and ‘Generals’ (art critics Berger and Sylvester).121 Whilst Burstow (2000) provides a more detailed categorisation of such art ‘Combatants’ as practising: i). conservative modernism (classicism, naturalism, ); ii). moderate modernism (primitivistic, anti-naturalism and direct carving) and iii). ultra-modernism (a broad group including Moore in 1951 but Paolozzi by 1953 plus Constructivism and Surrealism).122 Inherently then the sculptors of the Royal Academy worked within a spectrum that Burstow describes as ‘this modernist “continuum”’.123 Artists patronised through the newer channels of state patronage were able to exhibit at international fora such as the Venice Biennale. However nationally their extremism was challenging because sculpture purchased for the British public, even that commissioned by the LCC, was required to be conventional and explicit as investigated in Chapter Five, ‘Sculpture for the State’.

The Royal Academy of Arts

The ‘Burlington world’ of late 1940s and 1950s London to which Stourton (2016) refers encapsulated Burlington House, figure 1.1, the Burlington Magazine and the Burlington Fine Arts Club,124 a côtierie of those with a passion for the art of antiquity,

120 Clive, Bell. "Book Review - Landscape into Art by Kenneth Clark." The New Statesman and Nation 26 November 1949: 616. Bell (1949) observed that ‘Sir Kenneth has at his command four instruments: a turn for historical generalization based on knowledge, the scholar’s gift of drawing inferences from apparently disconnected facts and slight indications, expository power and, above all, a love of painting; blest with these, he is the properest man alive to make our English youth care somewhat for the arts’.

121 Hyman, James. The Battle for Realism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001, 5–7.

122 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 31–33.

123 Ibid, 31.

124 Op. cit., Stourton, James. 2016, 80. Established in 1903 by Roger Fry, Bernard Bereson and Herbert Horne and other art historian and connoisseurs, The Burlington Magazine, remains the longest running scholarly review of fine and decorative arts. Notably Fry and the magazine’s second editor Herbert Read became more closely associated with modern rather than classical art. Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 41 the traditional and a deeply held philosophy that art should, indeed must, be realistic. Populated mostly by men of an older generation, veterans of the Great War, many of whom were too old to fight in the Second World War, their authority was founded upon military and civil awards and a lifetime of cultivated connoisseurship. At the epicentre was the Royal Academy located at Burlington House since 1867, an august institution founded by King George III in 1768.125 Its longevity, artistic standards and monarchical patronage were the foundations upon which deference to the Royal Academy had been sustained. However the privilege of royal patronage bestowed upon the Royal Academy also imposed the constraints of duty, dignity and decorum. Consequently commitment to an apolitical administration became overtly complex when a new definition of state patronage was introduced and flourished, as competitor.

Standing secure in its sense of purpose the Council of the Royal Academy was resolved to continue its ritualistic tradition, the cornerstone of which had been set by its first President Sir Joshua Reynolds’s (1769) Discourses on Art.126 Prior to commencement of the Second World War on 3 September 1939, the Royal Academy was deemed to be the ‘citadel’ of British art and of good taste127 and at that juncture no other art institution compared nor competed with its standing.128 The Royal Academy’s Sculpture School provided a rigorous if conventional programme of study, informed by the classical Greek artistic legacy, for students who anticipated major Government commissions alongside potential election as an Associate. For the Royal Academy’s community of established artists, becoming an Academician acknowledged peer recognition as a career pinnacle. Unusually the Royal Academy also encouraged the artistic interest of the ‘common man’ who exhibited as amateur artists at the Summer Exhibition and

Also see Anon. "The Burlington Magazine." http://www.burlington.org.uk/about- us/about-the-magazine, accessed 28 November 2017. Also see Anon. "Editorial: The Burlington Fine Arts Club." The Burlington Magazine, April 94, no. 589 (1952): 97. The Burlington Fine Arts Club, established in 1866 and dissolved in 1952 for financial reasons, was a private gentlemen’s club for artists. The club’s last exhibition was held in 1939.

125 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 21.

126 Op. cit., Reynolds, Joshua. 1769.

127 Op. cit., Wake-Cook, Ebenezer. 1924, 25. Also see Anon. "The Royal Academy of Arts." The Burlington Magazine 146, no. 1218 (2004): 587.

128 State art institutions including the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery similarly mounted temporary exhibitions yet lacked the facility for artists’ membership whilst smaller societies such as the New English Art Club or the Royal Society of British Sculptors offered membership but lacked the resources to mount anything other than modest exhibitions, frequently utilising the Royal Academy’s galleries. See Chapter Two.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 42 attended the Royal Academy’s various exhibitions. Post-war the Royal Academy continued to welcome contributions from amateur artists.129 Additionally, Churchill’s reputation as an amateur artist and the publication of his book, Painting as a Pastime (1948) had captured the public’s interest and encouraged an upsurge in artistic pursuits (Massouras, 2016).130 Moreover, Munnings proposed to the Royal Academy’s Council that Churchill be elected an Honorary Academician Extraordinary.131 This decision was approved by Resolution of the Royal Academy’s General Assembly of Members and ratified by King George VI.132 When as a gift for his eightieth birthday, Sutherland painted the politician in 1954, Churchill admonished the artist declaring ‘the portrait is a remarkable example of modern art’ to the mirth of the assembled audience and humiliation of Sutherland who was in attendance at the painting’s unveiling in St. Stephen’s Hall in the .133 The Council of the Royal Academy later discussed and declined to exhibit Sutherland’s portrait of Churchill because it would be ‘unprincipled to include a work such as Mr Sutherland’s portrait merely to attract the public’,134 figure 1.2.

129 RAA. Constitution and Laws. London: William Clowes and Sons, Ltd., 1938, Section 6.1, 45. The Royal Academy Laws (1938) did not explicitly refer to ‘amateur artists’ but rather ‘Artists of distinguished merit’ being permitted to exhibit their work.

130 Churchill, W. S. Painting as a Pastime. London: Odhams Press Ltd., 1948. Massouras, Alexander. "Conference Paper: Dark Sunlight in Summer, 1963." In Royal Academy of Art Symposium. London: The Paul Mellon Centre for British Art, 29-30 September, 2016.

131 RAA/PC/1/29. RAA Council Minutes, 22 January 1948, 220.

132 RAA/PC/1/29. RAA Council Minutes, 29 April 1948, 236.

133 Although Churchill was awarded as an Honorary Academician Extraordinary, he was not listed as a past Academician by the Royal Academy. RAA. "Past Academicians." http://www.racollection.org.uk/ixbin/indexplus?_IXACTION_=file&_IXFILE_=template s/pages/member_choice.html, accessed 10 January 2016. Modernist painter Graham Sutherland (1903–1980) had been chosen by the British Council to exhibit at the Venice Biennale (1952). The presentation of Sutherland’s portrait of Churchill was made to a well attended reception hosted by Churchill’s political rival Clement Atlee in St. Stephen’s Hall Westminster, 1954.

134 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 3 July 1956, 171. Also see Furness, Hannah. "Secret of 's Unpopular Sutherland Painting Revealed." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/winston-churchill/11730850/Secret-of- Winston-Churchills-unpopular-Sutherland-portrait-revealed.html, accessed 5 June 2016. The painting was later destroyed, ‘In fact, the painting was taken out in the dead of night by Lady Churchill's loyal private secretary [Grace Hamblin], driven by her older brother to a country house and burned so far away from the road that nobody ever noticed ... the account, from Grace Hamblin, had been recorded onto tape before her death and sealed, lying largely unnoticed by scholars ever since.’ RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 4 August 1959, 284. An exhibition of Churchill’s own paintings was held by the Royal Academy in 1959, which proved to be a tremendous success, attended by 141,490 people.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 43

As Hutchinson (1968) observed, the Royal Academy was ‘sometimes praised; sometimes abused but never ignored’.135 Throughout its history the Royal Academy had been the subject of various Government investigations, the Royal Commission (1863) being one of the most significant tasked to ‘inquire into the present position of the Royal Academy in relation to Fine Arts ... [and] in promoting Art and in improving and developing public taste’.136 Consequently this nineteenth-century legacy bestowed upon the Royal Academy a responsibility for ‘Fine Arts’ and for defining artistic ‘taste’. These two cultural facets were sharply contested in the post-war period of the twentieth century when traditionalism and taste — particularly for British sculpture — were fiercely challenged by a new generation of arts executives recently empowered by the expanded model of state patronage and their predilection for modern abstraction. Therefore when Newton (1950) raised the hypothetical question: ‘are you going to leave it to them [the artists of the Royal Academy] to decide who are the artists that should be supported by the State?’ he anticipated new fine artists and state taste-makers.137 Monks (2013) describes the Royal Academy as a ‘lived organism’ defining it as ‘a reference towards, around and against which artists operated in their relationships with each other and with artistic practice itself’.138 The Royal Academy was a genuinely democratic body whose Council was regulated by the collective voting of the General Assembly; the General Assembly being the governing body which represented all Academicians and Associates.139 Indeed the primus inter pares role of President as ‘symbolic head’ was subject to annual re-election guaranteeing the interests and favour of their peers; therefore the office of President lacked legitimate authority without the collective voting of the General Assembly.140 The Royal Academy was an institution established by artists for artists as an egalitarian body where the voting rights of all Academicians were equal regardless of seniority.

Evaluating the ‘New Sculpture’ of 1894, Getsy (2003) acknowledges the perpetual friction of a generational divide between ‘professional’ gentlemen artists in contrast

135 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 17. Also see op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1935, 45. The Royal Academy regularly withstood dissent, Lamb (1935) wrote of ‘heavy assaults of ignorant and envious criticism’ during the Presidency of Archer Shee, PPRA (1830–1850).

136 Op. cit., Pearson, Nicholas. 1982, 11.

137 Op. cit., Newton, Eric. 1950.

138 Op. cit., Monks, Sarah. 2013, 1–23.

139 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 45.

140 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012, 175.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 44 with ‘young punks’.141 Moreover, Galenson’s (2006) analysis of sculptors in Old Masters and Young Geniuses identifies that ‘what appears to be necessary for radical conceptual innovation is not youth, but an absence of acquired habits of thought that inhibit sudden departures from existing conventions’.142 This means that, rather than a generational shift, an art education such as that offered by the Royal Academy prohibited the modernist instinct that ‘young geniuses’ offered. Consequently the Academicians might be defined as constrained in their practice by virtue of their prescriptive training rather than their talent; such theories are fully explored in Chapter Two, ‘The Royal Academy Sculpture School’. Additionally, Myrone (2013) asserts that that precept of ‘“profession” operates on the assumption that the members of a vocational group act in their own best interests’, yet as discussed in Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’, the Academicians could not be characterised as a ‘vocational group’,143 but were more obviously identified as individuals pursuing their own best interests towards a career, peer recognition and ideally the financial stability of regular commissions. Consequently the theory of the Royal Academy as a community of ‘self supporting’ artists who were ‘entirely free from external pressures’ becomes problematic upon further consideration of their patronage.144 Moreover the Academicians minuted their ‘concerns that a collaboration between the Royal Academy and the Arts Council were also prevalent and it was considered “unconstitutional for the [Royal Academy’s] Council to make an alliance with an experimental art bureaucracy” [the Arts Council]’.145 (emphasis inserted).

141 Getsy, David J. "The Identity of the Sculptor 1900-25: Punks and Professionals." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 9-20. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003, 9.

142 Galenson, David. Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006, 66. Galenson defined the creative source for these two categories: Old Masters as ‘experimental innovators’: ‘experimental artists build their skills gradually over the course of their careers, improving the work slowly over long periods. These artists are perfectionists and are typically plagued by frustration at their inability to achieve their goals’. Ibid, 4. Young Geniuses as ‘conceptual innovators’: ‘most have great confidence in the validity and significance of their contributions, and this allows them to put forward dramatic new works early in their careers in spite of their knowledge that most practitioners of their discipline will be hostile to their new ideas’. Ibid, 179.

143 Myrone, Martin. "William Etty: 'A Child of the Royal Academy'." In Living with the Royal Academy: Artistic Ideals and Experiences in England ... edited by Sarah Monks, Mark Hallett and Laura Turner, 171-94. London: Routledge, 2013, 183–184.

144 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 15–16.

145 RAA General Assembly Minutes, 11 December 1956, 307.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 45

Pearson’s (1982) comprehensive survey of beneficiaries in The State and the Visual Arts, perhaps surprisingly, includes the Royal Academy within the scope of state patronage. Pearson’s three reasons were robustly defined by analysis of the office and person of the British Monarch: i). the Monarch is Head of State through Parliament and legally validates Parliament’s decisions; ii). the Monarch may take independent actions ‘such as in signing the Instrument of Foundation for the Royal Academy’ (original emphasis); iii). the Monarch has considerable private personal wealth which may be bestowed upon beneficiaries ‘as was done with the Academy’.146 Consequently the Monarch may be identified as ‘public Monarch’, ‘private Monarch’ and ‘private person’.147 Therefore the Royal Academy could be considered the recipient of ‘state patronage’ by virtue of the Monarch as Head of State gifting a ‘“Royal” title with Royal support’ in the form of premises (occupying Crown properties: Somerset House, part of the National Gallery at and later Burlington House) and the Monarch’s underwriting of expenditure.148 This nuanced benefaction led to a perception of the Royal Academy as ‘an independent and private institution’ without the ‘machinery of State (Parliament, the Civil Service, ‘public accountability’ etc)’.149 Hutchinson (1968) described the arrangements for Crown premises when the Royal Academy moved to Burlington House in 1869, ‘in 1866 the Government agreed a 999- year lease at a nominal rent of £1 per annum’ subject to the Royal Academy meeting the cost of any alterations including the addition of an upper floor with glass roofed galleries.150 The Monarch’s underwriting of expenditure was preserved within the Royal Academy’s Instrument of Foundation (1768) ‘the King is graciously pleased to pay all deficiencies’ although the Royal Academy made strenuous efforts to avoid redress to the Monarch’s purse.151 Here, the financial management of the Royal Academy’s portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds was of material consequence to its independence, however such fiscal consideration are beyond the scope of my inquiry.

146 Op. cit., Pearson, Nicholas. 1982, 9.

147 Ibid.

148 Ibid.

149 Ibid.

150 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 123. Also see Hutchinson, Sidney. The Homes of the Royal Academy. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 1956, 27. The extension was paid from the bequest of John Gibson (1790–1866), a sculptor Academician.

151 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, The Instrument of Foundation, clause VIII, 211.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 46

As Pearson (1982) argues, the Royal Academy might therefore be acknowledged as a recipient of state patronage even if the conduit for its support was channelled via the Crown as Head of State rather than through the Government. It may further be asserted that the Government directly funded the Monarch through the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid for monarchical expenditure and therefore the Government indirectly supported the Royal Academy.152 Paradoxically, however, the Royal Academy publicly proclaimed that:

The Royal Academy is one more example of a British Institute working for the public good to the best of its ability unaided by the State. It is a voluntary association of professional craftsmen, keenly aware of the greater responsibility towards artists and the public which its constitution and privileges imply (emphasis inserted).153

Clearly in the mind of Kelly PRA, who wrote this statement in 1952, the patronage of the Crown did not constitute state aid. What is more remarkable still is the fact that this statement was repeatedly published during the 1950s in the exhibition catalogues for the regional tours of the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibitions arranged by the Arts Council on behalf of the Royal Academy. Curiously the Arts Council had continued to organise the regional tours of the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition paintings which had been initiated by the wartime Committee for the Encouragement of Music and Arts (CEMA) in 1942.154 The Arts Council plausibly had the same understanding of state as the Government rather than state as the Crown. This subtle locating of the Royal Academy as an independent ‘voluntary association of professional craftsmen’ may have strengthened the sense of detachment with which the Royal Academy was perceived. Consequently I am in accordance with Pearson (1982) and reassert his theory that the Royal Academy was indeed the recipient of state patronage and I shall demonstrate in this thesis that Academicians sought to capitalise upon the opportunities that an expansion of post-war state patronage afforded.

152 Royal-UK. "Royal Finances." https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-o, accessed 5 January 2018. Up until 31 March 2012, the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid were monies provided by the Government to meet the official expenses of The Queen’s Household, so that The Queen could carry out her role as Head of State and .

153 ACGB. "A Selection from the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition 1952." London: ACGB, 1952, 3–4.

154 Minihan, Janet. The Nationalization of Culture: The Development of State Subsidies to the Arts in Great Britain. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd, 1977, 223.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 47

The Arts Council

The emergence of the radical Keynesian model155 of the state patronage of the arts sought to democratise art at a time when the greater interest in the arts may be traced to the fact that even after the war:

a large proportion of the population were living in hostels, barracks, camps or lodgings, cut off from their own families. In these very temporary surroundings “time off” was a blank space which had to be filled ... unprecedented audiences were forthcoming.156

However a report written by Cyril Wood (1948) for the Arts Council queried whether the ‘man in the street’ for whom arts initiatives were intended should be deemed ‘mythical’, ‘in the sense that such a person does not exist, or that he cannot be clearly defined’.157 Wood argued that such a man, ‘does exist, and in very large numbers. He does not belong to one income group or one class of society’ (original emphasis).158 Yet the ‘man in the street’ attended football matches, racehorse meetings, motor and agricultural shows leading Wood to question ‘is it our business to foster in him a love of the arts?’.159 Thus the issue of whether art should therefore be ‘regarded as palliative or pleasure’ to ward off social evils and cultural ignorance reinforced the undeniable purpose and post-war necessity of an arts ‘agency’ as the Government sought to balance both cultural and social ministration (Minihan, 1977).160 Newton (1950) however sympathised with the task of ‘rousing forty-million people from their state of artistic illiteracy’.161

155 Ibid, 31. The Keynesian model of state patronage for the arts proposed Government funding to support and stimulate a national interest in the arts including ballet, dance, opera, music and the visual arts of painting and sculpture. However as Keynes commented ‘our aim was to replace what war had taken away but we soon found that we were providing what had never existed even in peace time’.

156 VAM/EL3/105. Carlisle, A. Region 12, London Report, September 1947.

157 VAM/EL4/49. Wood, Cyril. Minority Report. Addendum to Arts Council Papers, no. 256: Arts Centres, Arts Clubs and Allied Problems, 8 November 1948.

158 Ibid.

159 Ibid. Wood continued ‘this person rarely, if ever, goes to concerts, to the theatre, or to exhibitions of pictures. He has little or no interest in the Arts, and although he is a tax payer, and provides the funds which make a Treasury grant possible, he knows nothing of the Arts Council - and cares less’.

160 Op. cit., Minihan, Janet. 1977, 229.

161 Op. cit., Newton, Eric. 1950.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 48

John Maynard Keynes’s concept of state patronage afforded alternative channels of support which differed substantially from the Monarch’s patronage of the Royal Academy. This led to the formation of a new Government organisation forged by an assertive breed of arts executives as appointed Government officers who effectively formed a quasi-Governmental Department of Culture i.e. the Arts Council. The origins of the Arts Council may be traced to the War Artists’ Advisory Committee (WAAC) established in 1939 by Clark, then Director of the National Gallery (1934–1945), that espoused the ideological principle of a ‘framework for state support’ of the arts, or more specifically artists during the war.162 Furthermore, the Pilgrim Trust had provided £25,000 to establish CEMA chaired by Lord Macmillan who was succeeded by the reluctant Keynes on 1 April 1942.163 Keynes was concerned that ‘CEMA should concentrate on standards and not on mere dissipation of any sort of music and art’; denoting quality not quantity.164 Yet from the artists’ perspective CEMA also inaugurated the payment of fixed scaled fees to hire work from living artists for touring exhibitions and unlike a dealer or commercial gallery did not charge commission when works were sold (Minihan, 1977).165 CEMA evolved as a quango to become the Arts Council.166 Accordingly Keynes considered that state patronage had ‘crept in ... in a very English informal unostentatious way — half baked’.167 As the Chairman of CEMA he had proposed ‘that the new body should be called the Royal Council of Arts’, specifically to make explicit that this ‘new body’ was established as ‘an alternative [Royal] Academy’ (Brighton, 1981).168 Though Philip Hendy (1947), as Director of the National Gallery and an Arts Council member, later protested:

162 Op. cit., Stourton, James. 2016, 193 and 201. Also see Smalley, Ulrike. "The Secret Purpose of the War Artists Advisory Committee." http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-secret-purpose-of-the-war-artists-advisory- committee, accessed 24 November 2016.

163 VAM. "CEMA." http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/wid/ead/acgb/acgb-e11.html, accessed 7 April 2015. As a philanthropic gesture, Edward Harkness, an American railway millionaire gifted two- million pounds to establish The Pilgrim Trust in 1930; its purpose was to ‘help conserve the heritage of Great Britain in all its aspects, social, intellectual and material’.

164 Weingärtner, Jorn. Art as a Weapon of War: Britain and the Shaping of a National Morale in Second World War. London: I B Tauris and Co Ltd., 2012, 90.

165 Op. cit., Minihan, Janet. 1977, 224.

166 Op. cit., Pearson, Nicholas. 1982, 50. As a quango CEMA’s Council was appointed by the Minister for Education, yet it was separate from Government.

167 O'Donnell, Nathan. "Bread and Ballyhoo: Wyndham Lewis and the Arts Council of Great Britain." http://www.wyndhamlewis.org/images/JWLS-essays/2013/jwls-2013- odonnell.pdf, accessed 28 October 2016.

168 Brighton, Andrew. ""Where Are the Boys of the Old Brigade?": The Post-War Decline of British Traditionalist Painting." Oxford Art Journal 4, no. 1 (1981): 35-43.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 49

the Council is one of many bodies, including the national collection, which serve the public ... it cannot possibly be called ‘huge’ in either its administration or its financial resources; and to label it as an academy will cause dismay in quarters which have often criticized its support of un-academic art.169

This new entity was formalised as the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) which was granted a Crown Charter on 9 August 1946 and ‘thus was established independently of Parliament and the Civil Service’.170 Its slogan ‘The Best for the Most’ emphasised both quality and public accessibility.171 Commonly known as the Arts Council the agency was funded by a generous Grant-in-Aid of £235,000 from the Labour Government Treasury.172 Notably Keynes had insisted that the Arts Council reported directly to the Treasury rather than the Minister for Education as CEMA had done, thus operating as a ‘non departmental public body’, an independent authority, one step removed from Government and therefore from the scrutiny of public accountability.173 By 1949 the Arts Council confidently stated ‘we administer a Treasury grant; but we act independently’.174 Writing in The Nationalization of Culture, Minihan (1977), notes that ‘the state’s responsibility to foster national culture was no longer subject to dispute’; even if the mechanism for state responsibility was remote its responsibility had been legally bestowed upon the Arts Council.175 The Arts Council’s objective was to develop:

169 James, Philip. "Killing Art by Kindness." The Listener XXXVIII, no. 968 (14 August 1947): 263-64.

170 Op. cit., Pearson, Nicholas. 1982, 3.

171 ACGB. The First Ten Years. London: ACGB, 1956, 11. As a Government funded body the Arts Council of Great Britain had a mandatory obligation to provide annual reports documenting officers, events and fiscal transactions. Also see Op. cit., Minihan, Janet. 1977, 218. Also see Harris, Jonathan. "Cultured into Crisis: The Arts Council of Great Britain." In Art Apart: Art Institutions and Ideology across England and North America, 177-91. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994, 185. Harris (1994) noted that ‘outside the south-east, however, groups and individuals active within the visual and other arts were not prepared to accept the effective metropolitan prejudices of the organisation’.

172 ACGB. The ACGB 2nd Annual Report 1946-47. London: ACGB, 1947, 7.

173 Dempsey, Noel. Arts Funding: Statistics. Vol. No CBP 7655, 27 April 2016, London: House of Commons, 2016, 16.

174 ACGB. The ACGB 4th Annual Report 1948-49. London: ACGB, 1949, 24.

175 Op. cit., Minihan, Janet. 1977, 215.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 50

a greater knowledge, understanding and practice of the fine arts ... and in particular to increase the accessibility of the fine arts to the public ... to improve the standard of execution of the fine arts and to advice [sic] and co-operate with ... Government Departments, local authorities and other bodies on any matters concerned directly or indirectly.176

The Arts Council’s interpretation of ‘fine arts’ was as yet unresolved and must have given the Royal Academy serious concern, particular the intention ‘to improve the standard of execution of the fine arts’, a role that the Royal Academy would have understood to be within its own remit because the defence of artistic standards and the training of artists had been central to the Royal Academy’s foundation since 1768. Considering the significance of the Royal Academy’s ‘more stable traditions’ over modernism, as Gablik (1984) asserted, the traditional ‘imposed certain standards on their practitioners and right ways to do things’.177

Invoking the use of the word ‘Council’ accorded with the executive bodies of CEMA, of the Royal Academy’s own Council and the international patronage afforded by the British Council established in 1934.178 However although the tri-partite ‘Councils’ of the Royal Academy Council, the Arts Council and the British Council shared a titular nomenclature, their mandates were diverse as were the personalities and aesthetic preferences of their executive officers.179 As Chairman of the Arts Council, Clark’s influence was recognised as contradictory given his status as a renaissance scholar and connoisseur; he was considered to be ‘the man who has the influence and ability to condemn Modern Art, yet he does not’.180 As Pevsner observed (1955) ‘in England success of a new venture depends on the lucky accident of a man who believes in it, is

176 Op. cit., ACGB, 1947, 8.

177 Gablik, Suzi. Has Modernism Failed? London and New York: Thames and Hudson 1984, 127.

178 British Council. "History." https://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/history, accessed 22 October 2016. The full title was the ‘British Council for relations with Other Countries’ and its purpose was the promotion of British culture and the soft diplomacy fight against fascism.

179 Sir Ronald Adam (1946–55) and Sir David Kelly (1955–59) for the British Council; Sir Kenneth Clark for the Arts Council (1953–60); and the elected Presidents of the Royal Academy, Sir Alfred Munnings (1944–49); Sir Gerald Kelly (1949–54); Sir Albert Richardson (1954–56); and Sir Charles Wheeler (1956–1966). Also see op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 113. Machin recollected that ‘in 1954 the possible President had been Charles Wheeler, but he was not universally liked, and Albert Richardson aged seventy three, had been elected to keep Wheeler out’.

180 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 123 Sculptor Eric Schilsky RA (1898–1974) in conversation with Arnold Machin RA.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 51 insistent and can at the same time handle committees’.181 Labour’s political quest for democracy had presumed the dislodgement of the privileged elite and those whom Chesterton (1950) described as ‘the learned man, of what I may call the Cambridge type’.182 However the Government’s nascent policy of arts interventions attracted exactly ‘the learned man’ to lead the new arts committees: for example Clark and Rothenstein both were educated at Oxford; Read was educated at Leeds University and Huw Wheldon (the Arts Council representative for the Festival of Britain) was educated at the London School of Economics. The eclectic Royal Academy PRAs perhaps paradoxically generally lacked a tertiary education other than to equip them with the skills of their artistry: Munnings at Norwich School of Art; Richardson an architectural apprenticeship and Wheeler at Wolverhampton School of Art; the exception being Kelly who had been educated at Eton and Cambridge. Yet throughout the 1940s and 1950s, this cohort of the leaders of post-war London art institutions were to continually move within the same orbit, both professionally and socially.

It is plausible that the intellectual curiosity of those most closely associated with the Arts Council, British Council and ICA initiatives drove a quest for innovative and anti- bourgeois art. Massey and Muir (2014) describe the founders of the ICA including Read as ‘brokers of challenging art, high culture and intellectual endeavour’, acknowledging such a stance as ‘unashamedly elitist’.183 Their aim was to ‘galvanise’ London culture although during the late 1940s modern art was not acquired for the permanent collections of the larger art institutions.184 As ‘the main alternative to traditionalism, conservativism and chauvinism’ the ICA, funded by the Arts Council, sought to establish a viable counterpoint to the Royal Academy’s exhibitions.185 The ICA’s pioneering exhibitions of ‘Forty Years of Modern Art’ (1948) and ‘Forty Thousand Years of Modern Art’ (1948–1949) created new thinking in exhibition practice whilst promoting Roger Fry’s186 interest in the ‘primitive’ sculpture of Africa as the antithesis

181 Pevsner, Nikolaus. The Englishness of English Art: An Expanded and Annotated Version of the Reith Lectures Broadcast in October and November 1955. London: The Architectural Press, 1955, 182.

182 Op. cit., Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. 1950, 233.

183 Massey, Anne, and Gregor Muir. ICA 1946-1968. London: Institute of Contemporary Art, 2014, 11.

184 Ibid, 14.

185 Whiteley, Nigel. Art and Pluralism: Lawrence Alloways' Cultural Criticism. Croydon: Liverpool University Press, 2012, 12.

186 Roger Fry (1866–1934).

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 52 of the Greek tradition.187 Penrose (1949) stated that ‘the intention was to show the kinship’ between primitive and modern art and to question whether the relationship was ‘one of superficial appearance, or ineffective parody, “Primitive revival”?’.188

The Arts Council’s Second Annual Report (1946–47) acknowledged that ‘the work done by the Art Department is largely that of the direct supply of exhibitions, and the advice of the Panel on the nature and content of exhibitions’.189 Importantly this statement publicly recognised the Arts Council’s decision-making responsibility for facilitating ‘direct supply’ on behalf of the Government. Effectively the Arts Council had taken up the curatorial task of selecting the art and the artists who would, or would not, be included in their public exhibitions or commissioned for public sculpture. Critically the only sculptor appointed to the Arts Council’s Art Panel was Moore.190 However, as examined in Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’, Academicians Dobson and later Wheeler selected the works included in the Arts Council’s ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibition series; an arrangement that offered a remarkable insight into the entwined complexity of state patronage and the inter-changeability of Royal Academy and Arts Council members.

One of the unintended and ‘unexpected’ consequences of the Second World War had been to bring to the fore contemporary art and artists because the nation’s precious art treasures had been sent away from London for safekeeping (Stourton, 2016).191 This situation benefited the vigorous and fundamentally novel work of an emergent generation of untrained post-war sculptors who were promoted by the Arts Council at the Festival of Britain in 1951.192 Many of these sculptors were then elevated by the British Council to the international platform of the Venice Biennale in 1952 where Read

187 Thornton, Nicholas. "40,000 Years of Modern Art." Unpublished thesis (MA), Courtauld Institute of Art, 1998, 2.

188 Penrose, Roland. "40,000 Years of Modern Art." The Architectural Review 105, no. 627, March (1949): 144-45.

189 Op. cit., ACGB, 1947, 5.

190 Ibid, 1. Other significant Art Panel members (1946–47) included: Leigh Ashton (of the VAM)(1897–1983); Sir Kenneth Clark (as chairman); Samuel Courtauld (1876–1947); Duncan Grant (1885–1978); Philip Hendy; Eric Newton (1893–1965) and John Rothenstein.

191 Op. cit., Stourton, James. 2016, 172.

192 Jolivette, Catherine. ": 1951 and Figurative Sculpture at the Exhibition." The Sculpture Journal 17, no. 2 (2008): 23-36.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 53 afforded ‘great prestige to these new and little-known sculptors’.193 Moreover, concerning Arts Council relations with the British Council their collaboration was assured because given the overlap of the same individuals representing both the Arts Council and the British Council, they may plausibly be considered as a single entity. The most frequent Arts Council members included Clark, Hendy, Maclagan, Moore, Read and Rothenstein whilst the broadly similar côterie of modern art protagonists who constituted the British Council from 1948 until 1958 were: Hendy (1950, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1958 as Commissioner); Maclagan (1940, 1950 as Commissioner); Penrose (1954, 1956); Read (1940, 1948, 1950, 1952 as Commissioner, 1954, 1956); Rothenstein (1948 as Commissioner, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956) and Somerville (1948–1958).194 Read and Rothenstein in particular coordinated the Arts Council selections whilst from 1950 onwards Somerville took the lead for the British Council as Director of Fine Arts.195

By 1953 the Arts Council considered itself sufficiently well established to declare ‘the preservation of the fine arts is another of these collective responsibilities; not a brand- new one, by any means, but one which has only in recent years won conscious acceptance by our national and municipal legislators’.196 This statement proclaimed the legitimacy of their authority with the inference that they were responsible for deciding what was, and was not, ‘fine art’. As the Arts Council’s programme of exhibitions lessened its association with Old Masters for example ‘Sir Joshua Reynolds’ (1949) or ‘Thomas Gainsborough 1727-1788’ (1953), it progressed towards with ‘Manet and his Circle’ (1954) then ‘Post Impressionism’ with ‘Monet’ (1957) — probably with the encouragement of Arts Council member Samuel Courtauld — then onwards to more contemporary exhibitions such as those of ‘’ (1955). Yet the most experimental and therefore controversial exhibitions were conveniently hosted by the ICA, an entity that the public may have perceived as separate and disassociated from the Arts Council or the Government.

193 Burstow, Robert. "The Geometry of Fear." In A British Vision of World Art, edited by Benedict Read and David Thistlewood, 119-21. London, 1993, 119.

194 Op cit., British Council. Venice Biennale 1950s.

195 Ibid.

196 ACGB. The ACGB 8th Annual Report 1952-53. London: ACGB, 1953, 3.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 54

Pearson (1982) surmises that the positive contribution of state patronage enhanced social equality within the nation:

an important function of the State vis-a-vis the visual arts is to correct the imbalances in opportunity, wealth and power through supporting and encouraging a more open and democratic use of and involvement in art ... similar to arguments made for State involvement in health and education. These are general ‘rights’ irrespective of wealth, age, income, sex, colour or class. 197

Pearson, however, further considers the ‘negative contribution’ of state patronage to be the ‘lending of intellectual support’ to institutions that were ‘undemocratic’ or supported minority ‘intellectual’ interests.198 This took into account the highly intellectual nature of exhibitions sponsored by the Arts Council, the British Council and the ICA; the unregulated authority of their selection Committees; generous Government funding and their innate bias towards modern abstraction. This new model of state patronage was the antithesis of the Royal Academy which was inherently less intellectually stimulated, being self-regulated by the voting of the whole of the General Assembly rather than a small number of executives, and which endeavoured to manage a precarious fiscal environment by virtue of the Summer Exhibition which veered towards the populist conservative mainstream interpretation of ‘taste’. Given the quango nature of the Arts Council, the British Council and the ICA, the Government had arguably abdicated its responsibility for a balanced representation of aesthetics, both traditional and modern. In the absence of a Government-approved art policy, the elitist interests of the executives leading the Arts Council, British Council and ICA were imposed. Additionally Moore’s presence and influence as an Arts Council Art Panel member should not be ignored when considering the implications for the demise of the work of more traditional sculpture.

Twentieth-Century Sculpture’s Reformation

In tracing a history of state patronage Taylor’s (1999) writing in Art for the nation identified the Hanoverian emergence of the ‘public sphere’ and an ‘efflorescence of public exhibitions of art’ frequently representative of ‘Britishness’ or ‘Englishness’ (often inter-changeably) in the representation of the visual arts and cultural narrative.199 Furthermore, the principle that the public viewing of art was an educational, civilised and civilising pastime became inseparably linked with class,

197 Op. cit., Pearson, Nicholas. 1982, 108.

198 Ibid, 71.

199 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 1.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 55 particularly an aspirational middle-class intent upon betterment.200 These were persistent eighteenth-century themes with which the post-war twentieth-century art establishment re-engaged. Against this dynamic historical evolution, public art, representations of ‘Britishness’ or ‘Englishness’, the rise of artistic British modernism and the trend towards professionalisation and intellectual betterment, together with the life-style aspirations of all classes of post-war British society, became complex facets pertinent to an ideological understanding of post-war exhibitions and the patronage of sculpture.

The evolution of state patronage initiated by Clark’s formation of the War Artists Advisory Committee the discrete purpose of which, as Clark’s wife Jane revealed, was ‘to save our friends’.201 As another war loomed, the loss of the generation of artists who served in the Great War was uppermost in the minds of those, like Clark, who were custodians of the nation’s art collections and by extension its moral obligation towards living artists. Prominently Henri Gaudier-Brzeska’s premature death at the age of twenty-four was widely regarded as a tragedy of ‘war waste’ given his prodigious sculptural talent.202 That Gaudier-Brzeska was untrained established a precedent for aspirational artists who were unable or unwilling to attend an art academy and offered the creative possibility of extending the disciplines and boundaries of traditional sculpture beyond its Greek heritage.203 Furthermore, the sense of national isolation that British citizens felt so keenly during the war was to enhance a powerful belief in ‘Britishness’. Consequently when the war in Europe ended on 8 May 1945, these four elements: relationships; artistic patronage; pedagogy (or lack of); and the propaganda of a national identity of ‘Britishness’, had coalesced to nurture emergent artists. The application of wartime engineering skills and the utility of industrial materials became the catalyst for a radical shift away from realism towards a new wholly British modernism, discussed in Chapter Two, ‘The Royal Academy Sculpture School’. As Garlake (1998) explained ‘art had suddenly become a political issue, dismissing metaphysical connotations, it made ideological claims; it appeared in utterly unfamiliar forms with an obscure theoretical content and demanded a new language with which to

200 Ibid, 168. Taylor traced ‘the idea of art as a civilising instrument’ through the morality pictures of the 1890s back as far as the first London public exhibitions in the 1760s.

201 Op. cit., Stourton, James. 2016, 191. Chapter Twenty, fn. 3. ‘See letter from Henry Lewes to Clark, 6 May 1969, in which Lewes quoted Jane Clark, see TGA. 8812/1/4/55.

202 Henri Gaudier-Brzeska (1891–15). Op. cit., Pound, Ezra. 1916, 17.

203 Pevsner, Nikolaus. Academies of Art, Past and Present. 1973 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940, 1.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 56 discuss it’.204 This from artists whom as Campion (1957) observed ‘would scarcely deign to be seen dead in ’ referring to the Royal Academy’s London location.205

London’s post-war art community was intent upon re-establishing a vibrant programme of exhibitions with which to encourage the public to visit the galleries that were open, or at least partially open and had not sustained significant bomb damage.206 Inspiration was provided by an ‘Exhibition of Paintings by Picasso and Matisse’ (1945– 46) held at the VAM.207 Both artists were considered to be ‘the two most eminent of living painters’ indicative of the residual deference conferred upon European artists especially those based in France before the war; the exhibition drew unprecedented crowds of nearly 220,000 people.208 However a series of exhibitions which privileged sculpture also captured the imagination of art executives, sculptors and the public because these events publicly exposed the disparity between realism and abstraction, the established and the emergent artists and the Royal Academy and the Arts Council. Moreover, the regeneration of blitzed London provided an unprecedented opportunity for the installation of public sculpture, sponsored by the LCC, advised by Arts Council representatives and in particular by Moore. This initiative further promoted sculpture situated in an urban context on which Garlake’s (1998) New Art, New World: British Art in Postwar Society provided the seminal text.209

Nationally, new forms of state patronage rose to public prominence due to the orchestration of four significant sculpture events: the ‘Sculpture in the Home Exhibition’ series (1946, 1950–51, 1953 and 1958); the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ series (1948, 1950, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1966); the Festival of Britain (1951) and the ‘Unknown Political Prisoner’ exhibition (1953). Concurrently the Royal Academy continued with its annual international loans programme of Winter exhibitions

204 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 34.

205 Campion, Frank. "A President without an Enemy." Everybody's, (12 January 1957): 16-17.

206 Tate. "Tate History." http://www2.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/historyhtml/war_reopen.htm, accessed 7 January 2018. The RAA remained opened throughout the Second World War, however the Tate Gallery was badly damaged, partially reopening on 10 April 1946 then fully reopening on 14 February 1949.

207 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 176.

208 Ibid, 177–178.

209 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998. Garlake’s account of the Royal Academy draws upon Brighton, Andrew. "Consensus Painting and the Royal Academy since 1945." Studio International, November 188, no. 971 (1974): 174-76.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 57 featuring Old Masters and its enduring Summer Exhibitions. A series of new exhibitions, intended to encourage an aspirational consumerism by re-imagining a comfortable even affluent home, engaged with a ‘make do and mend’ nation. Instigated to promote consumer products, the Council of Industrial Design (1944) — later the Design Council — organised the ‘Britain Can Make It’ Exhibition at the VAM in 1946. However given that rationing was still enforced during Britain’s impoverished post-war period the press ironically renamed the exhibition ‘Britain Cann’t Have It’ because the products were not available in the shops.210 The Government’s intended betterment of the lives and democratic opportunities of British citizens was compromised by the persistence of economic hardship. Even rationing prevailed for fourteen years until 1954 with lack of some foods being one of the most significant privations.211 Nonetheless, the exhibition perpetuated the British passion for an ‘ideal home’ which had begun with the Daily Mail’s ‘Ideal Home’ Exhibition in 1910.212 Extending this domestic theme, the Arts Council’s first ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibition in 1946 had an almost altruistic motive to support struggling sculptors. The striking similarity between sculptures selected for ‘Sculpture in the Home’ and those available at the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition will be analysed in Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’.

Complementary to state patronage, in a move to liberalise and decentralise Government, section 132 of the Local Government Act (1948) granted local authorities tax incentives and permission for the ‘provision of entertainment’ (Minihan, 1977); therefore, local authorities were empowered to spend up to six-pence in the pound annually.213 The LCC took advantage of its new powers to promote music and the arts; of which the Open Air Exhibitions provided a robust example. The first ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ was initiated by the recently elected Vice-Chairman of the Parks Department, Patricia Strauss:

210 Maguire, Patrick. and Woodham, Jonathan. Design and Cultural Politics in Postwar Britain: The "Britain Can Make It" Exhibition of 1946. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1997.

211 BBC. "1954: Housewives Celebrate the End of Rationing." http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/4/newsid_3818000/3818563.stm, accessed 15 January 2018. Food rationing was imposed from 8 January 1940 until 4 July 1954.

212 VAM. "Daily Mail the Ideal Home Records 1910-1990." http://www.vam.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/250114/idealhome_aad-1990- 9_20140709.pdf, accessed 18 January 2018.

213 Op. cit., Minihan, Janet. 1977, 241.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 58

my idea is not merely to exhibit the work of Royal Academicians, but also Moore, Gordine, Epstein, etc., and thus show our public and the world the trends of modern sculpture. Indeed, I would like it to be frankly an exhibition of Modern Sculpture; and if the discussion aroused was controversial, so much the better.214

The realisation of the ‘Open Air Exhibition’ gained support even from the Academicians. Ledward (an early tutor and friend of Moore), enthusiastically wrote to The Times in 1948 commenting that ‘I have often advocated that we should release these captives and give them an out-of-door life’.215 It is not my intention to fully detail the Open Air Exhibition series in this thesis, particularly the first held in 1948, given that this subject has received rigorous scholarly appraisal. Burstow’s (2000) unpublished thesis offers a comprehensive survey of the Battersea Park exhibition in 1948 in his Chapter ‘Sculpture in the Open Air’.216 Powell (2008), in her unpublished thesis, examines how this and subsequent exhibitions were anticipated as a display ‘broadly representative of the work of British and, as far as possible, foreign sculptors of the last fifty years’,217 notwithstanding Garlake’s (1998) meticulous examination of the exhibition’s political, cultural and social consequences.218

Of relevance to this thesis, however, are two intersecting issues. The first is the composition of the working party (also referred to as the sculpture exhibition committee) which encompassed a diverse representation of expertise, in summary: Strauss as Chair and four Arts Council representatives who simultaneously held other posts (Clark as Director of the National Gallery; Rothenstein as Director of the Tate Gallery; Sir Eric Maclagan as Chair of the Fine Arts Committee of the British Council

214 Patricia Frances Strauss (1909–1987). LCC/MIN 9017. Letter of 15 May 1946 from Lady Patricia Strauss to Mr Powe, Chief Officer of the London County Council Parks Department. Also see Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000 and Powell, Jennifer 2008. Also see Veasey, Melanie. "Humanising the Landscape: The Outdoor Placement of Twentieth-Century Sculpture and Its Aesthetic Impact Upon the Viewer." Unpublished thesis (MA), University of Buckingham, 2014, 53.

215 Ledward, Gilbert. "Letters to the Editor: Sculpture in Battersea " The Times, 17 May 1948, 1948, 5. Ledward taught Moore at the Royal College of Art. Also see Wade, Rebecca. "‘Learning from Moore between the Wars: Henry Moore as a Teacher at the Royal College of Art and Chelsea School of Art 1924–39’, in Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity, Tate Research Publication." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/henry-moore/rebecca-wade-learning- from-moore-between-the-wars-henry-moore-as-a-teacher-at-the-royal-r1151310, accessed 25 November 2017.

216 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 47–101.

217 Strauss, Patricia. "Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture in Battersea Park.". London: London County Council, 1948, Foreword, 3-4.

218 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 59 and Philip James, the Arts Council’s Director). Additionally there were three practising sculptors: Dobson (then Professor of the Royal College of Arts); Tate Trustee and Arts Council Art Panel member, Moore; and Tate Trustee, Wheeler.219 All of these figures, as a cohesive group, with the exception of the LCC representatives, remained actively engaged as members of the Arts Council and the British Council during the 1950s. The composition of this working panel demonstrated the willing participation of Dobson and Wheeler as Academicians and it is plausible that the friendships between Dobson, Moore, Rothenstein and Wheeler had led to the sculptors’ appointments on the working party despite Munnings’s later misgivings about the involvement of Academicians with this exhibition, to be discussed in Chapter Three, ‘The Royal Academy as Community’. Representatives of the ICA and the Royal Society of British Sculptors together with nominated sculptors joined the working panel from 1954 onwards.220 However by 1952 Lambert, then Master of the Royal Academy’s Sculpture School, expressed his ‘personal reluctance’ to accept his nomination to serve on the working party for the Open Air Exhibition of 1954; despite considerable pressure from the Royal Academy’s Council, he refused.221 The fact that he later lobbied for the acceptance of the Royal Academy’s Dionysus cast to be included in this exhibition — which it was — may provide some indication as to Lambert’s reticence.222 When an invitation for representatives to serve on the working panel was extended for the Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture in in 1957, McMillan223 similarly declined and was substituted by Charoux.224 These refusals confirmed concerns expressed within the Royal Academy about the Arts Council’s modus operandi and its commitment to modern sculpture.

The second point of interest concerning the Open Air Exhibitions was the selection of sculptures that were chosen by the working party, especially in 1948, which was

219 LCC. "Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture." London: London County Council in Association with the Arts Council of Great Britain, 1948. Presentation Copy to the 100,000th visitor signed by all working party members, held at the HMF.

220 Powell, Jennifer. "Henry Moore and ‘Sculpture in the Open Air’: Exhibitions in London’s Parks." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/henry-moore/jennifer-powell- henry-moore-and-sculpture-in-the-open-air-exhibitions-in--parks-r1151300, accessed 10 August 2016.

221 RAA/PC/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 4 November 1952, 39.

222 RAA/PC/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 8 December 1953, 84.

223 William McMillan (1887–1977). RAA. "William McMillan R. A.". https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art- artists/name/william-mcmillan-ra, accessed 17 May 2018.

224 RAA/PC/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 13 March 1956, 159.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 60 perhaps the most contentious, having sparked what Garlake describes as the ‘war of tastes’ between traditional and modern sculpture. Most of the works were loaned either by the sculptors or by the Tate given the complexity of seeking to transport sculpture from war-torn Europe. For the first time the public was able to directly contrast the work of the Academicians which appeared outmoded when set amongst examples such as Moore’s Three Standing Figures (1948).225 Although the exhibition catalogue did not identify the relevant sculptors as ‘RA’ the visual manifestation was obvious in the work of Dobson, Hardiman, Lambert, Ledward, McMillan, Reid Dick, Skeaping and Wheeler. Also displayed were the works of the French sculptors Despiau and Maillol, amongst others, together with sculptures presented by émigrés Charoux, Ehrlich, Henghes, Nimptsch and Schotz.226 What was also notable about the exhibition was the number of works by those on the working panel: two sculptures by Moore (given advantageous placement); three from Dobson and two from Wheeler. Collectively the exhibition sculptures presented a survey of aesthetic diversity and as such offered an index by which subsequent post-war exhibitions might be calibrated. The Royal Academy was however keen to support the Open Air Exhibitions and continued to loan works including those of nineteenth-century sculptors to the Arts Council until 1957.227 However a polite letter received in February 1957 confirmed that future sculpture or painting commissions for the LCC would ‘rely exclusively on the Arts Council for advice’ thus dispensing with any residual formalities towards the Royal Academy.228

On 5 December 1947, the Lord President of the Council of the British Government, Herbert Morrison, announced in Parliament the Government’s decision to celebrate the Festival of Britain (1951).229 Morrison stated that the Festival was to be ‘concerned with Industrial Design, Science and Technology and the Arts’.230 Gerald Barry was appointed as Festival Director because of his skills as ‘a great impresario’ and the Arts Council’s

225 Cavanagh, Terry. Public Sculpture of South London. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2007, 288–292. Cavanagh noted that Reg Butler spent three weeks working on the right- hand figure of Three Standing Figures. Ibid, 289.

226 Op. cit., LCC. “Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture”. 1948.

227 RAA/PC/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 8 January 1957, 189. Narcissus (1838) and Mourning Husband (nd) by J Gibson. RA (1790–1866). Nymph (1846) by P MacDowell. RA (1799–1870). The Elder Brother (1858) by J. H. Foley. R. A. (1818–1874).

228 RAA/PC/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 5 February 1957, 197.

229 ACGB. The ACGB 3rd Annual Report 1947-48. London: ACGB, 1948. Also see Op. cit., Conekin, Becky., Mort, F., & Waters, C. 1999, 229. For this statement Morrison (1888–1965) earned the title ‘Lord Festival’.

230 Op. cit., ACGB. 1948, 6–7.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 61 contribution was led by Huw Wheldon.231 In pursuit of national identity the Arts Council’s ‘unanimous view’ was that the Festival event should ‘represent the British arts only’.232 How the sculptures were to be sourced, however, had not been resolved; ultimately sculpture was elevated from its the status as the ‘Cinderella of arts’ by the display of work showcasing many younger artists, for example Butler and Chadwick (Sylvester, 1951).233 Only one Academician was commissioned by the Arts Council to exhibit work at the Festival of Britain: this was Dobson with London Pride (1951).234 As Ebong (1986) affirms, Barry’s carefully chosen committee members ‘seemingly spoke the same intellectual and creative language which enabled them to present an uncommon uniformity of ideas in a short space of time’.235 Academicians were perceived as being unable to conform with Barry’s uniformity of modern thought, lexicon and visual language. The Academicians’ obvious exclusion from the Festival’s organisation could not have passed unnoticed. Moreover, ironically, the Royal Academy had been asked to accommodate a Festival exhibition organised under the Arts Council’s direction, or failing that, an exhibition of the Royal Academy’s history since inception in 1768, rather than holding the annual Summer Exhibition; a remarkably audacious request.236 Such a request may be understood as the privileging of Government patronage in subjugation to that of the Monarch. The Royal Academy

231 Gerald Barry (1898–1968). Op. cit., Conekin, B., Mort, F., & Waters, C. 1999, 229. Also see BFI. "Wheldon, Sir Huw (1916-86)." http://www.screenon- line.org.uk/people/id/473425/, accessed 3 January 2018. Huw Wheldon (1916–1986), ‘cast from the Reithian mould’ went on to present the BBC arts programme Monitor.

232 VAM/EL4. ACGB (1942-59). Arts Council Minutes, 27 February 1947.

233 Sylvester (1951) declared that, ‘ if sculpture is nowadays, as it is often said, the Cinderella of arts, the Festival of Britain and the London Season of the Arts have provided her with glass slippers, a carriage and six white horses. Sylvester, A. D. B. "Festival Sculpture." The Studio 142, no. 700, July 1951 (1951): 72-77.

234 ACGB. "Special Supplement to the Information Summary: The Arts in the Festival of Britain." (1951): 1-49. The Arts Council commissioned Frank Dobson’s London Pride (1951), Jacob Epstein’s Youth Advancing (1951), Barbara Hepworth’s (1951) and Contrapuntral Forms (1951) and Henry Moore’s Reclining Figure (1951), Dobson being the only member of the Royal Academy to be commissioned by the Arts Council for this event. Ibid, 49. Also see op. cit., Conekin, B. E. 1998, 37. Also see Burstow, R. "Modern Sculpture in the South Bank: Townscape." In Festival of Britain: Twentieth Century Architecture - 5, edited by Elaine Harwood and Alan Powers, 96-106, 97. Twentieth Century Society: Harwood and Powers, 2001. Also see op. cit., Jolivette, Catherine. 2008.

235 Op. cit., Ebong, Inyang. 1986, 59.

236 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 2 November 1948, 259. Op. cit., Ebong, Inyang. 1986, 457 for CAB124/1334/. Memo from the Arts Council to the Festival Executive Council.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 62 declined and the one-hundred-and-eighty-third consecutive Summer Exhibition was held as usual from 5 May until 26 August 1951. However this event left the Royal Academy without doubt that its previously unquestioned authority had been undermined by the Arts Council even before the Academicians had properly understood that their status was in jeopardy. The Festival of Britain consolidated the Arts Council’s legitimacy, validating Gray’s (2000) observation that ‘the world of bureaucracy that the arts are located within is not static’.237 Although as Frayne (1963) recognised the ‘true celebrants’ of the Festival were the ‘Herbivores ... the radical middle-class, the do-gooders’.238

Controversially, the ICA’s organisation of the ‘Unknown Political Prisoner’ competition in 1952–53 caused the significant sculpture scandal of the 1950s. Its intention was seemingly noble, to honour political prisoners, however its execution was radical, financially motivated and overtly politically (Burstow, 2000).239 Finalists with ‘no limitation on style’ were exhibited at the Tate where one-hundred-and-forty-six maquettes from fifty-two nations were displayed. British representatives on the International jury comprised of: Sir Leigh Ashton, Director and Secretary of the VAM and H. D. Molesworthy, Keeper of the VAM; Hendy, Director of the National Gallery and James, Director of the Arts Council. Notably, Clark, Dobson and Epstein had declined to serve on the jury.240 The Grand Prize offered a bounteous £4,500.241 As Burstow (2000) comments ‘those designs which were awarded prizes were almost all characterised by their use of abstracting methods to represent co-existing dialectical concepts of imprisonment verses liberation or, more broadly, oppression versus transcendence’.242 Modern sculptors were favoured, with Butler’s maquette the unanimous winner. Butler’s monument was never built because the American patrons of the competition reneged and no specific site had been located; it had simply been an

237 Gray, Clive. The Politics of the Arts in Britain. Hampshire and London: Macmillan Press, 2000, 5 and 83.

238 Frayne, Michael. Festival. Edited by M. Frayne, M. Sissons and P. French. London: Penguin, 1963, 330–352. Frayne argued that, ‘The BBC — the most thoroughbred Herbivores of all — hammered the Festival into the national cortex with 2,700 programmes on the subject.’ Ibid, 349.

239 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 166–222.

240 Ibid, 173.

241 The value of £4,500 in 1953 would have been equivalent to approximately £115,500 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

242 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 175.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 63 exercise in Cold War propaganda (Burstow, 2000).243 However the ICA was labelled as the ‘gateway to Europe for American culture’ and its reputation was certainly tarnished in the eyes of more conservative members of the metropolitan art world.244 Consequently, this more than any other sculpture exhibition of the period invoked a furious press outcry against modern sculpture. Butler’s maquette was attacked at the Tate on 16 March 1953 by Hungarian, Lazlo Szilvassy, who was deeply distressed by the maquette, ‘to reduce them — the memory of the dead and the suffering of the living into scrap metal is just as much of a crime as it was to reduce them into ashes or scrap’.245 The exhibition’s theme of oppression however continued to resonate with sculptors for years afterwards as exemplified by Chadwick’s (1966),246 which suggested a more sinister presence resonant with Orwell’s popular novel Nineteen Eighty Four (1949) concerning a totalitarian dystopia and surveillance of society.

Internationally, as Parsons (1984) asserts, the British Council had been established in 1934 by ‘perceptive people in Whitehall’ who recognised the ‘new danger’ of totalitarian regimes and the need to disseminate British culture.247 The soft diplomacy of international trade fairs, art exhibitions and English literature became the British Council’s cultural conduit towards nurturing Anglophiles, although quite how best to do this was open to debate (Eastment, 1982).248 In this regard Nicolson (1955) offered a curious characterisation of the British Council: ‘it pleases us to imagine that we are bad

243 Ibid, 202.

244 Ibid, 202. fn. 347. ‘American Culture and the Institute of Contemporary Arts, leaflet, nd. [c. 1956–57], MOMA.

245 Waterman. "Sculpture after 1945: Maquette for the Unknown Political Prisoner (1951-52)." http://www.waterman.co.uk/artists/categories/16/1682/, accessed 18 January 2018. Also see Calvocoressi, Richard. "Public Sculpture in the 1950s." In British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century, edited by Sandy. Nairne and Nicholas. Serota, 135-53. London: The Trustees of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1981.

246 PMSA. "The Watchers." http://www.pmsa.org.uk/pmsa-database/945/, accessed 15 May 2017. Chadwick’s formative influence was in part attributed to his time as a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm in the Second World War. Lucie-Smith, Edward. "Lynn Chadwick out of the Shadows Unseen Sculpture of the 1960s." 2009, 30. http://www.gallery- pangolin.com/downloads/gallery-pangolin/catalogues/lccatalogue001.pdf, accessed 20 May 2017.

247 Parsons, A. "'Vultures and Philistines': British Attitudes to Culture and Cultural Diplomacy." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) 61, no. 1 (1984): 1-8.

248 Eastment, D. J. "The Policies and Position of the British Council from the Outbreak of War to 1950." Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Leeds, 1982.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 64 at self-advertisement and even at self-explanation’.249 The unresolved issue of Britain’s disadvantaged cultural propaganda became evident at the ‘Exposition des Arts et des Techniques’, Paris (1937)250 against a backdrop of political iconography when Germany’s federal eagle directly confronted the Socialist Realism of Vera Mukhina’s ‘opus magnum’ Worker and Kolkhoz Woman (1937).251 This aggressive iconography was in stark contrast to the hesitantly modern British Pavilion located south of the river Seine as seemingly ‘insipid and indecisive’252 displaying only the Royal Coat of Arms, whilst the British Pavilion’s contents presented ‘tennis, bridge, tea, sport, the week-end [country house]’; objects which characterised the British as ‘pampered and idle’.253 Consequently the sculptors selected by the British Council in 1948 and 1952 were informed by an intense desire for publicity and the portrayal of an innovative, reinvigorated and transformed representation of ‘Britishness’. The astute sculpture selections of the post-war British Council provided the foundation upon which the careers of a new generation of modern British sculptors were launched. These artists were chosen because their art was different to all that had gone before and therefore signalled a vital rupture with the past. The Venice Biennale of 1952 represented an apex of post-war British sculpture later read as mythologised by Read’s (1952) iconic ‘geometry of fear’.254 Moreover, in writing ‘In the Queen’s Parlour, inspired by Tea and made of Gentlemen: British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century as ‘Sculpture Anglaise’, Sleeman (1997) identifies a persistent problem, ‘the narration of British Sculpture as

249 Nicolson, Harold. "The British Council 1934-1955, 4-30." https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000100140005- 8.pdf, accessed 27 January 2018.

250 Op. cit., Greenhalgh, Paul. 1988, 138–139. Greenhalgh (1988) identified the Paris ‘Exposition Universelle’ of 1937 as ‘the most extreme example of opposing ideologies coming together with the apparent motive of peaceful displays’ given the dominance of the German Pavilion and the event’s ‘violent climax of nationalism’.

251 Vera Ignatyevna Mukhina (1889–1953). Greenhalgh, P. Ephemeral Vistas. The Expositions Universelles, Great Exhibitions and World's Fairs, 1851-1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988, 138–139.

252 Crinson, Mark. "Architecture and 'National Projection' between the Wars." In Cultural Identities and the Aesthetics of Britishness, edited by Dana Arnold, 182-99. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004, 194-195. Also see RIBA. "Design for the British Pavilion at the Paris International Exhibition of 1937 (Exposition International Des Arts Et Des Techniques): Plan." https://www.architecture.com/image-library/ribapix/image-information/poster/design- for-the-british-pavilion-at-the-paris-international-exhibition-of-1937-exposition- internation/posterid/RIBA35999.html, accessed 22 December 2017.

253 Op. cit., Crinson, Mark. 2004,194-195.

254 Op. cit., Read, Herbert. 1952.

Chapter One - The Post-War Expansion of State Patronage Page 65 the poor relative of better art going on elsewhere’.255 By 1952 that ‘elsewhere’ was considered to be the international platform where British sculpture was no longer considered to be the ‘poor relative’ but a significant force.256 However, by 1956 when Chadwick was awarded the International Prize for Sculpture, that ‘better art’ was strongly contested by Giacometti’s creations of tall, ‘fleshless martyrs’ at the Venice Biennale,257 figure 1.3.

Thus by bringing post-war British sculpture to the public’s attention through a revitalised programme of national and international exhibitions, organised by the Arts Council, British Council and the ICA, an energised press and art critical discourse focused on the unconventional and the controversial. The elite intellectuals who consistently controlled these events (Clark, Hendy, James, Read, Rothenstein and Somerville) were intent upon usurping traditional sculpture whilst creating new channels through which the work of emergent sculptors could be exhibited and potentially acquired for state art collections.

This thesis identifies how these extraordinary circumstances were navigated by the sculptors of the Royal Academy and their response to the new construct of state patronage which arguably disrupted their pedagogy, community, exhibition practices and provision of sculpture for the state.

255 Sleeman, Alison "In the Queen's Parlour, Inspired by Tea and Made of Gentlemen: British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century as 'Sculpture Anglais'." The Sculpture Journal 1 (1997): 72-79.

256 Ibid.

257 Op. cit., Galenson, David. 2006, 119. Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 66

Chapter Two

The Royal Academy Sculpture School

The thesis is: that art should be the basis of education.258 Herbert Read (1945)

What is known as ‘good taste’ seems to have some connection with what is known as ‘education’.259 Eric Newton (1962)

As established in the preceding chapter, the Royal Academy had been almost entirely excluded from the prevailing construct of state patronage. In seeking to examine sculpture’s pedagogic narrative during the post-war period, this chapter will identify the role of London art schools and situate the Royal Academy as simultaneously apart from, yet engaged with, those institutions under Government control. I will discuss the Royal Academy’s adherence to a fine arts curriculum in contrast with the national need for an industrial design programme of study to create exports which would contribute to the replenishment of the Treasury’s resources. In so doing, informed by Fenton’s (2006) School of Genius260 and Potter’s (2013) The Concept of the Master.261 I discuss three constituent parties whose experiences informed the Royal Academy’s pedagogy: temporary visitors (as tutors), the art-Masters and the sculpture students (1948–1959), figure 2.1, within the context of the wider London art education community. Furthermore, referring to Garlake’s (2008) essay ‘Materials, methods and modernism’262 I assess the consequences of materials shortages, the application of engineering skills to the creation of sculpture and the emergence of untutored sculptors whose public ascendancy called into question necessity for an art education. Ultimately the Royal Academy’s agency as an educational institution will be measured through the empirical data of those students who endeavoured to develop their professional

258 Read, Herbert. Education through Art. 1956 ed. London: Faber, 1945, 1.

259 Newton, Eric. The Meaning of Beauty. London: Pelican, 1962, 20.

260 Fenton, James. School of Genius a History of the Royal Academy of Arts. London: Salamander Press Ltd, 2006.

261 Op. cit., Potter, Matthew. 2013.

262 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 2008.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 67 practice to achieve commercial success, peer recognition and election as a member of the Royal Academy and the enduring influence of those who taught them.

Politics and Purpose

The Royal Academy found itself uncompromisingly juxtaposed against the progressive mandate of the Labour Government elected on 26 July 1945.263 The historical significance of this fulcrum was important for three reasons. Firstly, because it situated the constitutionally apolitical Royal Academy in a politically charged environment driven by an electorate whose desire for change, innovation and modernisation was to define post-war Britain.264 Secondly, the newly elected Government’s commitment to ‘“further” or adult education’,265 together with a willingness to provide educational grants for students, including art students, was aligned with the aspirational mood of a younger generation and therefore brought an upsurge in applicants to metropolitan art schools. Thirdly, the nation’s economic necessity of re-establishing a vibrant manufacturing and export trade which would contribute to the impoverished Treasury necessitated a dramatic change in curriculum from fine arts to British industrial design for state-funded institutions.266 Furthermore, the Government’s financial support for the Arts Council complicated the landscape of patronage. Keynes, who masterminded the paradigm shift from private patronage, so familiar to the Royal Academy, to one of political patronage, successfully convinced the Government that ‘the support and encouragement of the civilizing arts of life’ were state responsibilities.267 Identifying art patronage as a state duty presented a radical new ideology which then located the Royal Academy in an imprecise sphere of influence.

263 Op. cit., Labour. "Labour Party Manifesto” 1945. Also see UK Political Info. "1945." http://www.ukpolitical.info/1945.htm, accessed 17 January 2017. Labour secured a majority of 146 winning 393 seats compared to the Conservative’s 213 seats in the House of Commons. Whilst the election was held on 5 July, the results were not declared until 26 July to accommodate the votes of the overseas forces and Wakes Week.

264 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 30 October 1951, 513. The RAA’s courtship and recognition of Churchill as Honorary Academician Extraordinary in 1948 conveyed an underlying political affiliation with the Conservative Party. Further, a congratulatory message was issued by the Royal Academy’s Council when Churchill assumed his Premiership again on 25 October 1951.

265 Op. cit., Labour. "Labour Party Manifesto” 1945. Education and Recreation section.

266 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 40.

267 Op. cit., Moggridge, Donald. 1992, 705. CEMA had been granted £100,000 when Maynard became Chairman, which was increased to £400,000 for the 1948–1950 financial years prior to his death in 1946.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 68

Pevsner (1940) writing the authoritative history of Academies of Art, Past and Present, differentiated the British Royal Academy from state-administered European Academies ‘because it is a private institution not easily to be influenced by alterations of official policy’.268 This degree of autonomy was further explored in The Art Enquiry: The Visual Arts, a Political and Economic Planning (PEP) report sponsored by the Dartington Hall Trustees in 1946 which identified and summarised the benefits and detriments of the four post-war models for British schools of art. The report identified: i) publicly supported schools such as the Royal College of Art (RCA); ii) university art schools such as The Slade School; iii) private art schools such as ’s school and, as unique, iv) the Royal Academy Schools.269 The PEP report following Keynesian principles recommended that art should be accountable to Government through ‘three responsible authorities: the Minister of Education, an Arts Council and A Design Council’. However, the Royal Academy’s independent status, unconstrained by state supervision, did not fit readily into the report’s recommendations, whereas the RCA governed by the Ministry of Education was tethered to Government policy. The PEP report’s assessment of the Royal Academy’s declining influence was attributed to ‘the Academy’s interpretation of its own function’.270 Furthermore the words of the Royal Academy’s Secretary, Lamb (1938), which portrayed the Royal Academy as ‘enjoyable to the ordinary visitor who seeks a ready means of cultivating a personal taste in contemporary art’ were included in the PEP report as disparagement of the Royal Academy’s understanding of ‘contemporary art’.271 Thus although the PEP report may be read as compliant with state authority, it did acknowledge the legitimacy of the Royal Academy as an independent educational institution whose Academicians and Associates were beyond the parameters of political accountability. Additionally, the Royal Academy considered itself entirely separate from the post-war criticism of Government art schools as ‘divorced from commercial life, devoid of practically any

268 Op. cit., Pevsner, Nikolaus. 1940, 289–290. Pevsner documented the history of the Academy (Ακαδημεία) from the north-west of Athens where Plato gathered his students. He progressed through the Italian renaissance of the 1500s and the Accademica Fiorentina. Then onwards to the Academy of Painting and Sculpture established by the French Government in 1648 after which ‘the new rules of the Neo-Classical Movement became predominant in art’.

269 Op. cit., PEP 1946, 84. Also see TGA 819.3.2. Leon Underwood (1890–1975) initially opened his private school in 1921 which closed whilst he travelled through Mexico and reopened again in 1931. Also see Neve, Christopher. Leon Underwood. Bradford: Lund Humphries, 1974.

270 Op. cit., PEP 1946, 55. Also see Cowdell, Theophilus Paul. "The Role of the Royal Academy in English Art, 1918- 1930." Unpublished thesis (PhD), Sheffield City Polytechnic, 1980, 60.

271 Op. cit., PEP 1946, 55. Also see op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1938, 47.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 69 knowledge of commercial markets, the art schools … are to all intents and purposes anachronisms’.272 This debate for Read (1945) however was not whether the state should govern art institutions and consequently that their curriculum should align with economic necessity, but simply that art schools should be unconstrained given his belief that ‘each individual ... is not material to be poured into a mould and given a hall- mark’.273 Read had written extensively on his theory that as a civilising influence ‘art should be the basis of education’ for a democratic society.274 The Government’s pedagogical preference was therefore, as Potter (2013) argues, for a school of design ‘free from art-historical intervention and the Old Masters, taking material artefacts and studying them “out of context” for their utilitarian lessons’.275

Setting aside Read’s proposed abolition of art education and the wider pedagogical debates, the two immediate challenges facing the Government art schools and the Royal Academy were identical despite their divergent ideologies, namely the need to attract talented students and to re-establish the Schools’ reputations. Similarly, the disciplinary parameters that Mansfield (2002) identified as ‘state control’ informed the ‘professional ethics, pedagogy, codes of conduct, civil laws and moral canons’276 of both Government art schools governed by the state and the Royal Academy constrained by its monarchical fidelity and steadfast apoliticism; despite their polarised institutional ideologies. For example, when the Academy of Art in Budapest had called upon the Royal Academy to fight the cause of peace against the re-armament of Germany, its carefully drafted response emphasised that the Royal Academy ‘by its constitution had no political function’.277

272 Lewis, John N. C. "Designers for Industry: Training in Art Schools - American Methods." The Times, 1 January 1945, 5. It was noted however that ‘with the increasing complexity of modern production methods, this is a task which the art school is not able to discharge unaided’ by industry. Also see Walton, Allan. "Industrial Design: Art and Technical Training." The Times, 27 December 1945, 5.

273 Op. cit., Read, Herbert. 1945, 4–5. In answering his question what is the purpose of education? Read (1945) argued that it was ‘to develop, at the same time as uniqueness, the social consciousness or reciprocity of the individual.’

274 Ibid, 1.

275 Op. cit., Potter, Matthew. 2013, 19.

276 Op. cit., Mansfield, Elizabeth. 2002, 2.

277 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 7 April 1955, 130.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 70

The Royal Academy’s ‘Rules and Orders relating to the Schools of Design’ were confirmed on 2 January 1769 when Reynolds declared the Schools open.278 Writing shortly afterwards, Strange (1775) discerned that as the fine arts ‘connected with various branches of manufacturers, they become objects of importance in a commercial kingdom’ however the Royal Academy’s fidelity was closer to the King than to ‘commercial kingdom’279 Moreover whilst the Royal Academy’s educational identity was originally titled as the Schools of Design, the interpretation of ‘Design’ remained resolutely synonymous with the creation of fine art inspired by Old Masters.280 Even into the twentieth century, the Royal Academy Schools offered a credible and illustrious artistic alumni as its raison d’être for maintaining the artistic skills that its students were required to attain.281 Pevsner (1940) observed of the Royal Academy that ‘its educational activity is only a side-line, carried on as a kind of moral duty (without fees)’.282 Neither the Instrument of Foundation nor the Rules and Orders made explicit reference to the cost of tuition, it was then (and continues to be at the time of writing) provided gratis funded by the proceeds of the annual Summer Exhibitions.283 Therefore it may be considered that Pevsner conveyed only a narrow interpretation of the Instrument of Foundation in isolating its educational commitment as ‘only a side-line’ when education was the catalyst for the Royal Academy’s foundation.284 As Lamb (1938) emphasised, in exchange for royal patronage ‘the school and its needs came first’.285 Thus the Royal Academy’s commitment perpetuated a seemingly legitimate educational intent. However in seeking to accurately locate the Royal Academy Schools in the twentieth century it is necessary to contextualise the interwar late Modernist period of the 1930s and to consider the Royal Academy’s closest educational comparators.

278 Ibid, 48.

279 Coningham, William. An Inquiry into the Establishment of the Royal Academy: A Letter to the Earl of Bute from Robert Strange 1775. London: John Oliver, 1850, 37.

280 Definition of ‘design’, the look and function. OD. "Design." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/design, accessed 17 January 2017.

281 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 211.

282 Op. cit., Pevsner, Nikolaus. 1940, 289–290.

283 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 211, and ibid, 48–49.

284 Op. cit., Pevsner, Nikolaus. 1940, 289–290.

285 Op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1938, 49.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 71

The RCA — the Royal Academy’s principal educational comparator and rival — was founded in 1837 as the ‘Government School of Design’ in remedial response to ‘the amount of French designs that were being bought by British manufacturers’ (Physick, 1993).286 Seeking to reinvigorate the RCA during the 1930s, the Hambledon Committee had mused upon the possibility of transforming the RCA into a ‘British Bauhaus’, however this was deemed to be too progressive and as a consequence its purpose lingered in what Sharp (1993) describes as its ‘disparaged role as a virtual teacher training college’.287 State art school emphasis on teacher training ignored the developing abyss between fine arts and the economic export necessity of nascent ‘industrial design’, which by 1947 industrialist and academic Sir Charles Tennyson urged as Britain’s ‘proper counter in so many lines to the immense power of American mass-production.’288 In contrast to the RCA, ‘industrial design’ was not considered as relevant to the Royal Academy’s fine arts curriculum.

When Robert ‘Robin’ Darwin became Principal of the RCA in 1948 he described the art school as ‘dead as a Dodo’.289 Cordial relations were maintained with the Royal Academy which hosted the exhibition for the Association of Old Students of the Royal College of Arts (1948).290 Frayling (1987) celebrated Darwin’s encouragement of his students’ participation in the Festival of Britain in 1951, noting that many of them were active in the Lion and Unicorn Pavilion, accordingly their engagement with the design concepts and new materials applied at the Festival reignited the RCA’s experimental design programme. Darwin encouraged participating students with the comment, ‘of course you must do it well enough for the College to gain a reputation from it’.291 This opportunity was not grasped with the same enthusiasm by the Royal Academy for its

286 Physick, John. "The Government School of Design." In Design of the Times: One Hundred Years of the Royal College of Art, 14-19. Somerset: Richard Dennis Publications, 1996, 14–19.

287 Sharp, N. "Rothenstein’s Success? The Royal College of Art in the Interwar Years. ." In Design of the Times: One Hundred Years of the Royal College of Art., edited by C. Frayling and C. Catterall, 25–28. Somerset: Richard Dennis Publications, 1996, 25–26.

288 Sir Charles Tennyson (1879-1977). Tennyson, Charles, Sir. "Industrial Design: The British Trend." The Times, 1 January 1947, 12. Tennyson praised the creation of the Government’s war-time foundation of The Central Institute of Art and Design as having ‘welded together in one federation all the societies of national status representing professional artists, craftsmen and designers.’

289 Robert ‘Robin’ Darwin (1910–74). Frayling, Christopher. The Royal College of Art, One Hundred and Fifty Years of Art and Design. London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1987, 139.

290 RAA Exhibitions Master File.

291 Op. cit., Frayling, Christopher. 1987, 147. Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 72 own students, although some sculptors (Dobson, Charoux and Lambert), exhibited at the Festival of Britain. It is not known whether the students of the Royal Academy contributed to this spectacle and therefore they seem to have lost a remarkable opportunity to work with some of the best designers of the day. Reinforcing this design ethos, in 1952 Sir , Director of Architecture for the Festival of Britain and his wife, architect Lady Margaret Casson joined the RCA’s staff in the Department of Interior Design.292 Garlake (1998) elaborates how, as the 1950s progressed, the RCA students were increasingly influenced by the urbanism of ‘American bourgeois culture’ as the antithesis of the Royal Academy’s fine arts.293 Additionally, although the RCA was not officially recognised as a ‘British Bauhaus’, Darwin had implemented two Bauhaus principles: ‘That most students should face the fact that their future should be involved primarily with industry and mass production rather than with individual craftsmanship’ and ‘That teachers in schools of design should be men who are in advance of their profession rather than safely and academically in the rear-guard.’294 Contemporaneously the teaching staff of the RCA were depicted by Rodrigo Moynihan, Professor of Painting at the RCA, who was simultaneously an Academician, figure 2.2.295 Moreover Darwin’s recruitment of a woman stood in stark contrast to the Royal Academy’s wholly masculine interpretation of art-Masters. Importantly, as RCA ascendant alumni, Moore’s and Hepworth’s growing international reputations following their respective international success at the 1948 and 1950 Venice Biennales added to the cachet of this institution.296 Darwin’s shift in emphasis from fine arts to industrial design was completed when he re-invigorated the RCA as ‘the only design

292 Sir Hugh Casson (1910-1999). Lady Margaret Casson (1913-1999). Op. cit., Frayling, Christopher. 1987, 141.

293 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 80.

294 Bayer, Herbert, Walter Gropius, and Ise Gropius. Bauhaus 1919-1928. London: Secker and Warburg, 1975, 6. Bauhaus continued ‘because we live in the twentieth century, the student architect or designer should be offered no refuge in the past but should be equipped for the modern world in its various aspects, artistic, technical, economic, spiritual, so that he may function in society not as a decorator but as a vital participant’.

295 Rodrigo Moynihan (1910–1990). The Teaching Staff of the Royal College of Art (1951) was exhibited at ‘60 Paintings for ‘51’ organised by the Arts Council for the Festival of Britain. Moynihan stands to the far right of the painting.

296 Op. cit., British Council. Venice Biennale 1940s. Also see op. cit British Council. Venice Biennale 1950s.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 73 school in the country at university level’.297 However other British art schools were slow in their assimilation of ‘art in design’.298

The divide between cultured fine art and the utility of industrial design were not considered to be two sides of the cultural curriculum delivered by provincial art teachers. Misha Black, co-organiser of the Festival of Britain 1951, lamented ‘the British design Cinderella must be elevated to the throne of properly financed eminence if our export trade is to survive the massive attacks of our more design-conscious competitors’.299 Thus, whilst the RCA’s attention was forcibly drawn towards a programme of study inspired by austerity economics and the vigorous international focus of British designed exports, the Royal Academy remained resolute in its purpose, its state-free independence and its commitment to the fine arts. In Parliament, the second Earl Haig — Hardiman had created the controversial Marshal Haig Monument (1928) for Douglas, the first Earl Haig (1861–1928) — informed the House of Lords on this lack of arts patronage and ‘the drudgery of teaching in art schools’; the younger Earl supported the unidentified ‘more promising artists and sculptors’ including ‘the group who were on the verge of becoming masters’.300 The Government however remained committed to the delegated authority of the Arts Council for the patronage of the arts. A decade later, by the 1960s end of term schools shows were besieged by potential collectors and art critics keen to identify the next generation of artists.

297 Russell, Gordon, Sir. "Art in Industry: Good Design as Asset to Export Trade." The Times, 25 April 1956, 11.

298 Op. cit., Sharp, N. 1996, 25–28.

299 Misha Black (1910–1977). Black, Misha. "Letters to the Editor: As Grandmother Liked It." The Times, 24 June 1960, 15.

300 Anon. "The Arts Starved of Capital: Urgent Need for Increased Government Patronage." The Times, 12 July 1957, 8. Roth, Andrew. "Obituary: Earl Haig." https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jul/15/obituary-dawyck-earl-haig, accessed 13 January 2017. The Second Earl Haig ‘spent a lifetime struggling to decide whether he was primarily a fine modern painter or the son of Field Marshal Douglas Haig.’ Also see op. cit., Cavanagh, Terry. 2007, 95–106. Also see Holman, Valerie. "Alfred Hardiman, RA, and the Vicissitudes of Public Sculpture in Mid-Twentieth -Century Britain." The Sculpture Journal 24, no. 3 (2015): 351-73. Also see Casson, Stanley. "The Statue of Marshal Haig." In Art in England., edited by R. S. Lambert, 144-50. London: Pelican, 1938, extract from The Listener.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 74

A Conventional Curriculum

In June 1940 the Royal Academy was compelled by war to close its Painting, Sculpture and Architecture Schools to all students.301 Artist Muirhead Bone, concerned for the ‘students and teachers alike turned adrift’, ventured ‘to criticize strongly the Royal Academy’s hasty decision’ emphasising the Royal Academy’s influential standing when he declared ‘we look to the Royal Academy for leading here’ contrasting this ‘ancient school’ with that of ‘rivals’ identified as the RCA and The Slade School.302 The Royal Academy Schools remained closed throughout the war, after which a phased re-opening commenced with the Painting and Drawing School on 21 January 1946, under the supervision of the newly elected Schools Keeper, Philip Connard.303

The Sculpture School re-opened on 1 October 1946 when it welcomed seven students; six men and one women.304 The enforced closure of the Schools during the war had presented an opportunity for the Royal Academy to reconsider its pedagogy and the

301 RAA/KEE/13/12. Announcement of the re-opening of the Architecture School, December 1946. Closure had been a ‘Government decision applicable at that time to all schools in vulnerable areas’ although subject to the ‘availability of air raid protection for students’ it was possible to remain open. Also see Robertson, C. Chairman of the LCC. "Letters to the Editor: London Art Schools." The Times, 25 October 1939, 6.

302 Muirhead Bone (1876–1953). Bone, Muirhead. "Letters to the Editor: Art Schools." The Times, 6 October 1939, 6.

303 Philip Connard (1875–1958). RAA/KEE/13/12. Announcement of the re-opening of the Painting and Drawing School, January 1946.

304 RAA/KEE/13/12. The twelve pre-war sculpture students were contacted: seven men and five women, of those eight confirmed their return: Pamela Dorothy Beresford, John Bonar Dunlop, Stephen Leslie Richard, James Rutherford, Richard Alfred Thomas, Eric Leonard Winters, Frank Graeme Martin and (illegible). RAA/Schools/424f. Members Notice of 23 April 1945. The initial post-war meeting to consider the arrangements for the re-opening of the Sculpture School was held on 30 April 1945. RAA/Schools/424f. Members Notice of 31 July 1945. A subsequent meeting was held on 8 August 1945 to consider the recommendation of a Sculptor Member for appointment as Master of the Sculpture School, however both meetings proved to be anticipatory. RAA/KEE/13/12 Sculpture School Minutes of the Meeting, 26 June 1946. The meeting was attended by Messrs. Hartwell (1873–1951), McMillan, Garbe (1876–1966), Hardiman, Lambert, Ledward, Woodford (1893–1976), and Reid Dick. A year later, and after the opening of the Painting School, at a meeting of the Sculptor Members and Connard on 26 June 1946, arrangements were addressed for the re-opening of the Sculpture School.

304 McMillan had been Master of the Sculpture School (1929–1941) prior to its suspension for the duration of the war. Glasgow, University of. "William McMillan." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib2_1205349090, accessed 21 November 2016.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 75 artistic standards to which it intended to elevate the students, however, the sculpture course, scheduled for six days per week, remained constant and conventional. It comprised ‘modelling, figure composition, carving and drawing; a model to sit on three days each week for the modelling class; carving, composition and design to be done on the other three days’.305 Sculpture students joined the evening drawing school which students from the Painting School already attended. Schmeckbier (1955) emphasised the vital significance of drawing as ‘the very core of the art school curriculum’.306

By December 1946, the Royal Academy also planned to re-open the Architecture School and drafted an announcement for exclusive publication in The Times. Lamb writing to the editor, Robert Barrington-Ward wrote ‘you may remember that the late President, Sir , was much interested in re-opening this School after the war on new lines, with a view to keeping alive and active the best principles of the British tradition’.307 In reality these ‘new lines’ extended only to a shift in timetabling from an evening school to a day school rather than a radical review of the course to accommodate the now widely known modern movement inspired by the Bauhaus or even a gesture towards industrial buildings. The main purpose of the architecture syllabus was ‘an intensive study of civic architecture and the preparation of designs for buildings of national importance’ (emphasis inserted).308 An impression of which buildings might be considered of ‘national importance’ may be surmised from those considered suitable as embellishment subjects noted in the Royal Academy’s annual Sculpture Prizes, including A Group for the Terminal Finish of Bridge Parapet (1948); Sunrise for a Hospital (1950); Carving for the façade of a Chamber of Commerce in a great seaport (1956).309 The necessity of urban regeneration and crucially the post-war housing crisis was not deemed to be of relevance for the Royal Academy’s students. Traditionally Academicians had undertaken commissions for such illustrious buildings

305 RAA/KEE/13/12. Sculpture School Minutes, 26 June 1946. The Carving School would eventually be accommodated in the southern part of the old Architecture School and the northern part utilised for the storage of casts.

306 Schmeckebier, Laurence. "Drawing and the Art Schools." College Art Journal 14, no. 2 (1955): 135-41.

307 Robert Barrington-Ward (1891–1948) RAA/KEE/13/12. Letter of 13 December 1946 from Sir Walter Lamb KCVO to R. G. Barrington-Ward, Esq. DSO.

308 RAA/KEE/13/12. Announcement of the RAA Schools’ re-opening included as ‘Statement of Publication’ in Letter of 13 December 1946 from Sir Walter Lamb KCVO to R. G. Barrington-Ward, Esq. DSO.

309 RAA Annual Report 1948, 26. RAA Annual Report 1950, 45. RAA Annual Report 1956, 39.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 76 as Hardiman’s striking Child Education, Care of the Sick/Healing, Recreation/Open Spaces and Town Planning ― the later mimetic of Michelangelo’s sculptures’ musculature ― completed in the 1930s for London County Hall, figure 2.3.310 In contrast post-war construction provided homes for the populace; national regeneration under the auspices of Labour’s Ministry of Town and Country Planning included twenty New Towns from a blueprint of austerity housing and proceeded with the nationalisation of the coal mines to support industry.311 Richardson, having recently retired as Professor of Architecture at University College London, lobbied for and was appointed as Professor of Architecture for the Royal Academy, figure 2.4. He devised a course ‘comprising classical, mediaeval and renaissance architecture with a special view into a mastery of basic planning and design.’312 Despite this somewhat prosaic architectural offering, Richardson stated that ‘he was informed that the Royal Institute of British Architects would be pleased to send on to the Royal Academy a number of suitable students requiring such advanced training.’313 Moreover Richardson’s anticipation ‘of intermingling in some degree of the training of painters and sculptors with that of architects, was to be commended and encouraged, as conducing to a liberal view of all arts’ found favour with the Royal Academy’s Council.314

As visually evidenced by Bingham (2013) in 100 Years of Architectural Drawings 1900-2000,315 after 1939 architectural sculpture fell dramatically out of favour in Britain, predominantly for reasons of economy. Crucially, as Lubbock and Crinson (1993) argue, this architectural shift prevailed because the Beaux-Arts paradigm ‘failed to cope with the new technology, social and professional situation in building design. Modernism offered a theory to cope with the development’; consequently the national

310 Op. cit., Cavanagh, Terry. 2007, 95–106. The four sculptures were installed between January and the end of March 1933. Hardiman had replaced Ernest Cole (1890–1979) whose sculptures on the riverside of the building had drawn criticism from the LCC. Opaque windows were installed to address complaints due to the window view of the gluteaus maximum of the Town Planning figure.

311 National Archive. "1946: New Housing, 8 May 1946" http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1945to1951/timeline.htm, accessed 10 November 2016. The coal industry was nationalised on 20 May 1946.

312 RAA/KEE/13/12. Announcement of the re-opening of the Architecture School, December 1946.

313 RAA/KEE/13/12. Draft Architecture School memorandum, nd, 2.

314 RAA/KEE/13/12. Draft Architecture School memorandum, nd, 1.

315 Bingham, Neil. 100 Years of Architectural Drawings 1900-2000. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2013.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 77 curriculum had to be capable of continuous change overseen by the ‘great discretionary powers’ of the Board of Architectural Education.316

A more comprehensive understanding of the Royal Academy’s formal sculpture curriculum may be drawn from analysis of the subjects for the Sculpture Prizes listed in each Annual Report (1948–1959).317 A strong schematic may be traced through the six awards: A Composition in Sculpture; Model of a Design (usually as architectural embellishment); a Subject set by the Visitor/Master (regrettably the subject specifics were not documented); Model from the Antique; a Medal or Coin; Two Models from a Figure from the Life. From 1950 onwards a Carving in Stone or Wood was added and then from 1954 a Portrait Head by one Student of Another provided a further prize opportunity. The medal or coin titles were suggestive of the most topical subjects including: A medal to commemorate the Olympic Games (1948) celebrating the first post-war Games that were held in London; A Medal to commemorate the Festival of Britain (1951) and, curiously, A Medal for Hairdressing (1956). Though major prize themes continued to be drawn from the biblical and mythological: Nymphs and Fauns (1950); Adam and (1952); Daedalus and (1956); The Annunciation (1959). As Chambers (2013) elaborates, the Slade’s 1950s competition titles similarly adhered to classical literature and the Bible, however, Principal William Coldstream, also introduced subjects from contemporary literature written by T. S. Eliot, W. H. Auden and Dylan Thomas.318 The RCA however focused on ceramics, glass, industrial design and fashion.319 In addition graphic design was extensively utilised in the RCA’s student publication ARK, three seminal editions of which were edited by Alloway.320

316 Lubbock, J., and Crinson. M. "Education for Change 1938-1960: The Creation of the 'Official System'." Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain (1993): 47-51. In: The Education of the Architect: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain. London: Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain.

317 Op. cit., Pevsner, Nikolaus. 1940, 3. Goya (1792) ‘in the end I know of no more effective method to promote the arts ... than to give prizes to, and to widen protection of, the artist who is an artist ... and to allow the genius of the students who want to learn the arts to develop in full freedom.’

318 Principal William Coldstream (1908–82). T. S. Eliot (1888–1965), W. H. Auden (1907–73) and Dylan Thomas (1914–53). Chambers, E. "Prototype and Perception: Art History and Observations at the Slade in the 1950s." In The Concept of the 'Master' in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present, edited by M. Potter, 189-214. London: Ashgate, 2013, 202.

319 RCA. "Royal College of Art." https://www.rca.ac.uk/more/our-history/college- history/history-1837-2013, accessed 19 November 2016.

320 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 121. RCA. "Ark 1959-1978." https://www.rca.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/ark--royal-college- art-magazine-1950-1978/, accessed 9 February 2017. Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 78

Masters

The evolution of the Royal Academy as a crucible for professional practice developed because, as Hutchinson (1968) affirmed, ‘there were no art teachers and no art schools on the lines of those we know today’ beyond the Master-led apprenticeships of the eighteenth century.321 Potter (2013) in The Concept of the ‘Master’ draws our attention to the significance of Reynold’s Discourse I of 2 January 1769 and the artist’s belief that the Old Masters would remain a permanent inspiration for the Royal Academy’s students:

I would chiefly recommend that an implicit obedience to the Rules of Art, as established by the great Masters, should be exacted from the young Students - that those models, which have passed through the approbation of ages, should be considered by them as perfect and infallible guides as subjects for their imitation, not their criticism.322

Wien (2013) argues in ‘Naturalising Tradition: Why Learn from the Masters?’ that Reynolds was ensuring for the students ‘commercial and intellectual success in the present and their legacy in the future’.323 For an impoverished twentieth-century nation such ‘commercial’ success should perhaps have been a compelling argument for the Royal Academy to at least reconsider the scope of its curriculum. The emphatically masculine use of the term ‘Master’ was synonymous with the students’ subjugated position imposed by the desire for knowledge, skills and the potential professional status that could be conferred by completion of a period of servitude; a situation which was as valid and vigorous in the post-war Royal Academy as it had been during Reynold’s Presidency. Importantly Potter (2013) differentiates the pedagogical relationships of ‘art Masters’ and Old Masters.324 The enduring influence of Old Masters portrayed by Potter as ‘cultivating a habitual crick in the neck from looking to the past that will forever resist straightening’325 was the ‘approbation of ages’ described by Reynolds; which remained a post-war reality for art education as verified by Hendy

321 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney. C. 1968, 23.

322 Op. cit., Potter, Matthew. 2013, 17.

323 Wien, Iris. "Naturalising Tradition: Why Learn from the Masters?" In The Concept of the ‘Master’ in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present, edited by Matthew Potter, 29–46. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.

324 Op. cit., Potter, Matthew. 2013, 17.

325 Ibid, 20.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 79 when Director of the National Gallery.326 Art students from all of the metropolitan schools were still encouraged to study the work of notable Old Masters. This included the National Gallery where, despite accommodating ‘twice as many visitors as before the war in not a great deal more than half the space’ a dedicated room had again been made available ‘for students to copy paintings’ following Hendy’s interventions with the Ministry of Works.327 The deference conferred upon the Old Masters was by association also conferred by students upon their art-Masters, a convention little changed since William Etty’s328 time as Myrone (2013) elucidates:

selected individuals were able to study, submitting themselves to the authority of Academicians who assessed and advised on their work, and who facilitated or blocked both their initial acceptance into the Schools and their progress from the junior plaster Schools to the life-drawing classes.329

A formal art education and preferably advanced instruction at a recognised art academy was pre-requisite to the appointment of Royal Academy sculptors as art-Masters, many having progressed to the Royal Academy as a fraternity of the RCA including: Hardiman, Ledward, McMillan, Machin, Wheeler and Woodford.330 In the absence of a permanent post-war Master, Ledward diligently undertook initial responsibility for the Sculpture School.331 Prior to the appointment of a full time Master, the Royal Academy

326 Philip Hendy (1900-1980) Director of the National Gallery (1946-1967). ONDB. Shaw, James Byam. "‘Hendy, Sir Philip Anstiss (1900–1980)’." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/31219?docPos=1, accessed 13 January 2017. Also see op. cit., Potter, Matthew. 2013, 20.

327 Hendy, Philip. "Letters to the Editor: Art Students' Privilege." The Times, 21 August 1950, 5.

328 William Etty (1787–1849).

329 Op. cit., Myrone, Martin. 2013, 171.

330 The Royal Academy sculptors had advanced their own skill through either or both traditional routes: having been apprenticed to a known master sculptor such as Dobson to Sir William Reynolds-Stephens (1902–04); Hardiman to Charles Hartwell, RA, or Lambert to Francis Derwent Wood (1918–23) — Derwent Wood having also trained Moore at the Royal College of Art (1921–24) — Lambert also studied at the Chelsea School of Art (1919– 1924).330 Alternatively by attending an art establishment. After the Great War and its waning demand for war memorials, sculptors were frequently supervised at a number of esteemed establishments, most notably the Royal College of Arts, which still enjoyed the reputational legacy of Professor Edouard Lanteri (1848–1917); alumni of this and other art institutions included: Garbe at the Central School of Arts and Crafts (nd); Hardiman at the Royal College of Arts (1914); Ledward at Goldsmiths College and the Royal Academy Schools (1910); McMillan at the Royal College of Art (1908–12); Machin at the Royal College of Art (1937–40); Woodford at the Royal College of Art (nd); Wheeler at the Royal College of Art (1912–17) whilst Charoux had attended the Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Vienna (1922–24).

331 RAA/SEC/9/1/60. Day Book, 436. Letter of 8 November 1946 from Sir Walter Lamb to Gilbert Ledward. Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 80 appointed a series of ‘Visitors’, who were Royal Academy sculptors, willing to provide part-time tuition. Three Royal Academy sculptors, Dobson, Hardiman and Lambert were appointed as Visitors for the school year 1946–47, with Wheeler in reserve.332 The Visitors were each required to attend for one term, once or twice a week to advise and instruct the students, recompensed by a fee of three guineas for each visit.333 Woodford, Hardiman and Garbe were appointed as Visitors for the academic year 1947–48,334 followed by Machin, McMillan and Wheeler for 1948–49,335 then Ledward, Lambert and Charoux for 1949–50.336

Charoux was a possibly unexpected choice as Visitor having only been elected an Associate in April 1949 and having neither previous teaching experience nor knowledge of the Royal Academy’s curriculum.337 As a student at the Viennese Akademie der Bildenden Künste (Academy of Sculpture) Charoux had been promoted to the advanced class, skipping four out of the eight years long programme; although he did not win any accolades even then, preferring his own style to a prescribed aesthetic.338 Charoux completed a candid Visitor’s Report for the Royal Academy summarising the period 17 April to 30 June 1950. This report provided a detailed account of his enthusiastic approach and warrants critical analysis for the insight that it provided into not only

It was also intended that a Carving Master be appointed to attend one day each week; Wheeler and McMillan offered their services for this specialism although they were not taken up because necessary building work had not been completed for the carving studio. RAA/SEC/9/1/60. Day Book, 410. Letter of 18 December 1946 from Sir Walter Lamb to Charles Wheeler.

332 RAA/KEE/13/12. Sculpture School Minutes, 26 June 1946.

333 RAA/KEE/13/12. Sculpture School Minutes, 26 June 1946. The value of three guineas in 1947 would have been equivalent to approximately £150 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

334 RAA Annual Report 1947, 29.

335 RAA Annual Report 1948, 24.

336 RAA Annual Report 1949, 39.

337 RAA/SEC/4/25. Letter of 26 April 1949 from Siegfried Charoux to the President and Council of the RAA. In Charoux’s letter of acceptance upon election as an ARA he had expressed his sincere thanks and the ‘hope and prayer that my election will never give grounds for any disappointment’.

338 Sorrell, Mary. "Siegfried Charoux ARA." The Studio 146, no. 724, (July 1953): 16-19. Also see Goldstein, Carl. Teaching Art: Academies and Schools from Vasari to Albers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 49. Goldstein (1996) outlined the programme of the Vienna academy shortly after 1800, ‘a place in the department of elementary historical drawing ... in the rooms with antique statues, skeletons and later from the large anatomical statue ... by this method they [the students] become knowledgeable draughtsmen.’ Charoux received similar training in Vienna.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 81 how the students were occupied but also the influence that this émigré sculptor had upon their education:

When I took over I found a desire among the students to make a portrait head. We fixed Monday for a head and two days for a life figure which we wanted to use in connection with the composition ‘Memorial for a Citizen’. The life figure should form the anatomical basis for a figure to be draped in modern clothing.339

The proposed ‘Memorial for a Citizen’ was Charoux’s idea, the purpose of which was to introduce the students to the anatomical and the technical challenges of ‘civic’ or public sculpture of which war memorials provided plentiful examples. The revelation of Charoux’s personal influence was conveyed by his enthusiasm for the ordinary citizen and the draping of ‘modern clothing’; this at a time when the Royal Academy’s sculptors preferred life forms were predominantly nude women. Charoux also endeavoured to ensure that his students would be aware of the broader criterion that a sculptor must consider in executing public sculpture, figure 2.5:

We earmarked the little Palace Square off and went one day to the square and examined it for the actual spot on which such a memorial could be erected. Afterwards we discussed in the park all the aspects of our problems: aesthetical ones as well as economical and even political.340

The words ‘even political’ suggested the novelty of political consideration within the Royal Academy teaching. Although Charoux lacked teaching experience, his previous public sculpture commissions, such as the original Lessing Monument (1935) and his political awareness as a pre-war political caricaturist in Austria undoubtedly informed his aesthetic, economic and political awareness.341 His tutorial naivety may have permitted him to offer so revealing an observation of the agency and curricula of the Sculpture School. Whilst his approach may not have been typical of the more conventional Academicians, it defined a moment of transition from traditional

339 RAA/SEC/4/25. Siegfried Charoux’s Visitors Report for the period 17 April to 30 June 1950, signed 8 July 1950.

340 RAA/SEC/4/25. Siegfried Charoux’s Visitors Report for the period 17 April to 30 June 1950, signed 8 July 1950. A Communist in his Austrian youth, Charoux’s empathises had mellowed to Socialism in Britain. ODNB. Gross, Hans Kurt. "Charoux, Siegfried Joseph (1896-1967)."http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32374, accessed 10 May 2016.

341 JTA. "Statue to Lessing Is Erected on Jewish Square in Vienna." http://www.jta.org/1935/07/05/archive/statue-to-lessing-is-erected-on-jewish-square-in- vienna, accessed 30 June 2016. Celebrating the German poet Gotthold Lessing’s eighteenth-century cultural influence upon Vienna, Charoux won this commission against over eighty competitors in 1930, the sculpture was installed in 1935 though removed from its location in the Jewish Square in 1939 by National Socialists. Charoux created a replacement sculpture (1962-65) which was unveiled at Ruprechtskirche (St. Rupert’s Church) in 1968 and moved to Judenplatz in 1981.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 82 figurative sculpture to offer something of a more contemporary ‘taste’ to the Royal Academy’s students.

Reflecting upon his contact with the students Charoux wrote to the Council to offer his observations upon the Schools suggesting that they ‘ought to be at the top of the art educational system of this country’.342 He continued:

The Royal Academy Schools should not compete with any of the existing art schools but should provide space and opportunity for a finishing or rather a starting course for out-standing students of such schools as the RCA and the Slade … As the students admitted, would be the best of their kind, there should be no need for Baby talks on art.343

In so doing Charoux identified a number of important criteria for the selection of Royal Academy students. The first was that the Royal Academy Sculpture School offered a post-graduate course for only the most talented students who had already completed the foundation of their artistic education at other recognised art institutions. Secondly, he named the educational institutions that he considered the source schools from where such students might be recruited as the RCA and the Slade; entities which may have been considered as peer rather than subordinate to the Royal Academy. Whilst the Slade pursued a fine arts programme of study, the RCA had, as I have already established, been re-directed towards industrial design in support of Government fiscal policy. Nor would state intervention of the industrial design programme which the RCA pursued during the 1950s have prepared students for fine arts studies. Thirdly, that the Royal Academy should be positioned in a league of its own, at the pinnacle of professional competency and practice in Britain which should ensure commercial success for those fortunate enough to be selected as a student and then, by extension, elected to the Royal Academy. ‘Commercial’ success however was still interpreted by Academicians and Associates in terms of numbers of private commissions garnered

342 RAA/SEC/4/25. Letter of 9 July 1950 from Siegfried Charoux to the President and Council of the RAA.

343 RAA/SEC/4/25. Letter of 9 July 1950 from Siegfried Charoux to the President and Council of the RAA. Also see op. cit., RCA. "Royal College of Art." 2013. The Royal College of Arts (RCA) a Government school was established in 1837 and titled as the RCA in 1896. Its reputation grew after the 1940s taking credit as the ‘birthplace of The New Sculpture movement in Britain ... with students including such luminaries as Barbara Hepworth and Henry Moore.’ Misha Black established its Industrial Design course in the 1960s. Also see UCL. "The Slade School." http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/about/history, accessed 19 November 2016. The Slade was founded in 1871 as a fine arts school within the liberal University College London. Offering equality of education for women students its sculpture alumni included: Kenneth Armitage and F. E. McWilliam in the 1930s; Eduardo Paolozzi and William Turnbull in the 1940s. Sir William Coldstream was Slade Professor (1949– 1975).

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 83 through the Summer Exhibition and the embellishment of national buildings rather than as potential export contributions to the national debt. Charoux’s recommendations therefore demonstrated a remarkable singularity of political ideology, remote from the prevailing Keynesian economic policy.

At the General Assembly meeting of 13 June 1950, the resolution for a permanent Master of the Sculpture School was carried by eleven for and one against.344 Academicians were invited to inform the Secretary if they wished to be considered for this three year appointment.345 It was intended that the Master would ‘attend the School for two visits each week, to select and pose the models, set the subjects and direct the students’, occasionally inviting other Academicians and Associates to attend as unpaid Visitors.346 Lambert and Machin both sought appointment, however the Council decided to recommend Lambert to the General Assembly after Rushbury’s intervention in support of Lambert’s appointment.347 Nicolson (2002) characterised Lambert as an ‘uncontroversial figure’ noting the success of his portraiture and his ‘technical brilliance’,348 figure 2.6. Lambert was unanimously elected on 25 July 1950 to commence at Michaelmas (September) the same year.349 The post conferred a modest salary of £300 per annum and the use of a personal studio at Burlington House which eliminated the considerable personal expense of studio rental in the capital so that private practice and commissions might be maintained.350 By comparison the 1945 war allowance payable to state art teachers provided £52 per week (c. £2704 per annum) for men and £42 per week (c. £2184 per annum) for women.351

344 Connard (1875–1958) was Keeper from 1945–1949. RAA General Assembly Minutes, 13 June 1950, 187. Also see RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 30 June 1949, 321-322. At a meeting of the Council Wheeler together with Connard and Charoux had recommended that ‘either a Master be substituted for the Visitors or the Schools be for too advanced students under the personal tuition of two Sculptor Masters.

345 RAA Annual Report 1950, 19

346 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 4 October 1949, 333-334.

347 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 25 July 1950, 412.

348 Op. cit., Nicolson, Vanessa. 2002, 82.

349 RAA General Assembly Minutes, 25 July 1950, 190.

350 RAA Annual Report 1950. Resolution of the General Assembly no. 1, 26. The value of £300 in 1950 would have been equivalent to approximately £10,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

351 Education (Technical and Art Schools, Salaries). House of Commons Debate, 30 January 1945, vol. 407 c1307W. Gov. "Education (Technical and Art Schools, Salaries)." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1945/jan/30/education-technical- and-art-schools, accessed 14 January 2017. Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 84

Lambert’s ‘devotion to the task of teaching’ brought acclaim through the award of the Rome Scholarship for Sculpture, also known as the Prix de Rome, which in 1952 offered placement at the independent British School at Rome for one of his students, Gilbert Watt.352 In fact over time, there had been two previous variants of the ‘Prix de Rome’, the first being the original august French ‘Grand Prix de Roma’ a scholarship awarded by the Académie Royale (the Académie de France) which provided the opportunity for students of the Académie Royale to study at the Académie de France in Rome which had been established in 1666.353 Secondly, in the eighteenth century the Royal Academy’s anglicised rendering of a Prix de Rome came about because the Royal Academy had not established its own educational institution in Rome, instead from 1769 the Royal Academy organised ‘internal competitions and offered Rome scholarships on the Parisian model ... regularly available to gold medal winners’ (emphasis inserted) providing a three year Rome Scholarship to attend the autonomous British School at Rome.354 As Hoock (2003) observes the purpose of this award was to demonstrate that the Royal Academy Schools ‘were part of a wider world inhabited by successful artists and by patrons and collectors’.355 Ultimately, as a third iteration, the annual award of the postgraduate ‘Rome Scholarships’ were established by Royal

The average disposable household income in 1951 was £3,635. Anon. "How UK Incomes Have Risen and Fallen since 1948." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8414447/How-UK-incomes-have-risen- and-fallen-since-1948.html, accessed 9 February 2017.

352 Anon. "Rome Scholarships." The Times, 12 April 1952, 8. RAA Annual Report 1949, 26. In 1952 Gilbert Watt (1919–2013) also received the 2nd Landseer Prize of £10 and a bronze medal in 1948. Also see Anon. "Obituary: Gilbert Watt." http://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-gilbert-watt-sculptor-1-2818629, accessed 12 November 2016. Watt’s most notable life-time sculpture was to be a life-sized, semi-nude sculpture of the actress Brigit Bardot. Watt was never elected as an Academician. Also see Glasgow, University of. "Gilbert Watt." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib4_1264438070&search=Gilbert%20 Watt, accessed 12 November 2016.

353 Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Prix De Rome." https://www.britannica.com/art/Prix-de- Rome, accessed 21 November 2016. The original Grand Prix de Rome was established under the patronage of King Louis XIV and awarded by the French Government from 1663 until 1968 to painters or sculptors; from 1666 eligibility required (French) Royal Academy training and the winner was awarded a scholarship to the Académie de France in Rome. Also see BSR. "British School at Rome." http://www.bsr.ac.uk/about/history, accessed 9 January 2017. The British School at Rome (BSR) established its own Prix de Rome shortly after 1901. The British School at Rome, founded in 1901, received Royal Charter in June 1912, following the International Exhibition in Rome in 1911 the site of Edwin Lutyens- designed British Pavilion was granted in perpetuity to Britain on condition that it be used as a British research centre for archaeology, history and fine arts.

354 Hoock, Holger. The King's Artists: The Royal Academy of Arts and the Politics of British Culture 1760-1840. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003, 57.

355 Ibid.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 85

Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, similarly offering a place at the British School at Rome and the opportunity to travel through Italy, the Royal Academy diligent of expenses, submitted students’ applications to this ‘Rome Scholarship’ whilst separately continuing to award gold medals to Royal Academy recipients of other internal prizes.356

These latest Rome Scholarships available to British students of architecture, archaeology, classical studies, mural painting, sculpture and engraving bestowed a three year placement at the British School at Rome. Notably awards for fine arts were ‘reserved for talents about which there is no reasonable doubt’.357 Belatedly, in 1910 the research scholarships were extended to the fine arts and by 1920 The British School at Rome was perceived as the apex of talent which a Times’ correspondent noted ‘need not fear comparison with the other schools.’358 However by the early 1950s younger artists eschewed Italy in preference for London or Paris because the legacies of the Old Masters were no longer considered ‘a principal centre of living tradition’.359 Machin (2002) affirmed this lack of interest in Italy as a destination when he visited the British School at Rome in the late 1950s, ‘I was depressed to find that, in spite of being surrounded by a wealth of Italian art, the students could find nothing to sustain their interest ... I think they were more used to making shapes with welding equipment in backyards’.360

During the 1950s the Imperial Institute, London, held the annual ‘Rome Scholarship’ public exhibition of fine arts entries in April through until May. Hence the terms: ‘Grand Prix de Roma’, ‘Prix de Rome’, ‘British Rome Scholars’; ‘Rome Scholarships’; ‘Rome Scholars’; have been used interchangeably throughout press and literary references to recipients from, interchangeably, the Royal Academy Schools, the RCA and The Slade School, Appendix 2.1. Prix de Rome Winners 1950–1958. Past recipients of this Prix de Rome for Sculpture included Ledward (1913), Hardiman (1920) and

356 Anon. "Study of Art in Rome." The Times, 10 May 1950, 3.

357 Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 3 May 1939, 10.

358 Anon. "British School at Rome." The Times, 25 February 1920, 11. The article further complimented Ledward’s ‘fine friezes’ for the Imperial War Museum ‘in which the Meštrović influence is healthy and not overpowering.’

359 Anon. "Study of Art in Rome." The Times, 10 May 1950, 3. Also see Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 24 March 1951, 8.

360 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 117.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 86

Skeaping (1924).361 Another of Lambert’s students, Brian Rice, was awarded the Rome Scholarship in 1953,362 followed by A. Montford in 1954 and Miss Geraldine Knight in 1956.363 Yet even as late as 1957 RCA student Mary Milner’s winning submission demonstrated a traditional rendition of two riders mounted on race horses, figure 2.7.

Of other sculpture successes, Royal Academy winners’ names of the Sculpture ‘Gold Medal and Edward Stotts Travelling Studentship of £200’ were painted in gold-leaf on a vast wooden panel located in the Schools Corridor, figure 2.8. The lack of post-war entries confirmed that no such competition was held between 1941–1947 during the war and thereafter only four names were recorded: Richard Alfred Thomas for The Three Graces (1948); Gillian Robotham for Nymphs and Fauns a three-fountain group to stand in a public garden (1950); Alison Marsh for and the Serpent (1952) and the final entry Marie Helen Crawford Gill for Circe (1954), figure 2. 9.

Despite the Royal Academy’s success, aware of the increasing influence of the modern movement, Kelly PRA took the opportunity of his 1953 annual address to all Royal Academy students warning them:

to avoid the dangers, to which most students elsewhere had succumbed, of imitating what was currently fashionable. He stressed that values in art changed rapidly and that it was much easier to imitate Picasso than to develop the technical skill necessary to copy Velazquez. He also warned the students not to be influenced by the chorus of art critics.364

361 Liss, Fine Art. "Rome Scholars in the Inter-War Years." http://www.romescholars.com/rome_scholars.html, accessed 7 April 2015. Prix de Rome gold medal winners were awarded a ‘Rome Scholarship’ and attended The British School at Rome founded in 1901. Also see RBA. "Rome Scholars." https://www.royalsocietyofbritishartists.org.uk/?s=rome+scholars, accessed 9 January 2017. Further, since 2011 the Royal Society of British Artists has offered ‘The Rome Scholarship’ a bequest from Mr G H Benn in memory of his artist wife Marianne Von Werther (1901-1984).

362 Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 25 April 1953, 8. Faculty of Sculpture, Rome Scholarship, Mr B.S.L. Rice, student of the Royal Academy Schools. RAA Annual Report 1953. Keeper’s Report, 12 July 1954, Appendix 4, 33. Brian Rice (1936–) has proved to be untraceable. A similarly named Brian Rice, printmaker, confirmed to the author by email on 13 November 2016 that he had never been awarded the Prix de Rome. Rice, Brian. "Brian Rice." http://www.brianrice.info/about-the-artist, accessed 12 November 2016.

363 RAA Annual Report 1956, Appendix 4, 36. Anon. "Rome Scholarships in Art." The Times, 20 April 1954, 10. Anon. "Rome Scholarship Awards" The Times, 24 April 1956, 3.

364 Diego Velazquez (1599–1660). RAA General Assembly Minutes, 20 October 1953, 297.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 87

Kelly’s caution was reiterated at the annual address to students in 1958 when Wheeler PRA urged the students ‘to develop their technical skill, whatever contrary opinions might be expressed by charlatans outside.’365 The term ‘charlatans’ was an indication that Academicians and Associates were acutely sensitive to the demise of fine art and aware of the prevalence of modernism particularly when applied to industrial designs.

Despite the shifting curricular agendas of the state art schools, Royal Academy students vied with those of the RCA and the Slade for the illustrious Prix de Rome demonstrating not only the intensely competitive spirit but also the Royal Academy’s engagement with London’s art education community. In contrast to this fine arts award, Industrial Art Bursaries were organised by the Royal Society of Arts during the early 1950s ‘to study the industrial designs of other countries and travel abroad’, although which countries were not specified.366 When financial constraints began to tighten for arts assistance in 1980, Paul de Monchaux, Chairman of the Faculty of Sculpture at the British School at Rome, pleaded for the continuity of the (then) Rome Scholarship which prevailed through corporate intervention.367

Rushbury’s praise of Lambert continued to be fulsome for his ‘sense of corporate interest and understanding.’368 Nicolson (2002) concluded however that Lambert was not ‘universally popular as a teacher’ citing Geoff Colley who remembered Lambert as ‘an intimidating and demanding task master’.369 In October 1958 Lambert, who had served as Master of the Sculpture School for eight years, notified the Council of his wish to retire from the post at the end of the year and whilst disappointed at his decision the Council respected his wish; his decision was ratified at Council on 9 December 1958.370 Lambert’s successor was immediately sought with two candidates coming forward, Dobson and Machin — the latter a Potteries man who hailed from the Midlands where

365 RAA General Assembly Minutes, 20 October 1958, 335.

366 Anon. "Winners of Industrial Art Bursaries." The Times, 5 March 1953, 10.

367 de Monchaux, Paul. "End of Rome Scholarships." The Times, 12 March 1980, 15. Also see Op. cit., BSR. British School at Rome. 2017. Scholarships did continued through corporate partnerships such as the current Sainsbury Scholarship in Painting and Sculpture.

368 RAA Annual Report 1957, Keeper’s Report, nd, appendix 4, 31.

369 Geoff Colley, RAA student (1955–58). Op. cit., Nicolson, Vanessa. 2002, 82. Colley’s recollections were in conversation with Nicolson, June 2000. Colley as sculptor, medallist and coin designer was not at the time of writing elected to the RAA.

370 RAA/PC/1/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 9 December 1958, 255.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 88 he had worked for Minton and Wedgewood — had previously sought the appointment in 1950 when he lost out to Lambert.371 The credentials of both candidates were presented to the General Assembly on 9 December 1958 where Machin was appointed as Master of the Sculpture School.372 Machin had exhibited extensively at the Summer Exhibitions where his distinctive nude nymphs and ripple-draped religious figures had changed little since he began exhibiting in 1940, ensuring the certainty of a conventional curriculum for the Royal Academy’s 1960s students,373 figure 2.10. His choice of prize subject as The Annunciation a group, in full relief, for a modern chapel (1959) affirming his biblical reference despite the qualification of a ‘modern’ chapel. Machin’s talents were however put to further use when from 1968 to 1984 his iconic profile of Queen Elizabeth II featured on Britain’s coins and British postage stamps.374

Machin described his approach as Master of the Sculpture School:

I stuck to traditional training methods; we did stone carving, wood carving, and life-drawing ... [the students] were encouraged to visit places of interest and I suggested sculptures which they should see in London ... I managed to get quite a few commissions for them which they carried out in the schools.375

Whilst Machin continued to pursue a rigorous fine arts curriculum, his counter-part as Head of Sculpture at the RCA, Bernard Meadows, described an altogether less pedantic approach towards his circa twenty-four students, ‘I expect students to be true to

371 Jason, Gillian. Frank Dobson Sculptor 1886-1963. London: The Fine Art Society, 2012, 7 and 16. Dobson had been appointed Professor of Sculpture at the RCA (1946–53) and offered worthy credentials as a Royal Academy Master but failing to secure the appointment when he retired from the RCA. Jason (2012) asserted that Henry Moore had originally spoken to to recommend Dobson as Head of the Sculpture School in 1925 when Derwent Wood suddenly resigned. Dobson was nominated again by Moore in 1946 for the post of Professor of Sculpture, RCA securing a five year contract. ‘He proved to be a popular teacher and his years at the Royal College were some of the most contented of his life.’ Also see ODNB. Jason, Neville. "‘Dobson, Frank Owen ’, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32844?docPos=1, accessed 20 March 2016.

372 RAA Annual Report 1958, 17.

373 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 63. Machin’s work was well known to Royal Academy members; Charles Wheeler had purchased Machin’s RCA graduation terracotta Madonna and Angels (1940) for £15 ‘a good amount at that time’.

374 Royal Mint. "Meeting and Remembering a Man Named Machin." http://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/Default.aspx?PageID=13234877&A=SearchResult& SearchID=2635809&ObjectID=13234877&ObjectType=1, accessed 27 January 2017. Machin was described as ‘very pleasant’ and ‘a perfectionist’. Also see op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002. 134 and 139. Machin was awarded an OBE in March 1965 for his work on the coin. ‘I have never signed any of my work, not even the coin.’ Ibid, 139.

375 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 117.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 89 themselves. I expect them to produce work out of their own experiences. I expect to be surprised by the revelation of what sort of person students are through their work’ (original emphasis).376 Machin (2002) conceded that by the early 1960s, although he had increased the student number to fifteen, because of the lack of response to the graduation show, ‘I knew then that Modern Art was taking a stranglehold on our endeavours.’377

Women Students

The Royal Academy’s original Instrument of Foundation, explicitly qualified the gender of the students as men:

No student shall be admitted into the Schools, till he hath satisfied the Keeper of the Academy, the Visitor, and Council for the time being, of his abilities; which being done, he shall receive his Letter of Admission, signed by the Secretary of the Academy, certifying that he is admitted a Student of the Royal School.378

However, almost one-hundred years after it opened, in an action ‘undertaken solely with a view to the advancement of ’ ‘L. Hereford’ applied to the Royal Academy in 1860.379 She was accepted upon the quality of anonymously submitted work, however ‘debate and resistance’ followed when it was discovered that she was in fact not a man.380 In contrast the Slade welcomed women students from its inception in 1871 and even permitted them to ‘engage with depictions of the human form’; although it was not until 1893 that they were granted access to nude models.381 Additionally, Josefina de Vasconcellos as a student of the Royal Academy Sculpture School, a pupil of the French sculptor Antoine Bourdelle in Paris and the first woman finalist in the Prix de Rome might have pioneered a pathway for later twentieth-century women students

376 Gadney, R. "Introduction: Bernard Meadows." In Bernard Meadows, 7-9. London: Royal College of Art, 1980, 7-9.

377 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 119.

378 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 209–213.

379 Op. cit., Leslie, George Dunlop. 1914, 42. Hereford and twelve other women were accepted at the Royal Academy between 1861 and 1863.

380 Strickland, A "Opening the Doors: The Entry of Women Artists into British Art Schools 1871-1930." In The Concept of the ‘Master’ in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present. edited by Matthew Potter, 127-44. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.

381 Parker, Rozsita, and Griselda Pollock. Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1981, 130.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 90 however her progress similarly lacked engagement,382 figure 2.11. As Parker and Pollock (1981) assert such gender discrimination of women ‘signified their exclusion from power to participate in and determine differently the product of the language of the arts’.383 Strickland (2013) evidences this discrimination further through the Acts of Parliament that sought to remove, or at least partially limit, inequality, specifically the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act (1919) which rendered illegal many common law restrictions prohibiting women access to public life.384 Some steps were taken by the Royal Academy during the twentieth century to offer a unified environment, validated by their decision to combine the previously separate men’s and women’s studios seen when comparing the Schools floor plans from 1910 and the 1950s: the separate ‘Women’s Life School’ and ‘Men’s Life School’ became a single room labelled ‘Life School’, figures 2.12 and 2.13.

Whilst the Royal Academy’s ideology may have evolved, prejudice against women was more pernicious. In posing the question Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? Nochlin (1988) identifies the gatekeeping ‘conditions for producing art’ as ‘mediated and determined by specific and definable social institutions, be they art academies, systems of patronage, mythologies of the divine creator, artist as he-man or social outcast’.385 Nochlin’s analysis remains pertinent to the inequity of women’s experience of the Royal Academy Schools. From 1860, when women were first admitted to the Royal Academy, until 1955 the total number of women students who had attended all Royal Academy Schools was recorded separately from male students numbers; the women totaled 955, representing fifteen percent of the total intake of 6,255 Royal Academy students since 1769. From 1956 onwards a combined number for both men and women was published reaching 6,337 students between 1769 and 1958.386 The total number of sculpture students who attended between 1769 and 1958

382 Josefina Alys de Vasconcellos (1948–1984) Emile Antoine Bourdelle (1861–1929). de Vasconcellos, Josefina. By Jon Wood. British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, 2000-11-30. C466/117. (2000).

383 Op. cit., Parker, Rozsita, and Griselda Pollock. 1981, 130, footnote 12.

384 Op. cit., Strickland, A. 2013, 127. The Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870 and 1882 permitted ownership of money they earned and the right to inherit property; the Representation of the People Act (1918) gave women over 30 years of age who met a property qualification the right to vote; this age threshold was lowered to 21 years providing parity with males by the Equal Franchise Act (1928).

385 Nochlin, Linda. "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?". 1989 ed., 145-178. In Women, Art and Power and Other Essays, edited by L. Nochlin. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.

386 RAA Annual Report 1955, 37.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 91 was 608, representing approximately one tenth of the annual student intake.387 The Sculpture School aimed to supervise a maximum of eight students during each academic year.388 The number of registered sculpture students varied annually commencing with seven in 1948 when the school re-opened, peaking at twelve in 1951 and with an average of nine sculpture students per annum between 1948 and 1958.389 Lambert had suffered ill health consequently the number of sculpture students had dwindled to only four or five in number by the end of 1958.390 Although the number of women students were not attributed to the individual Schools: Painting, Sculpture or Architecture, it is probable that the greatest number of women students enrolled in the School of Painting.

Women sculpture students were tolerated to varying degrees, figure 2.14. The older generation of sculptors was the least welcoming as Wardleworth (2013) argued of working-class Scottish sculptor Reid Dick who was ‘no feminist’ having threatened to resign the governorship of the British School at Rome if the Prix de Rome was given to a woman sculptor during the 1930s, although Reid Dick enjoyed Hepworth’s friendship and their regular correspondence.391 Reid Dick had at one time expressed concern about the women students’ capacity to manoeuvre weighted sculptures however Hepworth had clearly disproved this belief as erroneous. As Keeper, Connard was succeeded in 1949 by the more progressive Rushbury, who upon appointment was keen to modernise the Schools if possible, initially with regard to the welfare of the life models. He explained that ‘the models’ cubicle in each of the studios had a chamber pot in it because the models were not allowed to use the students’ toilets. I took ‘em all out — the pots, not the models — lined ‘em all up and smashed the lot.’392 This wilful act of vandalism may have indicated the greater dignity and respect that the Royal Academy would slowly afford to the post-war presence of women and trend towards a more egalitarian society. Lewis (1945) writing in The Times however considered that arts schools continued to provide ‘a little occupational therapy for a great number of young

387 RAA Annual Report 1958, 44.

388 RAA/KEE/13/12. Sculpture School Minutes, 26 June 1946.

389 RAA Annual Report 1948, 28. RAA Annual Report 1951, 38.

390 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 115.

391 Wardleworth, Dennis. William Reid Dick, Sculptor. London: Ashgate, 2013, 183. Also see TGA 8110.3.23.

392 Wraight, Robert. Hip!Hip!Hip!RA. London: Leslie Frewin Publishers Ltd., 1968, 192. Extract from Wraight’s article in The Tatler, 1 February 1961.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 92 women whose laudable object in life was matrimony.’393 This comment reinforced the disparity between the achievements of men and women students precisely because the women students were not written about, consequently the art-historical discourse rendered their efforts as immaterial and examples of their work difficult and frequently impossible to trace.394

Eligible Royal Academy students were aged between eighteen and twenty five, however years of war service were discounted which resulted in some students in their early thirties being admitted.395 The sculpture course offered two or three years of training for students who could demonstrate they were sufficiently skilled by assessment of their entrance work. Yet few met the exacting standards of admission that the Royal Academy imposed of ‘hand and mind’ (Hudson, 1956):

the traditions of selfless dedication, of sincere soul-searching devotion to the creative compulsion, of mastery of materials of hand and mind, of the disciplines requisite to these masteries, of those awarenesses [sic] and sensitivities which are essential to the artist’s growth.396

Leslie (1914) evoked the industrious application of the Royal Academy’s women students ‘the girls, it must be confessed, work very hard and well; numbers of them have taken medals over the heads of the boys.’397 During the period 1948–1959 the women’s success continued with twenty-four of the sixty-four awarded prizes, more than one third, being taken by women students.398 Though as Leslie (1914) described even the most diligent individual could stray as ‘students began pelting one another with pellets of clay ... from this they proceeded to a game of cricket ... no fielding was

393 Lewis, John N. C. "Designers for Industry: Training in Art Schools - American Methods." The Times, 1 January 1945, 5.

394 The Fine Arts Society. "British Portraits." http://thefineartsociety.com/exhibitions/188/works/image_standalone1671/, accessed 8 February 2018. However there is currently a developing interest in post-war women artists for example the inclusion of Lady Muriel Wheeler’s (1888-1979) Self and Family (1933) at the Fine Art Society’s ‘British Portraits’ Exhibition, 1 - 28 February 2018, listing number 26, £78,000.

395 RAA/KEE/13/12. Royal Academy Schools Memorandum, 1946. The ‘Royal Academy Schools Memorandum’ posed the question to each prospective student ‘Have you served in H.M. Forces or been directed to work of National Importance?

396 Hudson, Kenneth E. "The Nature and Function of a Professional School of Art." College Art Journal 15, no. 4 (1956): 352-54.

397 Op. cit., Leslie, George Dunlop. 1914, 48.

398 RAA Annual Reports. 1949–1959.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 93 required as the [clay] ball ... invariable stuck to the bat’.399 Fenton (2006) asserts that ‘the teaching aids of the Royal Academy are in a class of their own’ and he continues ‘the older the teaching aids, the greater the likelihood that they have been used by some of the great artists who studied at the Academy’.400 He further laments that the ignored consequence of the regrettable sale of the Leonardo Cartoon in 1962 and the Cumberland Collection in 1967 was to deprive the Royal Academy’s students of important teaching aids.401

Eventually Rushbury (1955) sounded a cautionary note about the students ‘because maintenance grants from Education Authorities are being withdrawn, they have to look elsewhere for money. Many students are working at night in hotels and about, and though this is an admirable effort, I do notice signs of fatigue in their work and attendance.’402 Although the art tuition was gratis, daily subsistence costs still had to be met by the Royal Academy’s students. Enticed by the Education Act 1944 which promoted tertiary education and the Government’s post-war grants which offered the opportunity to further the education that many young people had forsaken during the war, applications to art schools had increased to an unprecedented level.403 By the academic year 1955-56 however the enthusiastic post-war upsurge enjoyed by art education began to dwindle; with only 11,515 full time art students accommodated by 170 predominantly local authority art schools; the ‘comparable figure for 1949-50 was

399 Op. cit., Leslie, George Dunlop. 1914, 26. Also see RAA. "The RA Schools." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/the-ra-schools, accessed 5 February 2017. A BA (Hons) Degree in Fine Arts remains the pre-requisite entrance qualification for the RAA Schools.

400 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 23–25.

401 Fenton (2006) also specifically deplored the sale of the less well publicised Cumberland Collection of Italian prints in 1967 which he attributed to: ‘The weakness of the scholarship at Burlington House during this period’. Ibid, Fenton, James. 2006, 291.

402 RAA Annual Report 1954, Keeper’s Report, 27 June 1955, Appendix 4, 33.

403 The (Butler) Education Act 1944 had increased demand for tertiary education, whilst The Percy Report (1945) emphasised the need for institutes of technology and The Barlow Report (1946) highlighted the critical shortage of scientists. Also see Anon. "Art Courses to Be Reduced." The Times, 11 December 1956, 7. Approximately 50,000 students attended 30 universities/colleges in Britain in 1939. Also see Dyhouse, Carol. "Going to University: Funding, Costs and Benefits. 1 August 2007." http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/going-to-university- funding-costs-benefits, accessed 12 November 2016. Also see National Archive. "Before the Second World War." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/before-after-second-world- war.htm, accessed 12 November 2016.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 94

14,577, of whom 2,843’ received grants.404 The issue of funding for art students intensified and by 1959 the House of Commons debated whether ‘our most skilful young painters and sculptors’ ought to be permitted to sell their final year work, ultimately deferring to the ‘authorities of art schools to decide whether to adopt the practice’.405 The Royal Academy’s final year students were already permitted to exhibit at the Summer Exhibition where their work was available for sale; as exemplar student Anthony Caro exhibited Ulysses (1950) at the Summer Exhibition in 1950.406 The Schools were otherwise a discreet environment where the work of students was withheld from public scrutiny until their graduation show.

Compressed between the austerity constraints imposed on Government funding and this notable decline in demand, the Ministry of Education’s proposal to withdraw a ‘considerable number of full-time courses in colleges and schools of art’ was criticised by the Association of Art Institutions.407 Redundancies were anticipated for art teachers: however, Parliament anticipated that ‘their talents might well be employed to better advantage, for example, in industry’.408 Wheeler PRA engaged with the public debate acknowledging that ‘there were few educational institutions which nowadays did not feel the pressure of economic stress’.409 The most significant clamour within the artistic community was evoked by the LCC’s plan for ‘rationalizing’ Chelsea Art School and Polytechnic into one new art school.410 The different pedagogies practised by these two institutions were deemed incompatible and dissent provoked a jointly signed letter to The Times from Augustus John, Matthew Smith, Moore – who had taught at Chelsea – John Piper and .411 The

404 Gov. "Art Schools and Students. House of Commons Debate, 31 January 1957, Vol. 563, Cc219-20w." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1957/jan/31/art- schools-and-students, accessed 14 January 2017.

405 Ibid.

406 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1950. Caro exhibited Ulysses, listing number 1287, 78.

407 Anon. "Art School Proposals to Be Reviewed." The Times, 3 August 1956, 3.

408 Gov. "Education. House of Commons Debate, 25 July 1956, Vol. 557, Cc426-543." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1956/jul/25/education, accessed 14 January 2017.

409 Anon. "P.R.A'S Appeal for £20,000: Byam Shaw Art School in Difficulties " The Times, 11 October 1957, 2. RAA Annual Report 1948, 36. And, RAA Annual Report 1960, 11. ‘Expenditure for the Academy Schools has risen from £5053 for the accounting year 1 October 1947 to 30 September 1948 to £8,817 for 1 October 1959 to 30 September 1960’.

410 Anon. "Plan to Combine Art Schools." The Times, 30 December 1957, 4.

411 Augustus John (1878–1961), Matthew Smith (1879–1959), John Piper (1903–92) and Ceri Richards (1903–71). Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 95

Government was accused of ‘secrecy’ over the plans and alarm was spread through concerns articulated in The Times that there were ‘too many people of amateur status taking art courses’ and that the ‘main art schools should be keyed up to the requirements of industry and commerce.’412 The new Chelsea Art School opened in 1961 and appointed Professor Lawrence Gowing — a painter, Tate Trustee and member of the Arts Council’s Arts Panel since 1953 — as Principal.413 His would be a state-sanctioned course offering painting, sculpture, illustration and design.414 Conversely due to the Royal Academy’s independence, the Government could not rationalize the Royal Academy Schools’ infrastructure, nor align its pedagogy with a nationally focused industrial design programme. However, the Royal Academy’s financial status was as impoverished as that of Government schools: the zenith of art schools was seemingly over as the 1950s drew to a close.

Beyond sculpture prizes, there was little tangible reward or recognition for Royal Academy students. Prior to the Second World War students had received an ivory token upon admittance, known as ‘bones’, figure 2. 15. When this tradition was suspended, the students considered this a slight upon their industry, deploring the economy and feeling ‘some loss of confidence in their status’.415 When Kelly PRA reinstated the practice in 1955, funded through his expenses allowance, he sought to increase the value of the ivory token with associated privileges such as free admission to other art institutions.416

Acknowledging that some form of recognition was required for having attended the Royal Academy Schools, in 1959 Wheeler PRA approved the use of the initials ‘Cert. RAS.’ — Certificate of the Royal Academy Schools — to be noted after the graduated students’ names.417 Nevertheless, despite the selective entry and the period of artistic practise required at the Sculpture School, the implausibility for most of the students of

John, Augustus, Matthew Smith, Henry Moore, John Piper, and Ceri Richards. "Chelsea School of Art." The Times, 6 January 1958, 9.

412 Godfrey, D. E. R. Chairman, Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions. "Letters to the Editor: Art Schools." The Times, 3 January 1958, 9.

413 Anon. "Chelsea Art School Principal." The Times, 7 October 1958, 12.

414 Anon. "Chelsea Art School Principal." The Times, 17 April 1958, 7.

415 RAA/PC/1 /29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 25 January 1955, 123.

416 Ibid. The ivory disks — nicknamed ‘bones’ — were inscribed with a student’s name and date of entry. Also see op cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 117.

417 RAA Annual Report 1959, 7.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 96 ever achieving the distinction of elected status an Associate was a notable disparity and discouragement for those who had successful mastered the Royal Academy’s sculpture studies. This uncomfortable truth exposed the discrepancy between the Royal Academy’s tuition practice, the difficulty of securing the esteem of nominating Academicians and the harsh reality of achieving public and commercial success as a sculptor. Myrone’s (2013) astute observations that ‘we take as read that the Royal Academy helped encourage a proliferation of artists, although the empirical basis on which we could establish such a claim is limited’ held true as a statistic of success — or rather failure — for the Sculpture School.418 Of Lambert’s four Prix de Rome students, none were elected as entry level Associates of the Royal Academy, nor achieved public acclaim.

Two students were however significant for their influence upon the following generation of sculptors. Frank Martin won Landseer Prizes in 1948, 1950 and 1952, see Appendix 2.2. Royal Academy of Arts Sculpture Prizes extracts 1948–1959. Martin was an ex-Royal Marine engineer who lent his athletic physique to model a fountain figure for McMillan’s Triton (1937–1948) part of the Jellicoe Memorial Fountain in Trafalgar Square,419 figure 2.16. Later as Head of Sculpture (1952–79) at St. Martin’s he considered that ‘there were many other sources of inspiration apart from the naked figure’.420 Martin nurtured a new generation of progressive sculptors including Eduardo Paolozzi, Elisabeth Frink, Robert Clatworthy and Caro with whom he had studied at the Royal Academy.421

Caro was a gifted prize-winning Royal Academy student.422 After studying with Charoux, Lambert and Machin (1947–1952), Caro became an assistant to Moore and

418 Op. cit., Myrone, Martin. 2013, 172.

419 Op. cit., Crellin, Sarah. 2012, 71-73. Frank Graeme Martin (1914-2004). Also see McLean, Bruce. "Obituary: Frank Martin." https:--www.theguardian.com-news- 2004-mar-02-guardianobituaries.education, accessed 10 February 2017. Also see Anon. "Obituary: Frank Martin." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/frank-martin-37971.html, accessed 10 February 2017. Also see Glasgow, University of. "Frank Graeme Martin." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib4_1264423870, accessed 10 February 2017.

420 Op. cit., McLean, Bruce. "Obituary: Frank Martin." 2004.

421 Eduardo Paolozzi (1924–2005), Elisabeth Frink (1930–1993) and Robert Clatworthy (1928–2015).

422 RAA Annual Report 1948, List of Prizes and Prize Winners, 26. Hardiman and McWilliam also instructed Caro. Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 97 later a prominent abstract sculptor who utilised ‘found’ industrial materials.423 Caro expressed his later dislike of foundational studies of Greek, Etruscan, Romanesque and Gothic sculpture, ‘I found at various times, the art of the past or the art of my own past ... was not sufficient for what I was trying at that moment’.424 Caro identified ‘forbidden areas’ particularly semblances ‘like an insect’ and specifically referenced the contorted ‘geometry of fear’ (Read, 1952) sculpted by the New Aspects group at the Venice Biennale (1952).425 The success of Caro’s own ‘school’ during the late 1950s to early 1960s led to those identified as ‘New Generation’ sculptors (Crippa, 2015).426 Caro’s unexplained decline of election as an Academician on 30 May 1990 was superseded by his belated acceptance when welcomed as a Senior Royal Academician on 9 March 2004, in celebration of his eightieth birthday.427 To date his autobiography, Anthony Caro, and internet biography both omit any reference to his nomination in 1990 and eventual acceptance of membership in 2004, which may suggest an unresolved conflict between Caro’s radical public persona, his unapologetically industrial sculptures and his association with the Royal Academy, both as a student and an Academician,428 figure 2.17. Yet in contrast to Caro, after Knight’s auspicious beginnings as a Prix de Rome winner her presence slipped from the art-historical narrative without acclaim. That she continued her artistic profession may be traced through her exhibited work (RAA, 1986), and posters for London Transport such as Armour (1962), figure 2.18,

Also see RAA. "Anthony Caro." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art- artists/name/anthony-caro-ra-1924-2013, accessed 17 May 2018. Also see Ltd, Barford Sculptures. "Anthony Caro." http://www.anthonycaro.org/biography, accessed 8 February 2018.

423 Correia, Alice. "Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/henry-moore/henry-moore-om-ch- king-and-queen-r1172098, accessed 24 January 2017. Caro applied his knowledge of terracotta when working with Moore on King and Queen (1952–3): ‘I enlarged the Queen in terracotta for Henry. When I had been at the Royal Academy of Art Siegfried Charoux and Arnold Machin had taught me the technique of working in terracotta. I said to Henry, ‘Would you like me to enlarge it to three-quarters size in terracotta?’ and he said, ‘Yes, good idea, go ahead’.’

424 Caro, Anthony. Caro. London: Phaidon Press Ltd, 2014, 396.

425 Clark, R. "Lightening up Heavy Metal" The Guardian, 4 January 1995, 7. In op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 41, footnote 39. ‘Anthony Caro, apostle of the so-called ‘New Generation’, remarked: ‘In the 1960s there were forbidden areas ... we did everything to avoid allowing our work to look like an insect to a piece of furniture’.

426 Crippa, Elena. "From 'Crit' to 'Lecture-Performance'." In The London Art Schools: Reforming the Art World, 1960 to Now, edited by N. Llewellyn and B. Williamson, 133-50. London: Tate Publishing, 2015, 136.

427 Op. cit., RAA. "Anthony Caro." 2016.

428 Op. cit., Barford Sculptures. "Anthony Caro." 2018. Also see op. cit., Caro, Anthony. 2014. Also see Bradbury, Ian, and Karen Wilkin. Anthony Caro. : Prestel Verlag, 1991.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 98 which promoted English steel and was seemingly mimetic of Moore’s Helmet Head No. 1 (1950) and the body of Umberto Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space (1913).429

As Wraight (1968) declared ‘like the Royal Academy itself the school is burdened, as well as blessed, with tradition.’430 The students who embraced change more swiftly than the Academicians, were instructed to ‘get yourself a haircut and a decent suit’ in readiness for Queen Elizabeth II’s visit to the Royal Academy Schools on 24 March 1955.431 Though Wraight imparts a vivid image of his 1961 visit to the Royal Academy ‘as a long-haired fellow in skin-tight jeans goes by with a callipygous girl in black stockings and hand-knitted suit’; he recounted Rushbury’s observation of the students: ‘I think they are more picturesque now than at any time since the eighteenth century’.432

Material Changes

The post-war replenishment of materials and tools was still lacking. As an active member of the Royal Academy’s community who maintained an ongoing interest in the Sculpture School, Charoux was aware of these needs, therefore when the Keeper requested the sum of £92 for sculpture materials which the Council were challenged to provide, Charoux generously offered to meet the cost of the purchase of whatever was still required to enable the students to progress their work.433 Although this gift addressed the immediate materials shortages, the Royal Academy Schools continued to

429 McKever, Rosalind. ""Umberto Boccioni (1882–1916)". In Heilbrunn History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000-." https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/umbo/hd_umbo.htm, accessed 27 July 2017. Also see Modern British Pictures. "Geraldine Knight." http://www.modernbritishpictures.co.uk/artist/geraldine-knight/, 3 March 2017. From 1960 Knight (1933–2008) taught at Sir John Cass School of Art, Twickenham College of Technology and Kingston College of Art. Also see LTM. "Geraldine Knight: Armour." https://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/posters/print-to-order/armour- small#selection=pto_finish:Matt__970;pto_frame:Black__965;pto_size:Small__961;pto _mount:With%20Mount__973, accessed 3 March 2017. Also see Mallams. "Geraldine Knight." http://www.catalogue- host.co.uk/mallams/oxford/2011-12-14/page_1, 3 March 2017. The contents of Knight’s studio were sold after her death in 2011. Geraldine Knight Studio Sale. For available works see The Sculpture Park. "Geraldine Knight." https://www.thesculpturepark.com/geraldine-knight, accessed 3 March 2017.

430 Op. cit., Wraight, Robert. 1968, 191.

431 Anon. "Royal Visit." Evening News, 28 February 1955, np. RAA Press Cuttings.

432 Op. cit., Wraight, Robert. 1968, 190–191.

433 RAA/PC/1/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 10 March 1959, 269.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 99 suffer from such resource constraints, as did the nation’s educational institutions. Indeed such were the shortages that Ledward’s suggestion that ‘students submitted drawings rather than work with clay’ for the monthly criticism, was approved.434 The raw materials necessary for sculpture had consistently been significantly more difficult and expensive to acquire and transport than paint and canvas despite the war time shortages. Art materials were so scarce that the Arts Council held a conference on 1 November 1951 to address this matter, inviting representation from the Royal Academy; Kelly PRA addressed the audience.435 Shortages necessitated that sculpture materials, particularly stone, were provided at the discretion of the Royal Academy’s sculpture Master. However, the unintended consequence of the post-war materials shortage resulted in a paradigm shift from bronze, marble and stone to more readily accessible alternatives.436

Defining ‘Britain’s New Iron Age’, Alloway (1953) had, as Garlake (2008) reiterates in her article ‘Materials, methods and modernism: British Sculpture c.1950’, already highlighted ‘the importance of Picasso, Giacometti, Calder and Gonzalez’ for spirited compositions and airy interpretation; their innovative use of metals had revolutionised sculpture’s mass, void and suspension.437 Such ethereal interpretations fully exploited the ‘ductility’ of metals which Jack (1947) described as the physical property of ‘metal to be drawn out into threads or wire.’438 Further, Garlake emphasises the ‘cutting edge technology symbolized by Powell and Moya’s Skylon’ constructed from aluminium for the Festival of Britain in 1951 and the ‘forged and welded metal sculpture’ of the New Aspects sculptors exhibited by the British Council at the Venice Biennale (1952).439

434 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 3 January 1950, 357.

435 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 20 November 1951, 513.

436 Rich, Jack C. The Materials and Methods of Sculpture. 1988 ed. New York: Dover Publications Inc, 1947, 126. Rich listed the materials ranked in popularity as: bronze, brass, copper, iron, lead, aluminium, pewter, precious metals for small works and stainless steel as rare use. Also see Richardson, Emeline. Etruscan Sculptures. Milan: Collins in associations with UNESCO, Amilcare Pizzi SpA Milano, 1966, 8. ‘Pliny the Elder advised that terracotta was used for cult images of the gods and for temple ornaments, and bronze for dedications to the gods and for honorary statues of mean, whereas marble was purely decorative’.

437 Alloway, Lawrence. "Britain's New Iron Men." Art News (New York 54, no. 4 (1953): 20. Also noted in Garlake, Margaret. "Material, Methods and Modernism: British Sculpture C.1950." The Sculpture Journal 17, no. 2 (2008): 51-62.

438 Op. cit., Rich, Jack. C. 1947, 129.

439 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 2008, 51-62.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 100

Yet Garlake (2008) identifies that ‘only nine of the thirty one sculptures’ exhibited at the Venice Biennale in 1952 were ‘made wholly or partly of iron; nearly half were in conventional bronze while wood, brass, copper, concrete and plaster were all also present.’440 Therefore, whilst new materials were being exploited, the traditional materials, when available, remained a viable alternative. My analysis of the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition Catalogues offers a comparison of materials. As the availability of materials dwindled, the use of alternative substances were introduced to the Summer Exhibitions held between 1940 and 1959: such woods as oak, teak, mahogany, sequoia and walnut were substituted by mulberry, sycamore, limewood, elm, boxwood, beech, hornbeam, yew and pine. Marble was replaced by different stones: hopton, portland, caen, ancaster, devon blackstone, craigleigh, granite, serpentine, kissi, mansfield and hadene. Munitions and construction demands limited the availability of bronze, replaced by iron and cement. As exemplars Lambert’s innovation included Pegasus and Bellerophon (1948) as the first noted use of ferro- concrete at the Summer Exhibition for Lucifer (1952) constructed from aluminium and resting upon a Rose de Numide marble base,441 figure 2.19. Alternatively, for public sculpture Charoux used cement, powdered iron resin and a surface aggregate of crushed marble for The Neighbours (1959), figure 2.20. The fact that the sculptors of the Royal Academy were also exploiting new materials demonstrated that this phenomenon was not exclusive to the New Aspects sculptors: however, the younger generation’s application of welding as a creative technique and their more modern aesthetic was unprecedented.

These more malleable materials accelerated the speed of production, a process described by one journalist as, ‘work contracts as the artist discovers that work is morally and aesthetically appropriate in the urban conditions of life in the twentieth century’.442 This radical re-purposing of industrial light engineering skills to the manipulation of sculpture had a seismic consequence because it crucially re-defined how a sculptor might be identified.443 Traditionally trained by apprenticeship and/or art school this new channel of creative endeavour was literally forged by the application of the skills acquired during the war which enabled emergent sculptors of prior

440 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 2008, 53.

441 RA Illustrated 1948, listing number 1247, Pegasus and Bellerophon group (1948), 60. In 1951 a scale model of Pegasus and Bellerophon (1951) was made for an aluminium casting, listing number. 1111, p.73. RA Illustrated 1952, listing number 1412, Lucifer (1952), 86.

442 Anon. "Parkinson's Law in Art." The Times, 3 March 1959, 3.

443 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 2008, 51–62.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 101 professions to transfer their dexterity to artistic purpose. Garlake (2008) identifies the welding courses run by British Oxygen Co. (BOC) ‘where Butler, Chadwick and Clarke took the course together in 1950’, as the educational environment where they ‘learned how to adapt industrial processes to self-consciously modern artistic practices’.444 At that time BOC was known for the production of gases used in industry and agriculture, figure 2.21.

Butler and Chadwick had the greatest impact although their previous metiers would not have suggested sculptural prowess. Butler had studied architecture before the war then as a conscientious objector he became a blacksmith (Bowness and Davies, 1983; Garlake, 2006).445 Chadwick — also initially a conscientious objector — had joined the Fleet Air Arm (Bowness, 1962; Chadwick, 1995; Beechey, 2003; Bird, 2014; Farr, 2003).446 Neither had received formal sculptural training.447 This was at a time when technical innovations were applied to the reconstruction of industry and the urgent prioritisation of housing; the very challenge that Academicians had not considered relevant.448 Such was the public success of these new sculptors, through their recognition at the Festival of Britain in 1951; Read’s acclaim at the Venice Biennale in 1952; Butler’s success in the ‘Unknown Political Prisoner’ competition in 1953 (Burstow 2000) and Chadwick’s award of the International Prize for Sculpture at the Venice Biennale in 1956, that this younger generation rendered the work of the sculptors of the Royal Academy to be antiquated.449 As well as a new technique they offered a vibrant abstract, albeit figurative, interpretation of contemporary culture such as Chadwick’s

444 Ibid, 56.

445 Bowness, Alan, and John Davies. Reg Butler. London: Tate Gallery Publications, 1983. Also see op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 2006.

446 Bowness, Alan. Lynn Chadwick. London: Methuen, 1962. Chadwick, Lynn. Interview: Lynn Chadwick. British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, C466/28. Interviewed by Cathy Courtney, 1995. Farr, Dennis. Lynn Chadwick's Achievement at the Venice Biennale. London: Tate Publishing, 2003. Bird, Michael. Lynn Chadwick. Farnham: Lund Humphries, 2014.

447 Henri Gaudier-Brzeska (1891–1915). Being self taught had not previously precluded success as exemplar the transitional observed realism of Henri Gaudier-Brzeska. Yard, Kettle's. "Henri Gaudier-Brzeska's the Wrestler." https://wn.com/on_henri_gaudier_brzeska's_the_wrestler's_at_kettle's_yard_lynda_nea d,_sj_fowler_sarah_turner_1, accessed 5 February 2017.

448 National Archive. "Films 1945-1951." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1945to1951/timeline.htm, accessed 10 November 2016. By October 1953 the Conservative Government were celebrating the construction of a further 30,031 new homes.

449 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 164-204.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 102

Teddy Boy and Girl (1955) rather than casting a retrospective glance toward the traditional, figure 2.22.

The success of these ‘iron men’ however also raised an uncomfortable question for the Royal Academy. Given that it had been proved possible to be publically fêted as a professional sculptor and even bestowed with awards of international esteem — beyond the Prix de Rome — without undertaking any formal art training, was an art education necessary? Butler’s and Chadwick’s agency seemingly rendered the Royal Academy’s Sculpture School as redundant and invalidated its existence; even the state art schools were potentially rendered obsolete. Yet to assume the predominance of untutored abstraction would be to assume that the demand for traditional portrait busts, liturgical sculpture, the embellishment of public buildings and the commissioning of public sculpture ceased forthwith. In fact, the demand continued, as demonstrated by the perpetuation of the Summer Exhibitions, state commissions and purchases made by a public keen to refurbish their homes, inspired by such exhibitions as the Arts Council’s Sculpture in the Home series (Burstow, 2008), see Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’.450 The tradition of recognisably figurative sculpture also continued to inform the aesthetic choices available to those who commissioned public works, including: Charoux’s The Neighbours (1959); Franta Belsky’s Lesson (1959); Uli Nimptsch’s Neighbourly Encounter (1961) and Moore’s Draped Seated Woman (1962) for the LCC’s Art Patronage Scheme (Pereira, 2008) which will be further discussed in Chapter Five, ‘Sculpture for the State’. However, the new world challenge for the students and sculptors of the Royal Academy became how to remain vibrant, viable and visible beyond Burlington House.

Eschewing Government intervention the Royal Academy had employed its apolitical status to distance itself from Government imposed ideology and a pedagogy that supported the Keynesian economic policy. The prescribed roles and responsibilities of both Masters and students of the Royal Academy emphasised the attainment of the ‘ablest Artists’ and informed their aesthetic ‘taste’.451 As Masters and Visitors the teaching staff of the Royal Academy were drawn from the alumni of other notable art institutions; in particular from the RCA. Accordingly there was an established tradition of RCA students progressing to the Royal Academy as a continuation of their professional practice until Darwin’s appointment as RCA Principal in 1948; after which

450 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2008, 78-84. The Council of Industrial Design (CoID) ‘sister institution’ to the Arts Council assisted in the organisation of the ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibitions.

451 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 211.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 103 time RCA students pursued an industrial design programme which rendered their experience as unlikely for membership of the Royal Academy and unsuitable for fine arts practice. Although the post-war re-opening of the Schools had afforded a unique opportunity to review the relevance of the sculpture syllabus, the Royal Academy remained resolutely retrospective drawing heavily upon the traditional techniques and tools for the sculpture practices of carving and modelling. Additionally the dramatic shift in British architectural styles from sculpture-adorned Beaux Arts buildings to stark austerity Modernism left sculptors deprived of what had been an important source for apprenticeships and commissions; such that it was no longer appropriate to train students in architectural sculpture and accordingly their partnerships with architects dwindled as the 1950s progressed and the ‘New Town’ landscapes prevailed. Consequently the Royal Academy’s fine arts curriculum did not align with the state industrial pedagogy, austerity architecture, nor with the prevailing interest of a curious and innovative younger generation.

The Sculpture School was however influenced by a series of new Masters and Visitors. The appointment of Charoux as a Visitor in 1950 brought an invigorating European aesthetic and at least in dialogue an awareness of ‘political’ intervention. Lambert’s appointment as Master of the Sculpture School in 1950 introduced the use of new materials, however this role was measured by the Royal Academy through the success of four Prix de Rome scholarships for his students although disappointingly the initial acclaim for these students did not deliver the long term success of renowned professional sculpture practice, nor ultimately result in their election to the Royal Academy. Further, the success of women students, exemplified by Knight whose talents were acknowledged internally through the award of six Royal Academy sculpture prizes and externally upon receipt of the Prix de Rome (1956), were invalidated by the lack of public recognition and failure to be elected as an Associate of the Royal Academy.

The artistic genealogy of those who succeeded the New Aspects generation may be traced to its genesis as those who originated from the Royal Academy Sculpture School. The agency of Charoux, Lambert and Machin was significant for Martin as Head of Sculpture for St. Martin’s who went on to develop the raw talents of Paolozzi, Frink and Clatworthy, though he was never elected to the Royal Academy, whilst fellow student Caro achieved commercial success, peer and public recognition and belatedly became a Senior Royal Academician.452 Ultimately however there remained an empirical

452 Tate. "New Generation Sculpture." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/n/new- generation-sculpture, accessed 22 June 2017. Caro’s ‘New Generation’ students included Phillip King (1934–), David Annesley (1936–), Michael Bolus (1934–), Tim Scott (1937–), William Tucker (1935–) and Isaac Witkin (1936–2006). Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 104 disparity between the number of sculpture students who studied at the Sculpture School and in their final year exhibited at the Summer Exhibition, then failed to achieve election to the Royal Academy. With the exception of Caro, none of the students who studied at the Royal Academy during the period 1948–1959 became Academicians. In their annual address to the students, Kelly PRA had urged caution in regard to ‘the currently fashionable’,453 whereas Wheeler PRA branded interlopers as ‘charlatans’ a term by which he identified those outside the Royal Academy as imposters and those within as bona fide artists. Both PRAs also recognised the students’ need for external credibility: Kelly re-introduced the ivory token and Wheeler sought to professionalise the students by introducing the Certificate of the Royal Academy Schools, ‘Cert. RAS.’ award, but as PRAs they did not encourage and accommodate the broader interpretation of sculpture for industrial design. Kelly did however collaborate with the Arts Council in seeking solutions to the frustration of material shortages which prompted the ingenuity of alternatives.

Innovative metals were frequently employed by various Academicians and Associates, particularly Charoux and Lambert, yet they ignored the acquired engineering technique of welding that had set apart the New Aspects sculptors including Butler and Chadwick who utilised the skills that they had acquired during the war, specifically welding skills and the ductile manipulation of metals that rendered the new abstract aesthetic which captivated the art critics including Alloway and Read. However, these skills were resolutely ignored by the Royal Academy consequently arresting the development of its students and perhaps invoking in Caro an industrial aspiration closer in truth to a design rather than a fine arts metier.

Ultimately though the public success that the New Aspects sculptors enjoyed particularly at the Festival of Britain (1951), Venice Biennales (1952 and 1956) and the competition for the ‘Unknown Political Prisoner’ (1953) indisputably re-defined a ‘sculptor’ not as a time-served apprentice or a trained artist but simply as someone who demonstrated ‘the creative compulsion’ to manufacture three dimensional artefacts in a range of traditional or improvised materials. Their triumph almost rendered the traditional Sculpture School an irrelevance as technical engineering skills including welding were taught at industrial venues such as the British Oxygen Company.454 Consequently the artistic imperative had shifted from a fine arts curriculum to an

453 RAA (1953). General Assembly Minutes, 20 October 1953, 297.

454 Hudson, Kenneth E. "The Nature and Function of a Professional School of Art." College Art Journal 15, no. 4 (1956): 352-54.

Chapter Two - The Royal Academy Sculpture School Page 105 industrial design programme and the material ingenuity of the self-taught artist. Yet despite the severity of Government, aesthetic, architectural, austerity and empirical challenges — all of which were also experienced to a greater or less extent — by the state-funded art institutions with which the Royal Academy actively engaged, the Royal Academy’s Sculpture School endured. Its centuries-old longevity framed the post-war period as circumstantial and the trend for the creations of untutored ‘iron men’ was as Kelly (1953) determined only ‘currently fashionable’.455 As Caro had done later in life, Casson, Chadwick and Darwin also became Academicians, suggesting an important personal and professional recognition that superseded the pursuit of the contemporary. As a significant aspect of the Royal Academy’s long-term prestige, acceptance of this affiliation, will be discussed in the Chapter Three, ‘The Royal Academy as Community’.456

455 RAA General Assembly Minutes, 20 October 1953, 297.

456 Sir Hugh Casson: ARA 26 April 1962; RA 23 April 1970, Treasurer 1975–1976, PRA 1976–84, SRA 1 October 1985. RAA. "Hugh Casson RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/hugh- casson-pra, accessed 17 May 2018. Darwin: ARA 29 April 1966, RA 15 June 1972.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 106

Chapter Three

The Royal Academy As Community

Art movements often arise from within a close circle of competitive allies, who belong to the same generation, live in the same neighbourhood and share the same beliefs.457 Charles Saumarez-Smith (2012)

I found that being a Royal Academician was a unique and quite unusual experience because members of the Academy were appointed across the whole spectrum of society, the only criterion being that they are absolute experts in their own field. We therefore met as equals.458 Arnold Machin (2002)

The development of the twentieth-century London art community sought to provide an alternative to the Royal Academy; however, the co-mingled membership of smaller art societies, such as the New English Art Club and the London Group, contributed to the interconnectivity of those who later in their careers were elected as Academicians. In this chapter I shall consider the breadth of origins, membership etiquettes and exhibition practices of various metropolitan art societies and consider these aspects as a conduit through which friendships evolved and coalesced. I suggest that this previously unexplored socialisation was the catalyst for election nominations and explore the protocols of securing the necessary ‘suffrage’459 to enter the Royal Academy as an elected Associate; together with an investigation into the predominantly unsuccessful endeavours to elect women sculptors. I discuss how such relationships were further complicated by European migration and the personal allegiances of recently arrived émigrés for whom the wider arts community and exhibitions afforded their professional recognition and accelerated their British social and cultural integration. Once promoted from Associate to an elected Academician the Royal Academy mandated the depositing of an example of the sculptor’s oeuvre as a Diploma Work; such works may be considered as illustrative of the conflicted aesthetics of the post-war Royal Academy. Furthermore, I shall consider the extent to which the election

457 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012, 165.

458 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 127.

459 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, The Instrument of Foundation, Clause III, 210. The term ‘suffrage’, the right to vote in political elections, was expressed in the Instrument of Foundation, clause III: ‘each candidate shall, on the day of election, have at least thirty suffrages in his favour, to be duly elected.’ The Laws and Constitution (1938) amended the voting process to a ‘two thirds’ majority however proved ineffective and was duly rescinded in 1952, returning to a majority. Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 107 of new Associates liberalised the Royal Academy in a variety of ways: through their willingness to nominate progressive candidates; initiating a formal petition for change which challenged the Royal Academy’s protocols; and to participating in Arts Council exhibitions which promoted modern sculpture despite the futile objection of Munnings PRA. The consequences may have been the cause of one of the most significant controversies in the Royal Academy’s twentieth-century history, Munnings’s speech, broadcast to the nation in what may be termed ‘one irremediable “take”’ (Marvell, 1947).460 I consider to what extent this event revealed the Academicians to be more liberal than has previously been understood and was perhaps an important factor which may have contributed to Munnings’s desire to suppress both institutional and artistic progress. Modes of artistic community and their shifting allegiances are explored through Mansfield’s (2002) Art History and Its Institutions.461 Constructs of artistic community are drawn from Lamb’s (1938) essay ‘What the Academy Stands For’,462 and more recently Saumarez-Smith’s (2012) The Company of Artists,463 who observes that ‘at times the atmosphere was not unlike that of a bear-pit’, when at times the Royal Academy strained to the tensions which arose from change, for example the election of a new President.464 Collectively, these authors present a multifaceted interpretation of the Royal Academy as a complex community.

An Artistic Community

Mansfield (2002) defined an art ‘institution’ as ‘any organisation or matrix capable of the sustained production and dissemination of social beliefs or customs’; given the Royal Academy’s longevity, it had a surfeit of such ‘beliefs and customs’.465 Some of them were pragmatic whilst others were mythologised by the force of personality of the upholder. Moreover, the concept of an art ‘community’ has been situated as geographic rather than as allegiance for example when Read (1962) portrayed his Hampstead neighbours as a ‘nest of gentle artists’.466 After the war, some of those same artists —

460 Marvell, R. "Experiments in Broadcasting and Television." Hollywood Quarterly 2, no. 4 (1947): 391.

461 Op. cit., Mansfield, Elizabeth. 2002.

462 Op. cit., Lamb, Walter R. M. (1938).

463 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith 2012.

464 Ibid, 178.

465 Op. cit., Mansfield, Elizabeth. 2002, 11.

466 Read, Herbert. "A Nest of Gentle Artists’." Apollo LXXVI, no. 7, September 1962: 536-38. Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 108

Hepworth and Ben Nicholson included — enjoyed in St. Ives what Baker (1959) observed as ‘the congenial atmosphere of working and living among large groups of fellow artists’.467 Consequently both Read and Baker defined the social context which similarly framed the Royal Academy’s metropolitan community as proximal. Early in the twentieth century numerous art societies with commonality of purpose were formed in London and established an alternative community and exhibition environment for those who rallied against the art of the Royal Academy and sought to practise as a more progressive modern movement. The New English Art Club (NEAC) — popularly abbreviated as ‘New English’ — mounted its first exhibition in 1886, embracing the Parisian avant-garde,468 the London Group (Redfern, 2014) and, peripherally, the Artists’ International Association (Radford, 1987) all stood ideologically towards the political Left with the Seven and Five Society as definitely Socialist and dissatisfied with the Royal Academy. Yet by the 1940s several of these societies were considered as the developmental proving grounds for young artists who might reasonably be expected to become Associates, ironically joining the very institution that these embryonic communities had sought to eschew. However ‘probably in the 1940s and 1950s the Royal Academy and the New English were at their closest point’ with the New English viewed at that time as a ‘staging post’ for membership of the Royal Academy.469 McConkey (2006) explains that ‘a seminal survey carried out in part justification for the formulation of the Arts Council’ considered the NEAC a ‘recruiting ground “for RA Associates”’.470 Further, he asserts ‘the implication was that, if an academy exhibitor could also survive the rigours of the New English jury, he or she, after an apprentice period, was good enough to be elected an Associate of the Academy’.471 Moreover the NEAC held regular meetings at Burlington House and utilised the Royal Academy’s exhibition space during the war,

Also see op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1965, 206. Rothenstein similarly addressed geography with reference to Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth, ‘All are fled, proud of Yorkshire, but living in determined exile’.

467 Baker, Denys Val. Britain's Art Colony by the Sea. London: George Ronald, 1959, 10.

468 NEAC. "New English Art Club." https://www.newenglishartclub.co.uk/about-us/history- new-english, accessed 9 March 2017. Also see Redfern, David. The London Group: A History 1913-2013. London: The London Group, 2014, 6.

469 Op. cit., NEAC. "New English Art Club". 2017.

470 McConkey, Kenneth. The New English: A History of the New English Art Club. London: Royal Academy Publications, 2006, 187–188.

471 Ibid.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 109 predominantly accommodating Galleries One, Two and the South Rooms; their last exhibition being held there in the Spring of 1946.472

Similarly, in response to the Royal Academy’s early twentieth-century exclusion of modern art, the London Group was established in 1913 as an amalgamation of the Camden Town Group and the English Cubists (later Vorticists).473 Taylor (1999) considers theirs to be ‘a second wave of enthusiasm for Post-Impressionism’.474 Throughout the inter-war years the London Group continued to attract progressive artists including Dobson who became President (1924–1926), Hepworth, Moore, Lambert, McWilliam and Skeaping whilst during the 1950s Armitage, Chadwick, Meadows, Turnbull and Frink were active members.475 Garlake (1998) notes the ‘membership overlap’ between the London Group and the Artists’ International Association founded in 1933 as ‘the principal non-academic exhibiting societies’.476 This ‘overlap’ included membership of the Royal Academy given that several of these sculptors — namely Armitage, Chadwick, Dobson, Frink, Lambert, McWilliam and Skeaping — were gradually elected to the Royal Academy, see Appendix 3.1. Nomination of Associateship. The London Group may then be more appropriately considered in the context of a wider community of metropolitan artists who began to utilise their friendships and exhibition opportunities to nurture their professional practice. For instance the painter Ruskin Spears who was also President of the London Group (1948–1951) had already been a member of the Royal Academy since 1944.477 Furthermore, the Royal Academy continued to provide gallery space for the annual London Group exhibition until 1956 after which, with regret, their request had to be

472 RAA/PC/1/28 RAA Council Minutes, 4 January 1945, 32. Also see RAA Exhibitions Master List.

473 The London Group was lead by Spencer Gore (1878–1914), Wynham Lewis (1882– , (1860–1942) and Jacob Epstein (1880–1959). The London Group. "The London Group History." http://www.thelondongroup.com/history/, accessed 9 March 2017.

474 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 133.

475 For a list of London Group Members see op cit., The London Group. "The London Group History." 2017.

476 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 22-23. Also see Tate. "Artists International Association." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art- terms/a/artists-international-association, accessed 9 March 2017. The Artists’ International Association was a Left of centre construct for the ‘Unity of Artists for Peace, Democracy and Cultural Development’.

477 Ruskin Spear (1911–1990), ARA 20 April 1944, RA 9 January 1954, SRA 1 October 1986. RAA. "Ruskin Spear RA." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/ruskin- spear-raa, accessed 17 May 2018.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 110 declined due to the Royal Academy’s own exhibition programme commitments.478 However Claude Rogers, President of the London Group (1952–1965), had attended the Press View of the Summer Exhibition in 1954 in the company of The Times art critic, Arthur Clutton-Brock, where together they were ‘abusing all they saw in loud tones’; conduct which generated public complaint.479 No doubt this incident disinclined the Royal Academy to assist Rogers in his quest for exhibition space prompting them to suggest instead London University as an alternative venue.480

Meanwhile, the Seven and Five Society established in 1919 by artists who had in turn become disenchanted with the London Group, comprising seven painters and five sculptors led by Ivon Hitchins were to similarly forsake traditional art as a collective of ‘men who do not attempt to achieve publicity by mere eccentricity of form or colour, but believe that to be sincere is not necessarily to be dull.'481 By 1935, under the dominance of Nicholson, Moore and Hepworth the Seven and Five Society evolved towards a modernist proclivity, renaming itself the Seven and Five Abstract Group.482 The Seven and Five exhibitions included both members and non-members, not unlike the amateur exhibitors at the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibitions. However the Seven and Five Society is credited by the Fine Arts Society as the catalyst for the ‘artistic journey from abstraction to minimalism’ undertaken by some of its members and in that regard its path diverged significantly from any connection with the Royal Academy.483

Also founded at the turn of the twentieth century was the Royal Society of British Sculptors (RSBS) granted royal patronage in 1911, with a ‘strong educational element’ and ‘professional standards’ that resonated with the Royal Academy’s ideology.484 The

478 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 8 January 1957, 189.

479 Claude Rogers (1907–1979). Arthur Clutton-Brock (1868–1924). RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 25 May 1954, 101.

480 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 22 January 1957, 192–193.

481 Ivon Hitchins (1873–1979). Art Biographies. "Seven and Five Society." https://www.artbiogs.co.uk/2/societies/seven-five-society, accessed 9 March 2017.

482 NPG. "Seven and Five Group." https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/group/1135, accessed 9 March 2017. Ben Nicholson’s (1894–1982) leadership (1926) of the Seven and Five Group fundamentally redirected his own and Hepworth’s affiliation towards abstract art.

483 The Fine Arts Society. "The Five and Seven Group 1920-35." http://thefineartsociety.com/exhibitions/49/overview, accessed 9 March 2017.

484 RBS. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." https://rbs.org.uk/, accessed 13 May 2018. Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 111

RSBS organised a number of exhibitions, managed their investments through funds and awarded gold and silver medals under an administration not dissimilar to that of the Royal Academy.485 Considered to be a gateway to professional practice and potential commissions, members of the RSBS were frequently simultaneously Academicians, including: Reid Dick, Hardiman, Ledward, McMillan and Wheeler.486 Their co-memberships of both the RSBS and the Royal Academy were significant because younger RSBS members such as Alan Durst and émigrés including Charoux, who unusually was unanimously nominated for RSBS membership, came into contact with established Academicians.487 These Academicians might then sponsor them in the Royal Academy’s ‘Nomination of Associateship’, the formal register in which the names of prospective Associates were inscribed.488 That membership of the RSBS was held in esteem was evident in that the organisers of the Festival of Britain approached the RSBS for ‘advice and photographs of members’ work’ as well as noting that ‘names of sculptors have been called for, and have been supplied’.489 Similarly RSBS representatives were invited, along with representatives of other leading London art societies, to ‘deal with the activities of the Arts Council’.490 As members of the RSBS Ledward and Durst were appointed ‘on behalf of the Society’ to assist the Arts Council at a time when Ledward was simultaneously a member of the Royal Academy.491 RSBS

The Society of British Sculptors (1904–1911) was also known as Royal Society of British Sculptors (1912–2002) and the Royal British Society of Sculptors (2003-2018) and currently the Royal Society of Sculptors (2018-). Also see Glasgow, University of. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/organization.php?id=msib2_1219747847, accessed 15 November 2016.

485 Art Biographies. "Royal British Society of Sculptors." https://www.artbiogs.co.uk/2/societies/royal-british-society-sculptors, accessed 9 March 2017.

486 William Reid Dick RSBS (1920–1961) as President (1933–1938) and RA. William McMillan RSBS 1928–1977) and RA. Gilbert Ledward RSBS (1921–1956) including as President (1954–1956). Alfred Hardiman RSBS 1923–1947). Charles Wheeler RSBS (1935–1974), Vice President (1938–1942), President (1944–1949).

487 Alan Durst (1883–1970).

488 Op. cit., Glasgow, University of. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." 2011. Alan Lydiat Durst (1949–1951), became a fellow in 1951. Siegfried Charoux (1949–1959), wrote a letter of resignation from the RSBS in 1958. Charoux served as a member of the RSBS Council (1949–1951).

489 Op. cit., Glasgow, University of. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." 2011. Also see RSBS Annual Report 1950, p. 5.

490 Op. cit., Glasgow, University of. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." 2011. Also see RSBS Annual Report 1951, p. 4.

491 Op. cit., Glasgow, University of. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." 2011. Also see RSBS Annual Report 1951, p. 4 Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 112 women sculptor members included Gordine, Turner, de Vasconcellos and Muriel Wheeler; Muriel was also elected as an Officer of the RSBS.492 That women sculptors secured membership within the RSBS was upon merit and because their efforts were as sculptors, rather than as women sculptors. Consequently the RSBS memberships of Gordine, Turner, de Vasconcellos and Muriel Wheeler empirically established the RSBS as a more egalitarian institution than the Royal Academy.

Beyond these metropolitan art societies important professional relationships developed between leaders of London’s art and political institutions. The economist Keynes had sought to address the artists’ plight as early as 1925 when, together with Bell, Dobson, Fry, Grant, and others, they founded the London Artists’ Association, the purpose of which was to ‘provide the members with a modest, but guaranteed, income’ in exchange for their work; the association was disbanded in 1934 after Grant and Bell resigned (Jason, 1994).493 In a letter dated 9 July 1945, Keynes invited Munnings as PRA to join a meeting of the ‘Other Club’; whether Churchill, as founder of the Other Club, was also in attendance at that meeting is not known.494 Keynes was at that time formulating his proposal to evolve CEMA into the more permanent charter of the Arts Council affording the simplified and detached financial conduit for state-funding of the arts, 495 a proposal which Munnings was probably aware of and possibly discussed with Keynes. Gray (2000) in The Politics of Art in Britain acknowledges Luke’s (1974) theory of ideological power such that ‘groups and individuals are constrained to operate within the parameters that the power holders ordain ... to control the activities of

492 Op. cit., Glasgow, University of. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." 2011. RSBS membership: Dora Gordine (1949); Winifred Turner (1930–1969); Muriel Wheeler 1942 served as an Officer (1946–1948).

493 Op cit., Jason, Neville. 2012, 70.

494 Munnings Archive, ARC 29, Letter of 9 July 1945 from Lord Maynard Keynes to Sir Alfred Munnings: ‘A meeting of the “Other Club” will be held at the Savoy Hotel in the “Pinafore” Room on Thursday August 9th, 1945, at 8.15 p.m. It is hoped that you will be able to attend. Lord Keynes will be in the Chair. RSVP Mrs Edward Altham, 41 Bloomfield Terrace SW1’. Also see Glueckstein, Fred. "'Other Club'." https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/club-founded-churchill-f-e-smith/, accessed 2 June 2017. The Other Club was founded in 1911 by Churchill and Barrister F. E. Smith in anticipation of their exclusion from The Club (also known as The Literary Club) founded by Sir Joshua Reynolds. The purpose of both clubs was simply ‘to dine’. Also see op. cit., Moggridge, Donald. 1992, 356–357.

495 Arts Council. "Arts Council." http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/our-organisation/our-history, accessed 29 March 2017.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 113 others in pursuit of their own perceived interests’.496 In that regard Munnings may well have understood how little control the Royal Academy would have over the proposed Arts Council. However, Huw Wheldon quoted in Sinclair (1995) in Arts and Culture ‘took the metropolitan and Keynesian line in stating that the Arts Council had imposed limits on itself, namely that it should concentrate on the professional side of the fine arts, the amateur being provided for by other bodies’ presumably referring to the Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions and also amateur art societies.497 Collectively writing to The Times in 1951 these smaller art societies endeavoured to protest against ‘the method of appointment and the competence of the Arts Council ... as a public body spending public money’; their efforts were of no consequence.498 Accordingly the agency of London’s art societies as Wheldon’s ‘other bodies’ were to be rendered inconsequential by the industrious efforts and state-funding of the Arts Council. Moreover, in response to a formal complaint from the Royal Scottish Academy to the Royal Academy, it was resolved that Munnings should approach the Labour Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, and other members of the Government particularly ‘on the propriety of appointing the President and Trustee of the National Gallery’, Clark, to the Arts Council.499 Nothing came of this protest to the extent that the Royal Academy even politely acquiesced to the Arts Council's loan requests for artworks to be sent on the regional British tours that the Arts Council organised.500 Significantly then the Royal Academy lacked representation on the Arts Council and this matter was unlikely to be addressed directly by either party.

496 Op cit., Gray, Clive. 2000, 82-83. ‘Prior to 1940 about the only direct state involvement within the arts in Britain was to be found in local and national museums, financial support for broadcast opera on the BBC and in the post of the Poet Laureate’. Ibid, 35.

497 Huw Wheldon (1916–1986). Sinclair, Andrew. Arts and Cultures: The History of the 50 Years of the Arts Council of Great Britain. London: Sinclair-Stevenson Ltd., 1995, 67.

498 HMI. Gilbert Ledward/1988/16.2. Box 2. Burns, R. J. et al. "The Arts Council as Patron." The Times, 17 November 1951, 7. ‘That which chiefly concerns us is the method of appointment and the competence of the Arts Council itself to continue to make such appointments unchallenged. The Arts Council is a public body spending public money. We are practising artists, who wish to question the system of a public organisation which seems to us to be acting in a partisan manner prejudicial to the great body of living artists of all schools throughout the country.’ Yours faithfully, R. J. Burn, President, NEAC; W. Russell Flint, President, Royal Society of Painters in Water Colour; Hesketh Hubbard, President, Royal Society of British Artists; Augustus John, President, Society of Mural Painters and the Royal Society of Portrait Painters; William C. H. King, President, Society of British Sculptors; , President, ; Gerald Moira, President, Royal Institute of Oil Painters; Malcolm Osbourne, President, Royal Society of Painter-Etchers and Engravers; Norman Wilkinson, President, Royal Institute of Painters in Water Colours.

499 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 15 November 1945, 79. RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 17 January 1946, 91.

500 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 18 April 1946, 109.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 114

Conclusively, the artists’ societies that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century including the New English Art Club, the London Group and the Royal Society of British Sculptors, were formed as alternatives to the Royal Academy’s conventions. These societies nurtured their members’ professional relationships by developing opportunities for social engagement and for group exhibitions, thus ensuring that members were aware of each other’s oeuvres. Paradoxically, such social opportunities also facilitated direct access to participating artists who were simultaneously Academicians and could therefore potentially nominate candidates as Associates if elected to the Royal Academy. The ideological exception to these communities was the Seven and Five Abstract Society whose more independently minded and modernist sculptors, Hepworth and Moore included, remained resolutely set apart as ‘other’ from the breadth of this interconnected community of metropolitan art societies. From 1946 onwards the newly legitimised authority of the Arts Council created a paradigm shift, which displaced the smaller art societies and situated the Royal Academy as merely a repository of artworks from which the Arts Council selected loans for display at their own exhibitions. Therefore the Arts Council appeared primed to supersede the Royal Academy as the most significant art authority in Britain (Sinclair, 1995),501 thus potentially distorting the hierarchy of existing art communities.

Nominations and Elections

Although the Royal Academy’s Instrument of Foundation required that artists were ‘not members of any other society of artists established in London’,502 as demonstrated through the concept of Garlake’s (1998) ‘membership overlap’, this regulation had not been enforced. Although Garlake’s understanding offers a further penetrating insight: that ‘the exhibiting system had been reduced to a skeleton’ consequently artists exhibited with whichever societies they could.503 However, another possible reason for multiple associations may be because of the opportunity for artists to socialise, as Saumarez-Smith (2012) affirms, ‘artists spend most of their days alone in their studios ... but in the evening they like to be sociable’.504 Moreover the opportunity to exhibit at a variety of venues enhanced the sculptors’ professional networks, knowledge of their peers’ work, enhanced their reputation and potentially their livelihoods.

501 Op. cit., Sinclair, Andrew. 1995, 67.

502 Op cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, The Instrument of Foundation, Clause I, 209.

503 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 22-23.

504 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012, 164.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 115

The Royal Academy’s regulations (1768 and 1938) conferred upon both Academicians and Associates the responsibility to nominate potential candidates to the Royal Academy which privileged few and marginalised many, rendering the Royal Academy as one of the most exclusive societies in London. Scribing the name of an artist into the Nomination of Associateship register was therefore not only an affirmation of the quality of the candidates’ work but also conferred a degree of friendship, personal- patronage and affiliation particularly for the primary nominator; other Academicians and Associates then considered whether to underwrite their own name in support.505 For a sculptor three signatures would enable the candidate’s name to be put forward to the General Assembly.506 The painter A. K. Lawrence had suggested that a list of candidates be circulated, together with the names of the Academicians and Associates proposing their nomination ‘be read out at an Assembly of all Members some time before the election’; accordingly it may be construed that members were not always familiar with all nominated artists.507 By 1938 the first two election rounds were ‘scratch’ voting where Academicians reviewed a list of names and placed a mark against one name, four markings being required to progress to the next stage.508 Lead candidates were again marked on the list and the two candidates with the greatest support then progressed to the ballot phase. For the period 1938 to 1952 a candidate required a two-thirds majority of the votes to be deemed duly elected.509 Clearly the two-thirds majority remained a daunting challenge to entry, just as the original obligatory ‘thirty suffrages’ had been; although both systems were a barrier to election for women because the caveat that the suffrages be in ‘his favour’ predisposed the Royal Academy towards maintaining a brotherhood.510 Thus the politicking and cajoling was

505 Op. cit., RAA Constitution and Laws. 1938, Section V, clause 13, 40. ‘Each Academician and Associate shall have the privilege of nominating Candidates for the Order of Association, by inscribing the name or names of the proposed Candidates in a Book to be kept in the Academy under the charge of the Secretary.’

506 RAA Annual Report 1931, 30. In 1931 a threshold was imposed for nominations for Associateship of ‘five signatures, of which three shall be of Painter Members, in the case of a Painter, and three, of which two shall be Sculptor, Architect or Engraver Members respectively, in the case of a Sculptor, Architect or an Engraver. Also see Op cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 176.

507 A.K. Lawrence (1893–1975). Mullins, Charlotte. "The Future Vision of the Royal Academy." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/art/24771/the-future-vision-of-the-royal- academy.html, accessed 30 March 2017.

508 Op. cit., RAA Constitution and Laws. 1938, Section V, clause 7, 37–38.

509 Ibid.

510 Op cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, The Instrument of Foundation, Clause III, 210.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 116 intense in a bid to secure the necessary voting at the General Assembly meeting. Moreover voting had to be undertaken in person by placing a marble or wooden ball into the Ballot Box inscribed ‘Detur Digniori’ (Let it be given to the more worthy) which was used until the end of the twentieth century,511 figure 3.1. Mullins (2014) states that ‘Academicians across the board describe the voting method as lengthy, convoluted, and prone to rigging and anti-rigging (voting to ensure a person doesn’t get in, regardless of who then does).’512

The identification of future Associates was — and remains — an important responsibility which directly influences the organic development of the Royal Academy’s membership for three important reasons. Firstly, the nominator determines whom they choose to put forward for consideration as a member of this exclusive community. Secondly, other Academicians and Associates then decide whether or not to add their own name in support or to withhold and potentially thwart progress towards election. Thirdly and importantly, those who are elected further alter the profile of the Royal Academy through their subsequent nominations; accordingly they may divert and reform the collective character of the Royal Academy community. My empirical analysis of the nominated names for the period 1948–1959 reveals intricate professional and social networks by mapping the identification of the ‘nominator’ as an existing Academician or Associates and the candidates as prospective member, see Appendix 3.1 Nominations for Associateship.

The Nominations of Associateship register also revealed the names of those who failed to attract the qualified level of support such as Jacob Epstein (1925) — deemed a radical — whose entry was eventually marked ‘X Lapsed’ in 1935.513 Epstein’s nomination preceded William Llewellyn’s PRA notorious ‘interpretation of the proprieties of signing a letter’ when Epstein’s British Medical Association architectural sculptures on the Strand, London — controversial when installed in 1907 — were again called to attention when the Southern Rhodesian Government declared their intention

511 Jeffreys, Tom. "How Do Academicians Get Elected?" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/article/how-do-academicians-get-elected, accessed 26 February 2017.

512 Op. cit., Mullins, Charlotte. "The Future Vision of the Royal Academy." 2014.

513 RAA/GA/11/2/3. Nomination of Associateship, 119. Jacob Epstein was proposed by painters John Lavery (1856–1941) and Charles Shannon (1863–1937). Francis Dodd (1874–1949) later added his support in 1928, however the nomination lapsed after seven years in 1935. Nomination lapsed from the last date of signature, consequently a nomination could remain active until no further signatures were added, then lapsed after seven years.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 117 to remove the figures having acquired the building in 1935.514 Llewellyn’s timidity prompted Walter Sickert’s resignation from the Royal Academy on 9 May 1935, following his letter of support for Epstein in the Daily Telegraph.515 Sickert wrote to Llewellyn ‘If the Royal Academy cannot throw its shield over a great sculptor, what is the Royal Academy for?’516 In so doing Sickert articulated the principal reasons why a generation of modernist sculptors were to forsake the Royal Academy. Nominations also excluded recognised names of the period; a nomination for ‘Henry Moore’ pertained to the nineteenth-century painter rather than the twentieth-century sculptor.517 In alluding to artistic independence, Read (1962) emphasised that ‘it is surely significant that none of our great contemporary artists such as Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, Ben Nicholson and Graham Sutherland belongs’ to the Royal Academy; they were however all favoured by the Arts Council’s patronage.518

Remarkably though, over a thirty-year period from the 1930s to the latter part of the 1950s Ledward in particular demonstrated a keen and egalitarian awareness of emerging sculptors who might enhance the Royal Academy. His was the initial nominating signature for: Lambert in 1936 before Lambert withdrew; Gordine (1942, 1949, 1956, lapsed after the mandated seven year period in 1963); Charoux (1943); Ehrlich (1957) and Jonzen (1949, 1957, her proposal lapsed in 1964). Additionally, Ledward was the second signatory for Dobson (1933), Turner (1934), Skeaping (1936, 1943), Lambert (second nomination 1938) and Ling (1955), whilst also supporting F. E. McWilliam (1956), see Appendix 3.1. Nominations of Associateship.519 Each of these sculptors were considered modernist and even abstract to a degree that was beyond the Royal Academy’s narrow tolerance. Curiously however Ledward did not add his name

514 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 260. Also see Cork, Richard. Art Beyond the Gallery in Early Twentieth-Century England. Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1985.

515 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 26. Fenton published the date of resignation as ‘May 19. ‘35’ this date may be erroneous when referenced with the RAA’s date of resignation as May 9 1935. Alternatively the RAA may have noted this as 9 rather than 19 May. Walter Sickert (1860–1942). RAA. "Walter Richard Sickert RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/walter-sickert-ra, accessed 17 May 2018.

516 RAA/SEC/4/121/7. Also see op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 26.

517 RAA. "Henry Moore RA Painter." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/henry-moore-ra, accessed 17 May 2018.

518 Read, Herbert. letter to The Time 18 June 1962 in op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 18.

519 RAA/GA/11/2/3, 4 and 5. Nomination of Associateship. Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 118 to those supporting Machin (1947), suggesting that Ledward personally patronised those who introduced artistic innovation to the Royal Academy. Other sculptors who frequently nominated potential Academicians whose practice defied conventional tolerances included Hardiman, Reid Dick, Wheeler and latterly McFall and Skeaping.

The Instrument of Foundation required that potential Associates elected for Associateship must be:

Artists by profession at the time of their admission, that is to say, Painters, Sculptors, or Architects, men of fair moral characters, of highest reputation in their several professions; at least five and twenty years of age; resident in Great Britain; and not members of any other society of artists established in London.520

Whilst it has been evidenced that the Royal Academy tacitly accepted Associates’ and Academicians’ concurrent memberships with other London art societies, in particular the RSBS, its selection of ‘men of fair moral character, of highest reputation’ was scrupulously applied until the 1920s. As Hutchinson (1968) observed of women’s membership that other than the unelected founder members Angelica Kaufman and in 1768 ‘the matter seems to have been forgotten’ until the notable exceptions of painters Annie Swynnerton elected in 1922 and Laura Knight — a close friend of Munnings — elected in 1927.521 It has not been possible to establish to what extent the influence of the incumbent Presidents and/or members of the Council may have prejudiced potential nominations and elections.522 It is however interesting to reflect upon which artists were elected or lapsed under whose Presidency, even if it was not possible to establish direct interventions. Notwithstanding these assertions, Nochlin (1988) reminds us that artworks ‘occur in a social situation’ dominated by fraternity, unless pursued by women who demonstrated ‘a certain amount of unconventionality’.523

520 Op cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, The Instrument of Foundation, Clause I, p. 209.

521 Ibid, 138. RAA. "Annie Swynnerton A.RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/annie-swynnerton-a-r-a, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Dame Laura Knight RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/laura-knight-ra, accessed 17 May 2018.

522 Gordine and Jonzen were declined during the Presidency of Sir Alfred Munnings.

523 Nochlin, Linda. "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?". 1989 ed., 145-178 In Women, Art and Power and Other Essays, edited by L. Nochlin. New York: Harper and Row, 1988, 158, 169.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 119

Academicians were (and are still) required to pledge an oath of loyalty called the ‘Obligation’ and sign the vellum roll of registration,524 figure 3.2. Saumarez-Smith (2012) reveres the Obligation with a ‘biblical aura of its wording ... much more sonorous in its cadences than the Instrument of Foundation’.525 He likened the pledge ceremony to a Masonic induction; particularly the requirement ‘supporting brethren in need’, musing on the fact that Freemasonry and the Royal Academy were both founded during the historic period of the Enlightenment.526 The ‘profound responsibilities’ of Associates and Academicians alluded to the safeguarding of reputation, financial management and all assets, including Diploma Works, as underwritten by the reigning Monarch and stated in the Instrument of Foundation.527

Despite their nomination by Ledward, the most notable women sculptors of the period: Turner, Gordine, Jonzen and Ling, lacked the necessary wider support of the General Assembly, which remained an overwhelmingly male and predominantly painterly presence. There is an absence of documentary evidence to identify any specific reason for their failure to be elected. However, it may be reasonable to assume that this was due to the perpetuated election principles of obfuscation and marginalisation of women artists within the Royal Academy. Yet in a bid to seemingly redress nominations for women sculptors their cause was also championed by Skeaping. This was perhaps not unremarkable given that Hepworth had been his first wife; although she was not nominated possibly due to their divorce in 1933.528 Skeaping proposed Ling in 1955 who was re-nominated in 1963 however she failed to attract sufficient support and the nomination consequently lapsed in 1970. In a rare image of Ling, we can see her carving of a snow-woman, an ephemeral figure, which might have been considered to signify a lack of physical strength required for the denser material substances of serious

524 Current members also receive a medal set on a ribbon; the colour of the ribbon denoting the artists’ profession: blue for architects, silver-grey for engravers, red for painters and green for sculptors.

525 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012, 106.

526 Ibid.

527 Ibid.

528 Barbara Hepworth Org. "Barbara Hepworth." http://barbarahepworth.org.uk/biography/, accessed 7 February 2017. TGA.921.15. John Skeaping. Curiously on 20 July 1991, a tattered document was removed from the interior of Skeaping’s Horse (1934) during conservation by the Tate; written in 1933, it revealed Skeaping’s professional and personal frustrations: ‘This is practically my only opportunity of saying exactly what I think about everyone. In truth I am only interested in myself and my own pleasure. I think that almost everyone I know in the artistic world are just one mass of stupidity. Henry Moore is a good sculptor in a limited way. Barbara Hepworth has hardly got an original idea in her head. There are no other sculptors except J Epstein is one of the best artists that we have.’

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 120 sculpture, figure 3.3. Nochlin (1988) observes that ‘it was indeed institutionally made impossible for women to achieve artistic excellence, or success, on the same footing as men, no matter what the potency of their so-called talent or genius.’529 Deepwell (2010) applies Nochlin’s institutional generality to the Royal Academy, when she revealed that ‘the regularity of so many women artists as exhibitors at the RA also suggests that the pool of prospective professional women candidates for possible election to the RA was considerably larger than the tiny number actually elected would indicate’.530 Women sculptors as Royal Academy exhibitors will be further explored in Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’. Ultimately, Fraser (2014) defines the real challenge of locating such traces of women’s practice ‘in exhibition catalogues, newspaper reviews, contemporary accounts and among archival papers, the exercise of attempting to locate surviving works by these lesser-known artists is revealing’.531 Yet Skeaping’s most important nomination, was to be Frink, who in 1971 became the first woman sculptor to be elected to the Royal Academy, figure 3.4. Frink’s nomination was supported by a powerful male côterie of Academicians elected during the 1960s including , Casson, Clatworthy, Ivor Robert-Jones, and Soukop, whose collective support influenced a positive election outcome at the General Assembly. Frink was asked by journalist Jennifer Dickson of the Daily Telegraph why she became a member of the Royal Academy, ‘wasn’t this an alien and unnecessary platform for her?’ Frink decried the question, ‘a lot of us — established professionals — were very keen to become members of the Academy we felt that their shows should be fully representative, not just exhibitions of purely amateur work’.532 Frink’s acceptance was also important because she immediately countered a generational disdain of the Royal Academy which her biographer Gardener (1998) described as being considered ‘beneath them’ and irrelevant by her peers.533

Émigré allegiances may also be traced through the nominations that Charoux supported after his own election, including: Soukop (1954, 1961), Nimptsch (n/d entered) and notably the architect Casson (1959) with whom he had maintained a close friendship following the commissioning of The Islanders (1951) for the Festival of

529 Op. cit., Nochlin, Linda. 1988.

530 Deepwell, Katy. Women Artists between the Wars 'a Fair Field and No Favour'. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010, 128.

531 Fraser, Inga. "The 'English Independents': Some Twentieth-Century Women Carvers." Sculpture Journal 23, no. 3 (2014): 369-78.

532 Op. cit., Gardiner, S. 1998, 199–200.

533 Ibid.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 121

Britain.534 Charoux also supported the sculptor-engraver Hermes (1961) who in turn was a supporter for Paolozzi (1972). 535 Although Paolozzi had been nominated at the same time as Frink in April 1971, Paolozzi was not elected until six months after her in April 1972. Further, Soukop supported Clarke (1970), Frink (1971) and Heinz Henghes (1975 although Henghes died later that year). Therefore Charoux’s support directly and indirectly facilitated the introduction of these more progressive sculptors including: Clarke, Frink, Hermes, Henges, Nimptsch, Paolozzi and Soukop. Notably, Nimptsch became Master of the Royal Academy’s Sculpture School (1966–69) and Soukop succeeded him (1969–1982), thus extending the influence of continental modernism to the Royal Academy’s younger generation of students, albeit belatedly.

As a result this increased diversity of candidates led to the admission of twentieth- century sculptors who historically might not have been considered as potential Associates. At a specific moment in time, 1952, it would have been inconceivable that some of the New Aspects generation lauded by Read would ever have been contenders for the Royal Academy.536 Yet in spite of this apparent lack of artistic cohesion Clarke (1970), Paolozzi (1972), Armitage (1994) and Chadwick (2001) became Academicians later in their careers. Clarke and Paolozzi were relatively young men when they were elected as Associates aged forty-six years and forty-eight years respectively. Armitage and Chadwick became Senior Royal Academicians (aged over 75 years), aged seventy- eight years and eighty-seven respectively; perhaps in their later years moving away from a long held reticence about joining an institution whose aesthetic preferences they had historically challenged and rejected, figures 3.5 and 3.6. However, the debate remains contemporary: Christopher Le Brun, the incumbent PRA at the time of writing, admits that membership is ‘still something of a dilemma — should one join; should one not?’.537 Thus lingers the perception that being a member of the Royal Academy may inhibit artistic licence.

534 RAA/GA/11/2/5. Nominations of Associateship. Hugh Casson, 68.

535 RAA/GA/11/2/4, 239. Nomination of Associateship. G Hermes, 239. Although Gertrude Hermes was nominated in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1961 it was not until her final nomination that she was elected as an Engraver. TGA. 4.2.384.1. In a letter of 28 June 1938 to from the Tate Director, John Rothenstein, wrote: ‘In my ignorance I was unaware that Gertrude Hermes, who is certainly one of the best engravers known to me, was a sculptress also’.

536 Op cit., Read, Herbert. 1952, introduction.

537 Op. cit., Mullins, Charlotte. "The Future Vision of the Royal Academy." 2014. Christopher Le Brun was elected as RA in 1996 and PRA in 2011.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 122

The nominations and elections that were successful in the decade after the Second World War introduced vibrant British and European sculptors whose inclinations were typically less conventional. This nuanced shift led to the introduction of women sculptors such as Frink and Hermes and importantly also accommodated some of the New Aspects generation including Clarke, Paolozzi and eventually Armitage and Chadwick. Therefore twentieth-century contemporaneous assertions such as the partisan bias of Read’s introduction in the exhibition catalogue for ‘Forty Years of Modern Art’ (1948) that ‘the Royal Academy if retrospective is at any rate stagnant’ were defined by the moment.538 Garlake’s (1998) non-partisan assessment of the Royal Academy as ‘a bulwark against the dangers of innovatory practice, from abstraction to social realism’ was written after a fifty-year interlude which allowed for a change in historical perspective.539 Due to simultaneous art society memberships, the Royal Academy’s increased liberalism, an increased diversity of Associates, the inclusion of women and an acceptance of sculptors whose developing practice would in the 1950s have caused consternation, the Royal Academy might perhaps be re-defined as an community, for as Professor RA (1990) observes ‘that is also the English way to incorporate the rebellious into the establishment’.540

Diploma Works

Academicians gift a fine example of their work ‘deposited in the Royal Academy, to remain there, a Picture, Bas–relief, or other specimen of his abilities, approved of by the then sitting Council of the Academy’.541 This specimen, known as a Diploma Work, might be an exemplar from any period of the artist’s oeuvre. With reference to the stipulation that the specimen ‘remain there’, the Diploma Works were not available for sale.542 Hutchinson (1968) assured that ‘except for the sale of the Leonardo Cartoon

538 TGA 955.15.1.2. Read, Herbert. "Introduction to Forty Years of Modern Art: A Selection from British Collections 1907-1947." edited by Institute of Contemporary Art. 1948, 3.

539 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 63.

540 Crosby, Theo. "Night Thoughts of a Faded Utopia." In The Independent Group: Postwar Britain and the Aesthetics of Plenty, edited by David. Robbins, 197-99. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1990, 197-199.

541 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, The Instrument of Foundation, Clause III, 210. Further, it was and remains customary that newly elected members offer a gift of ‘plate’ as silverware for use at the Royal Academy dinners.

542 Turner’s motion of 1811 precluded the removal of any Diploma Work ‘Fearing that any serious inconveniences may occur by allowing Works deposited in the Academy to be removed, The President and Council resolved that no Painting, Sculpture, or Architectural Drawing, shall in future be taken out of this Academy under any pretence whatever.’ RAA Council Minutes 1811, volume IV, 280. In op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 91.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 123 and, in 1967, of some engravings, there has never been any question of disposing of any of these possessions but they are important assets’.543 Consequently, the Royal Academy has progressively amassed a remarkable survey of Diploma Works which span two-hundred-and-fifty-years representing some of the most notable artists of their era. As at 2017 the Diploma Collection held ‘some 940 paintings, 1,180 sculptures, over 8,000 prints and 10,000 drawings, 2,000 architectural drawings and 5,000 early photographs.’544 It was believed that the Diploma Works had another crucially important function beyond the accumulation of an immensely valuable collection, however, Saumarez-Smith (2012) confirms that the Diploma works were ‘not used for the purposes of teaching in the Schools.’545

The Diploma Works were rarely exhibited in the later part of the twentieth century beyond the ‘Exhibition of Diploma Works of Living Members with selection of earlier works dating from c 1870’ (1954), the ‘Exhibition of Diploma Works’ (1955) and the ‘Diploma and other works by Royal Academicians’ (1960); however no catalogues are held by the Royal Academy for these exhibitions therefore it has not been possible to establish an inventory of which works were displayed.546 Until the 1970s the Royal Academy held a limited permanent display of the Diploma Works however due to constraints of space most of the Diploma Works were placed in storage, whilst a small number were located in the John Madejski Fine Rooms; those on display there being rotated periodically.547. Appraisal of a number of exemplars serves to illustrate not only

543 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 204. The Academy’s financial situation was so perilous after Second World War that in 1962 during Charles Wheeler’s presidency the Leonardo Cartoon was sold to the Nation under great furore for the sum of £800,000 which secured the Royal Academy’s independence. Wheeler said of this event that he wept like a child. Op cit., Crellin, Sarah. 2012, 97. Also see National Archive. "Leonardo Cartoon." http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2040648, accessed 10 April 2017.

544 RAA. "Diploma Collection." http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_areana/textual/NS/RA-COLLECTIONS, accessed 30 March 2017.

545 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012, 116.

546 RAA Exhibitions Master File: 28 September –26 November 1954, ‘Exhibition of the Diploma Works of Living Members with selection of earlier work dating from c1870’ and 28 March – 18 June 1955 ‘Exhibition of Diploma Works’, and 7 March–23 April 1960 ‘Diploma and other works by Royal Academicians’.

547 Helen Valentine, RAA Curator Paintings and Sculptures, in conversation with the author, 19 April 2017. After a lengthy interlude a Diploma Works exhibition ‘Richard Deacon RA Selects’ was held on the Sackler Landing in 2017 which demonstrated a formidable array of sculptures. RAA. "Richard Deacon RA Selects." 2017. https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/richard-deacon-ra-selects, accessed 22 February 2018.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 124 a unique survey of the period from selected sculptors but importantly an understanding that these sculptures may be read as intimate and meaningful choices.

Representing a radical departure from the clay models that he had applied to his Great War memorials, Ledward’s direct carving of the life-sized, Earth Rests (1930) was exhibited at the Summer Exhibition in 1937, figure 3.7. The figure’s risen knees as ‘undulations of landscape’ was accompanied by the verse:

Earth rests, the ancient fires are still Her jewels are set, her knees drawn up like hills.548

Moriarty (2003) characterises Earth Rests as the ‘connecting link between the figurative sculpture of the nineteenth century and that of young contemporary arts’ of the twentieth century when this sculpture was used in a publicity leaflet to promote the fourth LCC ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ in Holland Park in 1957.549 There was however a strong thematic semblance between Earth Rests and Moore’s sculpture Reclining Figure (1929) known to have been inspired by the Mexican figure of Chac- mool (Ades, 2015),550 figure 3.8. Similarly, Memorial Figure (1945–1946) located in the grounds of Dartington Hall, Devon, may be attributed to Moore’s time as assistant to Ledward, Professor of Sculpture at the Royal College of Art (1927), figure 3.9. Moore’s comments made at the time of the installation of Memorial Figure reflected the same sentiment expressed by the verse that had accompanied Ledward’s exhibit a decade earlier:

It is situated at the top of a rise, and when one stands near it and takes in the shape of it in relation to the vista one becomes aware that the raised knee repeats or echoes the gentle roll in the landscape.551

Thus Ledward’s and Moore’s work may have been symbiotic in their genesis even if they lacked resonance in their aesthetic execution.

548 Op. cit., RAA. "Diploma Collection." 2017.

549 Op. cit., Moriarty, Catherine. 2003, 60–61, 96. Moriarty observed that ‘while photographs of Earth Rests convey the frontal appearance of this work ... its most interesting feature is its physicality. It becomes clear that this work is about the experience rather than the appearance of the women form.’ Ibid, 61.

550 Ades, Dawn. "‘Henry Moore and World Sculpture’, in Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity, Tate Research Publication." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research- publications/henry-moore/dawn-ades-henry-moore-and-world-sculpture-r1151458, accessed 30 May 2017.

551 Moore, Henry. "Sculpture in the Open Air: A Talk by Henry Moore on His Sculpture and Its Placing in Open-Air Sites." edited by Robert Melville, 1955. Also see op. cit., Veasey, Melanie. 2014, 42-49.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 125

Wheeler’s Diploma Work, was a statuette model of Ariel of the Bank (ca. 1936), also known as Spirit of the Winds, the apex figure for the ’s Tivoli Dome: one of numerous architectural embellishments on the building which had initially brought Wheeler acclaim,552 figure 3.10. Wheeler’s numerous commissions for the Bank also included, by way of aesthetic contrast, the abstract Telemons and Caryatids above the Threadneedle Street façade, figure 3.11. The Bank of England commission might be considered the zenith of Wheeler’s career though Fenton (2006) argues of Wheeler that ‘he was a floundering and timid pasticheur of strong and original artists such as Epstein and .’553 However Crellin (2012) counters that Wheeler’s contribution ‘deserves its place alongside the more celebrated architectural collaborations of the era’, specifically Moore, Epstein and Gill’s Temple of the Winds (1929) commissioned for the Headquarters; a fact which she attributes to the ‘wider critical attention’554 given to their commissions since Cork’s (1985) appraisal in Art Beyond the Gallery in Early Twentieth Century England.555 Wheeler’s choice of Ariel of the Bank may be taken as an indication of his preferred aesthetic, considerably distanced from modern art.

In response to the Architectural Review (1931) enquiry ‘Do you ever submit your work to the Royal Academy?’ Dobson articulated the reason why many artists held reservations in their early career about an association with the Royal Academy :

I do not see any constructive purpose would be served by my submitting my work to the jurisdiction of a body, the majority of whose ideas of art and what a work of art should be are diametrically opposed to my own.556

Dobson’s decision to become a member of the Royal Academy represented what Jason (1994) considered a ‘volte-face’ for a man who was ‘no longer the young rebel’.557 Study for the Head of Pax I (1933) was attributed as Dobson’s gift ‘on becoming an Associate

552 Op. cit., Crellin, Sarah. 2012, 39. Crellin (2012) noted that ‘Wheeler’s Renaissance antecedents and modern Swedish influences came together with a nod to the new sculpture of Alfred Gilbert (1854–1934) in this technically assured decorative casting.’ Ibid, 46.

553 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 32.

554 Op. cit., Crellin, Sarah. 2012, 39.

555 Cork, Richard. Art Beyond the Gallery in Early Twentieth-Century England. Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1985.

556 Op. cit., Jason, Neville. 1994, 81.

557 Ibid, 194.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 126

Member’, in February 1942,558 figure 3.12. However, eleven years later, his Diploma Work was ‘unanimously accepted’ by the Royal Academy Council when Dobson became a Academician in 1953.559 Dobson’s gift was a portrait bust which he had completed fifteen years earlier and as such represented the pinnacle of his style influenced by Maillol.560 The bust was a preparatory work for the full-sized figure Pax (1934) which was exhibited at the New York World Trade Fair in 1939.561 Considering the Study for the Head of Pax I (1933) as Dobson’s most personal work, my observation is that the model bears a strong semblance to Dobson’s second wife, artist’s model Mary Bussell whom he married on 6 August 1931: ‘her lovely oval face and graceful body were to become the subject of many of Dobson’s finest drawings’ (Jason, 1994).562 Thus even though this sculpture had been created at a time in Dobson’s life when he had considered the Royal Academy’s ideas as ‘diametrically opposed’ to his own, he still bestowed it.563 Perhaps the title too, Pax, was allegorical for a mature man who was reconciled with the Royal Academy.

Lambert’s Carving in Paros Marble (1937) was completed almost twenty years prior to its submission as his Diploma Work in 1952 just two years after his appointment as Master of the Royal Academy’s Sculpture School, figure 3.13. On the reverse of a photograph of this sculpture Lambert wrote: ‘Carved from the most perfect block of marble I ever saw’ (Nicolson, 2002).564 Lambert’s aesthetic style was highly experimental and evolved significantly over his lifetime provoking criticism of his ‘eclecticism’.565 However the emphasis of this work may be drawn from the first word of the title that he gave it, ‘carved’, which when understood in the context of ‘the most perfect block of marble’, authenticated the quality of the material and conveyed the sheer pleasure of carving. Further, the tactile nature of Lambert’s connection with this particular block of marble and the physicality of his direct carving resonated with Ezra

558 Ibid, 140.

559 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 6 October 1953, 77.

560 Op. cit., Jason, Neville. 1994. Clive Bell: ‘Dobson came triumphantly out of the world of some nine or ten years ago, and entered that world of pure, academic sculpture (I use the word ‘academic’ in the admirable sense, of course) over which Maillol reigns’. Ibid, 66.

561 Op. cit., Jason, Neville. 1994, listing number 112, Pax, 141.

562 Ibid, 71.

563 Ibid, 81.

564 Op. cit., Nicolson, Vanessa. 2002, 71. and 110.

565 Ibid, 7.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 127

Pound’s interpretation of ‘the pretty, that is the “caressable”.566 This acknowledgement of sculpture as haptic is reiterated by Getsy’s (2011) assessment of Read’s argument that sculpture ‘was meant to be felt’ (original emphasis).567 Lambert’s sculpture represented a woman swimming under water holding a captured fish within her raised arms. However the contorted pose of Carving in Paros Marble resembled a more provocative interpretation of Dobson’s Crouching Figure (1930), figure 3.14, although the pose of both figures had precedent in ’s paintings such as Woman Washing in the Bath (c.1892),568 figure 3.15. Plausibly, the Degas exhibition (1952) arranged by the Arts Council at the Tate Gallery, where exemplars of the Woman Washing series (1892–1895) were exhibited, may have prompted Lambert to offer Carving in Paros Marble as his Diploma Work that same year.569

Reflecting upon Charoux’s acknowledged influences of Rodin, Kolbe and Maillol and perhaps illustrative of an émigré’s decision to conform to a traditional aesthetic for reasons of acceptance, Charoux offered Friends (1956) as his Diploma Work,570 figure 3.16. This work was unanimously accepted by the Council at their meeting in July 1956.571 The title no doubt expressed Charoux’s amity towards other Academicians with whom he forged the professional relationships that sustained his metier. Aesthetically Friends was a relatively uncontroversial work made during the 1950s when Charoux’s practice was undergoing a radical transformation towards an idiosyncratic signature style traces of which were seen in The Islanders (1951) which similarly conveyed the theme of unity. The title for The Islanders may actually have been taken from Raymond Mortimer’s book review of Britain (1939) compiled by Mass Observation which was headlined The Islanders and noted that the purpose of Mass Observation was to ‘examine the culture of the British Islanders’,572 surely an examination of culture undertaken by many émigrés for reasons of British assimilation.

566 Op. cit., Pound, Ezra. 1916, 97.

567 Getsy, David J. "Tactility or Opticality, Henry Moore or David Smith: Herbert Read and Clement Greenberg on the Art of Sculpture, 1956." In Anglo-American Exchanges in Postwar Sculpture, 1945-1975, edited by Rebecca Peabody, 105-21. New York: Getty, 2011, 105.

568 Edgar Degas (1834–1917).

569 ACGB. "Degas ". Sponsored by the Edinburgh Festival Society and the Scottish Royal Academy, Tate Gallery. London: ACGB, 1952.

570 Sorrell, Mary. "Charoux." Apollo XLVII, no. 724, June (1948): 128-30. Charoux: ‘In my early days ... I had a great love for Rodin, and was influenced by him. Then I turned to Kolbe, and later to Maillol’.

571 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 31 July 1956, 177.

572 Op. cit., Mortimer, Raymond. "The Islanders: Britain by Mass Observation". 1939, 62. Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 128

Frink’s tiny Rolling Horse (ca. 1976) was a decisive departure from the — nude or draped — forms of women that had traditionally been offered as illustrated by the Diploma Works of Ledward, Wheeler, Lambert and Charoux. This vigorous, writhing, textured animal was representative of the horse sculptures prompted by a flurry of commissions in the late 1970s for racecourses such as Goodwood, which were to pre- date Frink’s subsequent Running Man series (Gardiner, 1999),573 figure 3.17. Frink’s spirited gift resonated with the equine fervour long evident in works exhibited at the Royal Academy such as those by Munnings — compared by Rothenstein to the tradition of Stubbs’s famed horses574 — and sculptures most frequently commissioned in military or regal context from Hardiman and Reid Dick. Therefore in this context Rolling Horse was appropriate. Skeaping, having nominated Frink, shared an equine connection given his own passion for representations of the horse in his work.575 Rolling Horse (c.1976) graced the cover of the exhibition catalogue for ‘Diploma Works 1921– 1981’(1982), a regional event organised in Leicester, figure 3.18.

Despite the fact that Paolozzi was admitted to the Royal Academy as a Sculptor, his preferred mediums were stated as ‘sculpture and printmaking’. Consequently in 1979 for his Diploma Work he submitted an ink stamped screen-print series 303/500 of 100 A4 prints on machine made paper printed by Kelpra Studio. Moonstrips Empire News (1967) was presented in a neon-pink acrylic box. These prints illustrated Paolozzi’s passion for popular culture such as the gun-bearing robotic form in No Heroes Developed (1967), mimetic of Robby the Robot, star of the sci-fi film the Forbidden Planet (1956) which opened the exhibition ‘’, Whitechapel (1956),576 figure 3.19. However the iconic work of this series was The Silken World of Michelangelo (1967), as Paolozzi suggested the juxtaposed pixelated ‘Mickey Mouse is as identifiable as a hero of modern society as Michelangelo’s David [1501–1504] is of

573 Op. cit., Gardiner, S. 1999, 211.

574 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 175. In 1945 Rothenstein had recommended the Chantrey acquisition of Munnings’s Hyperion (1937) ‘which showed Munnings as a not unworthy inheritor of the tradition of Stubbs and Ben Marshall’. Ibid, 175. The painting was eventually acquired by the Yale Centre for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, accession number B2001.2.75.

575 Cobham, David. "John Skeaping: One Pair of Eyes." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpmsrMbfV_4, accessed 16 July 2016. Skeaping: ‘All my days were spent thinking in what I thought was a horse’s mentality; I was in fact a horse. I imagined myself being driven along with a bit in my mouth, the discomfort of it, pulling against it. I drew as though I were a horse writing its autobiography.’

576 Whitechapel. "This Is Tomorrow." http://thisistomorrow.info/articles/whitechapel- gallery-retrospective-of-its-exhibition-this-is-tomorrow, accessed 20 April 2017.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 129 the High Renaissance’,577 figure 3.20. Paolozzi’s inspired yet contemporised acknowledgement of the work of Michelangelo was synonymous with Reynold’s appreciation of the artist. For Reynold’s fifteenth and final Discourse in 1790, he concluded ‘that the last words which I should pronounce in this Academy, and from this place, might be the name of Michelangelo.’578 As Crosby (2016) observes of Paolozzi’s generation in The Independent Group: Postwar Britain and the Aesthetics of Plenty ‘we have, in the English manner, gone our separate, friendly ways, some following Max Fry and Victor Pasmore into the very Royal Academy we so loved to hate’.579

Appointed directly as Senior Academicians, both Chadwick’s Diploma Work, accepted in 2002, Teddy Boy and Girl (1955–2002 after a 1955 version) and Armitage’s Reclining – Relief (1953–1954), were sourced from the period of their lives that had initially brought them acclaim, although at that time they were considered Royal Academy ‘outsiders’ and their work controversial, figures 2.22 and 3.21.

In considering the Diploma Works gifted by these sculptors it has been possible to visually trace the gendered, aesthetic, generational and personal influences brought to bear upon the Royal Academy by promoted Academicians. The Diploma Works have also highlighted the artificial construct of time and place because they included the work of sculptors such as Clarke and Chadwick whose early sculptures had called into question the essence of what it meant to be an artist during the 1950s and for whom it would, at that time, have been inconceivable that they would ever accept an invitation to become Academicians. Ultimately however, the Diploma Works are a unique and unusually personal legacy, thoughtfully selected by the sculptors as a gift upon reaching the Royal Academy’s upper echelon.

A Petition for Change A petition for change was submitted to the Royal Academy’s Council in the new year of 1949. This petition sought to modernise and democratise the Royal Academy’s governance and exhibitions’ protocol. A formal letter was read at the Council Meeting of 19 January 1949 which called for a General Assembly to be convened ‘to discuss

577 Wheeler, Lucy. "Paolozzi Leaflet." https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/culture/Paolozzi-Leaflet.pdf, accessed 20 April 2016.

578 Malone, E. (1797) The Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds. London, Volume 1, 1797, 346 quoted in op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 72.

579 Op cit., Crosby, Theo. 1990, 197.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 130 matters of urgent importance in respect of desired changes in the constitution’.580 Signatories to this petition included Lambert, Dobson and Machin.581 A General Assembly held on 7 April 1949 considered the petitioned constitutional changes which proposed three unprecedented interventions:

i. while keeping the distinction of ARA and RA intact, the Associates should have at least four ARAs on the Council, appointed on the same principles as the present Council. ii. Associates should have greater representation on the Selection and Hanging Committee. iii. All Officers must be appointed by General Assembly of Academicians and Associates.582 (emphasis inserted).

Succinctly, the petition sought a dilution of the concentration of power exerted by the Royal Academy Council’s Officers and the Selection Committee’s choice of traditional works for the Summer Exhibitions. A sub-committee of four members of the Council W. Curtis-Green, Kelly, Ledward and Thomas Monnington agreed to ‘consider how far and in what ways these proposals could be adopted’.583 Clearly there was a degree of anxiety about the influence that the younger generation of Associates might exercise if granted greater influence. Nevertheless by May 1949, remarkably, the sub-committee had recommended that two of the three petitioned changes were approved. By way of increased representation two Associates were to be appointed to the Council and ‘not more [than] three sculptors and three architects should serve’ on the Selection and Hanging Committee even though this imposed a ratio which would preserve the dominance of the Academicians and specifically the painters.584 The proposal for the

580 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 19 January 1949, 280.

581 RAA/SEC/8/62/1. The petition signatories were: Bernard Fleetwood-Walker (1893–1965, Painter); Maurice Lambert (1901–1964, Sculptor); R V Pitchforth (1895–1982, Painter); Ruskin Spear (1911–1990, Painter); James Fitton (1899–198; Painter); Frank Dobson (1886–1963, Sculptor); Arnold Mason (1885–1963, Painter); Arnold Machin (1911–1999, Sculptor); Henry Lamb (1883–1960, Painter); Rodrigo Moynihan (1910–1990, Painter); John Wheatley (1892–1955, Painter); (1903–1992, Painter); Robert Buhler (1916–1989, Painter); Edward Le Bas (1904–1966, Painter); R O Dunlop (1894–1973, Painter); Louis de Soissons (1890–1962, Architect); Ernest Gillick (1874–1951, Sculptor); Edward Bawden (1903–1989, Draughtsman); signature believed to be Hugh Worthington (1886–1963, Architect); John Nash (1893–1977, Painter).

582 RAA/SEC/8/62/1.

583 W. Curtis-Green (1875–1960). Thomas Monnington (1902–1976). RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 11 April 1949, 300.

584 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 26 May 1949, 311–312.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 131

Associates’ right to elect Officers was rejected. This decision to implement two of the three petitioned changes was plausibly influenced by Munnings.

Writing to her husband prior to his first election endeavour in 1938, Violet Munnings had urged that his election would ‘help to crush the unhealthy viper of modern art’, and she asked of Munnings if he could be a Great Officer who ‘Saved British Art?’585 (original underscore). Significantly therefore when Munnings beat Augustus John to be elected in December 1944 he considered that this had been with an open mandate to defend the Royal Academy against the rise of modern art and the potential invasion of the ‘citadel’ that Wake-Cook (1924) had anticipated.586 When Munnings wrote to Laura Knight in 1943, ‘news about this Picasso!! Something has to be done’, he conveyed his strength of feeling about the artist587 [original punctuation and underscore]. Munnings again made reference to ‘that blighter Picasso’ in another letter to Knight dated 1 January 1946.588 Therefore when what Matisse had referred to as a ‘propaganda show’, the ‘Picasso–Matisse Exhibition’ opened to huge crowds and press comment in 1945, the public’s desire to experience modern art became for Munnings a source of betrayal of all that the Royal Academy represented.589 This exhibition was ‘intended to be a cultural exchange between Britain and France’ yet for Munnings it was indicative of what Taylor (1999) describes as ‘a key index of public allegiances to and phobias about “the modern”’.590

Moreover, the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ (1948) — which Munnings had attended — called into question not only the affiliation of Dobson and Wheeler as members of the LCC/Arts Council sponsored Working Party but also more broadly

585 Munnings Estate, ARC 29, letter from Violet Munnings to Alfred Munnings of Saturday (nd) November 1938. Violet concluded her letter ‘I write this at the screech of dawn when my brain is clear.’ Also see Goodman, Jean. AJ: The Life of Alfred Munnings, 1878-1959. Norwich: Erskine, 2000, 204.

586 Op. cit., Wake-Cook, Ebenezer. 1924, 25.

587 RAA/MUN/2–1–2. Letter of 16 August 1943 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight. By ‘this Picasso’ Munnings referred to La Belle Hollandaise (1905) for which the Tate sought to raise £6,00o by public subscription. The value of £6,000 in 1943 would have been equivalent of approximately £260,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

588 RAA/MUN/6/1. Letter of 1 January 1946 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight.

589 Trachtman, Paul. "Matisse and Picasso." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts- culture/matisse-picasso-75440861, accessed 31 May 2017.

590 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 176.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 132 encompassed those Academicians who had loaned their works including Dobson, Hardiman, Lambert, Ledward, McMillan, Reid Dick and Wheeler.591 This despite the fact that one of Dobson’s three exhibited pieces and both of those exhibited by Wheeler, as well as the majority of the sculptures, were loaned by the Tate Gallery courtesy of Rothenstein. However this exhibition revealed to Munnings that the critics’ fascination with modern art and modern sculpture, especially Moore’s Three Standing Figures (1948), could not simply be ignored. Of other sculptors who participated in this exhibition, many were eventually to be elected to the Royal Academy, including Charoux, Ehrlich, McWilliam, Nimptsch, Skeaping and Soukop.

Consequently due to the impact of the ‘Picasso–Matisse Exhibition’ and the Academicians’ participation at the LCC/Arts Council’s ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ (1948) and compounded by Munnings’s promise to his wife to ‘Save British Art’ Munnings reflected upon his duty as President. Having already served as PRA for five years, at his unanimous re-election on 10 December 1948, Munnings stated his intention to step down from the role in December 1949 and he therefore considered that he had given notice and resigned, effective one year hence.592 However the Spring of 1949 was then dominated by the Council’s considerations of the petition for change and intense debate about whether or not Associates should have a greater sway over the Royal Academy and the Summer Exhibitions.

On 28 April 1949, the Royal Academy’s annual dinner was held. With great anticipation, this dinner was to be the first for ten years following its suspension for the duration of the war and subsequent austerity constraints. Churchill, newly appointed as Royal Academician Extraordinary, was the guest of honour (Munnings, 1952; Pound, 1960; Hutchinson, 1968, Goodman, 2000).593 Thus Munnings perceived his only dinner

591 LCC. "Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture." London: London County Council in Association with the Arts Council of Great Britain, 1948, 10–12.

592 RAA General Assembly Minutes 1932–1963, XI, 10 December 1948, 160. At the General Assembly meeting on 10 December 1948 Munnings had been unanimously re-elected, however he ‘stated that he did not feel himself able to discharge the duties of office beyond the next year, and advised the members to be prepared in good time for the election of his successor.’ Thereafter he considered himself to be beyond the constraints of office.

593 RAA/SEC/9/1/60, 549. Munnings had begun to court Churchill’s interest by invitation to a private dinner with Academicians in June 1947. The Resolution for Churchill’s election was put to the General Assembly and declared carried on 23 April 1948. RAA General Assembly Minutes 1932–1963 XI, 162. With King George VI’s approval, as an amateur artist Churchill received his personalised Diploma as an Honorary Academician Extraordinary on 10 December 1948. RAA/SEC/9/1/60, 788. As an amateur, Churchill’s name was never listed as a past Academician. Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 133 speech as an opportunity to express his frustrations and sound a rallying call to Associates and Academicians against modernisation of the institution and specifically to protest against a developing interest in modern art by some members of the Royal Academy (Munnings, 1952; Pound, 1962; Goodman, 2000). Moreover, the sense of impunity that Munnings’s previously tendered resignation offered, added to a potent combination of circumstances which singularly might have been of limited consequence but collectively, with the added potency of Churchill’s presence at the banquet, suppressed Munnings’s discretion at this occasion.594

Munnings’s response to a toast — one of five that he had replied to that evening — this one ‘for the Academy’, was expressed within twelve paragraphs.595 Fenton (2006) asserts Munnings was ‘not just drunk but both bitter and demob-happy.’596 Pound (1962) however disputed claims of inebriation stating that because Munnings ‘mismanaged the word ‘innumerable’ a number of times radio listeners thought he was drunk’.597 Taking the content of the paragraphs as indicative as to what was upper-most in his mind: in the second paragraph Munnings questioned the loyalty of the members of the Royal Academy ‘this body of men. But what of the body? Are they worthy of this building in which they are housed? 598 Then importantly, in the third paragraph he observed, ‘But I find myself President of a body of men who are what I call shilly- shallying they feel that there is something in this so called modern art’. His accusation of ‘shilly-shallying’, of failing to act resolutely or decisively, may have referred to Associates and Academicians who maintained an allegiance to the Royal Academy whilst simultaneously participating with other artistic societies many of whom were influenced by modern art, and, those who were willing to exhibit beyond Burlington House at events organised by the Arts Council, such as the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ (1948).599 Here Munnings explicitly addressed those whom he queried as ‘worthy of this building’ and by extension disloyal to the Royal Academy’s oath of

594 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 265. Mary Soames, Churchill’s daughter, refuted Munnings’s claim that he was ‘an intimate friend’ of the Prime Minister.

595 Op. cit., Munnings, Alfred. 1952, 145–147.

596 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 266.

597 Pound, Reginald. The Englishman: A Biography of Sir Alfred Munnings. London: Heineman, 1962, 180-181.

598 Transcript of Munnings’s Speech (1949). Op. cit., Munnings, Alfred. 1952, 144. BBC Radio broadcast, 29 April 1948. Courtesy of the Munnings Estate. Also see op. cit., Goodman, Jean. 2000, 241.

599 OD. "Shilly Shally." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/shilly-shally, accessed 11 April 2017.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 134

Obligation and Reynold’s Discourse on Art referring to the works of the Old Masters. Therefore in his capacity as President, Munnings perhaps sought to remind the Associates and Academicians of their duty of fidelity to the Royal Academy, its customs and commitments.

It was not until the fifth paragraph that Munnings derided Picasso, the eighth paragraph before he referred to Moore — not by name but by his reference to his own visit to Moore’s ‘Madonna and Child in Northampton’ — and the tenth paragraph when he mentioned Matisse. Furthermore, Munnings’s reference to exhibited sculpture in the Octagon Room (the Wohl Central Hall) ‘where there was a woman carved out of wood, and God help us all if the race of women looked like that!’ may have referred to either Margaret George’s Pietà, or K. Keeble-Smith’s Kneeling Girl both of which were located in the Octagon Room and crafted from wood.600

Yet Munnings’s address also carried an element of the personal. Dobson and Munnings had recently clashed over an alleged derogatory ‘contemptuous reference’ that Munnings had made in a newspaper article in the New Chronicle of 18 May 1948 about The Fount exhibited by Dobson at Battersea Park (1948), figure 3.22. Dobson had sought an apology from Munnings but the Royal Academy’s Council, having reviewed the article, considered that ‘he [Dobson] had taken this humorous remark ... too seriously, and it could not be regarded as matter for an apology’.601 This response did not meet Dobson’s expectation of an apology from Munnings and the matter had certainly vexed both men. Jason (1994) concludes that Dobson’s election to the Royal Academy was notable as ‘the fact that the invitation had been extended at all indicates that times had moved on in the Academy’ yet he qualified the degree to which the Royal Academy had ‘moved on’ given Munnings’s ongoing dispute with modern art.602 Referring to a 1942 art review written by Newton, Munnings had written privately to Knight to express his delight at Newton’s praise of his own work which Munnings claimed had ‘woke up the great Dobson’, suggesting a thinly veiled degree of irritation with Dobson’s success.603

600 RAA Exhibition Catalogue 1949. listing number 1249, Pietà group, limewood, sculptor: Margaret George.(n/d). listing number 1256, Kneeling Girl, walnut wood, sculptor: K. Keeble-Smith.(n/d.) Unfortunately whilst listed in the RAA exhibition catalogue, these sculptures were not included in RA Illustrated (1949) nor can be seen in photographs of the exhibition therefore no images are known to remain.

601 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 17 June 1948, 248.

602 Op. cit., Jason, Neville. 1994, 94.

603 RAA/MUN/1–1. Letter of 22 May 1942 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight. Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 135

Writing in the Royal Academy’s exhibition catalogue, The Edwardians and After: The Royal Academy 1900-1950, Stevens (1988) suggests in her chapter ‘A Quiet Revolution’ that when Munnings declared ‘“I find myself a President of a body of men who are what I call shilly-shallying. They feel that there is something in this modern art”, this suggested the existence of a greater liberalism within the institution than is generally recognised.’604 Stevens’s suggestion of ‘greater liberalism’ defines the essence of a debate that has been neglected by art historians: to what extent might some of the post-war Associates and Academicians be considered more free-thinking and inclined towards modern art than historically characterised? Stevens’s statement was written in an exhibition catalogue dedicated to the painters of the Royal Academy, without reference to the sculptors. Therefore concurring with Stevens’s supposition of a ‘greater liberalism within the institution’, I assert that the participation of the Royal Academy sculptors in the ‘Open Air Exhibition’ (1948), together with new evidence of the agency of Associates and Academicians who had signed the petition for change in January 1949, were indicative of this ‘greater liberalism’ underlying Munnings’s sense of betrayal of the Royal Academy.

Upon hearing the BBC’s playback Munnings ‘chuckled with glee and asked repeatedly “Did I say that?”’605 (original emphasis). As Goodman (2000) observes ‘No President, before or since, had done so much to introduce art controversy into the home of people who had never heard of Picasso or Cézanne’,606 figure 3.23. Yet the ‘sacks full of letters showed that a great majority approved of what he said and the force with which in part he said it … speaking from a place of authority, [he] put into words what they felt and could not express’ (Pound, 1962).607 Yet journalist Rushworth Fogg (1949), writing a measured article, noted that ‘Sir Alfred had not suddenly created this excitement about artistic matters. It was already plain before he spoke that more British people were visiting exhibitions of painting and sculpture than ever before, and more people were arguing about them.’608 The comment that the debate was ‘not suddenly created’ undoubtedly included the Royal Academy’s prolonged debate against ‘modern

604 Stevens, MaryAnne The Edwardians and After: The Royal Academy, 1900-1950. London: Royal Academy of Arts in association with Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1988, 15.

605 Ibid, 234.

606 Ibid.

607 Op. cit., Pound, Reginald. 1962, 181.

608 Fogg, Rushworth. "Munnings: Man in the Street the Judge." Northampton Evening Telegraph, 1949, np. Munnings Museum Press Cuttings.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 136 sculpture’ that could certainly be traced to Llewellyn’s lack of support for Epstein in 1935.609 Furthermore, Fenton (2006) identifies Dicksee PRA as a ‘model for some of his notorious successors in his after-dinner denunciations of modern art.’610 In fact Munnings’s repudiation of ‘modern art’ was a wearied debate by 1949, yet it brought the Royal Academy into disrepute. Art critic , who often dined with Munnings as a fellow Athenaeum Club member, observed of Munnings that ‘he was impulsive and he couldn’t see that he didn’t have the power to change things.’611 Read as an admonishment of the seemingly rogue Associates and Academicians, Munnings’s speech may perhaps be acknowledged for his willingness, as PRA, to remind members of their oath of Obligation to the Royal Academy. Eventually, honoured in the crypt beneath St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, in the company of other PPRAs those closest (though added later) being Richardson, Kelly and Wheeler; the Poet Laureate, John Masefield’s poignant epitaph was inscribed upon Munnings’s plaque:

O Friend, how very lovely are the things The English things, you helped us to perceive 612

Nevertheless change had arrived, not only by petition, but also in the person of Kelly who succeeded Munnings in December 1949 and had no illusions about the necessity of modernising the Royal Academy, figure 3.24. Kelly had declined to vote for Munnings as PRA in 1944 but had written to him to explain that ‘I did so because I wish above all things to see the rising generation of artists reconciled to the Academy’ (Pound, 1962).613 Clearly Kelly was aware that Munnings’s appointment as PRA could potentially alienate more progressive artists despite Kelly’s own artistic commitment to realism.

609 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 26.

610 Frank Dicksee (1853–1928, PRA 1924–1928). Also see op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 254. RAA. "Francis Dicksee PRA." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/frank-dicksee-pra, accessed 17 May 2018.

611 Brian Sewell (1931–2015). "Frontrow" presented by Kirsty Lang, BBC Radio 4, Brian Sewell on Sir Alfred Munnings. 31 May 2013.

612 In the crypt of St. Paul’s Cathedral, Munnings’s memorial tablet and ashes were placed in St. Faith’s Chapel which is dedicated to the Order of the British Empire. Dedications to Hamo Thornycroft (1850–1925), George Frampton (1860–1928) and Sir William Reid Dick (1879–19161) are in close proximity. Henry Moore (1898-1986) was also honoured in the same chapel though his plaque to the right hand side of the entrance gate was located as far as possible from the Academicians. Visited by the author on 21 April 2016.

613 Op. cit., Pound, Reginald. 1962, 160.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 137

Under Kelly’s presidency a number of changes were promptly introduced on the very day he succeeded Munnings. These reforms included permitting women to serve not only on Committees but also the Council; two Associates were added to the existing ten Academicians serving on the Council however qualification was made that such Associates must ‘have been members of the Academy for at least three years’; the quorum was increased from six to seven for Council meetings and Associates were given voting rights for the election of Associates and Academicians. This latter point was critical to the introduction of a new generation of members because the Associates were more likely to vote for upcoming artists. Furthermore, ‘one Sculptor Associate’ was also added to the composition of the Selection Committee and the Hanging Committee for the Summer Exhibitions; another influential factor which enhanced the prospect of more progressive sculpture being exhibited at future Summer Exhibitions.614

The proliferation of art societies established in London at the beginning of the twentieth century including the NEAC, the London Group and the RSBS had by the mid-twentieth century abandoned their anti-Royal Academy stance and by way of what Garlake described as ‘membership overlap’ established a complex network of social and professional allegiances which for some sculptors facilitated their election to the Royal Academy. The exception to this interactive community who engaged with the Royal Academy were the artists of the Seven and Five Abstract Society including Moore and Hepworth. Consequently the metropolitan art community was significantly less compartmentalised than has previously been understood. Rather it was a complex and co-dependent collaboration such that in this environment becoming an Academician continued to be considered as the professional zenith. However the assertive state patronage of the Keynesian Arts Council was seemingly poised to usurp the Royal Academy’s authority.

The inclusion of newly-elected Associates including Lambert, Dobson and Charoux in the 1940s directly influenced the evolution of the Royal Academy’s membership profile to further accommodate influential émigrés including Nimptsch and Soukop, and remarkably later in their careers members of the New Aspects generation who had been lauded by Read in 1952: Clarke, Paolozzi, Armitage and Chadwick. However whilst the

614 RAA General Assembly Minutes 1932–1963 XI, 182. RAA Proposed Changes to the Existing Laws, November 1949. These recommendations were not carried at the General Assembly Meeting on 1 November 1949, however, at the General Assembly meeting on 8 December 1949 at which Kelly was elected as President, the Resolution was carried by 30 in favour and 3 against. Also see RAA General Assembly Minutes 1932–1963, XI, 184, 186 and 195.

Chapter Three - The Royal Academy As Community Page 138 contemporaneous generation of women sculptors such as Turner, Gordine, Jonzen, and Ling were nominated by Ledward, they failed to secure the necessary votes for election. Ultimately though, through Skeaping’s nomination of Frink, the Royal Academy welcomed its first woman sculptor in 1971. This retrospective assessment of the empirical evidence of nominations demonstrates some members’ willingness to elect more modern and forward thinking artists, whom the Royal Academy accepted, albeit without haste. The Royal Academy’s elected sculptors, previously identified as either traditional or modern in allegiance, might therefore be acknowledged as significantly more liberal and liberalising than had previously been understood. The Royal Academy’s Diploma Works which existed as an unprecedented collection of sculpture were ‘specimen’ submissions gifted by the Academicians, accordingly, these works were thoughtfully selected by each sculptor as the finest representation of their work, bearing both a professional and intimately personal significance.

The convergence of newly elected Associates drawn from divergent smaller art societies, the integration of émigrés for whom the continental work of Maillol was a shared touchstone, the audacity of the petition for change, together with the enthusiasm of those who recognised ‘something in this modern art’ rendered the post- war Royal Academy porous to influences that it had previously sought to repel. Additionally, whilst the art-historical narrative has focused on Munnings’s derision of modern art, specifically Picasso, Moore and Matisse, I suggest that a re-appraisal of Munnings’s message may be understood as a remonstration of those Associates and Academicians who might be considered to have prised opened the door of the ‘citadel’ from the inside. Munnings’s successor Kelly swiftly sanctioned the petition for change and in so doing nurtured the Royal Academy’s engagement with ‘greater liberalism’ (Stevens, 1988).615 These constitutional amendments were to be significant particularly with regard to the future composition of the Royal Academy’s Council and the Summer Exhibition Selection and Hanging Committees, analysed in Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’.

615 Op. cit., Stevens, 1988, 15. Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 139

Chapter Four

The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions

We are taken to such shows as the Institute of Contemporary Arts, the New Burlington Galleries, or the other centres of the Eleusinian mysteries. Never to the despised Royal Academy, although, whatever one may feel for or against that institution, the fact remains that more ordinary non-art-specialist people go to its exhibitions than all the rest put together. 616 Anon, Apollo (1951)

True to tradition the Season will open with the Private View of the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition. The Royal Academy is a happy choice. It is an extremely popular institution, quite different from any other kind of artistic body ... The Private View strikes a suave note of sleek smartness, a selective air that gives way to the more robust atmosphere of the first day, when the brass turnstiles click continuously and spill into crowded galleries an extraordinary cross-section of the community. 617 Louis T. Stanley (1957)

Cowdell (1980) identifies four categories of exhibition held by the Royal Academy, the hosting of visiting societies, commemorative exhibitions, International (Winter) Exhibitions and the annual Summer Exhibitions.618 Of these, Hutchinson (1968) prioritised the Summer Exhibition as ‘father and ultimate breadwinner’ the proceeds from which funded the Royal Academy’s Schools as I established in Chapter Two.619 Through rigorous analysis of events hosted at Burlington House, in this chapter I shall explore how this event was positioned within the wider context of the metropolitan art world. Taylor (1999) ‘reminds us that there were several art constituencies’ in London, each contesting the space of public opinion so as to ensure its tastes were incompatible with those of its adversaries’.620 Thus it may be argued, that in pursuing a more traditional art and audience, the Royal Academy had chosen to differentiate itself from more progressive exhibitions, curated by directors such as Read for the ICA or

616 Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow - Crux Criticorum: A Sunday Morning ." Apollo LIII, (June 1951): 149.

617 Stanley, Louis T. "The London Season." The Queen (19 March 1957): 44.

618 Op. cit., Cowdell, Theophilus Paul. 1980, 212.

619 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 34.

620 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 173.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 140

Rothenstein at the Tate Gallery and Hendy at the National Gallery both of whom had been influenced by their experience of living and working in America.621 The preparatory rituals involved in the Summer Exhibitions’ organisation including the work of the Selection and Hanging Committees and the seemingly insignificant social aspects of the Annual Dinners contributed to this unique identity. Comparable temporary exhibitions will be identified to establish the exhibition practice parallels or differences that many be drawn between the Royal Academy and selected contemporaneous exhibitions such as those organised by the ICA, the Whitechapel Gallery and the Arts Council’s ‘Sculpture in the Home’ series.

Of the Summer Exhibitions, selected authors in Solkin’s (2001) seminal publication Art on the Line describe the Royal Academy’s exhibitions held at Somerset House during the period 1780–1836, although little has been published concerning the Royal Academy’s exhibitions nor its display of sculpture at Burlington House.622 After the Royal Academy relocated to new premises at Burlington House on Piccadilly in 1867, the installation of its new gallery was acclaimed in Builder (1869) as an ‘unalloyed triumph’.623 Therefore although this re-housing of the exhibition space prevents an extension of Solkin’s research, it offers the possibility of comparison between Somerset House and Burlington House, with particular reference to the display of sculptures as discussed by Yarrington (2001).624 However the various authors included in Sculpture in Twentieth Century Britain: Identity, Infrastructures, Aesthetics Display, Reception (volume 1) edited by Curtis (2003), and, Newhouse’s (2005) Art and the Power of Placement both offer a wider theoretical narrative of sculpture displayed in the twentieth century through which to extend this discourse. Critical reception will also be

621 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1965. 148, 164. In 1927 John Rothenstein held an assistant professorship in art history at the University of Kentucky and a year later was offered ‘an assistant professorship in the newly established Department of Fine Art in the University of ’. Rothenstein returned to England with his American bride, Elizabeth Smith in 1929’. DAH. "'Philip Hendy' (1900-1980)." https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/hendyp.htm, accessed 23 June 2016. ‘Hendy was appointed curator of paintings for the Museum of Fine Arts in in 1930. ... Hendy's purchase of Matisse's nude Carmelina (1903) in 1933 brought about a major dispute with the conservative Trustees and Hendy resigned. He returned to Britain in 1934.’

622 Solkin, David. Art on the Line: The Royal Academy Exhibitions at Somerset House 1780- 1836. New Haven and London: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 2001.

623 Op. cit., Savage, Nicholas. 2011, 122. The RAA was various located at Pall Mall and Old Somerset House (1768–1779), Trafalgar Square (1837–1868) and Burlington House (1869–ongoing).

624 Op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1935, 56. In 1859 the Government had announced that ‘the Academy was to be granted a large portion of the site at Burlington House’.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 141 reviewed to identify potential sources of praise or criticism of the Summer Exhibitions which amassed annually in newspapers and professional art journals; these were frequently of derogatory tone, whilst some were accompanied by cartoons characterising the Royal Academy particularly those by David Low.625 Further there is a notable paucity of photographic images of sculpture exhibited at Burlington House in the pre- and post-war periods; these were rarely found in press publications, nor are held by the Royal Academy’s archive.

Burlington House

Burlington House was ‘the last surviving town palace of four built along Piccadilly in the 1660s’.626 This imposing edifice was accessed directly from Piccadilly by passing beneath a monumental triple-arched gateway and crossing a vast courtyard, at that time used for car parking,627 figure 4.1. Duncan (1995) contrasts the façades of public art institutions, such as the Royal Academy, as emulating the authority of a ‘palace’.628 Further, she asserts that ‘although fashions in wall colour, ceiling height, lighting and other details have over the years varied’ their purpose remained constant in attracting ‘the concentrated gaze of the aesthetic adept’.629 Duncan surmises that the more

625 Anon. "David Low." https://www.theguardian.com/gall/0,,712437,00.html, accessed 20 September 2017. RAA/Sec/25/3/5. Low’s light-hearted caricaturing was clearly accepted and enjoyed by members of the Royal Academy given that he was privileged with regular invitations to the Annual Dinner. Also see HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11, Box 3. Low also regularly met people at the Royal Academy, for example 10 April 1958, 3 p.m. when Low met with Charles Wheeler.

626 Schmitt, Peter. "Burlington House: A Brief History." http://royal-academy-production- asset.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/72550a73-b97e-4f99-9534-5a34c03c7c42/architecture- guide-final-785.pdf, accessed 3 September 2017.

627 Whiteley, Gillian. "Conditions of Display 1950-75." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 185-99. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003, 185. Whiteley (2003) discussed the removal of a ‘psychological barrier’ to public access for example the accessibly of the street level Whitechapel Gallery. Accordingly the formality of the courtyard approach to Burlington House may have similarly presented ‘a psychological barrier’ for some people because cars were a symbol of significant wealth, for example an Austin A30 cost £507 in 1951; additionally many were chauffeur driven. Motoring Research. "Car Cost Year Born." https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/cost-car-year-born/, accessed 30 September 2017. The value of £507 in 1951 would have been equivalent to approximately £15,200 in 2018. BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

628 Duncan, Carol. (1995). Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London and New York: Routledge, p. 7. The concept of the ‘Palace of Art’ deriving from Tennyson’s poem of that title (1832).

629 Ibid, 17.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 142

‘sacralized’ the space, the emptier the gallery,630 an aspect of proportional complexity which is further explored by Newhouse (2005) in ‘The Complexities of Context: How Placement Affects Perception’ noting sculpture’s evolved ‘greater pictorial and illusionism as well as a new relationship to its surroundings’.631 Fenton considered Burlington House’s ‘greatest functioning asset ... [to be] the suite of top-lit galleries’632 carefully constructed to accommodate its exhibitions.633 Yet curiously this dignified ‘palace’ of light was completely at odds with the chaotic welcome extended to professionals, amateur artists and visitors specifically the visual and physical sensory overload that the exhibits presented at the annual Summer Exhibition.634

Sweeping up the grand staircase, across the Vestibule and into the Wohl Central Hall, where portrait busts of those of exceptional merit were situated to inspire exhibitors and viewers alike,635 figure 4.2. Gazing down upon the artworks below — replicated as portrait busts of those personified as full sized on the Burlington House façade — were Phidias, Leonardo, Flaxman, Raphael, Michelangelo, Titian, Reynolds, Wren and William of Wykeham,636 figure 4.3. Their presence plausibly posing the mute challenge

630 Ibid.

631 Op. cit., Newhouse, Victoria. (2005).

632 Op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 34. Also see op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1935, 60–61. Lamb (1935) noted that the cost of building the Diploma Gallery, later known as the Gibson Gallery, was met by a large bequest from J. Gibson, RA who also bequeathed a number of his sculptures.

633 Op. cit., Schmitt, Peter. "Burlington House: A Brief History." 2016. The Royal Academy’s ‘symmetrical grid of galleries’ and central hall was mimetic of the British Museum because ‘Sydney Smirke’s elder brother RA (1781–1867) had designed the British Museum (1823–1846).’ The Royal Academy’s Central Hall — inspired by the Museo Pio-Clementino, Vatican, Rome, 1780 ― was also similar to the National Gallery’s Barry Rooms including the domed central octagonal (Gallery 34) built in 1868 by architect RA (1830–1880). From 1873 until his death he was Professor of Architecture for the RAA. Also see op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 214–220 for Taylor’s discussion of ‘Architecture as symbolic form’.

634 Op. cit., Massouras, Alexander. 2016. Massouras observed the phenomenon of the ‘amateur’ artists as attributable to Sir Winston Churchill’s appointment as an Extraordinary Honorary RA in 1948, progressing ‘this question about amateurism’.

635. The Royal Academy’s Central Hall was formally titled the Wohl Central Hall. The National Gallery also had the (Maurice) Wohl Room housing Venetian paintings 1530– 1600, the space bridged the 1938 building with the Sainsbury Wing. National Gallery. "National Gallery Entertaining Brochure." https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/media/23982/the-national-gallery-entertaining- brochure-2015-2016.pdf, accessed 4 September 2017.

636 Op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1935, 61. ‘The [Royal Academy’s] Hall originally had niches with alternating polychrome-marble arched openings for displaying figurative sculpture, but these have been walled over since Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 143 of whether the exhibiting artists’ works were worthy of display? Sculptures were predominantly displayed in the Central Hall and the Lecture Room to the east of the building,637 figure 4.4.

Adburnham (1957) provided a powerful image of the Royal Academy: ‘no soft carpets at Burlington House, no flowers, no mirrors, no perfume: there the portraits have to hang or fall by merit alone, unsupported by sympathetic surroundings.’638 Similarly by comparison the eighty-six metre long ‘austere Neoclassical’ Duveen Gallery at the Tate Gallery, was opened in 1937.639 Marshall (2011) notes that King George VI had proclaimed that ‘it is no exaggeration to say that these Sculpture Galleries are the finest in the world’,640 figure 4.5. The sheer scale of the Tate’s Duveen Gallery was such that ‘the great height of the lunette light openings also made the light that did make its way down to the floor often very diffuse and stone facings made for the potential of many sculptures — particularly bronzes and other darker-coloured sculptures — to appear lost against the grey background’ (Marshall, 2011).641 Rothenstein (1966) evocatively likened sculptures in the Tate Gallery to ‘stones in the penumbrous depths of an aquarium’.642 This despite Rothenstein’s industrious acquisition of modern sculptures since 1938 including works by: Degas, Despiau, Epstein, Giacometti, Maillol, Manzù, Marini, Matisse, Picasso, and Renoir.643

1906’. Also see op. cit., Schmitt, Peter. "Burlington House: A Brief History.". 2016. The Central Hall of the National Gallery was similarly surrounded by sculpted portrait busts of worthies.

637 Royal Academy Galleries dimensions: Gallery One. 12.14m x 9.27m (floor area 121 sq. m.) Hanging wall height 4.4m Lecture Room 16.495m x 12.84m (floor area 211 sq. m.) Hanging wall height 5.265m The Wohl Central Hall 12.965m in "diameter". Eight walls of 5.41m. Hanging Wall height 4.79m although the domed ceiling doubled the height. Further, the sixteen and a half meter long Lecture Room, used as the principal sculpture gallery, offered proportional exhibition space and a hanging wall height to just over five meters. Email correspondence of 30 June to 4 July 2017 between Mark Pomeroy, Archivist, RAA and the author. With thanks to the RAA Buildings and Estate Department.

638 Adburnham, Alison. "Faces a La Mode." Punch, 27 February 1957, 305.

639 Marshall, Christopher R. "'The Finest Sculpture Gallery in the World!': The Rise and Fall - and Rise Again - of the Duveen Sculpture Galleries at Tate Britain." In Sculpture and the Museum, edited by Christopher R. Marshall, 177-96. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2011, 177.

640 Ibid, 184.

641 Ibid.

642 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 11.

643 Anon. "The Tate since 1938." The Times, 8 October 1954, 10.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 144

However the Tate Gallery as sterile sculpture sanctuary and the Royal Academy’s own more intimately scaled top-lit galleries were in stark contrast to the spontaneous informality of the ICA’s exhibitions location in 1948: ‘Forty Years of Modern Art’ and ‘Forty Thousand Years of Modern Art’, figure 4.6; both exhibited in the capacious basement of the Academy Cinema, London. Melville (1951), writing in The Studio, evocatively compared the ICA experience to ‘descending into a kind of initiation chamber’ speculating that this induced ‘perhaps an uneasy suspicion that the modern artist is traversing a field that in the past was reserved for the religious adept’.644 Similarly the revolutionary ‘This Is Tomorrow’ exhibition at the Whitechapel Gallery in 1956 also dramatised the event with unprecedented exhibits and an innovative, spaciously compartmentalised layout (Thornton 1998), figure 4.7. After the war the Summer Exhibition remained the largest annual sculpture exhibition in London, consequently the Royal Academy’s impetus for innovative display lacked credible competitive challenge, thus ensuring the habitual Salon style of white plaster casts set on plinths (Compton, 2003).645 Accordingly, the Royal Academy retained its post-war position as ‘key showcase, and benchmark’.646

Although the glass roof was bomb damaged in 1940, the Royal Academy had nevertheless ‘kept its doors wide open’ during the war,647 generously hosting forty-two exhibitions for smaller societies between 1941 and 1945; a significantly greater gesture than the National Gallery’s ‘Picture of the Month’.648 Perhaps the most unforeseen exhibition was held from 3 to 28 November 1943 on behalf of the Government, the ‘County of London Plan Exhibition’, prepared by Abercrombie and Forshaw. Quite why this public exhibition of state-sponsored urban regeneration was held in the privately owned Royal Academy is not known, however, it may have been because architecture — even austerity architecture — featured annually in the Summer Exhibitions demonstrating a still robust connection with architects and London’s regeneration.649

644 Op. cit., Massey, Anne & Muir, Gregor. 2014, 25.

645 Compton, Ann. "Infrastructures: Formation and Networks 1900-25." In Sculpture in 20th- Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 21-32. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003, 26.

646 Op. cit., Droth, Martina. 2003, 45.

647 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 180.

648 RAA Exhibitions Master List, see 1941-1945. For example, 1943: United Artists Exhibition; War Photos Exhibition; London Group Exhibition; LCC County of London Plan; Firemen Artists; Royal Society of Portrait Painters; Royal Institute of Painters in Water colours; Yugoslav Exhibition; British Colour Council ‘colour in everyday life’; Ministry of Information ‘Back at Work’.

649 RAA Exhibitions Master List, see 3–28 November 1943, LCC: ‘County of London Plan Exhibition’. Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 145

The spatial ‘dramatic encounter’ that Stephenson (2003) identifies between the sculpture and the ‘modern viewer’ (emphasis inserted) enjoyed at the ICA and Whitechapel venues was lost amidst the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition excesses.650 Even the Private View was a constrained affair for the ‘smart set’.651 The sheer number of exhibits that were displayed by the Royal Academy were themselves distractions and precluded the ‘mode of order and distinctiveness for separated objects’ that Stokes (1972) considers essential when viewing sculpture.652 Yarrington (2001) concurs that ‘it was essential that the gaze should operate with concentrated intensity, without having to contend with the distractions of other works, or with the frustrations of inadequate lighting’.653 The quest for staged arrangement had in the twentieth century been influenced by Bauhaus and also the commercial exhibition techniques of Reich, Gropius and Moholy-Nagy (Klonk, 2005).654 Klonk (2005) attributes the 1930s German gallery fashion for white walls to the ‘connotations of infinite space’,655 a trend later reinforced by the popularity of events such as the Ideal Home Exhibition 1958 where ‘a minimalist space, a high street ‘white cube’ with modernist furnishing’ further promoted spatial awareness for aspirational consumers.656

As Rutter (1924) observed:

there are many people who believe that all artists are bad business men, but our Academicians are not so simple as to underrate the value of “window-dressing” and they usually contrive that the first room shall contain some of the best pictures of the year. This is certainly the way to give visitors a good first impression.657

650 Stephenson, Andrew. "Conditions of Display 1925-50." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 111-24. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003, 111.

651 Op. cit., Leslie, George Dunlop. 1914, 1.

652 Stokes, Adrian. The Image in Form: Selected Writings of Adrian Stokes. Pelican, 1972, 117.

653 Op. cit., Yarrington, Alison. 2001, 181.

654 Klonk, Charlotte. "Patterns of Attention: From Shop Windows to Gallery Rooms in Early Twentieth Century ." Art History 28, no. 4 (2005): 416-573.

655 Maak, Niklas, Charlotte Klonk, and Thomas Demand. "The White Cube and Beyond." http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/white-cube-and-beyond, accessed 5 October 2017.

656 Highmore, Ben. "Richard Hamilton at the Ideal Home Exhibition of 1958: Gallery for a Collector of Brutalist and Tachiste Art." Art History 30, no. 5 (2007): 712-37.

657 Rutter, Frank. The Little Book of the Royal Academy 1924. London: G. T. Foulis and Co. Ltd., 1924, 43.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 146

However, the Summer Exhibition bore closer semblance to a provincial auction house. Writing about the sculptures in Truth, art critic Julian Hall described the 1957 Summer Exhibition thus: ‘literally the largest concentration is in the Lecture Room ... one’s awareness of its material entity, and of the space that it needs, occupies and displaces, is greatly hampered by an overcrowded room. The contents come to look more like mere exhibits or even “lots”’.658

Situated above the eastern entrance archway of the Lecture Room a copy of Michelangelo’s Taddei Tondo (1504–06) was installed; the original, which is the only marble by Michelangelo in Britain, is owned by the Royal Academy.659 If the silent judgement of the bust of the worthies of the Central Hall laid down the metaphorical gauntlet for sculptors, the presence of the Taddei Tondo in the Lecture Room expressed a more direct challenge to the exhibiting artists, recently articulated by sculptor Bill Woodrow RA as, “Beat that!”,660 figure 4.8.

Selection and Hanging Committees

On average over a thousand art works were selected for each Summer Exhibition, however, ten times this number were rejected by the Selection Committee; fortified in their task by a secret recipe for intoxicating beef tea; the selection taking some four to five days to complete whilst the hanging required about two weeks.661 Indeed, Wheeler calculated that the works represented ‘about one million hours of labour’.662 Providing a remarkable understanding of what the Selection Committee truly thought of the submissions, most were usually rejected at first sight, see Appendix 4.1 Summer Exhibition Submission, 1948–1959. For their services the Selection Committee received

658 Hall, Julian. "Summer Exhibition (Sculptures)." Truth., (10 May 1957), np. RAA Press Cuttings. Also see op. cit., Fenton, James. 2006, 17. This reference to ‘lots’ was appropriate because the RAA originally commenced in an auction house property and it was even proposed that Burlington House became a branch of Sotheby’s, retained only for the Summer Exhibitions.

659 RAA. Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1564), Taddei Tondo (1504–1506). RAA. "Michelangelo Buonarroti." http://www.racollection.org.uk/ixbin/indexplus?record=O1720, accessed 5 October 2017.

660 Bill Woodrow RA (1948–) in conversation with the author on 14 June 2017 at the RAA Summer Exhibition.

661 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012, 179. Also see op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 201. ‘The inevitable outcome is always sad and the Hanging Committee ... ends up by frantically trying to find space for all those which are too good to cast aside’.

662 HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11. Box 1. Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 28 April 1960.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 147

‘five guineas for each attendance’.663 Committee members were rotated annually so that a variety of exhibits and hanging preferences were exerted; for sculptors serving for the period 1948–1959, see Appendix 4.1 Summer Exhibition Submission, 1948–1959. That art critics paid due attention to those included on the Selection Committee may best be illustrated by Charoux’s first year of service in 1953, prompting gleeful press anticipation that ‘advance guard sculptors may feel cheered to know that their efforts will be looked after by Siegfried Charoux ... and Maurice Lambert’ noting that ‘both men have themselves produced controversial works.’664 This was significant because as an Associate, Charoux was now eligible to join the Selection and Hanging Committee and contribute to more progressive choice of works as consequence of the petition for change (1949). Yet of the more conventional committee members, Munnings writing to Knight in 1948 penned a rhyme which privately mocked the submission of works to the Summer Exhibition from non-Academicians; extract:

We’ve a wonderful eye, Our standards is high: We chuck out the work which is pretty, And hang up the stuff which is ragged and rough: For we are the Hanging Committee... The sculpture is crude, And rotten and rude. I’d chuck all the muck out without pity.665

However, Academicians were clearly at liberty to decline to participate given that, in February 1951, Dobson asked to be excused from the Selection and Hanging Committees ‘owing to pressure of work for the coming Festival of Britain’, further demonstrating licence to engage with external organising bodies including the Festival

663 RAA/PA/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 4 July 1950, 409. RAA/PA/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 8 August 1950, 416. The Council had endeavoured to reduce the Selection and Hanging Committee members fee, however the General Assembly had declined this reduction on 13 June 1950. Given the pressures upon the Royal Academy’s finances three members declined the fee, thus reducing the Exhibition expenses by £78 5s. Their names were not recorded but thanks were duly recorded in the Minutes.

664 Anon. "Gossip of the Day: Coronation RA Day." The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury, 19 March 1953, 8.

665 Extract from Munnings’s poem ‘The Royal Academy Hanging Committee 1948’ see RAA/MUN/7–1. Munnings correspondence with Dame Laura Knight (1948, nd). Also see Penrose, Roland. Scrapbook 1900-1981 (Painters and Sculptors). London: Thames and Hudson, 1981, 126. ’s Portrait (1939) was rejected for the United Artists exhibition at the RAA. In similar disparagement his resubmission From the House Tops (1939) which was accepted, ridiculed the unknowing selectors because the gloved hands spelt S.H.I.T. in sign language.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 148

Office.666 Dobson exhibited London Pride (1951) at the Festival of Britain alongside other significant works similarly commissioned by the Arts Council: Epstein’s Youth Advances (1951); Moore’s Reclining Figure (1951) and Hepworth’s Contrapuntal Form (1951) (Burstow, 2000; Jolivette 2008).667

Although the selection criteria and decision making — A for Accepted, D for Doubtful and X as Rejected668 — of the Royal Academy’s Selection Committee lacked transparency, the same criticism was levelled at the Arts Council which O’Donnell (2013) describes as ‘secretive, its evaluation criteria covert, often giving the impression of a private gentlemen’s club protecting the values of the elite’.669 This despite Keynes’ protestation that ‘our panel is as mixed a bag of old fogeys of repute as you could reasonably hope to collect’.670 Yet as conduits to a public audience, both institutions were however what Nochlin (1988) identifies as ‘definable social institutions, be they art academies, [or] systems of patronage’,671 and O’Donnell (2013) labels ‘gatekeeper organisations’.672 The Arts Council favoured an artistic ‘elite’ including: Moore, Hepworth, Nicholson, Pasmore, Piper and Sutherland.673 These allegiances led Lewis to warn of ‘nepotism and favouritism’ within the unelected executive powers of Arts Council members.674 Further the Arts Council’s exclusion of amateur artists, so encouraged by the Royal Academy, reinforced the common perception of the Arts

666 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 13 February 1951, 448. RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 13 February 1947, 162. As early as 1947 the Royal Academy’s Secretary attended a conference on a ‘proposed International Exhibition in 1951’.

667 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 120–122. Also see op. cit., Jolivette, Catherine. 2008, 23-36.

668 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 202.

669 Op. cit., O'Donnell, Nathan. 2013.

670 Ibid.

671 Op. cit., Nochlin, Linda. 1988, 158.

672 Ibid.

673 Op. cit., Robbins, David. 1990, 17. Richard Hamilton in conversation with Reyner Banham, 27 June 1976, soundtrack to the Arts Council film Fathers of Pop (1979). Kenneth Clark identified six artists whom Hamilton assumed to be: Henry Moore, John Piper, Ben Nicholson, Victor Pasmore; the other two being Barbara Hepworth and Graham Sutherland.

674 Op. cit., O'Donnell, Nathan. 2013.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 149

Council as exclusively ‘highbrow’ and challenged its professed egalitarianism towards Chesterton’s (1950) ‘common man’.675

Those who exhibited at and attended the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibitions were an eclectic selection of individuals from all classes, particularly when compared to the comparative few who frequented the Arts Council’s modernist exhibitions. The Royal Academy’s policy of liberal classless inclusion seemingly confounded the Arts Council’s motto of art encouragement as ‘Raise and Spread’ (also known as ‘the best for the most’) although as Sinclair (1995) asserts it seems ‘wiser and more realistic to concentrate on Raise’.676 As Stephenson (2012) affirms, by 1959 Read reported the decline of the Arts Council-sponsored ICA for four reasons: predominantly a lack of engagement with the artists; a lack of success in exhibiting ‘new experimental work’; failure to engage with London’s commercial galleries; and the failure of a policy of not exhibiting ‘one-man’ shows.677 At that time, although the Royal Academy’s attendance numbers had declined to a low of 117,755 in 1959, such crowd numbers were significantly in excess of the Arts Council, ICA and Whitechapel Gallery visitors thereby demonstrating that London’s aesthetic taste remained resolutely traditional, see Appendix 4.2 Attendance for selected exhibitions 1948–1959. Moreover, the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition entrance fees remained competitively priced at one shillings and six pence in 1948 rising to three shillings in 1959,678 figure 4.9. By comparison the entrance fee for the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ (1948) was one shilling for an adult,679 and the entrance fee to the ‘Unknown Political Prisoner’ exhibition (1953) was one shilling.680

675 Op. cit., Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. 1950, 1. ‘The thesis is this: the modern emancipation had really been a new persecution of the Common Man’.

676 Sinclair, Andrew. Arts and Cultures: The History of the 50 Years of the Arts Council of Great Britain. London: Sinclair-Stevenson Ltd., 1995, 96.

677 Stephenson, Andrew. "Painting and Sculpture of a Decade '54-'64 Revisited." Art History 35, no. 2 (2012): 421-41.

678 Adult admittance fees: ‘The admission charge is 1s 6d., instead of 1s. in 1941–1945’. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1946, 25; 1947, 24; 1948, 22; 1949, 30; 1950, 29. 1951–1955 2 shillings. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1951, 26; 1952, 26; 1953, 24; 1954, 24; 1955, 25. 1956–1957 2 shillings and 6 pence. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1956, 25; 1957, 25. 1958–1959 3 shillings. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1958, 27; 1959, 24.

679 LCC. Minutes of Proceedings, 11 May 1948, 291.

680 Op. cit., Burstow, R. 2000, 179.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 150

The selection criteria for the Summer Exhibition art works as seemingly subjective was dependent upon the raised hand vote of a Selection Committee member, figure 4.10. This process, indicative of a sense of artistic impact rather than the potential saleability of artwork to the attendant public, reinforced the Selection Committee’s criteria as personal rather than commercial. There was however some degree of correlation between the attendance numbers, works exhibited and works sold; in 1955 when 293,335 people attended (attributed to Annigoni’s portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (1955)) 740 works were sold for £31,212, ‘surpassing all previous records’.681 In celebration Thomson painted members of the Royal Academy’s Selection Committee (1955) for the same year,682 figure 4.11. However as Munnings revealed, his personal quest was to find ‘the least worst’.683 Conversely, Wheeler confessed to including work ‘which I hated!’ but the selections of his fellow Academicians prevailed.684

Given their limited representation on the Selection Committee, participating sculptors progressed as members of the Hanging Committee; the latter properly titled as the Committee of Arrangement.685 Once the art works were chosen, it was the responsibility of the Hanging Committee members to situate them as they were repeatedly relocated in an almost futile bid to optimise a congested display. A fourth category of works then arose as ‘D [Doubtful] – not hung’ when works were ‘crowded out’ due to insufficient display space.686 Wagner (2003) notes that ‘the stories of the artist siting and re-siting his sculpture are legion’ yet this privilege was forfeited by anyone exhibiting at the Summer Exhibition, placement of the artwork being strictly

681 RAA Annual Report 1956, 10.

682 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 190–191. Quite how robust this correlation was is ambiguous given that in 1963 attendances were declining but 769 works sold for £49, 089. The value of £31,212 in 1955 would have been equivalent to approximately £778,500 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1956, listing number 22. The Selection Committee (1955). Exhibited in Gallery One.

683 RAA/MUN/10/1. Letter of 5 May 1949 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight.

684 HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11, Box 2. See transcript for "Late Night Line Up." presented by Joan Bakewell with Charles Wheeler, BBC2, 23 May 1968.

685 Sutherland, John, and Solkin, David. "Staging the Spectacle." In Art on the Line: The Royal Academy Exhibitions at Somerset House 1780-1836, edited by D. H. Solkin, 23-38. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001, 24.

686 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 202.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 151 allocated by the Hanging Committee.687 Saumarez-Smith (2012) affirms that no artist was permitted into the exhibition before it was officially opened ‘to avoid artists’ objections’ to the situation of their work particularly when placed beside the work of a more successful artist.688 Moreover the placement of sculpture beside paintings, in- front of or potentially obscuring the paintings was a negotiated compromise. Such placement also being the ‘visible manifestation of their standing among their peers’ this was (and remains) a highly contested issue.689 Notwithstanding the Selection and Hanging Committee’s authority, PPRAs — especially Munnings and Kelly — found it difficult to restrain themselves from criticism — both verbally and artistically — in a bid to maintain artistic standards.690 Munnings’s witty painting Does the subject matter? (1956) which illustrated sculpture’s aesthetic as viewed by leading art authorities of the day inspired Giles’s cartoon response of the same title,691 figures 4.12 and 4.13. In a similar manner Wheeler exhibited the portrait bust Professor Thomas Bodkin ? (1956) — the question mark intended to further provoke the issue of what art should be.692 Ultimately though, Wheeler recognised that ‘the Hanging Committee tries to do its utmost’ (original emphasis).693 Once the Council had ‘taken over’ or formally approved the display, Academicians were permitted to enter and ‘give finishing touches’ on ‘varnishing days’; then followed the annual service at St. James’s Church on Piccadilly,

687 Wagner, Anne M. "Aesthetics: Forms and Meanings 1925-50." In Sculpture in 20th- Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 101-10. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003, 107.

688 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012, 121. As a persistent issue, Saumarez-Smith referenced Thomas Gainsborough’s displeasure when his painting was hung at the Summer Exhibition of 1772. Gainsborough was threatened with being ‘struck off’ by the Council however the General Assembly reinstated him. Ibid, 169. Also see op. cit., Solkin, David. 2001, 3. ‘Contemporary artists and critics often complained when pictures were ‘skied’ or otherwise placed where they were difficult to see.

689 Op. cit., Saumarez-Smith, Charles. 2012, 180.

690 RAA/PA/1/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 22 May 1956, 167. Also see op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 186. ‘Kelly was an astute businessman who gathered around him, from outside the Academy, important groups of advisers on finance and the assembling of loan exhibitions, but, in judgement on art, he would accept no interference with his own intuition and experience’.

691 Op. cit., Pound, Reginald. 1962, 220. Munnings’s painting Does the Subject Matter? was displayed with an accompanying poem written by Munnings although he was asked to substitute the word ‘Tate’ as ‘State’ consequently it appeared as: ‘And why not purchase for the State? The State alas, has come too late. Because the object’s so profound. ‘Twas sold for twenty thousand pound!’.

692 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1956, listing number 1323, Professor Thomas Bodkin? (1956).

693 HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11. Box 1. Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 28 April 1960.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 152 figure 4.14, Press Day, the Soiree, the Private View and the Annual Dinner (Lamb 1935).694

Exhibits

Myrone (2013) acknowledges an exhibition’s importance as ‘an arena for competitive assertions of artistic authority’.695 He reasons that such ‘arena’ defined:

How individual artistic reputations were made in the new critical environment, how the transformation of style, form and subject matter which characterized the period were registered [sic] larger value systems, how the diversification of artistic practice was symptomatic of economic shifts and of new notions of national identity.696

This matter of reputation was later amplified by the American sculptor, David Smith, who observed that ‘the minute you show a work, you challenge every other artist’.697 Such peer competition was intensified by ‘the jealous insistence’ of Academicians to exhibit their maximum allowance.698 Academicians were eligible, not entitled, to six exhibits whilst non-Academicians were permitted up to three exhibits.699 Further, beyond peer competition, exhibitors faced the additional post-war reality of falling sales due to austerity and the rise of an increasingly ‘discriminating buyer’.700 Notwithstanding these challenges, Whittet (1957) maintained that the Summer Exhibition ‘was the best place to exhibit in, it is much sought after as a venue by artists’, by both professionals and amateurs.701 However Perspex (1948) noted that sculpture ‘is more exacting and consequently the temptation of the amateur is less omnipresent’.702

694 Op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1935, 109.

695 Op. cit., Myrone, Martin. 2013, 171.

696 Ibid, 172.

697 David Smith (1906–65). Smith, David quoted in Collischan, Judy. Welded Sculpture of the Twentieth Century. . New York: Hudson Hills Press in association with the Neuberger Museum of Modern Art, 2000, 21.

698 Anon. "Old V. Young: The RA Test." The Studio 152, no. 761, August 1956 (1956): 52-55.

699 Op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1935, 108. Also see op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 150. Until 1903 Academicians were originally permitted up to eight submissions for the Summer Exhibition. However, during the war Academicians were again permitted eight exhibits and non-Academicians were permitted four exhibits.

700 Op. cit., PEP. 1946, 12.

701 Op. cit., Whittet, G. S. "Burlington House Styles Have Breadth." 1957. RAA Annual Report 18 April 1881, 127. ‘It was resolved on the outsiders varnishing day admission should be given at 9 a.m.’ Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 153

Rutter (1924) evoked the ‘social duty’ of a visit to the Summer Exhibition and warned of the dreaded ‘Academy head-ache’ should one endeavour to view all exhibits.703 Indeed Bodkin (1956) calculated that, ‘if you allocated thirty seconds to the inspection of each exhibit you would be here, if my ready reckoning is right, until late afternoon the day after tomorrow’ given that there usually numbered over one thousand artworks.704 Despite the lack of spatial visibility, as Compton (2003) affirms ‘the overwhelming majority of sculptors were reliant on exhibiting at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition.’705 This was because no other annual exhibition held in London presented such a vast array of art works undertaken by both professional and amateur artists validated by the perceived approval of the Selection Committee, figure 4.15.706 Yarrington (2001) comments upon the sculptors’ financial need for ‘access to a large audience’ which both Somerset and Burlington House were able to fulfil.707 Yet the prospect of the Summer Exhibition as a potential source of annual income for most of the Royal Academy’s artists should not be underestimated, for in quipping at the Annual Dinner in 1955, Justice Pearce spoke truthfully, ‘artists do not as a rule live in the purple; they more often live in the red.’708 Wheeler had in fact made a plea in 1951 for welfare assistance for artists noting that ‘the flow of new ideas has no regularity ... to no one else can he [the artist] delegate his work ... until he is well he must live on his often meagre savings.’709

In August 1952 a generational division between sculptors was reinforced when the BBC Third Programme broadcast ‘Artists on Art’ where Hepworth and Butler debated form

702 Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: Gentlemen Versus Players." Apollo XLVII, June (1948): 121-22.

703 Op. cit., Rutter, Frank. 1924, 43.

704 RAA/Sec/25/3/5. Bodkin, Thomas. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 2 May 1956.

705 Op. cit., Compton, Ann. 2003, 25.

706 RAA/PC/1/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 4 January 1955, 117. Effective from 1955, for the last two weeks of any RAA exhibition a pensions’ concession was introduced, equivalent to the fee for students.

707 Op. cit., Yarrington, Alison. 2001, 175.

708 RAA/Sec/25/3/5. Justice Pearce. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 27 April 1955. Also see Watts, C. R., and E. M. McNertney. "An Economic Model of Artistic Behaviour." Journal of Cultural Economics 8, no. 1 (1984): 49-60. Concerning ‘a pattern of choices over a person’s lifetime in which the artistic legacy replaces consumption and conventional bequests’.

709 Wheeler, Charles. "An Artist's Taxes." The Times, 14 April 1951, 7.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 154 and materials.710 Butler derided Hepworth’s ‘slow, steady’ stone carving as outmoded, to which she responded ‘I happen to like chipping bits off rather than using a welder’.711 Of the Royal Academy’s ‘Accepted’ sculptures there was ‘a predominance of smaller less adventurous works’712 given the cost of casting large sculptures; accordingly bronze maquettes, plaster works, terracottas and woods were also frequently displayed, figures 4.16 and 4.17. These works of domestic scale, many provided by amateur women sculptors, were directly comparable with those exhibited at the Arts Council’s four London and regional ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibitions (1946; 1950–51; 1953–54; 1958–59) due perhaps in part because Dobson made the selections for the first two exhibitions and Wheeler those for 1953.713 Surprisingly both men included a balanced range of styles representative of realism and of modern art which may be presumed to have satisfied all parties as may be seen in figures 4.18 to 4.21. Dobson and Wheeler had historic relationships with the Arts Council as selectors given that they had both served on the working party for the LCC/Arts Council and exhibited at the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ (1948) (Burstow, 2000; Powell, 2008). Additionally by virtue of his Bloomsbury Group friendships Dobson had modelled a portrait bust of the ballerina, Lydia Lopokova (1924), who was the wife of the Arts Council Chairman, Maynard Keynes.714 The timing of Wheeler’s 1955 resignation from the Arts Council, on which he had formally served in an unpaid capacity, however was curiously coincidental given the forthcoming election for the office of the President of the Royal

710 Bowness, Sophie. Barbara Hepworth: Writings and Conversations. London: Tate Publishing, 2015, 49–56. The programme was recorded on 28 September 1951 and broadcast on 26 August 1952. "Artists on Art: Reg Butler and Barbara Hepworth." BBC Third Programme, 26 August 1952. Cited in Alloway, L. 'Britain's new iron age, Arts News, New York, June-August 1953, vol. 52, no. 4. 19-20. Also see BBC. "Artists on Art: Barbara Hepworth and Reg Butler." https://alexandralazar.com/reading/artists-on-art-barbara-hepworth-and-reg-butler- 1951/, accessed 6 August 2017.

711 Ibid.

712 Op. cit., Whittet, G. S. "Burlington House Styles Have Breadth." 1957.

713 Works were selected for the Arts Council’s Sculpture in the Home by: ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition." London: ACGB, 1946. Selected by Frank Dobson. ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, Second Exhibition, 1950-51." London: Lund Humphries, 1950. Selected by Frank Dobson. ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, Third Exhibition." London: ACGB, 1953. Selected by Charles Wheeler and Robert Sainsbury. ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, Fourth Exhibition." London: ACGB, 1958. Selection unattributed.

714 Op. cit., Jason, Neville. 1994, 128. The Sculpture of Frank Dobson. Aldershot: The Henry Moore Foundation, in association with Lund Humphries, Portrait bust of Lydia Lopokova (1924) also known as Mrs Maynard Keynes.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 155

Academy; although his objection to the Arts Council’s policy was publicly attributed ‘to public money being wasted on an exhibition of works of a Swiss artist, Alberto Giacometti’.715

Sculptors, whom Burstow (2008) anonymised as, ‘reforming academicians’ supplied works to both the Summer Exhibitions and ‘Sculpture in the Home’.716 Regular exhibitors at both exhibitions, the Summer Exhibition and ‘Sculpture in the Home’ included Academicians and non-Academicians: Charoux, Caro, Dobson, Ehrlich, Frink, Gordine, Hermes, Ling, McWilliam, Nimptsch, Skeaping, and Wheeler.717 Additionally, these same sculptors also exhibited at the Arts Council’s ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ series and the three regional ‘Contemporary British Sculpture’ exhibitions (1956, 1957, 1958) demonstrating that a shared selection of works, from a mutually recognised pool of talented sculptors, was sourced simultaneously by the Royal Academy and the Arts Council.718 The most significant differential however was price because ‘Sculpture in the Home’ was marketed as ‘affordable’ art with prices commencing at £25 to £85 in 1946 increasing over time from 15 guineas to £150 in 1953; prices were not included in the 1958 catalogue.719 The same artists were however able to add a premium to their fee when exhibiting at the Royal Academy, where

715 Anon. "Arts Council Man Quits in Protest." Daily Express, 1 July 1955, np. RAA Press Cuttings. Also see Bodkin, Thomas. "Charles Wheeler, CBE, RA" The Studio 151, no. 759, June (1956): 161-65. Bodkin wrote an open manifesto for Wheeler’s election commenting ‘The Academy has yet one culminating honour which if conferred upon him [Wheeler] would be widely welcomed and redound to the honour and profit of the Academy itself: for he is a man of striking personality, quick wit, fluent speech, friendliness and strong character, well fitted to be the first sculptor ever to fill its Presidential Chair’.

716 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2008. 37-50. Organised by the CoID and the Arts Council, Sculpture in the Home was a ‘state-backed’ art intervention designed to assist sculptors through the promotion of domestic sculpture as suitable for the ‘two and a half million homes’ built between 1945 and 1957.

717 Op. cit., ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition.". 1946. Op. cit., ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition.". 1950. Op. cit., ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition.". 1953. Op. cit., ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition.". 1958.

718 ACGB. "Some Contemporary British Sculpture." New Burlington Gallery. London: ACGB, 1956. ACGB. "Contemporary British Sculpture: An Open Air Exhibition." London: The Chiswick Press, 1957. ACGB. "Contemporary British Sculpture: An Open Air (Regional) Exhibition." London: ACGB, 1958.

719 Op. cit., ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition.". 1946. Op. cit., ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition.". 1950. Op. cit., ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition.". 1953. Op. cit., ACGB. "Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition.". 1958.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 156 purchasers were assumed to be wealthier. Plausibly the sculptor would therefore prefer to sell at the Royal Academy whilst the more astute art collector would have made their purchases from exactly the same sculptors at ‘Sculpture in the Home’, for example:

Royal Academy Year Artist ‘Sculpture in the Home’ Summer Exhibition

Study for Young Motherhood Ann Dobson, head, terracotta, (1945), terracotta, (listing. no 1190) 1946 Frank Dobson (listing. no. 13) £105720 £25

Head of a boy (1941), Head of a girl, terracotta (nd), 1946 Georg Erhlich terracotta, (listing. no. 18) (listing. no. 1268) £25 £65

Bowness (1989), writing in The Conditions of Success, identifies the four successive circles of artistic recognition: ‘peer recognition, critical recognition, patronage by dealers and collectors and finally public acclaim’.721 Certainly ‘peer recognition’, ‘patronage’ and ‘public acclaim’ became imprecise given this similarity of offering, by both private and state patronage. Writing in ‘Sculpture in the Home’: selling modernism to post-war British homemakers, Burstow (2008) attributes the cessation of the ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibitions in 1959 to declining attendance particularly because for the last exhibition there was no London venue.722 However I assert the plausibility of competitive duplication given that ‘Sculpture in the Home’ replicated the Summer Exhibition’s supply of small scale domestic sculptures, albeit at lower cost and in significantly reduced numbers than presented at the Royal Academy; a consideration not raised by Burstow (2008). Moreover, as Sparke (1995) asserts ‘the strongest modifying force on high modernism was feminine culture’ consequently domestic consumerism inclined towards less spiky yet robust child-proof sculptures.723 Therefore, I posit that rather than privileging state patronage, about which so much has been written (Hewison, 1981; Ebong, 1986; Garlake, 1998; Taylor, 1999; Burstow, 2000

720 Op. cit., Jason, Neville. 1994. 149. The sculpture Ann Dobson may be First Portrait of Ann (1940), terracotta, catalogue raisonné listing number 150. Ann Dobson was the artist’s only child.

721 Bowness, Alan. The Conditions of Success: How the Modern Artist Rises to Fame. Wisbech: Thames and Hudson, 1989, 11.

722 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. "'Sculpture in the Home': Selling Modernism to Post-War British Homemakers.", 2008.

723 Sparke, Penny. As Long as Its Pink: The Sexual Politics of Taste. London: Harper Collins, 1995, 120–121. Also see Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: Home and Beauty." Apollo XLII, no. October (1950): 99. ‘these works of art should bear an “A” certificate and be sold only into childless homes owing to the danger to little eyes and fingers from these errant metal spikes and blades’.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 157 and 2008; Gray, 2000; Powell, 2008), for reasons of financial necessity the sculptors themselves pursued unfettered participation in any exhibition, organised by private, institutional or state patronage, for the purpose of displaying and sell their sculptures.

Sculpture subjects exhibited at the Royal Academy by both professional and amateur artists were divided into three distinct categories: portrait busts, the nude and an assortment of animals (though predominantly horses and dogs); a selection that remained unchanged through the 1930s into the 1970s. However just as Yarrington (2001) characterises of Somerset House, portrait busts remained the ‘dominant genre in the sculpture section’ at Burlington House.724 The reason for this excess of portrait busts may plausibly have been the opportunity for sculptors to secure further commissions from wealthy aristocrats or establishment figures and they were increasingly of children. Notwithstanding this, the Academicians also frequently painted and sculpted each other as subjects, many renditions of which were displayed at the Summer Exhibition, for example John Skeaping’s portrait bust of Rita Ling (1955),725 figure 4.22. Reciprocating, Ling sculpted a bust of Skeaping which was exhibited the same year; both portrait busts are presumed to be lost.726 Melville (1955) writing in The Studio opined that ‘the twentieth-century sculptor has some difficult in seeing the point of making meticulous likenesses of his contemporaries for the doubtful privilege of outlasting the photographic records’, continuing that ‘Epstein did not seek a “veristic” likeness but a “vital” one’; however these portrait sculptures were a mainstay of the Summer Exhibitions for post-war exhibitors.727 Despite the perception of the portrait bust as outmoded, Sylvester (1951) in reviewing ‘Festival Sculpture’ commented of Moore’s Reclining Figure (1951) ‘the head is just as much a cliché as the heads of official portraits by Royal Academicians ... And, after all, it is not surprising that his handling of this theme should have reached the empty stage ... since he has been exploiting it now for twenty years’.728

Second only in popularity to the portrait busts were the many and various figures of the vertical or horizontal nude. Writing in Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology Parker and Pollock (1981) elaborate on the nineteenth-century Salon presentation of

724 Op. cit., Yarrington, Alison. 2001, 180.

725 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1955, listing number 1354, Rita Ling (1955).

726 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1955, listing number 1350, John Skeaping (1955).

727 Melville, Robert. "British Portrait Sculpture Today." The Studio 149, no. 746, May 1955: 138-43.

728 Sylvester, A. D. B. "Festival Sculpture." The Studio 142, no. 700, July 1951: 72-77.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 158 nudes as ‘asleep, unconscious and overtly sexual ... such devices allowed undisturbed and voyeuristic enjoyment of the female form’.729 Writing in his paper ‘Fallen Women’ which discusses Giacometti’s and Epstein’s ‘abandonment of the pedestal’, Getsy (2007) identifies that, ‘uprightness was a primary sign of subjectivity and mental activity’ usually attributed to sculptures of men ‘while horizontality was, by inference, a sign of weakness and vulnerability’ usually attributed to sculptures of women unless as men they were ‘dead, wounded or asleep’.730 Clark’s publication of The Nude (1956), which he considered ‘without question my best work’, became a best seller.731 Although Academicians were less impressed with Clark’s scholarship, as Henry Lamb wryly observed ‘I have read it with interest, but without profit’.732 Clark’s publication inspired Robert Graves’s poem The Naked and the Nude (1957):

The nude are bold, the nude are sly To hold each treasonable eye While draping by a showman’s trick Their dishabille in rhetoric They grin a mock-religious grin Of scorn at those of naked skin733

As a genre the nude endured during the 1940s and 1950s at the Summer Exhibitions executed by both men and women sculptors for example Reclining Figure (1957) by Nimptsch and Venus and Amorini (1948) sculpted by Muriel Wheeler734, figures 4.23

729 Op. cit., Parker, Rozsita., & Pollock, Griselda. 1981, 116. Also see op. cit., Duncan, Carol. 1995, 102.

730 Getsy, David. J. "Fallen Women: The Gender of Horizontality and the Abandonment of the Pedestal by Giacometti and Epstein." In Display and Displacement: Sculpture and the Pedestal from Renaissance to Post-Modern, edited by Alexandra Gerstein, 114-29. London: Courtauld Institute of Art Research Forum in association with Paul Holberton Publishing, 2007, 122. Also see op. cit., Yarrington, Alison. 2001, 73-97.

731 Op. cit., Stourton, James. 2016, 257. Also see Stonard, John-Paul. "Kenneth Clark's 'the Nude. A Study of Ideal Art.' 1956." The Burlington Magazine 152, no. 1286 (2010): 317-21.

732 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 123.

733 Robert Graves’s (1895–1985). Graves, Robert. "The Naked and the Nude." https://allpoetry.com/The-Naked-And-The- Nude, accessed 22 August 2017. Also see Potts, Alex. The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist. New Haven, Connecticut, and London: Yale University Press, 2000.

734 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1957, listing number 1468. Reclining Figure (1957), Chantrey Bequest. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1948, listing number 1379, Venus and Amorini (1948). Lady Muriel Wheeler (1888-1979). Also see Glasgow, University of. "Muriel Wheeler." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib4_1210849203, accessed 11 September 2017. Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 159 and 4.24. Such realism contrasted sharply with the metal ductability of Butler’s mid 1950s semi-abstract nudes including Ophelia (1955), figure 4.25. Accordingly the nude as subject retained its popularity with both Academicians, non-Academicians and the avant-garde including Butler. Later though, as Stourton (2016) comments, the 1960s feminist ‘backlash’ against the nude was led by art critic, John Berger; by then figurative form was being replaced by Caro’s industrial assemblages.735

Despite the fact that architectural sculpture was absent from austerity reconstructions, importantly sculptors utilised the Summer Exhibitions as a showcase for their public sculptures. For example preparatory works for Ledward’s Venus Fountain which was to be located in , London. In 1949 Ledward had written to the press to call for sculpture commissions because none were available as a consequence of the war; he also discussed his proposal with the Royal Academy Council.736 Consequently, the Royal Academy organised a competition which, intriguingly, Ledward won, realising the Venus Fountain and receiving £6,000 paid for by the Royal Academy’s Leighton Fund,737 figure 4.26. Accordingly, Ledward’s post-war lobby for public sculpture pre- dated by almost a decade the LCC’s ‘handpicked sites’ for its Patronage of the Arts Scheme of 1956–1965 (Pereira, 2008).738 Consequently the LCC’s Patronage of the Arts Scheme may reasonably be assumed to have supplemented patronage which had previously been provided by private or institutional-patronage or by public subscription. Ultimately, the underlying purpose of the Patronage of the Arts Scheme was to provide viable commissions whilst simultaneously enhancing civic spaces. Therefore in this regard, Ledward’s 1949 initiative to promote public sculpture may

735 Op. cit., Stourton, James. 2016, 263.

736 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 24 November 1949, 346.

737 RAA /PC/1/28/. RAA Council Minutes, 24 November 1949, 346. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1952, listing number 1090 Costume study for a relief of Charles II, pencil and chalk and listing number 1094, Drapery Study for a relief of Nell Gwynn, chalk. Both of these reliefs were incorporated into the pedestal of the Venus Fountain (1953). RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1953, listing number 1176, detail of Fountain to be erected in Sloane Square, Chelsea. And, listing numbers: 961; 1000; 1004. Life study for figure for Sloane Square Fountain, sketch chalk and wash. Also see . "Venus Fountain 1953." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1391739, accessed 15 September 2017. Ledward had previous created Fountain Figure (1943) in Portland stone though this was a more stylised modernist figure in contrast to the classical Venus Fountain (1953). Fountain Figure (1943) which was exhibited at the Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture, 1948, listing number 20. The sum of £6,000 in 1949 would have been equivalent to approximately £201,500 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

738 Op. cit., Pereira, Dawn. 2008.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 160 have been a significant source of inspiration for state patronage, further discussed in Chapter Five, ‘Sculpture for the State’.

Unsold and uncollected exhibits ‘the accumulation of several hundred works of painting and sculpture’, were usually stored in the Royal Academy’s vaults for a twenty- year period, after which such works were sold by public auction and the proceeds gifted to the Artists’ General Benevolent Institution.739 The 1948 auction cleared the vaults of works dating from the 1914 to the 1938 Summer Exhibitions. It is not known whether the sale of these works were attributed to the Royal Academy, however this seems unlikely because whilst such a charitable donation was laudable, there were sensitivities because some of the works were from artists who were still living.740

Seeking to further publicise the Summer Exhibitions, in 1956 Kelly boldly agreed to welcome television cameras into the Royal Academy.741 Kelly’s commentary was tremendously successful ‘his stories about Maillol, rambling repetitions, their stumbles — and their warmth’ charmed viewers and directly increased the number of visitors to the Royal Academy.742 Delighted with the results the BBC returned to the Royal Academy again in 1957 to film the Hanging Committee at work.743 For sculpture the ‘far-reaching implications’ of television, as Stephenson (2003) notes, provided a refreshing ‘encounter with free-standing, three dimensional form’, ultimately perhaps best exploited by Clark and Moore.744

739 RAA/SEC/9/1/60. Day Book, 757. In 1948 the sale of works from 1914–1938 followed the procedure of the auction held on 6 October 1920 which had raised £246 5s 6d. The 1948 auction raising £254 6s 9d. The value of £254 6s 9d in 1948 would have been the equivalent to £9,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018. RAA/Sec/9/1/60. Day File, 946. Academicians similarly utilised the vaults for storage, however Dobson’s prolonged storage of The Fount (1948) prompted a series of warnings from the Royal Academy and ultimately this sculpture was removed. Leeds Art Gallery. "The Fount." http://www.leedsartgallery.co.uk/gallery/listings/l0059.php, accessed 25 August 2016.

740 The auctions were organised in conjunction with the Royal Academy’s lawyers, Messrs. Wilde, Sapte and Co, suggesting anonymity of the seller.

741 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 9 May 1950, 393. The BBC had previously sought to remove six paintings from the Summer Exhibition for inclusion in a programme in 1950 however the request was refused. Op. cit., Turner, B. 2011, 245. Television became popular after approximately twenty million people had watched Queen Elizabeth II’s Coronation on 2 June 1953, after which Turner (2011) concluded ‘the chief beneficiary was the heritage industry.’

742 Anon. "Plea for Intelligence." The Spectator, 15 June 1956 196, no. 6677 (1956): 826.

743 HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11. Box 3. Diary entry of 8 April 1957.

744 Op. cit., Stephenson, Andrew. 2003, 122. Also see op. cit., Stourton, J. 2016, 282. For example, Encounters in the Dark presented by Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 161

Critical Reception

Reviews of the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibitions were regularly included in art journals such as Apollo’s ‘Current Shows and Comments’ column written by ‘Perspex’, The Studio and the Burlington Magazine together with articles written for national and regional newspapers. Ivor Brown (1948) writing an article entitled ‘Burlington Arcady’ in the Observer noted ‘the Royal Academicians we are frequently told are deplorable reactionaries ... soon after entering one may see a piece of sculpture so carefully distorting the human frame, so diligently pursuing the dropsical, that one pauses in doubt and dismay. Can this be the right address?’745 Yet headlines such as ‘An Average Exhibition’ (1949),746 ‘An Unusual Academy’ (1950),747 ‘Good — But Not Good Enough’ (1952),748 ‘The 1954 Annual Shows Little Change in Style Over Last Twenty Years’ (1954),749 ‘Briton Tilts at Modern Art’ (1956),750 made disappointing reading, until ‘Ending Segregation of Styles’ (1958)751 marked the Royal Academy’s groundbreaking exhibition policy of henceforth including some modern art amongst traditional works; an ‘important initiative’ led by Wheeler for the one-hundred-and-ninetieth exhibition.752 Casson’s review in 1959 declared ‘Our Royal Academy’ (emphasis inserted) as an art institution for the people.753 Further, Casson sought to promote the reasons why artists ‘should bother to appear in such uneven and crowded company when they can take any time a more glamorous ride on the international circuit of Venice’.754 He continued by asking of the Summer Exhibition ‘is it Academic?’ stating in

Moore and Clark who ‘visited the British Museum after closing time in winter, flashing their torches at Assyrian sculpture and Egyptian heads’ (c.1958), followed later by Clark’s Civilisation (1967) series.

745 Brown, Ivor. "Burlington Arcady" The Observer, 2 May 1948, 5.

746 Bone, Stephen. "The Royal Academy - an Average Exhibition." The Manchester Guardian, 30 April 1949, 6.

747 Wallis, Neville. "An Unusual Academy." The Observer, 30 April 1950, 6.

748 Bone, Stephen. "The Royal Academy: Good - but Not Good Enough." The Manchester Guardian, 3 May 1952, 4.

749 Newton, Eric. "Britain's Academy: The 1954 Annual Show Shows Little Change in Style over Last Twenty Years." The New York Times, 9 May 1954, X9.

750 Love, Kennett. "Briton Tilts at Modernist Art; Satirizes It in Paint and Verse." The New York Times, 5 May 1956, 21.

751 Bone, Stephen. "Ending Segregation of Styles." The Manchester Guardian, 2 May 1958, 7.

752 Ibid.

753 Casson, Hugh. "Our Royal Academy." The Observer, 16 August 1959, 10.

754 Ibid.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 162 reply, ‘Half true. Academic means teaching and discussion’ adding of ‘Academic’ works that ‘there is virtually none in those items which in summer overcrowd the Royal Academy galleries’.755 Moreover, mutual respect and genuine friendships between leaders of London’s art institutions negated their derogatory comments against the Royal Academy because, as Wheeler observed upon his appointment as PRA in December 1956, ‘The Tate, like the Academy, has suffered the slings and arrows of the critics and Sir John Rothenstein has been able to withstand them for nearly twenty years. I should like to get a few tips from him’.756 Kelly had similarly been privately highly supportive of and sympathetic to Rothenstein when staffing issues arose at the Tate.757

In Schoen’s (1956) article ‘The Intellectual Temper of Contemporary Art’ he observed that ‘the startling impact of a new vision is prone to generate more heat than light by becoming a topic for violent argumentation rather than cautious examination’.758 Such ‘argumentation’ was particularly attributable to the art critics and to Read in particular who had perceived, ‘anarchism in the twentieth century as a source of political and cultural renewal’ (Honeywell, 2011).759 For Read modern art was ‘a medium for radical and idealistic renewal’.760 Consequently when establishing the ICA as ‘“other” to dominate British culture’ (Aldred, 2000), the Royal Academy was symbolic of monarchy and traditionalism which Read sought to eclipse.761 Yet as my empirical analysis in Appendix 4.2 has shown the Royal Academy’s traditionalism consistently drew significantly greater numbers of viewers than the ICA’s modern art. Moreover, the modern aesthetic promoted by art critics of the day — Alloway, Bone, Newton, Read and Sylvester — dwindled. Cork (1987) notes that, by the end of the 1950s even the

755 Ibid.

756 Anon. "The Critics? I'll Ask Sir John for Tips, Says 'Mr. Academy'." Evening Standard, 13 December 1955, np. RAA Press Cuttings.

757 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 329. ‘Perhaps the mark of sympathy that I most of all appreciated came from a man with whom I had been warring over the Chantrey Bequest, the President of the Royal Academy ... Sir Gerald and I had clashed very fiercely at Chantrey Meetings.’

758 Schoen, Max. "The Intellectual Temper of Contemporary Art." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15, no. 2 (1956): 139-51.

759 Honeywell, Carissa. A British Anarchist Tradition: Herbert Read, Alex Comfort and Colin Ward. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011, 20.

760 Ibid, 39.

761 Aldred, Nanette. "Art in Postwar Britain: A Short History of the ICA." In British Culture of the Postwar an Introduction to Literature and Society 1945-1999, edited by A. Davies and A. Sinfield. London and New York: Routledge, 2000, 164.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 163 artists who had been successful at the Venice Biennale (1952) had ‘failed to sustain the high level of interest their early work had commanded’.762 Significantly, Hodin (1958) reviewing the Venice Biennale in ‘Venice Reflects the Urge for Figuration’ wrote:

disclosing the end of Art Autre, of Tachism, Action Painting, Abstract-Impression or Expression, the cult of the chance element and the deification of rubbish in painting and in sculpture, the fading away of the era of ironmongery, of the anti-organic, of welding instead of sculpting, indicts the renewed growth of the essential principles in all true art throughout the ages: the concern with the human image, with sensuality, with genuine primitivism, in one word, with the life-force itself.763

As an exhibited exemplar of this ‘concern with the human image’ Hodin called attention to one exhibit in particular, Armitage’s bronze Figure lying on its side (1957) as a step closer to identifiable figurative realism, figure 4.27. To set this in context, Williams (2002) observes that, ‘Herbert Read, Clement Greenberg, Michael Fried and Rosalind Krauss, were making their judgements at a time, roughly the middle of the twentieth century when there was a wider effort to rehabilitate sculpture as an intellectually and artistically respectable practice’.764 However as Wheeler later commented of Moore’s permanent display gifted to the Tate in 1967, the ‘Great works of today may become the “bronze oddities” of tomorrow’ (Compton, 2013).765 Thus as Kelly had predicted and cautioned the Royal Academy’s students, noted in Chapter Two, ‘what was currently fashionable’ in the early 1950s had itself become outmoded towards the end of the decade.766

Annual Dinner

Due to financial pressures a proposal was made in 1950, though not ratified, that the Annual Dinner should be held every two or three years instead of annually; they continued annually although the dinner was not held in 1952 as a mark of respect for

762 Cork, Richard. "The Emancipation of Modern British Sculpture." In British Art in the Twentieth Century: The Modern Movement, edited by Compton, 31-53. London: Prestel, 1987, 40.

763 Hodin, J. P. "Venice Reflects the Urge for Figuration." The Studio 156, no. 786, (September, 1958): 72-77.

764 Williams, Richard J. "Sculpture's Anxieties." The Sculpture Journal 8 (2002): 4-11.

765 Op. cit., Compton, Ann. 2013, 77-88. Also see HMF. Henry Moore’s, Diary 1973. See the typed note inserted inside the diary cover. In beginning to address his financial affairs and taxation, Moore had begun to divest his collection, then, following the creation of the Henry Moore Foundation he was obliged to quote, ‘I can only give work to the Tate Gallery or any other public gallery, or for a public monument or for any of her Majesty’s embassies or public buildings.’

766 RAA GA Minutes, 20 October 1953, 297.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 164 the Royal Family due to the death of King George VI.767 However, a seemingly innocuous event such as dinner was deployed by the Royal Academy with sophisticated planning and precision to exceptional diplomatic effect. Prime Minister Atlee (1951) observed of the annual dinner ‘this is an entirely non-political occasion’.768 Yet Ambassadors, High Commissioners and overseas Ministers were privileged with invitations to the Annual Dinner and seated at the expansive top table, with dignitaries most frequently representing America, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, , Ceylon, Egypt, France, India, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, , Norway, Russia, Spain and Portugal.769 Possibly due to Charoux’s influence, the Austrian Ambassador attended from 1953 onwards. By 1958 the German Ambassador was invited given the Royal Academy’s intention to hold a Winter exhibition of German art as an instrument of cultural rehabilitation.770 This became ‘50 Years Bauhaus’ (1968).771 Such international soft diplomacy, which plausibly rivalled the efforts of the British Council, facilitated the loan and exhibition of world class artworks to overseas venues and international exhibitions hosted at Burlington House including for example ‘The International Exhibition of Chinese Art’ (1935–36)772, ‘The Art of India and Pakistan’ (1948–49)773 and ‘The Art of Russia’ (1958–59).774 Furthermore, members of London’s

767 RAA/PA/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 3 January 1950, 355.

768 RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Atlee, Clement. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 2 May 1951.

769 RAA/SEC/25/3/5. See the seating plans.

770 HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11, Box 1. Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 28 April 1960. HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11, Box 3. Wheeler’s diary entries demonstrate the frequency with which he met German officials between 1957 and 1959 seeking to secure an exhibition of German artefacts, for example, 29 May 1957, 2 July 1959, 24 September 1959.

771 RAA Exhibitions Master List, see 21 September to 27 October 1968, ‘50 Years Bauhaus’.

772 RAA Annual Report 1936, 22. The ‘International Exhibition of Chinese Art’ during the Winter of 1935–1936, attracted 401,768 people and made a surplus of £21,094, 9s. 4d. The exhibition of three thousand and eighty exhibits was supported by ‘a series of sixteen lectures by experts in the several departments of the Exhibition filled the rooms of the Royal Society so full that a second series of eight more was arranged and was also very well attended.’ RAA Annual Report 1937, 31. The surplus of £21,094. 9s. 4d in 1936 would have been equivalent to approximately £1,418,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

773 This exhibition was originally the ‘Art of India’, however because of partition in 1947 the exhibition’s emphasis became a celebration of Britain’s relinquished colonial heritage and the independence granted to India and Pakistan. Also see, op cit., Goldsworthy, David. 1971. Also see Gov. "Indian Independence Act 1947." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30, accessed 10 July 2017. See Chapter 30. The Indian Act of Independence (1947) ‘As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan’. Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 165 political and cultural institutions were also extended the courtesy of a dinner invitation, including the leaders of the two main political parties seated at the top table, and, seated at eight long tables were executives from London’s leading art institutions.775 These long tables were arranged in rows extending from the top table; the rows in the centre being closest to the President and honoured guests whilst less important guests were seated at the outer rows.

As Taylor (1999) observes ‘the impact of “personalities” upon public discussion was only just beginning’.776 Regular attendees, many of whom were friends, included those whose administrations and aesthetics were the antithesis of the Royal Academy’s traditionalism, particularly Clark, Hendy, Pooley, Rothenstein and Sir Jasper Ridley.777 Important guests were afforded the opportunity to speak on matters of significance for the nation and occasionally matters associated with art, for example: changes in the Commonwealth, the Festival of Britain, the H-bomb, or Picasso’s UNESCO mural, The Fall of Icarus (1958).778 Atlee (1951) in particular, likened the necessity of ‘opposition’ in good Government, to the need for the opposition of modern art to realism.779 Clark’s speech in 1958 acknowledged that, despite having been critical of the Royal Academy he had for decades been welcomed although, ‘if twenty years ago any one from your Council had proposed that I was a suitable person to address you, the Secretary would, I think, have had to ring for an ambulance’.780 Wheeler as President recognised that

774 RAA Exhibitions Master List, see 1958. Also see Editorial. "Soviet Painting at the Royal Academy." The Burlington Magazine 101, no. 671 (1959): 43.

775 RAA/Sec/25/3/5. Alston, Rex. RAA Annual Dinner Broadcast, BBC Home Service, 30 April 1958. ‘The tables are tastefully decorated with bowls of pink and red roses, daffodils and many coloured tulips, and the silver candle sticks on the tables are adorned with little red shades … give a restful glow to a very animated scene. The distinguished company here tonight contains a brilliant cross section of our public life.’

776 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 194.

777 Sir Jasper Ridley (1887–1951). RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Annual Dinner Seating Plans 1948–59. RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Clark, Kenneth. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 30 April 1958. RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Annual Dinner Seating Plan 1950. Mischievously, as namesakes, Admiral Sir Henry Moore received an invitation in 1950, and Major H. G. Moore in 1955; no doubt to the amusement of the Academicians.

778 RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Annual Dinner Speeches 1948–59.

779 RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Atlee, Clement. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 2 May 1951.

780 RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Clark, Kenneth. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 30 April 1958. Also see op. cit., Stourton, James. 2016, 102. Clark was well connected with members of the Royal Academy and had in 1936, as Surveyor of the King’s Pictures, recommended that Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 166

Clark may be critical of the Royal Academy in the future but commented that ‘it is not for nothing that he and I have agreed between us to come to this Summit meeting’. The annual dinner as ‘Summit’ marking the apex of cordial relations between the Royal Academy and the Arts Council and a ‘New Look’ in the Royal Academy’s galleries in 1958.781 As he spoke, Wheeler drew attention to John Bratby’s modernist painting Nell and Jimmy Sandford (1958) hung on the wall behind the top table, figure 4.28.782 However, Wheeler’s conciliation with modernism was not to last because in the following year, 1959, he turned his wrath upon the British Council’s passion for ‘leftish modern art’.783

Bodkin used his 1956 dinner speech to proclaim ‘Where are the ladies? Well the ladies are present here in effigy, looking their very best in all their finery, or occasionally without any finery at all’.784 A proposal to invite the three women painters of the Royal Academy, including Swynnerton, Knight and Margaret Prout together with other notable ex-officio women to the Annual Dinner was presented by the Council to the General Assembly on 3 July 1958, despite Wheeler’s presidential opposition.785 Heated debate ensured anxiety about a ‘change in the character of the dinner’ consequently the

Gerald Kelly paint the new state portraits of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother).

781 HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11. Box 1. Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 29 April 1959. Of the Summer Exhibition 1958, Wheeler commented on the Royal Academy’s ‘New Look’, ‘We mixed the styles ... with pictures of completely divergent outlook ... the fact that three pictures are by three members of the Academy is surely an indication of the wide casting of our nets. Let’s be sensible!’. Belatedly, the Royal Academy’s ‘New Look’ referred to Dior’s post-war fashions from a prior decade, 1947. Also see Dior. "The New Look Revolution." https://www.dior.com/couture/en_gb/the- house-of-dior/the-story-of-dior/the-new-look-revolution, accessed 3 October 2017.

782 John Randall Bratby (1928–1992). Nell and Jimmy Sandford (1958), RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1958, listing number 159, Nell and Jimmy Sandford (1958). Also see RA Illustrated (1958), 59. Also see Tate. "John Randall Bratby." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/john-bratby- 804, accessed 5 October 2017.

783 RAA/SEC/25/3/5.Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 29 April 1959.

784 RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Bodkin, Thomas. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 2 May 1956. Bodkin answered his own inquiry, ‘the physical absence of the ladies has been contrived by the Academy to provide us with a culminating delight when we meet tomorrow our wives and sweethearts to enjoy ourselves in telling them about this evening.’

785 RAA/PA/1/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 20 May 1958, 242. Dame Laura Knight, elected A.RA in 1927 and the first woman to be elected an RA in 1936, was lauded for her war time painting portraying a women munitions worker, Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring (1943). Annie Swynnerton elected A.RA in 1922, was the first woman to be elected to the Royal Academy); Margaret Prout was elected A.RA in 1948.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 167 proposal was defeated.786 By 1967 the call for equality could no longer be ignored by then President Monnington, who was prevailed upon by Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson to extend invitations to notable women.787 Nineteen women attended the dinner on 26 April 1967 including Hepworth, Knight and Hermes whilst eighty-year old Baroness Asquith was permitted the final toast, having described this historic event as ‘the end of purdah for this great monastic fellowship’,788 figure 4.29.

In this chapter I have established the extent to which the galleries of Burlington House were accessed by identified art organisations because fortuitously the Royal Academy had not suffered extensive bomb damage during the Second World War when other galleries such as the Tate were rendered unserviceable. Most notably the Government’s exhibition of Abercrombie’s ‘London Plan’ (1943) stood as testament to the Royal Academy’s public accessibility, despite being a private institution operating beyond the restraints of the Government. Further, the Royal Academy’s appropriately proportioned architecture optimised a bright and airy environment for the display of sculpture in contrast to the ‘penumbrous’ Tate Gallery.789 The palatial façade of Burlington House which may have been considered as prohibitive to the middle and working classes of the metropolis, had proven to be accessible by virtue of the attendance numbers and the nominal entrance fee of a few shillings. Further, the selection and display of works by both professional and amateur artists encouraged attendance to the Summer Exhibition which regularly exceeded 100,000 people and exceptionally approached 300,000 people in 1955, figure 4.30. Such attendance numbers were far greater than those of other major exhibitions of the period including the jointly sponsored LCC/Arts Council ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ series; the ‘Sculpture in the Home’ series; ‘Forty Years of Modern Art’; ‘Forty Thousand Years of Modern Art’ and ‘This is Tomorrow’. However these smaller exhibitions offered a

786 RAA/PA/1/29–40. RAA Council Minutes, 3 February 1959, 263.

787 Thomas Monnington (1902–1976). Harold Wilson (1916–1995). RAA/Sec/25/3/5/. Annual Dinner folio, 26 April 1967.

788 Baroness Asquith (1887–1969). Anon. "The End of RA's 'Purdah'." Daily Express, 27 April 1967, np. RAA Press Cuttings. RAA Annual Dinner Seating Plan 1967: Guests of honour at the top table were Rt. Hon. Mrs Barbara Castle, Minister for Transport and Rt. Hon. Miss Jennie Lee (wife of Aneurin Bevan), Minister for the Arts. At other tables Dame Peggy Ashcroft; Lady Asquith of Yarnbury (better known as Lady Violet Bonham-Carter); Miss Jean Cook; Dame Edith Evans; Dr Joan Evans; Dame Barbara Hepworth; Miss Gertrude Hermes; Mrs ; Dame Laura Knight; Miss Elisabeth Lutyens; Mrs Dod Proctor; Dame Sybil Thorndike; Dame Ninette de Valois; Miss Veronica Wedgewood; Lady Kathleen Welch; Dame Rebecca West; Dr Mary Woodall.

789 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 11.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 168 meaningful contrast to the Royal Academy not only in more intimate scale but importantly through exhibiting the work of emergent artists who practiced a wider variety of more modern styles.

Moreover, I have established the validity of the Royal Academy and in particular its sculptors as appointed trustees, exhibition selectors and exhibitors for other art institutions including the Arts Council. In particular Dobson’s and Wheeler’s close and lengthy engagement as selectors and exhibitors for the Arts Council’s ‘Sculpture in the Home’ and the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ series was of consequence; especially considering their even-handed inclusion of both traditional and modern sculptures. Significantly, sculptors including Charoux, Caro, Dobson, Ehrlich, Frink, Gordine, Hermes, Ling, McWilliam, Nimptsch, Skeaping and Wheeler were frequent exhibitors at Arts Council events whilst simultaneously participating in the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibitions.

It was unusual for the work of non-Academicians to be approved at first viewing, most being categorised as ‘Doubtful’. Often no amateur works were accepted at the initial stage with the most being twenty-four works accepted at first view in 1953. This ruthless rejection of all amateur works at first sight would certainly have been disheartening to those who submitted work, had they but known. After re-appraisal, the amateur works were selected: the least eight-hundred-and-seventy-eight in 1951, and the most one-thousand-two-hundred-and-twenty-four in 1952. Amateurs were more likely to submit paintings than sculpture, although with the most being one-hundred- and-seventy-seven accepted in 1948 selected by Garbe, Machin and Wheeler. Yet for both amateur and professional artists the Royal Academy remained a ‘sought after’ venue by reason of bestowing the validation of the Selection Committee, peer recognition, potential sales and future commissions accessed by the largest art audience in London.790 However as self-appointed custodians of artistic standards, the Selection Committee members appeared to be more concerned with artistic merit than an artwork’s potential to generate sales revenues.

Accusations of obfuscated judgement were equally levelled at both the Royal Academy’s and the Arts Council’s Selection Committees.791 Members of the Hanging Committee for sculpture were responsible for optimising the placement of all sculpture submissions despite regular protests from the disgruntled sculptors. The best works were privileged

790 Op. cit., Whittet, G. S. "Burlington House Styles Have Breadth.". 1957, 50-54.

791 Op. cit., O'Donnell, Nathan. 2013.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 169 when located in the mid-point of the Central Hall which afforded ‘in the round’ viewing and had frequently displayed public sculpture prior to installation on the streets of London. The most popular sculpture subjects were portrait busts, the nude and animals, yet given that so many of the works were of domestic scale, the Summer Exhibition might be directly compared to the Arts Council’s ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibition series. Consequently I assert that the demise of the ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibitions noted by Burstow (2008) may plausibly be attributed to duplication because a limited range of sculptors were supplying sculptures to both events, evidenced by scrutiny of the exhibition catalogues. There was however a significant pricing differential with a premium for works purchased at the Royal Academy rather than at the more economical ‘Sculpture in the Home’. More importantly however, the fact that the same sculptors exhibited at Royal Academy and Arts Council exhibitions, suggested that rather than pursuing either private or state patronage, these sculptors were willing to exhibit with both patrons by reason of their necessity to generate their livelihood.

Furthermore, despite disappointing reviews, the evidence of contemporaneous critical reception also commented upon the attendant ‘extraordinary cross section of community’ who visited the Summer Exhibition dispelling any perception of class exclusion from the Royal Academy.792 Additionally the BBC’s coverage of the Summer Exhibition in 1956 supported by Kelly’s lively commentary, visually introduced this event into the homes of the nation. Consequently the Royal Academy’s unexpectedly egalitarian accessibility challenged the Arts Council’s ideological democracy and its intellectually exclusive ‘highbrow’ modern art. Thus television was utilised by the Royal Academy as a democratic medium for education, facilitating a fresh and informed appreciation of sculpture and paintings.793

Scrutiny of the Royal Academy’s Annual Dinner seating plans evidenced a sophisticated degree of planning and cultural acumen. The Royal Academy’s willingness to utilise this banquet as a strategic initiative, by which to court international, cultural and art allies, was unexpected. Ambassadors, High Commissioners, overseas Ministers and Arts Council members, together with the executives of art institutions, were friends and frequent dinner guests; their seated proximity to the President indicative of their eminence within the Royal Academy. Surprisingly, regular guests included Clark, Rothenstein and Pooley, and later, when women were permitted to attend in 1967,

792 Op. cit., Stanley, Louis T. "The London Season.". 1957, 44.

793 Op. cit., Long, P. J. 2008, 139.

Chapter Four - The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions Page 170 amongst others (and perhaps astonishingly), Hepworth. The after dinner speeches addressed not only the unstable political environment of the Cold War era but also cultural extravaganzas such as the ‘Festival of Britain’. The ‘New Look’ Annual Dinner (1958) was celebrated as a ‘Summit meeting’ between Wheeler and Clark marking the end of apparent hostilities between the Royal Academy and the Arts Council and an acceptance of examples from the modern movement (some completed by Academicians) exhibited at that year’s Summer Exhibition. Curiously therefore at an institutional level these two authorities were willing to clash, whilst at a personal level remaining friends, accompanying each other to exhibitions and attending the Annual Dinner as honoured, if somewhat incongruous, guests.

Therefore this chapter has demonstrated that the Royal Academy, its sculptors and the wider arts community were genuinely interwoven across multiple disciplines as artists, trustees, exhibition selectors, exhibition curators, exhibitors and even as personal friends. Thus the art-historical post-war perception of a significant cultural marginalisation of the Royal Academy and the privileging of state patronage to its exclusion has been shown to be problematic. Unconstrained by their allegiance to the Royal Academy’s private patronage, its sculptors simultaneously took advantage of the opportunity to exhibit at various Arts Council exhibitions. Consequently the post-war art establishment may be taken to include the Royal Academy and its sculptors as participative, influential and wholly integrated within the London art community.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 171

Chapter Five

Sculpture for the State

Art in consensus culture is not an avant-garde activity, it does not challenge assumptions and values, rather it gives imaginative form to the culture’s most treasured sentiments and beliefs.794 Andrew Brighton (1981)

One of the functions of post-war public art was to be the visual, symbolic reinstatement of a sense of community.795 Margaret Garlake (1998)

The twentieth-century art-historical narrative of ‘state patronage’ afforded a slender and potentially misleading construct of the varied avenues of financial support for the arts provided by the British Government. An artificial boundary which has most frequently been framed around the auspices of the Arts Council and the British Council was perhaps for reasons of political pragmatism. Faced with the considerable challenges of rebuilding the country, ‘the House of Commons was not really hostile to the arts. It was supremely indifferent’.796 Consequently, the separate spheres of Government-funded arts agents and the Treasury’s own fiscal interventions had implications not only for a meaningful assessment of state patronage but also significantly for the national symbolism of ‘Britishness’ as post-war propaganda, here discussed with regard to Crinson’s (2004) observations.797 Moreover, the belief that state patronage could improve an emergent artist’s prospects arose from the validations of connoisseurs who sanctioned modern exhibits. Accordingly modern art during this period became respectable through the agency of the Arts Council and British Council and their energetic endorsements.798 In Art for the nation, Taylor (1999) describes the dialogue concerning public sculpture as ‘a vigorous and often shrill debate’ between the

794 Op. cit., Brighton, Andrew. 1981, 36.

795 Op cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 213.

796 Anon. "British Council Calls for Another £55,000 "Half Price of Misguided Missile's Tail." The Manchester Guardian, 23 October 1956, 2.

797 Op. cit., Crinson, Mark. 2004.

798 Editorial. "The Contemporary Situation." The Burlington Magazine XCVII, no. 627, June 1955: 163-64.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 172

‘modern’ and the ‘traditional’;799 he opines that such publicity was exacerbated by the fact that:

the number of national or quasi-national bodies in the public space of art was greater than before: the Arts Council of Great Britain and then the Institute of Contemporary Arts joined the dialogue between the Academy and the Tate [Gallery].800

Accordingly, seeking to further widen an understanding of state patronage, in this chapter I assess three different facets of post-war state-sponsored sculpture. The first, analyses sculptures procured by the Royal Academy for the nation’s Chantrey Collection which was displayed at the state-owned Tate Gallery. Secondly, architectural sculpture commissioned by the Ministry of Works and Buildings to embellish the post- war Government’s new Ministry of Defence offices. Thirdly, public sculpture commissioned by the LCC under the direction of the Arts Council. Importantly, sculpture chosen on behalf of and expressly for the British public inherently necessitated consideration of a notion of ‘Britishness’ and the national values and virtues that it sought to amplify. Therefore the manifestation of ‘Britishness’ as integral to sculpture specifically chosen for the British public will also be explored, through appraisals of Wheeler’s Earth and Water (1950–53) and Charoux’s The Neighbours (1959).

Powell’s (2008) description of ‘slippery constructions of national identity’ as shaped by ‘processes of selection, display, catalogue writing and reviews’,801 might be expanded to address sculpture procured for and on behalf of the British public. Powell further argues that given the expatriate nature of many artists of any period ‘fixing a country to an artist’s identity is thus clearly problematic’ especially when influenced by the diaspora of war.802 Consequently I assess how Royal Academy sculptors endeavoured to personify versions of ‘Britishness’ forged through adversity. Thus the genesis and semiotics of Wheeler’s Earth and Water (1950–53) which embellished the Government’s new Ministry of Defence building are scrutinised to assess whether they might meet requirements for ‘national projection’ (Crinson, 2004) particularly when contrasted with other works similarly informed by the destabilisation of society: Moore’s Three Standing Figures (1948) and Butler’s sculpture for the ‘Unknown

799 Op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 167.

800 Ibid.

801 Op. cit., Powell, Jennifer. 2008, Abstract.

802 Ibid, 9.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 173

Political Prisoner’ competition (1953).803 The section relating to Charoux’s commissioning of The Neighbours (1959) has been drawn from a paper that I presented at the Henry Moore Institute and the Paul Mellon Centre in 2017 and significantly expands upon the themes that I had initially identified.804 The Neighbours (1959) affords a more intimate visual narrative of state sculpture and of ‘Britishness’ scaled in statement to the microcosm of a residential community populated by the ‘common man’. Thus it may be argued that the challenge for both Wheeler and Charoux was to ensure that their state sculptures were socially relevant and appropriate for their placement. Furthermore, to contextualise sculpture for the state, it has also been essential to consider what Newton (1950) terms as ‘some of the “welfarest” of modern states’.805 Accordingly the lingering influence of the controversial Paris ‘Exposition Universelle’ (1937), the post-war British sculpture at the Venice Biennales and the Royal Academy’s survey show of works by ‘Russian and Soviet Artists’ (1959) span the two decades of charged nationalism against which an assessment of ‘Britishness’ may be assessed through powerful visual state propaganda.806

The Chantrey Collection

When Rothenstein re-hung the Tate Gallery in 1939, following his appointment as Director of the Tate Gallery, he re-ignited two further decades of animosity between the Tate and the Royal Academy because he banished works selected by the Royal Academy which had been purchased under the terms of the Chantrey Bequest.807 Rothenstein argued that the Tate was ‘compelled to accept although not to show’ the Chantrey purchases.808 Rothenstein’s predecessor J. B. Mason had mockingly referred to these

803 Op. cit., Crinson, Mark. 2004, 182–199.

804 Veasey, Melanie. "Academic Paper: Forming a Community: Maquette for the Neighbours" (1957-59), Leeds Collections Single Sculpture Lecture. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 21 June 2017. Veasey, Melanie. "Academic Paper: Forming a Community: Maquette for the Neighbours" (1957-59), London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Arts, 13 October 2017.

805 Op. cit., Newton, Eric. 1950, 29-43.

806 Editorial. "The Contemporary Situation." The Burlington Magazine XCVII, no. 627, June 1955: 163-64. Also see Culleme-Brown, Matthew, and Brandon Taylor. Art of the Soviets: Painting, Sculpture and Architecture in a One-Party State 1917-1992. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993, 8.

807 John Rothenstein was the Tate’s longest serving Director (1938–1964). Tate. "John Rothenstein." http://www2.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/historyhtml/people_dir_rothenstein.htm, accessed 23 August 2016.

808 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 11.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 174

Chantrey purchases as ‘best “cellars”’ when not exhibited but ‘deposited in the cellars’ of the Tate Gallery.809 The ‘anomalous position’ of Tate custodianship had arisen by virtue of the terms of Sir Francis Chantrey’s Will, dated 31 December 1840.810 In summary the terms provided an acquisition fund for ‘works of Fine Art of the highest merit in painting and sculpture ... entirely executed within the shores of Great Britain’ as chosen by the President and Council of the Royal Academy. Remarkably however the Will did not oblige the Royal Academy to permanently accommodate these works but invoked the Government as guardian thereby raising the vexed question of display. Alston’s (1989) foreword to Within These Shores: a Selection of Works from the Chantrey Bequest 1883–1985, describes the Bequest as ‘among the most imaginative and generous for the nation’.811 Although he considers the Bequest ‘farsighted’, Alston also acknowledges the ‘short-sighted’ failure to provide a repository for the collection, delegating instead to ‘the Government of the country’ the provision of ‘a suitable and proper building or accommodation’.812

In 1950 the Royal Academy minutes recorded that since Lady Chantrey’s death in 1875 ‘the Chantrey Trustees have regularly made annual payments to the Royal Academy, which have usually been about £2,000 per annum’.813 Lamb (1935) documented the complexities that arose from Chantrey’s seemingly bounteous original bequest of £105,000 as beset by exacting and onerous conditions for the selection and exhibition of purchases.814 In Cowdell’s (1980) unpublished thesis The Role of the Royal Academy in English Art, 1918-1930, the Tate’s frustrations with this arrangement were also analysed.815 Although the first Chantrey purchase was made in 1877 following the death of Chantrey’s widow, it was not until the collection was transferred from temporary display at the South Kensington Museum to the newly erected Tate Gallery in 1897 that

809 J. B. Mason (1879–1945). HMI. Gilbert Ledward/16.3/1988, Box 2. Ledward, G. (1951). The Autobiography of a Sculptor during the first fifty years of the twentieth century, unpublished. 88.

810 Op. cit., Hutchinson, Sidney C. 1968, 160.

811 Alston, David. "Foreword." In Within These Shores: A Selection of Works from the Chantrey Bequest 1883-1985, edited by Tate. London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 1989, 7.

812 Ibid.

813 RAA Annual Report 1950, Chantrey Fund, Appendix 9, 76.

814 Op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1935, 63. Lamb (1935) included an ‘Extract from the Will of Sir Francis Chantrey.’, 188–193. The value of £105,000 in 1875 would have been equivalent to approximately £11, 500, 000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator.". 2018.

815 Op. cit., Cowdell, Theophilus Paul. 1980, 84–129.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 175 the growing collection evoked close scrutiny.816 Both Lamb and Cowdell called attention to the House of Lords appointment of a Select Committee in 1903 in response to D. S. MacColl’s allegations of the Royal Academy’s maladministration of Chantrey’s Will.817 Five questions were raised by the Select Committee in 1904, paraphrased from Cowdell’s thesis as: 1. Had Chantrey intended the collection to be ‘representative’ of the history of British art? 2. Had Chantrey intended to encourage British artists or British art? (‘foreigners were conspicuously absent’). 3. To what extent was the Royal Academy biased in favour of its own members? (the Royal Academy disliked buying from dealers, also, contemporary analysis indicated a bias towards Academicians and future Academicians). 4. What was the position of the Tate Gallery as the exhibiting body? 5. Was the Chantrey fund intended for the purchase of popular contemporary works or masterpieces that had withstood the test of time?818 These questions remained pertinent to Rothenstein’s engagement with both the Chantrey Collection and the Royal Academy, consequently, I shall explore the Royal Academy’s post-war administration of the Chantrey Bequest through the generic framework that the Select Committee’s original five questions afforded.

Significantly, Chantrey’s Will stipulated that potential purchases and ‘no commissions’ must, ‘be publicly exhibited for the period of one Calendar month at the least in the annual exhibition of the Royal Academy or in some important public exhibition of fine art the same to be selected by such President and Council’.819 The Royal Academy had habitually chosen to interpret this requirement as being fulfilled by sole reference to works exhibited at the Summer Exhibition to the exclusion of any other ‘important public exhibition’. This stipulation also served to deter the Royal Academy from purchasing from dealers. Accordingly all works were, by definition, pre-selected by the Royal Academy’s Selection Committee from annual entries. Works displayed at the Summer Exhibition were an eclectic array completed by professional and amateur artists in readiness for submission in any given year. As a result the contemporaneous annual choices made for the Chantrey Collection were inevitably somewhat inconsistent in quality. Moreover, the Select Committee Report of 1904 deemed that

816 Op. cit., Lamb, Walter. R. M. 1935, 70–71.

817 Ibid, 72–73. Also see op. cit., Cowdell, Theophilus Paul. 1980, 85. For D. S. MacColl (1859–1948), painter, critic, editor of the Architectural Review (1901– 1905) and lecturer see ODNB. Grimsditch, H. B. , and Robert (revised) Upstone. " ‘MacColl, Dugald Sutherland (1859–1948)’." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34687?docPos=1, accessed 23 August 2017.

818 Op. cit., Cowdell, Theophilus Paul. 1980, 85-86.

819 RAA Annual Report 1875, extract from Sir Francis Chantrey’s Will, Appendix 7, 49–52.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 176 works by ‘foreigners were conspicuously absent’ from the Chantrey Collection.820 Notwithstanding this, by the early 1930s there had been a marked shift in Chantrey purchases towards the acquisition of ‘British art’ rather than that of ‘British artists’ particularly evident through the purchase of the work of émigrés, as exemplar, Epstein’s Albert Einstein (1933) purchased by the Chantrey Bequest in 1934.821 The availability of work executed by émigrés also significantly increased due to the pre- and post-war British residence of artists seeking sanctuary from Europe and keen to exhibit work at the Summer Exhibitions as a means of re-establishing their professional practice, concurrent with the qualification that eligible works must have been ‘entirely executed within the shores of Great Britain’, see Appendix 5.1. Chantrey Acquisitions – Sculpture and selected Paintings, 1946–1959.

Indicative of its problematic history Leslie (1914), had assessed the Chantrey Collection as a ‘veritable bone of contention’ continuing:

the dispute resolved itself into a question of taste between members of the Academy, artists of great experience, and an irresponsible body of men, for the most part avowed enemies of the Academy, composed of newspaper critics and discontented and disappointed artists outside the pale of the Academy.822

The Select Committee Report of 1904 further noted that ‘a selecting body even though changing in composition, is likely to fall into a beaten track of taste’.823 Further, it concluded that those ‘actively engaged in the exercise of their own profession, cannot possibly give the requisite time or attention to the search for the particular three or four

820 Gov. Report from the Select Committee on the Chantrey Trust: Together with Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence and Appendix. Session 1904. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1904, vii. ‘Sir Francis Chantrey probably intended to discourage artists from living permanently abroad. The Committee is of the opinion that successive Councils have been absolutely justified in their reading of this provision of the Will, but they consider that many desirable works of art must be lost to the collection by reason of the artist’s not being able to give an assurance that the work has been executed entirely in Great Britain. The Committee, therefore, recommend that the purchasing body be empowered to buy the work of an artist who permanently resides in Great Britain, even though such works may have been in part executed aboard.’ Further, ‘The Council have been severely criticized for not purchasing the works of various foreign artists who have visited this country and whose influence upon British art has been very considerable’. Also see op. cit., Cowdell, Theophilus Paul. 1980, 85-86.

821 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1934, listing number 1593, Albert Epstein (1933) Also see RAA Annual Report 1934, p. 85. Also see Tate. "Albert Einstein (1933)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/epstein-albert-einstein-n04754, accessed 24 August 2017.

822 Op. cit., Leslie, Gilbert Dunlop. 1914, 275-276.

823 Op. cit. Gov. Report from the Select Committee on the Chantrey Trust. 1904, vii–viii.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 177 works of art which may be considered desirable and possible to buy in any given year’.824 This clearly highlighed a conflict of interest for artists as buyers. Although, of expedient necessity, the post-war Royal Academy continued to eschew dealers and other potential sources — including Rothenstein’s direct contacts with preferred artists — and privileged works exhibited at the Summer Exhibitions.

Therefore the inclusion of sculptures such as: Charoux, Youth (1948) in 1948, figure 5.1; Epstein, Albert Einstein (1933) in 1934, figure 5.2 and Mrs Mary McEvoy (1909) in 1953, figure 5.3; Gaudier-Brzeska, Head of Horace Brodzky (1913, cast 1956) in 1957, figure 5.4 and Nimptsch, Seated Girl (1958) in 1958 indicated a small but significant trend towards more modern ‘British art’ rather than solely ‘British artists’.825 As an ensemble these four sculptors may plausibly be considered as ‘outsiders’ who were not British by birth. It is also all the more remarkable that the work of these sculptors should have been selected for the Chantrey Collection illustrating an awareness of unresolved aesthetic tension and transition within the Royal Academy because works such as Dobson’s British modernist The Man Child (1921) did not regain favour with the Chantrey Committee until 1971.826

Chantrey acquisitions for this period also raised the question of sourcing sculpture because whilst purchases were ordinarily made contemporaneously from the annual Summer Exhibitions as for Spring (1947), Youth (1948) and Seated Girl (1958) those of Epstein and Gaudier-Brzeska had been made much earlier in the twentieth century yet were exhibited at the Summer Exhibitions. Epstein’s initial Chantrey bust was of Albert Einstein who arrived in London in 1933 because he had been identified as a Nazi ‘assassination target’.827 Epstein was invited to model Einstein’s portrait bust though was challenged by ‘clouds’ of the scientist’s pipe smoke, although Epstein concluded that Einstein’s ‘glance contained a mixture of the humane, the humorous and the

824 Ibid.

825 Op. cit., Cork, Richard. 1987, 34 and 36. Cork identified Gaudier-Brzeska’s ‘‘barbaric’ sculpture as one which ‘confounded neat classification’. Also see op. cit., Rothenstein (1966) recalled that he had introduced the Academicians to Nimptsch’s work however given the émigré network it is probably that Charoux made this introduction. Dobson was also certainly aware of Nimptsch’s work given that he had already selected pieces for inclusion in the ‘Sculpture in the Home’ exhibitions of 1946 and 1950. Ibid, 100-101.

826 Tate. "The Man Child (1921)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/dobson-the-man-child-t01322, accessed 16 March 2018.

827 Gilboa, Raquel. Unto Heaven Will I Ascend: Jacob Epstein's Inspired Years 1930-1959. London: Paul Holberton Publishing, 2013, 77.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 178 profound. This was a combination that delighted me’ (Gilboa, 2013).828 The bust of Albert Einstein (1933) was exhibited at the Summer Exhibition in 1934 and purchased the same year.829 Other works by Epstein also had a history. Mrs Mary McEvoy’s daughter Anna Bazell purchased the bronze bust of her mother Mrs Mary McEvoy (1909) from Epstein in c. 1949 which was exhibited at the Summer Exhibition in 1953 as Mrs Ambrose McEvoy from where it was acquired for the Chantrey Collection.830 This sculpture was noted for the portrayal of the ‘quiet strength of the sitter’.831 Gaudier-Brzeska’s original Portrait of Horace Brodzky (1913) was modelled as plaster and painted green, of which six bronzes were made (the most recent being cast in 1956) and exhibited by the Arts Council in 1956.832 This sculpture was important because it was ‘closely related to the geometric Cubist paintings of the period before 1910 and not to the Analytical Cubism, which followed it.’ (Cole, 1978).833 When first exhibited in 1913 Portrait of Horace Brodzky (1913) had caused an ‘uproar’ and the artist was criticised for ‘uncouth versions of the human encumbrance’.834 Consequently this sculpture was historically significant as representative of the evolution of early twentieth-century sculpture and therefore re-titled as Head of Horace Brodzky (1913 c. 1956) following its display by the Arts Council in 1956.835 Subsequently Head of Horace Brodzky was exhibited at the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition in 1957836 where it was recommended by Ledward, Machin and McFall and purchased for the Chantrey

828 Ibid.

829 Albert Einstein (1933) was also exhibited at Arthur Tooth and Sons, December 1933; Arts Council, Tate Gallery September–November 1952 , listing number 34; Arts Council, Tate Gallery September–November 1961 , listing number 34 (incorrectly dated 1932).

830 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1953, listing number 1280. Mrs Mary McEvoy (1909). Also see RA Illustrated 1953, 88.

831 Tate. "Sir Jacob Epstein, Mrs Mary McEvoy (1909)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/epstein-mrs-mary-mcevoy-n06139, accessed 24 August 2017.

832 Cole, Roger. Burning to Speak: The Life and Art of Henri Gaudier Brezska. Oxford: Phaidon, 1978, 69.

833 Ibid.

834 Ibid. The Portrait of Horace Brodzky (1913) paired with the Portrait of Alfred Wolmark (1913) stemmed from Gaudier-Brzeska’s ‘expressive approach to sculpture in 1912’.

835 Ibid. Exhibited at the AIA (1913), listing number 1216, Portrait of Horace Brodzky (1913) Bumpus exhibition (1931) listing number 38; Institute of Fine Arts, Glasgow (1931) listing number 59; Leeds (1943) listing number 67; Orleans (1956) listing number 13; Arts Council (1956) listing number 19 and the Gallery of Modern Art, Edinburgh (1972), listing number 19.

836 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1956, listing number1427, Head of Horace Brodzky (1913 cast 1956) by the late Henri Gaudier-Brzeska.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 179

Collection; yet this sculpture’s prior display by the Arts Council in 1956 represented an important flexing of the Royal Academy’s established Chantrey protocol of never purchasing pre-exhibited works.

Additionally, of the sculptures selected in this period, all, with the unusual exception of Ling’s Galway Cow (1955), represented human form either as a portrait bust or full figure. Collectively though they presented a remarkable range of twentieth-century aesthetics which varied from Gaudier-Brzeska’s Cubist influenced Head of Horace Brodzky (1913, cast 1956) through to Machin’s Beaux Arts Spring (1947),837 figure 2.10. Moreover, the inclusion of two of Epstein’s portrait busts Mrs Mary McEvoy (1909) and Albert Einstein (1933) spanned the period of time when the Royal Academy had neglected to include this sculptor in their fraternity as discussed in Chapter Three, ‘The Royal Academy as Community’. However both works so clearly captured what de Vasconcellos (2000) described of portraiture as ‘a biography without words’.838 The figurative forms from Charoux and Nimptsch introduced the European modernism most frequently attributed to Maillol. A further note of modernism was extended by Lambert’s Fonteyn (1956) sculpture not in representation but in the use of materials: wire mesh for the tutu and fine rivets for the eyelashes; although, ‘unlike Degas’ famous sculpture of a young ballerina, he did not incorporate a real tutu’ (Nicolson, 2002).839 Each of these sculptures was readily interpreted by the viewer and at the time of acquisition did not present an uncomfortable aesthetic challenge despite the fact that none of the sculptures could truly be defined as traditional. However such an eclectic selection of sculptors and styles would seem to suggest that these choices were made subjectively and not guided by any form of prescriptive criteria specified by the Royal Academy. These choices also reflected the modus operandi of the Summer Exhibition Selection Committee members’ intuitive response to the amateurs’ submissions.

The accusation that the Royal Academy favoured Academicians and, ‘future Associates’ may be considered through the empirical analysis of its post-war Chantrey acquisitions when scrutinised against a comparison to the artist’s date of election to the Royal Academy, see Appendix 5.1. Chantrey Acquisitions – Sculpture and selected Paintings, 1946–1959. The prevailing pattern of an artist’s work being acquired for the Chantrey Collection and that artist being elected to the Royal Academy usually within twelve months either before or after the purchase was evident particularly for: Machin elected

837 Veasey, Melanie. "A Spring." https://chronicle250.com/1947, accessed 31 May 2018.

838 Op. cit., de Vasconcellos, Josefina. 2000.

839 Op. cit., Nicolson, Vanessa. 2002, 86.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 180 in 1947; Charoux elected in 1949; Spencer (re-)elected in 1949; Lowry elected in 1955 and Nimptsch elected in 1958. Indeed Machin acknowledged this connection: ‘As a result of this I was elected an ARA’.840 Given this evidence, it seems reasonable to assume that an artist might expect to be nominated for election following the purchase of their work by the Chantrey Bequest (with the exception of Epstein whose nomination had lapsed as discussed in Chapter Three).841 Consequently in evaluating the empirical evidence the Royal Academy tended to favour re-elected Academicians and future Associates. Though the purchase of work from émigrés Charoux, Epstein and Nimptsch was a further affirmation of an intention towards ‘British art’ rather than ‘British artists’, the meagre payment of £315 for the work of an established, though controversial, sculptor such as Epstein did not readily calibrate with the perhaps overly generous fee of £1,000 to less well-known sculptors such as Machin and Charoux and £800 to Nimptsch.

If ‘outsiders’ were poorly recompensed, women received even less financial reward, for example Ling received £70 when her Galway Cow (1955) was purchased by the Chantrey Bequest. 842 Ling attributed her creative inspiration to ‘a journey through Galway and seeing the primitive looking black cows there lying in the mist and silhouetted against the hills and limestone rocks. I carved it when I arrived back in London longing for the peace and calm of the country I love, Eire’,843 figure 5.5. Notably, of Ling’s nomination for election the same year, 1955, was unsuccessful. Therefore, higher sums for sculptors who were — or were soon to be — Academicians gave credence to the accusation of inflated fees paid to those who were elected by the Royal Academy. This financial disparity had long been an irksome point of aggravation, particularly according to Clark when Director of the National Gallery; he recalled that he had lost his temper when Kelly PRA requested that he stopped buying the work of young artists for the nation. Two of Clark’s young emerging artists had calculated that they could each exist on £85 a year each if they shared a studio, yet in contrast Kelly’s

840 Op. cit., Machin, Arnold. 2002, 97.

841 Op. cit., Cork, Richard. 1987, 31. Cork (1987) observed that ‘sculpture became the vehicle for Epstein to explore sexuality, procreation and the relationship between youth and old age with a frankness which provoked an opprobrium he defied to the very end of his career’.

842 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1955, listing number 1373, Galway Cow (1955) In various publications Galway has been alternatively spelt as ‘Galway’ and ‘Gallway’ accordingly I have retained the place name convention.

843 Tate. "Galway Cow (1954)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/ling-galway-cow-t00038, accessed 6 January 2018.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 181 income was then nearly £8,000.844 Similarly Hendy, Clark’s successor at the National Gallery, commented in 1946 that ‘only a handful of middle-aged artists could price their pictures at more than £100, and so live off their work’.845 Consequently both Clark’s and Hendy’s assessments of inequality reinforced what may be considered a Royal Academy premium despite the fact that the Arts Council had been granted £400,000 to commission artworks for the period 1948–1950.846 Moreover, Lewis (1954) writing in The Demon of Progress in Art recognised that Butler’s receipt of £4,500 for the Unknown Political Prisoner (1953) would ‘suggest to the bright young man that even economically extremism was a good bet’ (original emphasis).847

The post-war position of the Tate Gallery as the exhibiting body of the Chantrey Collection may best be described by Rothenstein (1966) as the incumbent Director of that period: he considered the Chantrey galleries at the Tate as ‘an annexe of Burlington House’.848 As such these obligatory galleries thwarted Rothenstein’s desire to exhibit ‘modern’ i.e. twentieth-century British, European (and eventually American) paintings and sculptures, in particular the work of younger artists whom Rothenstein considered as those under the age of fifty.849 This aspiration was clearly in conflict with the Royal Academy’s practice of exhibiting Old Masters excepting the Summer Exhibitions. Therefore Rothenstein (1966) expressed his frustration with ‘the essential absurdity of a purchasing procedure that presupposed some harmony of outlook with the Academy, a body most of whose members had little sympathy for the policy of the Tate and to a number of whom it was anathema.’850 The Tate policy to which Rothenstein referred was the responsibility for ‘British painting, modern foreign

844 Op. cit., Clark, Kenneth. 1977, 23. However in an undated letter to William Somerset Maughan from Sir Gerald Kelly, Kelly wrote of painting the portraits of their Majesties, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth when he was ‘obliged to abandon my private practice and earned very little money’. British Library, Rare Manuscripts. William Somerset Maughan’s Letters, RP250. The value of £85 would be equivalent to approximately £3,500 in 2018. The value of £8,000 would have been equivalent to approximately £300,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

845 Hewison, Robert. In Anger: British Culture in the Cold War 1945-60. London: Methuen, 1981, 45.

846 Op. cit., Moggridge, Donald. 1992, 705.

847 Op. cit., Lewis, Wyndham. 1954, 31.

848 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 16–17.

849 Ibid, 177–178.

850 Ibid, 207.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 182 painting and modern sculpture, British and foreign’.851 Rothenstein’s endeavours had been further complicated by the appointment of Academicians as Tate Trustees: Reid Dick ‘was very much out of harmony with the sentiments of his fellow [Tate] Trustees.’852 Wheeler proved to be more sympathetic to Rothenstein’s desire to pursue a more modern acquisition policy.853 Suggesting complicity with the Tate, Wheeler and Henry Lamb ‘spoke ominously of hostility of RAs [Royal Academicians] to TG [Tate Gallery]’.854 Crellin (2012) acknowledges Wheeler’s ‘attempt to mediate’ the rift when he wrote to The Times in January 1949; although she noted that Wheeler’s successor as Tate Trustee in August 1949 was Moore,855 figure 5.6. Thus Rothenstein was obliged to accept an historically unresolved responsibility for Chantrey purchases over which he had little influence and which he had even less desire to accommodate, then to ruminate on the acute lack of the Tate’s own acquisition funds, a situation exacerbated by what he considered to be the frivolous selections funded by the Chantrey Bequest which was at that time generating the sum of approximately £2,000 per annum.856 This sum approximated to that granted annually by the Arts Council to the ICA during the 1940s and 1950s.857 Additionally, Rothenstein (1966) noted that Tate Trustees who served on the Chantrey Recommending Committee ‘often complained bitterly of the pressures - sometimes remorseless - exerted’ by representative Academicians ‘to buy the work of Academicians, but above all from the Summer Exhibition’. Although it has not been possible to substantiate Rothenstein’s statement, the empirical purchase

851 Ibid, 179.

852 Ibid, 19. William Reid Dick, RA, Tate Trustee (1934–1941). Also see op. cit., Wardleworth, Dennis. 2013.

853 Charles Wheeler, RA, Tate Trustee (1942–49).

854 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 174.

855 Op. cit., Crellin, Sarah. 2012, 87.

856 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 175. ‘As the Tate was still without an official purchase grant, and it was crucial that the income from this Bequest — it amounted to over £2,000 a year — should be used as far as possible to meet our many and pressing needs.’. In 1946 Hugh Dalton (1887–1962), Chancellor of the Exchequer granted the Tate an ‘official purchase-grant’ of £2,000 p.a. Ibid. p. 179. Also see Harries, Merion, and Susie Harries. The War Artists: British Official War Art of the Twentieth Century. London: Michael Joseph in association with The Imperial War Museum and the Tate Gallery, 1983, 159. The ‘official grant purchase’ of £2,000 also appeared derisory when compared to the £5,000 awarded for the first year (increasing thereafter) for the War Artists’ Advisory Committee chaired by Kenneth Clark. The value of £2,000 in 1946 would have been equivalent to approximately £80,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

857 Op. cit., Massey, Anne & Muir, Gregor. 2014, 18.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 183 evidence does support the procurement decisions made in that period as exclusively from the Summer Exhibitions and most frequently from soon to be elected Associates.

At a joint Royal Academy and Tate meeting on 5 December 1946, Ridley, then Chairman of the Tate, proposed an exhibition of the entire Chantrey Collection at the Royal Academy, as a preliminary step towards removing it permanently from the Tate.858 Unaware of the motivation behind the proposal, the Royal Academy’s Council and Munnings in particular accepted.859 As arbiter, the Treasury’s approval for the Chantrey exhibition was also sought and secured.860 Permission was also gained from the National Gallery Trustees, at that time still responsible for the management of the Tate.861 As the Royal Academy’s representative, Kelly was appointed to serve on the ‘Council for the Exhibition of the Chantrey Collection’.862 Kelly magnanimously proposed that half of the net profits from the exhibition should be offered to the Tate Trustees ‘for the purchase of works of British painting or sculpture desired by them for their Gallery’.863 The Chantrey Exhibition of 8 January to 6 March 1949, secured a net profit of £5,028.864 However Rothenstein was unaware of Kelly’s initial proposal of fifty percent and only twenty percent of the net profit, as £1,000, was extended to the Tate.865 Expressing his thanks Rothenstein informed the Royal Academy that part of this gift had purchased a wax figure of Cassandra (1920) by James Harvard Thomas.866 Plausibly the choice of Harvard Thomas, as an explicit Royal Academy ‘outsider’ subsequent to the ‘Lycidas scandal’ (1905), might have been considered as a potential provocation to the Royal Academy,867 figure 5.7.

858 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 12 December 1946, 146–147. Pound (1962) attributed the idea of the Chantrey Exhibition directly to Munnings, rather than Ridley. Op. cit., Pound, Reginald. 1962, 175.

859 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 10 June 1947, 210.

860 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 8 January 1948, 214.

861 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 22 January 1948, 219.

862 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 29 April 1948, 237.

863 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 10 February 1949, 283.

864 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 25 March 1949, 296. The value of £5028 would have been equivalent to approximately £170,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

865 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 24 February 1949, 288.

866 Harvard Thomas (1887–1921). RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 30 June 1949, 321.

867 Getsy, David J. "The Lycidas 'Scandal' of 1905: James Havard Thomas at the Crux of Modern Sculpture in Britain." In Sculpture and the Pursuit of a Modern Ideal in Britain C1880-1930, edited by David J Getsy, 167-89. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 184

Concurrent with the arrangements for the exhibition of the Chantrey Collection ran the renegotiation of Chantrey terms between the Royal Academy and the Tate, mediated by the Treasury. Even Churchill became embroiled, appealing for ‘comradeship’ between the Royal Academy and the Tate.868 This renegotiation resulted in three representatives from each institution being appointed to the two Chantrey Recommending Committees of painting and sculpture, subject to an ‘assurance that the Government did not intend to vary the terms of the arrangement made in 1897–8 for placing the Chantrey Collection in the Tate Gallery.’869 Whilst equitable representation appeared to have improved procedural administrations, an underlying sense of mistrust continued as revealed in the Royal Academy’s Council minutes of 14 July 1953 when the Secretary was instructed to ‘resist any attempt by the Tate to extend their powers under the working arrangement agreed in 1949’.870 However as relations further deteriorated by 1955, the Council confidentially reviewed Chantrey’s Will with lawyers Wilde, Sapte and Co. in light of the ‘unsatisfactory features of the existing procedure’.871

Ultimately it was the Royal Academy Council’s unilateral decision to purchase Lambert’s Dame Margot Fonteyn de Arias (1956)872 for the Chantrey Collection that finally ruptured the tenuous truce,873 figure 5.8. The sculpture of the world famous ballerina was prestigiously located mid-point in the Central Hall with the ignominy of a ‘half-star’ label indicating that it was possibly sold whilst the Royal Academy belatedly endeavoured to prevail upon the Tate to accept this Chantrey purchase.874 In seeking to impose a veto, Rothenstein resolutely refused to accept the sculpture, the Treasury was required to mediate, and it was eventually diplomatically proposed that Chantrey purchases refused by the Tate would ‘be offered by the Academy to loan to other

Getsy (2004) asserted that the Royal Academy’s rejection of the ‘modern’ life-like black wax sculpture of Lycidas (1905) was because ‘Thomas boldly asserted that sculpture was an art of bodies and mechanics, not of persons or personalities’. Ibid. 168. Also see op. cit., Getsy, David. J. 2003, 12.

868 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 213.

869 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 9 January 1951, 437.

870 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 14 July 1953, 70.

871 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 12 July 1955, 140.

872 Veasey, Melanie. "Dame Margot Fonteyn." https://chronicle250.com/1956, accessed 31 May 2018.

873 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 16 April 1956, 161.Voting: ten for, none against. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1956, listing no 1259, Dame Margot Fonteyn de Arias (1956).

874 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 3 May 1956, 164.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 185 galleries’.875 However, in part, Rothenstein may have declined because of the intimate image of Lambert and Fonteyn clearly visible on the bodice beneath Fonteyn’s birth sign of Taurus the , an image revealing Lambert’s infatuation with the ballerina,876 figure 5.9. Ledward, present at the Treasury meeting, opposed this compromise and considered that the Tate should be compelled to accept all Chantrey purchases rather than only those of which it approved.877 Despite Ledward’s dissent, however, the Royal Academy accepted the decision.878 The Fonteyn debacle was a remarkable success for Rothenstein because henceforth, when recommended purchases were not in accord with the Tate’s policy, he had won the negotiated right to refuse to exhibit Chantrey purchases. The Fonteyn sculpture was offered by the Royal Academy to the but reluctantly declined because Fonteyn remained an active member of the ballet company.879 Eventually the Fonteyn sculpture was requested by the Royal Ballet School at Richmond, where it remains to date, having been gifted in 2000.880 Significantly the post-war period and Rothenstein’s agency transformed the position of the Tate Gallery as the exhibiting body for Chantrey purchases. Having gained the right to decline works that were incongruous with the Tate’s policy, Rothenstein had robustly defended his curatorial judgement and permanently removed the Royal Academy’s right to impose unwanted exhibits. Remarkably, despite the intensity of this institutional posturing, personal relationships remained amicable. Indeed upon greeting Rothenstein to a Royal Academy dinner on 5 January 1949 during acrimonious negotiations Munnings had declared ‘I hate you John you villain ... but there’s no one on earth whom I’d rather look at pictures with’ (Taylor, 1999).881 Rothenstein was throughout always extended an invitation to the Royal Academy’s Annual Dinner. In 1959 as a gesture of goodwill ‘expressing his appreciation’ for the

875 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 16 July 1956, 173.

876 Op. cit., Nicolson, Vanessa. 2002, 86. Nicolson (2002) wrote of Lambert’s frequent infatuation with unattainable women which also included Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother). The inscription on the back of the bodice read ‘Topless tower burnt and men recall that face’ acknowledging Lambert’s comparison of Fonteyn with the fabled beauty of Helen of Troy.

877 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 16 July 1956, 173.

878 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 16 July 1956, 174. Voting: eight for, three against.

879 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 11 December 1956, 185.

880 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 2 July 1957, 211. The Fonteyn sculpture was eventually gifted to the Royal Ballet School in 2000 by the Trustees of the Chantrey Bequest. Royal Ballet School Archive: Letter of 13 October 2000 from Barbara O’Connor, RAA Registrar to the Permanent Collection writing to Nigel Copeland, Bursar of the Royal Ballet School: Transfer of Title signed 27 October 2000.

881 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 208. Also see op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 196.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 186 smoother functioning of the Chantrey Bequest, Rothenstein held a special exhibition at the Tate of all Chantrey purchases made since the Chantrey Exhibition of 1949, for which the Royal Academy expressed their gratitude.882

Reflecting upon the Royal Academy’s administration of the Chantrey Bequest during the period 1948–1959 and taking into account the empirical evidence detailed in Appendix 5.1. Chantrey Acquisitions – Sculpture and selected Paintings, 1946–1959, it would be reasonable to assert that the Royal Academy, by then accepting the work of émigré artists in an expanded definition of ‘Britishness’, did in fact favour those who were, or were soon to be, Associates; paying them a premium for Chantrey works yet simultaneously discounting the Chantrey fee paid to non-Academicians such as Epstein and, as a woman sculptor, even less to Ling. Though purchased as contemporaneous, the Chantrey purchases acquired between 1948–1959 might now be recognised as an important cultural legacy.

Ultimately Rothenstein’s success in refusing to utilise the Tate as a state repository for the amassed Chantrey Collection was crucial to the Tate’s evolution of a separate identity liberated from the control of the National Gallery and specifically from the Royal Academy. Fyfe (2000) in his Chapter ‘Trojan Horse at the Tate: the Chantrey episode’ in Art, Power and Modernity, attributes the Tate’s encumbrance to ‘an aspect of state formation’.883 This, he argues ‘pitched official institutions against each other’ — such as the Royal Academy and the Tate Gallery — who were amongst others called to account for themselves to the Massey Committee.884 The Massey Committee ultimately concluded with Royal Assent in 1954 which ‘gave statutory independence to Tate’, effective from 14 February 1955, thereby removing the National Gallery’s oversight and providing vigorous impetus to Rothenstein’s motivation to differentiate the Tate’s post-

882 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 6 January 1959, 258.

883 Op. cit., Fyfe, Gordon. 2000, 156.

884 Gov. "Tate Gallery (Administration)." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1955/feb/11/tate-gallery- administration#S5CV0536P0_19550211_CWA_6, accessed 24 August 2017. The Massey Committee (1946) was commissioned to review the scope, activities and loan practices for: the Arts Council; the British Council; the Contemporary Art Society; the British Museum; the National Gallery; the Victorian and Albert Museum and the Tate Gallery. The Massey Committee’s recommendations received Royal Assent in 1954, resulting in statutory independence being granted to the Tate Gallery setting the institution free from the oversight of the National Gallery. Also see op. cit., Taylor, Brandon. 1999, 195–196. Taylor (1999) described the Tate’s independence as ‘a proposal calculated to be a red rag to the Academy bull’. RAA/Schools/424f/Ephemera/Notices/. Memo of 17 April 1945 from Lamb to Members of the Council. The RAA were certainly aware of the Massey Committee and even confidentially circulated details of the Government report to members of the Royal Academy’s Council.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 187 war public offering. Hence both Leslie’s argument of ‘a question of taste’ and Fyfe’s contention of ‘an aspect of state formation’ were viable assessments of the cause and perpetuation of this dispute.

As Malvern (2003) asserts, for a mid-twentieth-century artist ‘the ultimate endorsement was a purchase by a modern art museum, particularly the Tate’.885 However following the Tate’s post-Massey independence, Tate Trustees increasingly asserted a powerful sense of institutional modernism which excluded many artists and particularly the Academicians. Moreover, given that works purchased by the National Gallery and even the VAM favoured the works of genuinely Old Masters, a curious metropolitan vacuum evolved whereby the contemporaneous oeuvres of the Academicians were unlikely to be purchased by state museums and galleries; a situation which prevailed without aesthetic amnesty during the 1950s.

Charles Wheeler’s Earth and Water (1950–53)

One aspect of the Arts Council’s (1946) mandate was to ‘advise and co-operate with our Government Departments, local authorities and other bodies on any matters concerned directly or indirectly with those objects’.886 However Government Departments such as the Ministry of Works and Buildings were not beholden to the Arts Council and had the authority to directly commission public buildings.887 Therefore architects selected by the Government were able to appoint their own preferred architectural sculptors, frequently Academicians. These more desirable large-scale public commissions were few in number and accordingly prized as well-funded, lengthy in duration, of magnitude and importantly were intended to manifest the visual propaganda of a robust and flourishing post-war nation of British citizens.

885 Malvern, Susan. "The Identity of the Sculptor 1925-50." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 77-87. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003, 80.

886 ACGB. The ACGB 2nd Annual Report 1946-47. London: ACGB, 1947, extract from the Arts Council Charter (1946), 8. Also see Pointon, Marcia. Art Apart: Art Institutions and Ideology across England and North America. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994, 180.

887 National Archives. "Records of the Successive Works Departments, and the Ancient Monuments Boards and Inspectorate." http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C260, accessed 21 December 2017. The Ministry of Works and Buildings was established in 1940. ‘During the later part of the Second World War and the post-war period the Ministry of Works dealt with the de- requisitioning of property taken over for Government use. The wartime decentralisation of Government accommodation was continued in order to provide for new post-war departments and the growth of regional and local offices of Government departments. However, the ministry's responsibilities in the field of post-war reconstruction were limited to technical aspects of building policy.’

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 188

Academicians were attentive to the fact that this direct form of state patronage was accessible and remained beyond the remit of the new Arts Council. Moreover, as I described in Chapter Two, the curriculum of the Royal Academy and the prizes awarded by the Royal Academy’s Sculpture School favoured buildings of ‘national importance’ (emphasis inserted).888 Consequently the Academicians had over centuries proven to be adept at meeting the technical optics of monumental edifices which addressed the challenges of proportional scale, distorted perspective and the visual statement required by architectural sculpture. As Gablik asserts (1984), ‘one of the most unsettling characteristics of modernism, as a tradition, is that it has failed to develop the means of training artists’, particularly where traditional masonry skills were required.889 In contrast, the Academicians had a lengthy history of established relationships with architects for two reasons; the first being that many of the nation’s important architects were Academicians, for example Lutyens PRA whose imperialist designs had been prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s when his ‘domes, colonnades and cenotaphs traced a common over-riding culture’ across Britain and the British Empire (Crinson, 2004).890 Additionally, architectural models of forthcoming buildings were exhibited annually at the Summer Exhibitions; therefore, collectively the Academicians were well informed of the trends and changes in architectural styles including the prescriptive shift towards brutalism after the war.891 As Crellin (2012) observes:

far from being part of the art market per se, Academy sculptors’ incomes were more closely linked to the real economy and the prevailing technical and design philosophies of architects and developers.892

Effectively, a sculptor was required to be an entrepreneur responsible for the generation of personal income through multifarious sources of private and state patronage from, for example, dealers, collectors, fees from exhibition loans and exhibition sales together with private or public commissions and the ultimate accolade of museum acquisitions. Hence the concept of the art collection as an investment, such as that initiated by ‘La Peau de l‘Ours’ (the Skin of the Bear) auction in Paris, 1914, which then drove a post-Great War surge in prices even if there were few collectors who

888 Announcement of the RAA Schools’ re-opening included as ‘Statement of Publication’ in RAA/KEE/13/12 Letter of 13 December 1946 from Sir Walter Lamb KCVO to R. G. Barrington-Ward, Esq. DSO.

889 Op. cit., Gablik, Suzi. 1984, 127.

890 Op. cit., Crinson, Mark. 2004, 183. Sir Edward Landseer Lutyens (1869–1944).

891 RAA/PC/1/29–40. The Royal Academy held a ‘New Towns Exhibition’ from 2 to 17 October 1959.

892 Op. cit., Crellin, Sarah. 2012, 89.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 189 were in a position to buy (Fitzgerald, 1996).893 However, the demand for the austerity construction that prevailed during the 1950s for new towns, new public amenities including schools and hospitals, together with the demand for new homes was being met by innovative architects such as ‘the bell-wethers of the young’ Alison and Peter Smithson; this situation had eroded the demand for architectural sculpture.894 Further, some civic facilities such as the — built in 1949 and the only permanent structure remaining from the Festival of Britain — were designed by the LCC’s own burgeoning architectural department lead by Robert Matthew and ; the larger Southbank site having been overseen by Casson.895 However a vigorous post-war programme of regeneration was pursued directly by the Government for the development of many new civil service and military offices especially in London.

Foremost amongst these buildings and symbolic of the nation’s recent victory was the construction of a new Ministry of Defence headquarters at Whitehall, London designed in 1915 by Academician Emanuel Vincent Harris (a friend of Lutyens) and constructed between 1939 and 1959,896 figure 5.10. As a newly created Government department, the Ministry of Defence was formed in 1946 and initially operated out of temporary accommodation.897 It is possible that Wheeler may have secured the commission for the Ministry of Defence by virtue of his works for the Bank of England, Threadneedle Street (1927–1942), particularly the Telamons and Caryatids (1930–31), because these institutions were both bastions of British values (Crellin, 2012),898 figure 3.11. Although Pevsner commented of the Ministry of Defence edifice that it was ‘a monument to tiredness’, the main portal columns were graced by Wheeler’s colossal figures of women conceived as half of a naturalistic Four Elements scheme representing Earth and

893 Fitzgerald, Michael C. Making Modernism: Picasso and the Creation of the Market for Twentieth Century Art. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996, 268. ‘La Peau de l’Ours’ auction was the syndicated, release for sale of mainly Fauves and Cubist artworks to test prices ten years after purchase. The ‘openly speculative’ nature of these investments ‘focused attention on the relationship of commercial and aesthetic judgements; twenty percent of the profits were returned to the artists. Ibid, 16.

894 Alison Smithson (1928-1993) and Peter Smithson (1923-2003).

895 Robert Matthew (1906–1975) and Leslie Martin (1908–1999). Historic England. "Royal Festival Hall." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1249756, accessed 9 December 2017.

896 Emanuel Vincent Harris known as E. Vincent Harris (1876–1971).

897 Anon. "Cabinet and Defence." The Times, 5 October 1946, 5.

898 Op. cit., Crellin, Sarah. 2012, 36–47.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 190

Water (1950–53),899 figure 5.11. Wheeler had intended that Wind and Fire would embellish the southern entrance although these sculptures were never completed, perhaps due to cost. Severe in its modernist design the Ministry of Defence reflected the solidity of London’s first skyscraper, Senate House, built in 1937 by architect Charles Holden: the building which became Orwell’s inspiration for the ‘Ministry of Truth’ in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.900 Holden had commissioned Moore to undertake a series of elevated stone carvings some fifty to sixty feet above street level, ‘eight seated figures were wanted on eight separate stones’.901 However Moore decided to ‘forgo’ the commission because he preferred to work on sculpture in the round and considered that the carvings would be ‘too high up to be seen properly anyway’.902 This experience may perhaps have prompted one of Moore’s best known later observations: ‘I would rather have a piece of my sculpture put in the landscape, almost any landscape, than in or on the most beautiful building I know’.903 Alternatively, Moore’s stance against architectural sculpture may also be traced to his dislike for a form of sculptural embellishment more closely associated with the Academicians and therefore perceived as outmoded. With regard to concerns for sculptural scale, Blake (1984) notes Black’s recollections of the Festival of Britain in 1951 and the failure of its public sculptures: ‘it is probable that the fault resided in our lack of sufficient appreciation of the problem of scale. We, and the artists too, were too timid and inexperienced’.904 Here Black was cognisant of the essence of sculpture’s ambient proportionality, a technical consideration that would certainly not have eluded Wheeler. Black observed that:

The moral of this art/architecture activity was, I now feel sure, that art only has impact on large sections of the community when its subject is deeply emotive and when it is at the same time of such aesthetic consequence that no-one can contemplate it without empathetic involvement.905

899 Ibid, 88. Earth and Water (1950–53) each carved of forty tonnes of Portland stone were consider to be the largest architectural sculptures in Britain; they were inspired by Michelangelo’s Medici tombs and Maillol’s Mediterranée (1905) (originally titled Woman).

900 Charles Holden (1875–1960).

901 Op. cit., Berthoud, Roger. 1987, 163. Also see Sutton, Robert. "The Educational Roots of Henry Moore's Public Works, 1938-1950." http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/8043/, accessed 9 December 2017.

902 Op. cit., Berthoud, Roger. 1987, 163. True to his word Holden retained the ‘eight separate stones’ which to date remain ‘blank’.

903 Moore, Henry. Henry Moore on Sculpture. edited by Philip James. London: Macdonald and Co., 1966, 244.

904 Blake, Avril. Misha Black. London: The Design Council, 1984, 43–44.

905 Ibid, 44.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 191

Yet despite Black’s plea for ‘empathetic involvement’ the adornment of architectural sculpture on Government buildings required a still more powerful purpose, that of ‘national projection’, discussed by Crinson (2004) in ‘Architecture and “national projection” between the wars’:

National projection was a way of representing Britain, outside the homeland, as a country of enlightened public institutions and modernized industries, a place of democratic freedoms and well-made products, an essentially peace-loving land.906

The concept of ‘national projection’ had been most effectively employed during the 1930s at the international exhibitions where temporary national pavilions were ‘built for highly charged and prestigious events where the quality of national cultures, the power of national economies and even the character of national identities were all at stake’ (Crinson, 2004).907 Miller (2016) argues that ‘a country’s art does reveal its peoples’ collective experience’. 908 However the connotations of an ‘idle’ pre-war — middle and upper class — country life as representative of Britain’s cultural heritage, discussed in Chapter One, The Post-war Expansion of State patronage, were utterly dispelled by post-war symbolism represented by Moore’s Three Standing Figures (1948), figure 5.12, and Wheeler’s Earth and Water (1950–53). Moore’s freestanding stone carving exhibited at the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ (1948) and later controversially gifted to the nation by the Contemporary Art Society909 was seen as the embodiment of the collective emotions of the nation which, Russell (1973) asserts, gave the group ‘a distinct historical importance’:

The man or woman who watches the skies has a particular emotional meaning for anyone from the Spanish Civil War onwards has looked up at the skies primarily as a potential source of catastrophe, and in carving this group Moore drew, whether consciously or not on the stored memories of millions. 910

906 Op. cit., Crinson, Mark. 2004, 182. Crinson asserted that this form of ‘propaganda was conveyed by several major enterprises, among them the newly created British Council (1934), the films produced under John Grierson at the Empire Marketing Board and the BBC foreign-language broadcasts’.

907 Ibid.

908 Op. cit., Miller, R. 1984, 20-24. Miller (1984) questioned if ‘is it possible meaningfully to differentiate an art with ‘national identity’ from one that is supported by a national Government for ‘reasons of state’? Ibid, 20.

909 Op. cit., Cavanagh, Terry. 2007, 288. The LCC prevaricated over the purchase of Moore’s Three Standing Figures (1948) due to its controversial critical reception, however the Contemporary Art Society’s gift was eventually accepted; the cost was reported to have been £2,000. The value of £2,000 in 1957 would have been equivalent to approximately £45,800 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

910 Russell, John Henry Moore. Middlesex: Penguin, 1973, 135–136.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 192

Inspired by Michelangelo’s sculptural musculature, Wheeler’s two humanistic figures Earth and Water (1950–53), were intended to signify the collective might and invincibility of the British people, whilst seeking to avoid a comparison with Mukhina’s Worker and Kolkhoz Woman (1937), given that Mukhina’s sculpture, inspired by the Winged Victory of Samothrace (c.2 BCE), was a political manifestation of Socialist Realism,911 figure 5.13. Aesthetically Earth and Water drew closer parallels with Hardiman’s sculptures for London’s County Hall, for example Town Planning (c.1920s), discussed in Chapter Two, figure 2.3. The ‘national projection’ of both Three Standing Figures and Earth and Water reflected the pre- and post-war characterisation of ‘Britishness’; transformed from idle to invincible.

Moreover, Earth and Water were essentially heroic figurative victors and therefore contrasted with Butler’s metal sculpture, completed the same year, for the Unknown Political Prisoner competition (1953); his work identified by Berger (1953) as ‘tolerant, uncommitted, remote, anesthetized, harmless, and therefore, in the end impertinent’ (Hadler, 1994),912 figure 5.14. Butler’s concept for the proposed three to four hundred feet ‘symbolic structure’ was ‘evolved from a figure standing opposite a grille, suggestive of a cage or prison cell, on a raised platform, like a gallows or guillotine, as if awaiting execution’ (Burstow, 2000).913 Therefore, although Marter (1994) argues that ‘post-war sculptors initially reacted to destruction and death with harrowing images in crushed iron and other metals whilst considering themes of regeneration and survival in the 1950s’, it is also necessary to consider national works which ‘reacted to destruction and death’ yet symbolised the ultimate authority of nature and captured the spirit of British defiance.914

Further, in asserting the supremacy of direct stone carving over modelling (and indeed metallurgy), Curtis (1999) concludes that ‘not only should direct carving ensure authenticity (in that the named sculptor did all the work him — or her — self), but also honesty, in that stone was revealing of every decision, whereas clay allowed endless

911 Moscow Museum. "The Worker and Kolkhoz Woman." http://moscowmanege.ru/en/the-worker-and-kolkhoz-woman-the-profile/, accessed 10 December 2017.

912 Berger, John. "The Unknown Political Prisoner." The New Statesman and Nation XLV, 21 March (1953): 337-38. Also see Hadler, Mona. "Sculpture in Postwar Europe and America, 1945-59." Art Journal 53, no. 4 (1994): 17-19.

913 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 185. Also see MacGregor, Neil. "Some Recent Sculpture Acquisitions by British Public Collections." The Burlington Magazine 122, no. 922 (1980): 83-84, 86, 89, 90, 93-94.

914 Marter, Joan. "Postwar Sculpture Re/Viewed." Art Journal 53, no. 4 (1994): 20-22.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 193 effacement and revision’.915 It was this element of ‘authenticity’ that made both Moore’s Three Standing Figures and Wheeler’s Earth and Water appropriate to a post-war period of augmented integrity. Here Moore’s and Wheeler’s newly carved smoothed surfaces were indicative of calm and order in contrast to the ‘pitted and encrusted surfaces, and scarred and distressed patinas’ of sculptures such as Butler’s and Chadwick’s that denoted the psychological trauma of war (Burstow, 2003).916 The latter, inspired by Epstein’s textured surfaces, were described for ‘the common man’ by Chesterton (1950) as ‘a disease afflicting bronze and marble’.917 Referencing the Victorian nude which Wheeler’s Earth and Water emulated, Smith (2001) describes smooth surfaces as indicative of ‘a skin whipped clean ... the sculptor removes traces of experience, placing the body outside history.’918 Moreover the Government’s decision to accept this sculpture ran counter to the trend towards increasingly ‘industrial and urban backdrops’ against which free-standing modern sculptures were displayed.919 As Fenton (2008) observes ‘it is mostly states who have sought to create, foster or harness the national identification of their citizens’.920 Fenton’s analysis of post-war Britain as having a ‘certain sense of national solidarity’ was manifest in Wheeler’s visual iconography relating to both the supremacy of nature through the Four Seasons but also to the indomitability of Britain’s Second World War victory. Consequently by extension the Ministry of Defence and Earth and Water might justly be considered ‘war art’, though far removed in ideology from ’s exhibition ‘Rebuilding Britain’ (1943) which promoted the ‘New Britain rather than the lost Eden’ (Garlake, 1998).921 Yet despite the scale and prestige of Earth and Water, neither the sculpture, nor indeed the architecture of the new Ministry of Defence warranted comment in the future- focused Architectural Review. Wheeler’s Earth and Water could also have been at risk of re-establishing Ashton’s (1946) claim that ‘in the minds of the man in the street,

915 Curtis, Penelope. Sculpture 1900-1945. Oxford University Press, 1999, 77.

916 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2003, 169.

917 Op. cit., Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. 1950, 77.

918 Smith, Alison. Exposed the Victorian Nude. London: Tate Publishing, 2001, 38.

919 Op. cit., Whiteley, Gillian. 2003, 194.

920 Fenton, Steve. "The Semi-Detached Nation: Post-Nationalism and Britain." Cycnos 25, no. 2 (2008): 245-60. Fenton (2008) identified three state constructs: i). that nations were natural and historic organisms; ii). that nations had a national character and distinct temperament exhibited by the majority of their members; iii). that individuals had a strong sense of membership of their nation and as such national identify was incorporated into their individuality.

921 Op. cit., Garlake, Margaret. 1998, 101.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 194 indeed, sculpture is generally associated with public monuments’.922 However as a statement of post-war cultural symbolism, given its placement at the Ministry of Defence, Wheeler’s sculptures transcended any maudlin public monument to become a visual act of defiance and representation of ‘Britishness’. Yet despite the Government’s attempt to ‘give art significance in national culture’ (Davies and Sinfield, 2000), viewed from a twenty-first century stance, much of Earth and Water’s auratic ‘social memory’ and coding has been lost to subsequent generations.923

Siegfried Charoux’s The Neighbours (1959)

The Labour Party Election Manifesto Let Us Face the Future (1945) promised to address the clearance of bomb damaged properties and thousands of inner city slums, ‘Housing will be one of the greatest and one of the earliest tests of a Government’s real determination to put the nation first.’924 The County of London Plan (1943), exhibited at the Royal Academy as discussed in Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’, had already identified the need for ‘neighbourhood units’ and the embellishment of public spaces, however such embellishments were identified merely as ‘Street Furniture and Advertisements’.925 The prospects for post-war sculptural commissions did not bode well, because architectural sculpture — other than for significant Government buildings as discussed — had fallen out of favour and the reconstruction of an impoverished Britain necessitated austerity buildings, which by 1955, prompted the architect Richardson PRA, to exclaim ‘they have strip-teased the buildings, nothing is left, not even the earrings’.926 Yet with the intention of enhancing some of the newly completed building sites comprised of housing estates, educational facilities, medical centres and shopping precincts, the Labour-controlled LCC introduced the new and innovative concept of bringing art into the daily lives of local residents (Pereira, 2008).927 This served two purposes, primarily to soften the severity

922 Ashton, Leigh. Style in Sculpture. London, New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1946, 6.

923 Op. cit., Sinfield, Alan, and Alistair Davies. 2013, 164. Also see Burke, Peter. Varieties of Cultural History. New York: Cornell University Press, 1997, 45 and 51. Of relevance is Burke’s discussion of ‘History as Social Memory’ especially the visual culture of ‘heroes’ and the ‘process of hero making’.

924 Op. cit., Labour. (1945). Labour Party Manifesto 1945. Housing and the Building Programme.

925 Sir Leslie Patrick Abercrombie (1879–1957) and John Henry Forshaw (1895–1973). Abercrombie, Patrick, and J. H. Forshaw. The County of London Plan. London: Macmillan, 1943. Chapter Five, Housing.

926 Richardson, A. "London Sidelights." City Press, 11 March 1955, np. RAA Press Cuttings.

927 Op. cit., Pereira, Dawn. 2008.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 195 of these municipal environments; particularly the housing estates for newly configured working class communities. Simultaneously, this public placement provided an opportunity to introduce a community to the nuanced symbolism of ‘Britishness’ as mutual trust, social cohesion and interdependence. Furthermore, in a surge of democratic ideology, Orwell’s The English People (1947) — a copy of which remains in Charoux’s personal library — together with Chesterton’s influential critique the Common Man (1950) promoted the collective and economic significance of ‘ordinary people’ in Britain’s regeneration, located as they were ‘in our own homes and environments’.928

Reinforcing the importance of ‘Britishness’ a ‘British Now’ headline carried by the London Evening Telegraph made much of the fact that the Austrian sculptor Charoux had, in fact chosen to ‘become a Briton’; despite his temporary internment, his citizenship was granted after the war.929 Whilst teaching at the Royal Academy, Charoux had encouraged his students to explore potential sites for public sculptures and was personally keen to locate suitable venues. Consequently the LCC engaged with Charoux for a ‘handpicked’ site under their Patronage of the Arts Scheme.930 The Council’s decision of 1 May 1956 had ratified ‘that a sum of £20,000 should be set aside annually to provide for the commissioning of works of art’.931 Between the scheme’s launch in 1956 and the LCC’s disbanding in 1965, the Patronage of the Arts Scheme installed over fifty works of art in various municipal venues across London. The LCC were steered in their selection of artists and artworks by the Arts Council. In a restricted memorandum W. O. Hart, the LCC’s Clerk, affirmed ‘the position of the Council in relation to the Arts Council is that of a lay body seeking advice from an expert one’,932 although their selections were to be recognisable in form and relatively

928 Op. cit., Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. 1950, 16.

929 Anon. "British Now " The Evening Telegraph, 15 November 1946, 3.

930 Op. cit., Pereira, Dawn. 2008, 19. The LCC ‘employed artists in two distinct way: firstly artists who were commissioned by Council departments to produce art works for handpicked sites through a programme known as the Patronage of the Arts Scheme. Secondly, artists were employed to embellish Council housing estates; this became known as the Design Consultant Scheme.’

931 LCC/CL/HSG/1/99. Memorandum of 13 February 1957. Patronage of the Arts Proposals for 1957-58. The value of £20,000 in 1957 would have been equivalent to approximately £458,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

932 LCC/CL/HSG/1/99. Memorandum Members only information HS 724. from LCC Clerk, W. O. Hart.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 196 conservative in theme.933 In reviewing potential artists for the Patronage of the Arts Scheme, two generations of sculptors were considered, recognised by the Arts Council as the finest resident in Britain, including amongst others: Belsky; Chadwick; Charoux; Hermes; Jonzen; Moore; Nimptsch; Soukop; Wright and Paolozzi.934 Proposed works by the latter two, Wright and Paolozzi, were eventually considered to be ‘not suitable for the [housing] estates in question’ because it was recognised that public sculpture could not be inappropriate nor ‘be spiky or people might get hurt’.935 Charoux was exceptional at that time as the only Academician commissioned by the LCC/Arts Council under the Patronage of the Arts Scheme which may be attributable to his prior engagements with the LCC/Arts Council, having exhibited Standing Man (1940–41) at the ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ (1948) and The Islanders (1951) at the Festival of Britain,936 figure 5.15. Therefore Charoux was aware of the type of sculpture that would prove acceptable when chosen by the divergent preferences of LCC and Arts Council representatives: abstract but not too extreme, identifiably humanistic in theme and proportional to public placement. Significantly he had also established a reputation for figurative sculptures dressed in working clothes to which ordinary men and women could relate; as exemplar, The Pedestrian (1951).937

In March 1958 the Housing Committee wrote to Charoux acknowledging the commission of ‘a group consisting of two seated male figures in cemented iron and that your fee for this would be £1,200’; this contract was for The Neighbours (1959).938 Significantly underestimating the potential cost of their patronage, the LCC had

933 LCC’s successor the Greater London Council chose to discontinue the patronage schemes, accordingly the artworks chosen came to represent a unique period in British art history when sculptures were installed in a variety of public spaces in London. Regrettably remarkably few have survived. Also see Salter, Jessica. "From Henry Moore to Pop-up Pools: The Rise of Public Art." The Daily Telegraph, 17 February 2018, 4-5.

934 Franta Belsky (1921–2000), Karin Jonzen (1914–1998), Uli Nimptsch (1897–1977), Willi Soukop (1907–1995).

935 Op. cit., Pereira, Dawn. 2008, 96-97.

936 The Islanders — Charoux’s best known sculpture — though criticised in the art journal Apollo as overtly representative of Socialist Realism — was an iconic representation of the stoicism of Britain, emblematic of the interdependence of a family as father, mother and child those unity simultaneously conveyed solidarity against past troubles and looked towards a promising future.

937 Veasey, Melanie. "The Pedestrian." https://chronicle250.com/1951, accessed 31 May 2018.

938 LCC/CL/HSG/1/99. Letter of 31 March 1958 from the LCC Clerk, W. O. Hart to Siegfried Charoux. The value of £1,200 in 1958 would have been equivalent to approximately £27,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 197 initially budgeted £750 for this commission; however it is possible that as an Academician Charoux’s fee was higher than that of non-Academicians, thus perpetuating the enhanced pricing model that had been established between the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibitions and the Arts Council’s ‘Sculpture in the Home’ discussed in Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’.939 Originally titled Resting People (1957), Charoux first presented a maquette for The Neighbours in an illustrated article titled ‘Forgotten Sculpture’ that he wrote for Art Quarterly in the Autumn of 1957.940 For this reason it may be assumed that Charoux had already resolved this maquette some six months before his proposal to the LCC in March 1958. Charoux’s benefactor and close friend David Astor later gifted an edition of this maquette to the Henry Moore Institute, after then Director, Penelope Curtis, met with Astor in July 1996.941 In the Maquette for The Neighbours the influence of Moore’s curvaceous and pierced form is evident as exemplified by works such as Reclining Figure (1951) exhibited at the Festival of Britain (1951), figures 5.16 and 5.17. Moore’s fluidity of form, so clearly apparent in Charoux’s maquette, would certainly have resonated with both the LCC and the Arts Council representatives because Moore was a member of the latter.942 However Charoux’s own oeuvre offered traces of his motivation. As early as the 1930s, as an established artist he had won the commission for a frieze of working people above the Zürcher-Hof arcade in Vienna, Austria. This panel, the Fries der Arbeit (Frieze of Work), illustrated Charoux’s comfortable interpretation of an urbanised scene depicting ordinary working people. Garlake (2004) observes that Fries der Arbeit ‘forms a direct link to his post-war work in London’, particularly the façade figures of St. Swithin’s House,943 figure 5.18. Furthermore, the architects for St. Swithin’s House, Gunton and Gunton, had also commissioned Charoux to undertake the two sculptures of Family (1953); a mother and father both holding a young child. These sculptures were placed atop the two pillars flanking The War Memorial (1916) originally raised by public subscriptions at

939 LCC/CL/HSG/1/99. Memorandum of 13 February 1957, Patronage of the Arts Proposal 1957–58.

940 Charoux, Siegfried. "Forsake Sculpture." Art Quarterly (British) 1, no. 2 (Autumn 1957): 68-69.

941 HMI Accession file for Charoux: Maquette for the Neighbours, Penelope Curtis (1996) file note. Also see HMI Accession file for Charoux: Condition Report for the Maquette for The Neighbours (1959) assessed by Laura Davies, 14 January 2016.

942 LCC/CL/HSG/1/99. Memorandum Members only information HS 724. from W. O. Hart, LCC Clerk. The Arts Council representatives were: Lord Cottislow, Sir William Coldstream, Professor Sir Leslie Martin, Henry Moore and Mr Gabriel White.

943 Garlake, Margaret. "A Minor Language? Three Émigré Sculptors and Their Strategies of Assimilation." In Artists in Exile in Britain 1933-1945: Politics and Cultural Identity, edited by S. Behr and M. Malet, 167-200. New York: Rodopi, 2004.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 198

Exchange Buildings, Liverpool,944 figure 5.19. From Family Charoux exhibited Mother and Child (1955) and Father and Child (1955) at the Academy’s Summer Exhibition in 1955.945 The origins of Family (1953) shared remarkably similar attributes with Charoux’s characterisation of a mother, father and child for The Islanders (1951) exhibited at the Festival of Britain; both sculptures rendering a stoic, humanistic and egalitarian portrayal of a post-war family.

Drawing upon the wider influences of Charoux’s peers, his inspiration for The Neighbours may have included the work of fellow Academician Dobson whose iconic London Pride (1951), figure 5.20, Charoux would undoubtedly have seen at the Festival of Britain. As a socially relevant motif, Dobson’s public work presented the figures of two young women facing each other and engaged in conversation. Though physically separated by the deliberate space between their torsos, these torsos in turn abstract as columns serving to frame this sculpture as an intimate and potentially exclusive conversation. As nudes, however, Dobson’s figures lacked the social definition which clothing or drapery may have presented. Both Dobson and Charoux were known to have admired and emulated the sculptures of Maillol who had been fêted by the French Government. In his unpublished autobiography Dobson wrote that Maillol was ‘the first sculptor in Europe for several hundred years to realise that sculpture could be supremely beautiful, by just being - sculpture. He saw that it need not tell a story.’946 Yet both Dobson’s London Pride and Charoux’s The Neighbours are works upon which a very human narrative might be projected. In scale, Charoux had proved with The Neighbours (1959) that he was capable of creating public sculpture which did not rely upon the exaggerated aesthetic of Socialist Realism — a criticism of The Islanders (1951) — because the completed sculpture was wholly appropriate and proportional to its residential location.

In the final rendering of The Neighbours (1959), all traces of Moore’s influence receded. Prior to its installation, the fully realised sculpture of The Neighbours was exhibited at the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition in 1959 because, whilst the sculpture had been completed by March of that year, the Council’s brick plinth had not

944 Historic England. "Exchange Buildings, Liverpool." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1245031, accessed 9 December 2017.

945 RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1955, listing number 1297, Mother and Child (1955) and listing number 1301, Father and Child (1955).

946 HMI. Frank Dobson/1999.10. Box 2. Dobson, Frank. (nd) Unpublished notes for an autobiography.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 199 yet been designed and built.947 However permission to exhibit was only granted on the understanding that Charoux accepted ‘full responsibility for its safety’ and that the LCC did not incur any extra expense.948 The Neighbours was installed on the Highbury Estate in Islington.949 Draped in a British Union Jack flag The Neighbours was finally unveiled on 16 October 1959, located on a central lawn known as the Quadrant, figure 5.21.

Charoux had therefore completely rejected the abstract aesthetic of his original maquette and the full-sized sculpture of The Neighbours presented a wholly realistic caricature of two young men, although the identities of these models are not known. Their brows deeply furrowed, dressed in working clothes, the sleeves of their unbuttoned shirts are rolled back to convey the dynamism of their recent labours; they seemingly converse at the end of their working day. As Pereira (2008) observes this simplicity of form makes the group ‘readable’.950 Thus The Neighbours was emblematic of community spirit, whilst it also acknowledged the daily labours of individual working citizens. Ultimately, as a civic focal point the sculpture encouraged a moment of visual stimulation and distraction from the residents’ daily toils, whilst subtly reinforcing British values, although humorously, local children playfully christened the sculpture ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’.951 As one of my supervisors, Julia Kelly, has commented, the reason for this moniker may have been because of the popular 1953 film Abbot and Costello Meet Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Critical reception of The Neighbours was favourable when shown at the Royal Academy’s Summer Exhibition in 1959 where Observer journalists noted that Charoux’s current problem ‘is to adapt modern working dress to sculpture’, adding ‘he’s certainly got a feeling for men who work with their hands at dirty jobs’.952

947 LCC/CL/1/99. Council Order HO/R78/IV, 28 March 1959. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1959, listing number 1448, The Neighbours (1959).

948 LCC/CL/1/99. Council Order HO/R78/IV, 28 March 1959.

949 London Parks and Gardens Trust. "Highbury Quadrant Estate." http://www.londongardenson-line.org/gardens-on-line-record.asp?ID=ISL037, accessed 7 May 2017. The Highbury Estate was one of the largest of the London estates, providing six hundred and eleven dwellings in forty blocks of four and five storeys which replaced the bomb damaged Victorian terraces that had been demolished. Also see Saint, Andrew. London Suburbs. London: Merrell Holberton Publishers, , 1999, Introduction.

950 Op. cit., Pereira, Dawn. 2008, 99.

951 Anon. "Bogyman for City Tories, Unveiling in Islington’." The Guardian, 16 September 1959, 8.

952 Anon. "Savouries and Sweets." The Observer 3 May 1959, 18.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 200

Setting Charoux’s sculpture in context with other works commissioned under the Patronage of the Arts Scheme, Lesson (1959) by Belsky, a charming depiction of a mother and child generated a mixed response on whether this was money well spent for the Bethnal Green estate.953 Later installations included Neighbourly Encounter (1961) by Nimptsch installed on the Silwood Estate in Lewisham where some residents also grumbled about art as a waste of money in conflict with the more pressing needs of Britain’s regeneration.954 Neighbourly Encounter and other missing public sculptures of the period are currently the subject of a national search led by Historic England to relocate their whereabouts. Curiously these works were created by émigré sculptors and reflected a ‘national projection’ assimilated by their outsider observations of ‘Britishness’.

In considering The Neighbours’ legacy, importantly the Maquette for the Neighbours was recently loaned to Historic England for Out There: Our Post-War Public Art exhibition at Somerset House in 2016 as evocative of the dawning age of public sculpture.955 Achieving a Grade II listing on 15 April 1998, The Neighbours was described as ‘a strong and humane representation that well suits its setting, and demonstrating the range of the LCC’s patronage’.956 The Neighbours had fallen into disrepair by the beginning of the twenty-first century due to erosion from the elements and the paint residue of graffiti. Remarkably it became a ‘rare example of successful community-led campaign’ when residents petitioned for its restoration.957 The Neighbours was restored by Rupert Harris Conservation Ltd.958 Details of the restoration enable us to understand the construction of The Neighbours as a wire armature covered with ‘cement, then layered with a powdered iron synthetic resin and

953 Parkin, Leonard. "Franta Belsky Sculpture Unveiled in Bethnal Green 1959." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz2GY-pGF7k, accessed 9 May 2017.

954 Silwood Video Group. "David Grist Narrative." http://www.spectacle.co.uk/projects_page.php?id=280, accessed 8 May 2017. Also see Cockayne, E. Cheek by Jowl: A History of Neighbours. London: The Bodley Head, 2012, 155–156.

955 HMI Accession file for Charoux: Maquette for the Neighbours.

956 Historic England. "The Neighbours (1959)." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1031596, accessed 6 May 2017. The Neighbours (1959), listing number TQ3224986131.

957 Gadelrab, R. "Estate Pleads: Save Our Statue, Islington Tribune, 8 December 2008." http://www.thecnj.com/islington/2008/121208/inews121208_06.html, accessed 15 May 2017.

958 RHCL. "Rupert Harris Conservation Limited." https://rupertharris.com/collections/sculpture-and-monuments, accessed 6 May 2017.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 201 an aggregate of crushed marble’.959 The sculpture had a ‘faux terracotta appearance ... Fibreglass matting added to the resin and a steel armature give the material its structural strength’.960 These materials, particularly the fibreglass, would have been considered innovative at the time The Neighbours was created. Celebrating its return and the fiftieth anniversary of its installation The Neighbours sculpture was ‘covered in brown paper and unwrapped by children’ as part of a fun day in honour of the sculpture’s return on Sunday, 6 September 2009.961 Almost sixty years later The Neighbours had achieved the LCC’s purpose of visually enhancing the environment and conveying a nuanced symbolism of ‘Britishness’, whilst becoming integral with the community.

Paradoxically, the state-sponsored symbolic figurative forms offered by Wheeler’s Earth and Water and by Charoux’s The Neighbours may read as a more identifiable national representation of ‘Britishness’ than the work of the group of sculptors constructed by the British Council for the international Venice Biennale (1952) who had ‘peopled the wasteland with their iron waifs’ (Read, 1952).962 Despite Read having identified Moore’s relationship to these new sculptors as ‘the parent of them all’, Moore was perhaps closer in origin and inspiration to Wheeler and Charoux than the ‘geometry of fear’ generation in whose work little ‘Britishness’ may be deciphered; notwithstanding that the stimulation for all of these sculptors had been the Second World War.963 The Venice Biennale could, as Bernardini (2009) surmises, be interpreted as ‘state driven and state orientated expression ... [influenced] ... by political parties and ideological pressures’.964 Although rather than addressing state influence, Louchheim’s (1954) frank assessment of the purpose of the international biennales was that of ‘dollar diplomacy’.965 Consequently the sheer eclecticism of post-

959 Anon. "What Happens Next - the Neighbours Restoration ". Icon News: Institute of Conservation, no. 36 (September 2011): 4-6.

960 Op. cit., RHCL. "Rupert Harris Conservation Limited." 2017.

961 Gadelrab, R. "Birthday Treat for the Neighbours, 4 September 2009." http://www.thecnj.com/islington/2009/090409/inews090409_16.html, accessed 6 May 2017.

962 Op. cit., Read, Herbert. 1952.

963 Ibid.

964 Bernardini, Paolo. "Politics and Painting at the Venice Biennale, 1948-64: Italy and the Idea of Europe". edited by Nancy Jachec, 237-38. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.

965 Louchheim, Aline B. "Cultural Diplomacy: An Art We Neglect." The New York Times, 3 January 1954, SM16.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 202 war British art and British state patronage clearly eschewed ‘the consensus tradition’ that Brighton (1981) had attributed to the choices of the pre-war ‘British ruling class’.966

In the same year that The Neighbours sculpture was exhibited at the Royal Academy and installed at Highbury Quadrant, the Royal Academy exhibited a spectacular international ‘Exhibition of Works by Russian and Soviet Art’ (1959).967 The Russian exhibition may have afforded British citizens a unique opportunity to reflect upon the stark contrast between the ‘dead hand of official [Russian] art patronage’ with the ‘intellectual chaos’ that the breadth of British art and specifically British state patronage presented through its multifarious channels.968 Newton (1950) had speculated on the nature of Russian art patronage that:

some of the “welfarest” of modern states consider it extremely “un-welfare” to allow any of their children to move an inch beyond the parental front door. The front door, seen from the outside, is an iron curtain, but regarded from the inside it consists of prison bars’.969

Newton’s narrative came prior to the revelations of the ultimate betrayal of ‘Britishness’ by the Cambridge Five: Blunt; Burgess; Cairncross; Maclean and Philby.970 Doubtless

966 Op. cit., Brighton, Andrew. 1981, 35-43. Also see Editorial. "'I Collect, Therefore I Am' - Simon Sainsbury." The Burlington Magazine 150, no. 1265 (2008): 511. Alternatively, wealthy post-war merchants such as Simon Sainsbury (1930–2006) amassed important modern art collections, his bequest with the exception of one work, represented a survey of the artwork of the 1950s. The collection is located at the Sainsbury’s Centre for Visual Arts at the University of East Anglia.

967 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 16 April 1956, 161. The idea for a Russian Exhibition may be traced to a letter from the Arts Council inquiring whether the Royal Academy would be willing to host the exhibition from 25 January to 2 March 1957. The decision was deferred until members of the Arts Council could validate the quality of the proposed artefacts. The British Council became involved and it took several years and Wheeler’s persistence before the 1959 exhibition was held.

968 Editorial. "Soviet Painting at the Royal Academy." The Burlington Magazine 101, no. 671 (1959): 43. Also see Anon. "The Venice Biennale: Wanted - a Patron." The Manchester Guardian, 24 August 1950, 4. As early as 1950 the Manchester Guardian’s Rome correspondent noted that ‘Today there is one patron of modern art who knows exactly what it wants and orders it. The Communist party orders the art it wants.’

969 Op. cit., Newton, Eric. 1950, 29-43.

970 Pierce, Andrew, and Stephen Adams. "Anthony Blunt Confessions of a Spy Who Passed Secrets to Russia During the War." The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5889879/Anthony-Blunt-confessions-of-spy- who-passed-secrets-to-Russia-during-the-war.html, accessed 28 December 2017. Anthony Blunt (1907–1983) was Keeper of the King’s, and then, the Queen’s pictures (1945–72) and was frequently employed as a connoisseur and lecturer for exhibitions by the RAA; Blunt was offered immunity from prosecution after being denounced as a traitor in Parliament by Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013). Guy Burgess (1911–63), defected in 1951. John Cairncross (1913–95), confessed 1964.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 203 then the Royal Academy’s hoisting of ‘a whole row of red flags complete with hammer and sickle’ in the midst of a political Cold War may have unnerved the ‘disconcerted’.971 Indeed such was the 1950s threat of a further outbreak of war that the Royal Academy and other London art institutions had made arrangements with the National Trust and owners of stately homes for the emergency storage of their collections outside the metropolis.972 However Gardner, Nicholls and White (2012) offer the ‘other possibility of seeing the Cold War as a period of cross-cultural cosmopolitan exchange rather than unilateralism, soft power, or reactionary anti-Americanism’.973

Yet the persistent dialogue concerning the liberty of artistic licence, state patronage and the extent to which national collections could, or should, be standardised was perhaps best captured by predominantly modernist writers of an open ‘Memorandum Regarding the National Art Collections Bill’ (1954). They asserted ‘we would oppose the view that there is an established standard of aesthetic value, which can be imposed ex cathedra’.974 Hence the liberalism afforded British artists and émigrés, across the diverse facets of the state’s patronage of sculpture for the nation, was essential to evade the ‘dead hand’ of officialdom; even if as Newton (1950) asserted, ‘these works of art are the property of the impersonal “it” and not of the personal “we”’.975

The arguments and empirical evidence that I have presented throughout this chapter have demonstrated that the domain of post-war state patronage was complex, opaque and frequently problematic though it must be expanded from that facilitated purely by Arts Council initiatives.

The Royal Academy and its sculptors continued to contribute to London’s leading exhibitions, state buildings and cityscape, therefore Burstow’s (2000) conclusion that

Donald Maclean (1913–83), defected in 1951. Kim Philby (1912–88), defected 1963.

971 Reddy, G. K. "Russian Art Show in U.K. - Red Flags Puzzle Londoners." The Times of India, 1 January 1959, 7.

972 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 13 October 1950, 421. On behalf of the RAA, Professor Plenderleith was responsible for inspecting premises suitable for art storage, ensuring climatic controls, fire prevention arrangements and insurance details.

973 Gardner, A. M. Nicholls, and A. White. "Cold War Cultures and Globalisation." Third Text 26, no. 2 (2012): 205-15.

974 Barlow, Thomas et al. "Memorandum Regarding the National Art Collections Bill." The Burlington Magazine 96, no. 610 (1954): 5-6.

975 Op. cit., Newton, Eric. 1950, 29-43.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 204 state patronage afforded by the Arts Council ‘surpassed the efforts of the Royal Academy to transform itself into the prime populist institution of British art’976 may be considered problematic because ‘state patronage’ might reasonably be expanded to include the Royal Academy itself, as argued by Pearson (1982) and discussed in Chapter One, ‘The Post-war Expansion of State patronage’. Public bequests such as the Chantrey Collection were exhibited at state art institutions; architectural sculpture commissioned by the Government for the Ministry of Works and Buildings for structures of ‘national importance’ and the LCC’s/Arts Council’s local efforts to urbanise regenerated public spaces prove this assertion. Additionally, as established in Chapter Four, ‘The Royal Academy Summer Exhibitions’, during the 1950s the Royal Academy remained the ‘prime populist’ institution of British art retaining the interest and attendance of the majority, meeting the aspirations of amateur artists and offering a classless accessibility for all. Ultimately, though this association with state sponsorship for public sculpture brought an inherently entrenched obligation to manifest the visual propaganda of ‘Britishness’.

The ‘battle for realism’977 between the Royal Academy as procurer and the Tate Gallery as the Government’s designated display gallery for the Chantrey Collection had been brought to a crisis when Rothenstein refused to accept Lambert’s sculpture of Fonteyn (1956). Treasury intervention resolved this matter and the Tate was granted a right of refusal; whilst close collaboration between the Royal Academy and the Tate Gallery’s Recommending Committee representatives was encouraged even by Churchill. Further, questions originally raised by the Selection Committee in 1904 addressing the Royal Academy’s alleged favouring of artworks by soon to be elected Associates for the Chantrey Collection, remained pertinent post-war. Analysis of empirical data for Chantrey purchases made during the period 1948–1958 of works by Machin, Charoux, Spencer, Lowry and Nimptsch confirmed the continuation of the custom of favouring of the work of those soon to be elected, see Appendix 5.1. Chantrey Acquisitions – Sculpture and selected Paintings, 1946–1959.

Yet, despite this privileging of Royal Academy choices, the procured works were displayed by the Tate Gallery although subsequent to Rothenstein’s veto they were loaned to other public galleries. Rothenstein’s insistence on differentiating as modern the Tate’s collection from other London art institutions had the consequence of reinforcing perceptions of the Royal Academy as antiquated. However, as Rothenstein

976 Op. cit., Burstow, Robert. 2000, 223.

977 Op. cit Hyman, James. 2001.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 205 observed (1966) ‘the cohesion of the complex interest that constituted the ‘establishment’ had been weakened; the authority of its mainstay, the Royal Academy, had conspicuously diminished but it still exerted a far from negligible influence’.978 Importantly, however, the Chantrey Collection’s inclusion of works of art executed in Britain as ‘British art’ as opposed to the narrower definition of works completed by ‘British artists’ facilitated a more considered understanding of ‘Britishness’ which ultimately included works completed by émigrés including Charoux and Nimptsch; and even the radical Epstein.

Beyond sculptures acquired for the public via the Chantrey Collection, the Academicians also availed themselves of the broader interpretation of state patronage for state sculpture. The Ministry of Works and Buildings undertaking of a new Ministry of Defence (1946) afforded Wheeler the opportunity to adorn Harris’s Ministry edifice with the monumental Earth and Water (1950–53). Such was the significance of this strategic military headquarters that Earth and Water was immediately bestowed with the war-forged national portrayal of heroism that differed greatly from the national characteristics attributed to the ‘idle’ pre-war leisured classes. Consequently, although the aesthetics of these figurative sculptures were retrospective in their interpretation of a Michelangelo-esque magnitude or an acknowledgement of Mukhina’s Socialist Realism, their characterisation of ‘Britishness’ symbolised a ‘national projection’ of post-war power and invincibility.

Charoux further explored the medium of sculpture for a civic representation of the ‘ordinary man’ when commissioned by the LCC to undertake The Neighbours (1959) for the Highbury Quadrant. This sculpture marked an important transformation in the style of sculpture selected for urban locations because it was evocative of local residents whilst subtly reinforcing the British values that the LCC sought to promote. Illustrating two men as human in scale; industrious in endeavour; stoic in attitude; modestly dressed as working class; physically mutually dependent and proximally co-located, Charoux’s sculpture was a remarkably different and more intimate elucidation of ‘national projection’ created specifically for a community audience far removed from the nationalism of Government buildings or the international and cosmopolitan populous of the Venice Biennales.

Ultimately, these of state patronage: procurement for a national collection and display in a state owned art institution; the bespoke embellishment of a

978 Op. cit., Rothenstein, John. 1966, 2.

Chapter Five - Sculpture for the State Page 206

Government building and commissioned work for a community space, have revealed a variety of state benefactions and breadth of purpose. They have also demonstrated the visual manifestation and significance of ‘Britishness’ essential for state patronage as relevant to placement and audience. Consequently, I assert that rather than being marginalised by the ascendancy of post-war state patronage, the work of Royal Academy sculptors was selected for national appreciation and ‘national projection’ because of the integration of Academicians with the people, protocols and practices in all facets of state patronage.

Epilogue Page 207

Epilogue

This thesis has proposed an alternative and meaningful reading of the agency of sculptors of the Royal Academy at a time when state patronage and, in particular, the Arts Council’s agenda to promote the sculpture of the most modern artists may have marginalised their labours. I have focused upon sculptural activities where state and monarchical patronage intersected: pedagogy, community, exhibition practice and the procurement of sculpture for the state. In so doing I have systematically analysed archival and empirical data and my findings necessitate the re-appraisal of the accepted critical narrative that the Royal Academy was outmoded and irrelevant during the 1950s.

The public debate concerning state patronage and modern art — particularly modern sculpture — arose from the need to support emergent artists and to present Britain to its domestic and international audiences as progressive, vibrant and charismatic; in summary, as youthful. Therefore post-war state patronage evolved on two levels, the most overt being in its earliest incarnations as the WAAC and CEMA, legitimised in 1946 as the Arts Council, a permanent source of cultural support for artists, or more accurately, selected artists of a new generation whose innovation was intended to project modern sensibilities untainted by antiquated associations. Butler and Chadwick in particular were beneficiaries.

The second, less familiar form of state patronage concerned the Government’s intervention with state art institutions including, amongst others, the Royal College of Arts, where a national programme of industrial design rather than fine arts was mandated for the purpose of manufacturing modern products that would increase the impoverished nation’s export economy. This divergence of sculptural pedagogy at a time when all art institutions sought to re-open and re-establish their educational mandates resulted in a polarising of political and cultural purpose. Further, the austerity of London’s regeneration building programme, so obvious to Academicians from the exhibited architectural models displayed each year at the Summer Exhibition, deprived sculptors of the architectural commissions that had previously been a mainstay of their earnings. This diversity was further emphasised by the recruitment of modernist designers, many of whom had participated in the Festival of Britain (1951) for example Casson and Black, to state art institutions whilst the Royal Academy continued to employ Academicians as Masters of the Royal Academy’s Sculpture School. However the Royal Academy’s election of a number of European émigrés, notably Charoux, Nimptsch and Soukop, liberalised the Royal Academy’s curriculum

Epilogue Page 208 sufficiently to inform technical aspects of practice which benefited later generations of sculptors including Caro and Martin. Notwithstanding these differences, both the Royal Academy and state institutions prepared their students for the prestigious Prix de Rome competition which required a traditional representation of sculpture; both vied for annual supremacy and the opportunity for the winning student to attend the independent British School at Rome.

My primary research into the Royal Academy’s archives has revealed the extent to which the London art community, especially the intimate côteries of sculptors, was inter-connected by the complex layering of shared histories as apprentices, at art schools, through their ‘membership overlap’ with smaller art societies such as the Royal Society of British Sculptors and more broadly by the collective experience of émigrés seeking to re-establish their professional practice and, importantly, the sponsorship of the neglected cadre of women sculptors. It must also be remembered that the talented individuals who created the artworks, organised exhibitions, joined selection panels, curated displays, acted as trustees and ultimately recommended works for procurement for public collections formed a robust partisan network. Such intertwined personal and professional relationships therefore made it impossible for any form of patronage — monarchical, private or state — to operate to the absolute exclusion of the others. Therefore past perceptions of the Academicians as distanced from any form of participation with state patronage may be considered as problematic.

The strength of this networks led to the nomination of those perceived as modernist including Paolozzi and Frink. Remarkably and perhaps unexpectedly, the desire to accept nomination and election as an Academician, which would sustain the Royal Academy as a prestigious artistic community, continued to resonate with later generations, although some sculptors’ desire for affiliation would perhaps have surprised their younger selves who would have considered the Royal Academy an anathema to their independent ideology and experimental sculptural practice. The Diploma Works, submitted to the Royal Academy by generations of sculptors upon their promotion from Associate to Academician, offered an unprecedented survey of sculpture’s evolution during the post-war period and revealed the extent to which they trace the gendered and aesthetic influences of the period.

Additionally I have established that, with reference to exhibition practice, the Art Council’s exhibitions including: the ‘Picasso-Matisse’ Exhibition at the VAM (1945–46) and the first ‘Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture’ (1948) and the ICA’s ‘Forty Years of Modern Art’ (1948) and ‘Forty Thousand Years of Modern Art’ (1948–1949), provoked

Epilogue Page 209 a formal petition for change from the more liberal Associates and Academicians via the Royal Academy’s General Assembly to the Royal Academy’s Council. Amendments were sought to open the Royal Academy to the influence of modern art and a request made for the representation of Associates on the Selection and Hanging Committees for the Summer Exhibition; these appeals undoubtedly led to a cautious modernising of the Summer Exhibitions. Munnings’s response became mythologised; however, my re- evaluation of his Annual Dinner Speech of 1949 identifies an alternative understanding of his motivations and frustration with some Associates and Academicians, particularly the sculptors for their willingness to engage with modern art and specifically with the Arts Council. Munnings’s successors as PRAs, specifically Kelly and Wheeler progressed the petitioned changes.

Conceptually the segregated channels of private and state patronage should have offered the work of different sculptors to diverse audiences. However, in considering the sculptors’ exhibition practice I have demonstrated that, beyond the few avant- garde sculptors favoured by the Arts Council, the works of those who were more conventional were also keenly exhibited by the Arts Council and purchased by a largely conservative public. Indeed I have established that the works of many of the same sculptors were exhibited by the Royal Academy at the annual Summer Exhibitions and also simultaneously by the Arts Council at exhibitions such as the ‘Sculpture in the Home’ series; the only differential being the premium price achieved for works purchased at Burlington House.

As an exhibition space Burlington House remained the pre-eminent metropolitan gallery by reason of its lack of significant bomb damage, its superior top-lit galleries and the Royal Academy’s easy accessibility, centrally located on Piccadilly. All social classes were democratically welcomed to the Royal Academy particularly those amateur artists who submitted their work for the Summer Exhibitions. Consequently I have demonstrated that the ethos of the Royal Academy was genuinely egalitarian in contrast to that of the Arts Council where an intellectualised — highbrow — approach and narrower selection of artists prevailed. This understanding contradicts the art- historical narrative of the Royal Academy as ‘elitist’ and only relevant to members of the upper class and the aristocracy, and the Arts Council as being democratic when in reality its contemporary exhibitions, especially those of the ICA, appealed to a few modern art connoisseurs and leftish intellectuals. The Royal Academy was further popularised by Kelly’s appealingly rakish commentaries when the Summer Exhibitions were broadcast by the BBC from 1956 onwards, following a notable national increase in

Epilogue Page 210 the number of televisions which had initially been commoditised by Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953.

One aspect of my research that yielded remarkable findings was a rigorous assessment of the Royal Academy’s Annual Dinner folios, and scrutiny of the guest lists, seating plans, preparatory notes and the Keynote and PRAs’s speeches, which laid bare the extent to which the Royal Academy utilised this event with the calculation and sophisticated precision of a political instrument; perhaps rivalled only by the British Council’s international cultured soft-diplomacy. Despite the Royal Academy’s avowed apolitical stance, this high profile event hosted international Ambassadors and Ministers, and the leading art executives of competitive London-based art institutions. Therefore I have made explicit that the post-war public spats relating to modern art were wholly professional; in private the friendships that sustained the art world continued unscathed despite some art critics’ industrious efforts to destabilise them. Unsurprisingly these critics, including Alloway, Bone, Newton, Read and Sylvester, remained uninvited dinner guests.

Wheeler’s three and a half years as a member of the Arts Council prior to his resignation in 1955 over the state-sponsored Giacometti exhibition and his subsequent appointment as PRA in 1956, a post to which he was repeatedly elected by his fellow Academicians until 1966, rendered him the ideal candidate to facilitate the ‘New Look’ Summer Exhibition in 1958 which accommodated modern art within the ‘citadel’. This concession paved the way for the Royal Academy to connect with subsequent generations of artists and audiences and thus to remain relevant to the youth culture of the 1960s and beyond. Caro’s ‘New Generation’ followed by the Arts Council’s ‘New British Sculpture’ in the 1980s and the highly controversial ‘Sensation’ (1997) exhibition hosted by the Royal Academy on behalf of the Saatchi Collection have all been debuts for modern artists; some of whom including Bill Woodrow, Antony Gormley, Tracey Emin and others were elected as Academicians.979

Constitutionally, the Massey Committee’s review of the identity and differentiation of state art institutions resulted in the Royal Assent (1954) which affirmed the Tate Gallery as an independent institution freed from the governance and oversight of the

979 Bill Woodrow RA elected as a sculptor 2002. RAA. "Bill Woodrow RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/bill- woodrow-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Antony Gormley RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/antony- gormley-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Tracey Emin RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/tracey-emin- ra, accessed 17 May 2018.

Epilogue Page 211

National Gallery and therefore at liberty to pursue a distinctive character. Yet the Royal Academy’s administration of the Chantrey Bequest and its procurement of artworks for mandated display at the Tate Gallery undermined this individuality. Consequently Rothenstein’s refusal to accept Lambert’s Dame Margot Fonteyn de Arias (1956) as a Chantrey acquisition, because aesthetically the sculpture did not accord with the Tate’s modernist policy, liberated the Tate Gallery from its obligation to accept artworks selected from the Summer Exhibitions. The Chantrey Bequest had long been a contentious public gift and the subject of Parliamentary review in 1903–4 which raised a number of questions pertaining to the interpretation of Chantrey’s intention. In referencing these questions I have established the extent to which in the intervening years the Royal Academy modified its procedures particularly with regard to a definition of British artists and a more inclusive interpretation of British art. Empirical analysis of the Chantrey acquisitions made during the post-war period revealed the Royal Academy’s bias towards those who were, or were soon to be, elected Associates.

Ultimately, however, after the war the Academicians’ public sculptures afforded the opportunity for powerful representations, as manifested by Wheeler’s victoriously defiant Earth and Water (1950–1953) commissioned by the Ministry of Defence and Charoux’s shrewdly observed representation of the ‘common man’ for The Neighbours (1959) commissioned by the LCC under the Patronage of the Arts Scheme. Though thematically diverse, both of these sculptures were executed by men who had the relevant practical training, mastery of materials and a fundamentally visionary interpretation of ‘Britishness’ through which to convey British values.

In summary, the extensive archival research upon which I have drawn has revealed the extent to which British patronage of the arts was transformed during the 1950s, and that, whilst as a legal entity the Royal Academy’s apolitical stance prevented it from directly confronting nascent state patronage, individually and collectively the sculptors of the Royal Academy established ways in which they too could fully participate with and benefit Keynesian state patronage. Therefore I have proven that various sculptors of the Royal Academy were not marginalised by the ascendancy of state patronage but utilised the opportunities that this new channel of support afforded their pedagogy, community, exhibition practice and provision of sculpture for the state. Ultimately, I have established that the Royal Academy and its sculptors were crucial to the discourse of state patronage during the post-war period.

Appendices Page 212

Appendices

Appendix 1.1 Summary Biographies

Reg Butler (1913–1981)

British sculptor; studied architecture; ARIBA 1937; practised architecture and industrial technology 1936-50. Conscientious object during WW2 worked as blacksmith; technical editor for Architectural Press 1946-50; assistant to Moore 1947–48; first solo exhibition at Hanover Gallery 1949; taught at 1950; Gregory Fellowship at Leeds University 1950-3; winner of UPPC 1953.

Lynn Russell Chadwick (1914–2003)

British sculptor, mobiles & ‘stabiles’; trained as architects’ draughtsman; conscientious objector during WW2 then served as a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm 1941-44; first solo exhibition Gimpels Fils 1949; BP51;VB52; VB56 lead sculptor; purchased Lypiatt Park 1958; CBE 1964; retired 1995, SRA 2001;

Siegfried Joseph Charoux (1896–1967)

Austrian (French parents), artist and figurative sculptor; served in the Austrian Army in the Great War; studied at the Viennese Akademie der Bildenden Künste (Academy of Sculpture) 1922-24; London émigré 1935, naturalised 1946; exhibited at the RAA from 1940–68, ARA 1949, RA 1956, FRBS. Charoux was a derivation of his mother’s family name, used as a play upon words for his early career left-wing cartoon pseudonym Chat Roux (Red Cat).

Baron Clark - Kenneth Mackenzie Clark (1903–1983)

British art historian, author, broadcaster, collector, museum director; studied Italian Renaissance at Trinity College, Oxford, 1922-6. Keeper of Art, 1931-3, Surveyor of the King’s Pictures 1934-44; Director of the National Gallery 1934-45; Controller of Home Publicity, Ministry of Information, 1939-41; Chairman WAAC 1939-46; Trustee Tate Gallery 1934-40, 1940-7; Chairman of the Arts Council Art Panel 1945-53; Chairman of the Arts Council 1953-60; editor Penguin Modern Painters series 1943-59, Slade Professor of Fine Arts, Oxford 1946-50 and 1961-2. Presented BBC’s Civilisation 1969. KCB 1938; CH 1959; Peerage 1969; OM 1977.

Sir William Reid Dick (1879–1961)

British (Scottish) figurative sculptor; apprenticed to a stone mason; studied Glasgow School of Fine Arts 1907; C&G School of Art, Kennington; army service in the Great War; exhibited RAA from 1908 and the Paris Salon; ARA 1921, RA 1928; Trustee of the Tate Gallery; Chairman of the Olympic Games Sculpture Sub-Committee 1948; Sculptor to King George VI 1938-52; Queen’s Sculptor in Ordinary for Scotland 1952-61; KCVO 1935.

Frank Owen Dobson (1888–1963)

British figurative sculptor, draughtsman and water colourist; studied at Leyton School of Art 1900-2; studio of Sir William Reynolds-Stevens 1902-4, Hospitalfield Art Institute 1906-10; C&G School, Lambeth 1910-12; army service in the Great War; Professor of Sculpture, RCA 1946-53; first solo exhibition Leicester Galleries 1921; London Group member 1923-7 (President 1924-26); VB1924; exhibited RAA from 1933; ARA 1942, RA 1953. m. Cordelia Clara Tregutha 1918 - she destroyed much of his work after his death.

Appendices Page 213

Sir Jacob Epstein (1880–1959)

American (Russian-Polish émigré parents), figurative and architectural sculptor; studied at Art Students League, New York 1896-9; Beaux-Arts School and Académié Julian, Paris 1902-4. Resident in the UK 1905-10, naturalised 1907; Paris 1910-12, London 1912 life-long; London Group founder member 1913. KCVO 1954. RA nomination lapsed in 1935.

Dame Elisabeth Frink (1930–1993)

British figurative, ecclesiastical and animal sculptor; studied at Guildford School of Art 1947-9 and Chelsea School of Art 1949-53 (under Meadows and Soukop); teacher Chelsea School of Art 1953-61 and St. Martin’s School of Art 1954-62, RCA 1965-7; exhibited with London Group from 1951 and the RAA from 1954. ARA 1971, RA 1977.

Alfred Frank Hardiman (1891–1949)

British figurative sculptor; 1912-16, army service in the Great War, studied at RCA (under Lanteri); RA School and British School in Rome 1920; British Prix de Rome 1920; exhibited at RAA from 1915; RBS medal 1939; ARA 1936, FRBS 1939; RA 1944. Served on the Royal Mint Committee for Medals and Seals 1946. Gertrude Hermes (1901–1983)

British (German parents); studied Beckenham School of Art 1919-20, Brook Green School of Art 1922-26 (one of ‘Underwood’s Children’); painter, sculptor and wood carver, London Group member 1935 and AIA; WW2 evacuated to Canada with her young children and worked as a precision draughtsman for ship builders 1940-45; taught St. Martin’s School of Art, Central School of Art and Design 1945-46 and RA 1966; exhibited RAA from 1934; ARA 1963; RA 1971. Preliminary stage of the UPPC 1952; Withdrew from the final of the Prix de Rome to m. Blair Hughes -Stanton 1926 - 1933, described as ‘Artistic, but happily married’. OBE 1981 placed on the Queen’s Civil List.

Karin Jonzen (1914-1998)

British (Swedish parents), figurative sculptor studied Slade School of Fine Arts 1933-7, C&G School of Art, Kennington 1937, Stockholm Royal Academy c. 1938-9; Rome Prize 1939;; served Civil Defence in 2WW; exhibited RAA from 1944, RBA 1948; Feodore Gleichen Prize - Best Woman Sculptor 1948; RBA, NEAC and London Group member; taught Thanet School of Art 1955-58, St Martin’s School of Art 1956, Camden Arts Centre 1968-72; FRBS.

Sir Gerald Festus Kelly (1879–1972)

British (Irish) Eton College and Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Portrait painter and BBC presenter, RA 1930; member of the Royal Fine Arts Commission 1938- 4; RAA Keeper 1943-45; PRA 1949-54. KCVO. Unusually well travelled: Spain, America, South Africa and Burma.

Maurice Prosper Lambert (1901–64)

French (Australian father); figurative and abstract sculptor in concrete, metals, stone and wood, apprenticed to F. Derwood, RA (RCA Professor of Sculpture) 1918-23; London Group member 1930, 7&5 Society 1928-31; exhibited Goupil Gallery 1925, Exhibited at the RAA from 1938, army service WW2; ARA 1941, RA 1952, ARBS 1949, FRBS by 1939; Master of RAA Sculpture School 1950-8.

Appendices Page 214

Gilbert Ledward (1888–1960)

British figurative sculptor, studied Chelsea Polytechnic, Goldsmith’s College, RCA (under Lanteri) and RAA Schools 1903-14; first British School in Rome Scholarship in Sculpture 1913 — interrupted by war; served in the Great War; Lambeth School of Art; Professor of Sculpture RCA 1926-9; exhibited at the RAA from 1912; ARA 1932, RA 1937; FRBS 1939, PRBS, OBE 1956.

Arnold Machin (1911–1999)

British artist, sculptor, coin and stamp designer. Apprenticed at Minton Potteries aged 14 years. Stoke on Trent School of Art, then RCA, later a tutor at RCA (1951 onwards). Imprisoned as a conscientious objector during 2WW. ARA 1947, RA 1956 and Master of the RAA Sculpture School 1959–66. Decimal currency image of Queen Elizabeth II 1968–1984 and postage stamps ‘’ from 1966. OBE 1965.

William McMillan (1887–1977)

British (Scottish) figures and memorials sculptor, studied Gray’s School of Art, Aberdeen and RCA (under Lanteri) 1908-12; served in the Great War; exhibited from 1917; ARA 1925, RA 1933, ARBS 1928, FRBS, Master of RAA Sculpture School 1929-4.

Sir Alfred Munnings (1878–1959)

British painter, Norwich School of Art, Newlyn School, landscape and equine paintings; accidental loss of sight in right eye in 1898 rendered him unfit for active service in the Great War - assisted with the horses. Official War Artist to a Canadian Cavalry Brigade in France 1932-4: President, Norfolk and Norwich Art Circle; 1925. ARA 1919, RA 1925, PRA 1944, SRA 1954. KCVO 1947.

Uli Nimptsch (1897–1977)

German figurative sculptor studied at the Berlin School of Applied Arts 1915-17 and the Berlin Academy of Arts 1919-20; lived in Rome and Paris 1931-39, naturalised in UK 1938; RBA 1948; exhibited at the RAA from 1957; ARA 1958; RA 1967; Master of RAA Sculpture School 1967-9.

Sir Eduardo Paolozzi (1924–2005)

British (Italian parents); studied Edinburgh College of Arts 1943 and Slade School of Fine Arts 1944-7; lived in Paris 1947-50 (contact with Arp, Brancusi, Giacometti); International Group member 1952-56; taught textile design at Central School of Art and Design 1949-55; sculpture at St. Martin’s School of Art 1955-8 and Hochschule für Bildendende, Hamburg 1960-2; visiting lecturer at the California University 1968 and RCA from 1968; ARA 1972; RA 1979; exhibited at Mayor Gallery from 1947; Hanover Gallery from 1950; exhibited VB 1960 and the RAA from 1977; KCVO 1989.

Sir Herbert Read (1893–1968)

British art historian studied Leeds University 1912; bank clerk 1909-12; army service in the Great War; art and literary critic, broadcaster, curator, lecturer, painter, poet, writer, politics; Civil Service 1919-21; VAM Curator, Dept. of Ceramics 1922-9 and personal assistant to Director Sir Eric Maclagan 1929-31; contributor to The Listener 1929-; Watson Gordon (Professor of Fine Arts), 1931-3; editor of Burlington Magazine 1933-9; co-organiser of the International Surrealist Exhibition 1936; Director of DRU 1942-5; Committees: Chairman of the Freedom Press Defence Council 1945; co-founder of and later President ICA from 1947; member of the Arts Council Art Panel 1947-53 and the British Council Fine Arts Committee 1948-66; President of the Penwith Society 1949; organiser and juror for UPPC 1953; member of the anti-war Committee of 100 from c.1960; KCVO 1952.

Appendices Page 215

Sir Albert Edward Richardson (1880–1964)

British, a.k.a. The Complete Georgian. Architect, author; Professor of University College; founder of the Georgian Group 1937; synthesised traditional and modern architecture; Royal Gold Medal for Architecture 1947; PRA. 1954-56, FRIBA, FSA, KCVO 1956.

Sir John Knewstub Maurice Rothenstein (1901–1992)

British (his father was the painter and academic William Rothenstein); studied Bedales School and Worcester College, Oxford 1913-23; art historian, academic, museum curator and director, journalist; connected with Bloomsbury set; taught at Kentucky and Pittsburg Universities, US 1927-9; PhD at UCL 1931; Director of Leeds Art Gallery 1932-3, Sheffield Art Gallery and Museum 1934-8, Tate Gallery 1938-64; the 1952-4 ‘Tate Affair’ (LeRoux Smith LeRoux) - during which Douglas Cooper pilloried Rothenstein and was punched in response. Committees: member of the Arts Council Art Panel 1945-51, British Council Fine Arts Committee 1948-64, ICA Advisory Council early 1950s; CBE 1948, KCVO 1952.

John Rattenbury Skeaping (1901–1980)

British artist, studied Blackheath School of Art c.1914, Goldsmith’s College 1915-17, Central School of Art and Design 1917-19, RAA Schools 1919-20; Rome Prize 1924; predominantly painted and sculptured animals, particularly race horses; lived in Italy 1924-6, Mexico 1949- 50; London Group member from 1930, 7&5 Society 1931-32; served in 2WW; Official War Artist 1940-45; assistant to Dobson for 9 months; taught RCA 1989-59 (Professor of Sculpture 1953-9); exhibited RAA 1922-70; ARA 1950, RA 1959, SRA 1977.

Katherine Lilian Somerville (née Tillard) (1905–1985)

British studied at the Slade School of Art; painter until 2WW; British Council 1941 - teacher then exhibition organiser on behalf of the Allied Governments; Director of the Fine Arts Dept. 1947-1970, promoting British contemporary art abroad; selected Moore for the VB 1948, New Aspects sculptors in 1952 and Lynn Chadwick in 1956; influenced British Arts Council collection of contemporary British works of art.

Willi Josef Soukop (1907–1995)

Austrian sculptor; apprenticed to an engraver; studied Vienna Academy of Fine Art 1928-34; invited to live at Dartington Hall 1934-40; interned and sent to Canada 2WW; taught at Bromley School of Art 1945-6, Guildford School of Art 1945-7, Chelsea School of Art 1947-72; exhibited at the RAA from 1935; first solo exhibition Stafford Gallery 1938; RBA 1949; ARBS 1958, FRBS 1961. ARA 1963, RA 1969, Master of the RAA Sculpture School 1969-82.

Sir Charles Wheeler (1892–1974)

British sculptor. Wolverhampton College of Art, then RCA 1912-17 (under Lanteri). Exhibited at the RAA 1914–70. National reputation embellished the Bank of England 1922–45. WAAC contract during WW2. ARA 1934, RA 1940, PRA 1956–66 (usually credited as the first sculptor to be PRA though Lord Leighton PRA 1878–1896 was the first), SRA 1967.

Appendices Page 216

Appendix 2.1

Prix de Rome Winners 1950–1958

Year Winner School

1950980 Mr B. R. Sindall unattributed

1951981 Mr M. G. Rizzello Royal College of Art

1952982 Mr Gilbert Watt Royal Academy Schools

1953983 Mr Brian Rice Royal Academy Schools

1954984 Mr A. Montford Royal Academy Schools

1955985 Mr K. C. Ford Royal College of Art

1956986 Miss Geraldine Knight Royal Academy Schools

1957987 Miss Mary Milner Royal College of Art

1958988 Mr B. J. Taylor Slade School

980 Anon. "Study of Art in Rome." The Times, 10 May 1950, 3.

981 Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 24 March 1951, 8.

982 Anon. "Rome Scholarships." The Times, 12 April 1952, 8.

983 Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 25 April 1953, 8. The article erroneously dated the award as 1952, it should have read 1953.

984 Anon. "Rome Scholarships in Art." The Times, 20 April 1954, 10.

985 Anon. "Rome Scholarships in Art." The Times, 26 April 1955, 16.

986 Anon. "Rome Scholarship Awards " The Times, 24 April 1956, 3.

987 Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 25 April 1957, 3.

988 Anon. "Rome Scholarships." The Times, 26 April 1958, 4.

Appendices Page 217

Appendix 2.2

Royal Academy of Arts Sculpture Prizes extracts 1948–1959

(Prizes are ordered as listed in the Annual Reports)

Year Composition Prize Winner/s 1948989 Landseer Scholarship in Sculpture £40 a year, tenable Frank G. Martin (not awarded after 1948) for two years Model of a Design: 1st Landseer Prize, Not Awarded A Group for the Terminal Finish £30 and Silver Medal of a Bridge Parapet 2nd Landseer prize, Anthony A. Caro £10 and Bronze Medal Composition in Sculpture of a 1st Landseer Prize, Anthony A. Caro Subject set by the Visitor £20 and Silver Medal Two Models of a Figure 1st Landseer Prize, Not Awarded from the Life £30 and Silver Medal 2nd Landseer prize, Anthony A. Caro £20 and Bronze Medal 1949990 Two Models of a Figure 1st Landseer Prize, Anthony A. Caro from the Life £30 and Silver Medal 1950991 Two Models of a Figure from the Landseer Prize, £30 Frank G. Martin Life and Silver Medal 1950992 Special Prize of Frank G. Martin £10 10s given by Mr. Frank Dobson, A.RA

989 RAA Annual Report 1948, 26.

990 RAA Annual Report 1949, 43.

991 RAA Annual Report, 1950, 45.

992 Ibid.

Appendices Page 218

Appendix 3.1

Nominations of Associateship 993

Candidates Membership Date of Nomination and Nominators (A–Z) (in order of signature) Kenneth SRA May 1994 Direct election, no nominations.994 Armitage Lynn Chadwick SRA May 2001 Direct election, no nominations. Siegfried Charoux ARA April April 1943 1949 G Ledward, A Hardiman, S Anderson, F Dobson, RA Feb 1956 W Reid Dick, J Bateman, E Le Bas, Geoffrey Clarke ARA Apr 1970 Feb 1969 RA Dec 1975 W Soukop, P Coker, F Gibberd, H Casson, R Clatworthy, SRA Oct 2000 P V Pitchforth, R Cowern Frank Dobson ARA 17 Feb December 1933 - 1942 W McMillan, G. Ledward, W. Monnington, H Rushbury, RA 15 April G Kelly, G Harcourt, H Bishop. 1953 Georg Ehrlich ARA Oct 1962 May 1957 G Ledward, D McFall, A Machin, C Weight, R Spear, E Le Bas, R Butler. Elisabeth Frink ARA Oct 1971 April 1971 – RA March J Skeaping, M Fry, W Monnington, (illegible), 1977 L Rosoman, C Hayes, I Robert Jones, W Soukop. May 1971 – (illegible), B Kneale. June 1971 - R Clatworthy, R Brown, F Gibberd, H Casson, (illegible), A Thomson, P Coker.

Dora Gordine Not elected January 1942 – G Ledward, A Hardiman, C Wheeler, E Maufe, J Fitton. February 1949 – G Ledward, E Maufe, C Wheeler. February 1956 – G Ledward, M Osborne. 1963 - Lapsed Gertrude Hermes ARA April November 1952 – M Osbourne. - 1963 March 1953 - R Austin, H Rushbury. Elected as an RA Feb 1971 June 1953 – R O Dunlop. Engraver SRA Jan 1977 February 1954 – S Gooden, R Spear, F Dobson, E Le Bas, (illegible). March 1961 – P Freeth, M Osborne, J Nash, S Charoux, C Weight. Karin Jonzen Not elected 21 April 1949 – G Ledward, J Woodford, C Wheeler, A Mason, R V Pitchforth, E Le Bas, R Moynihan, J Nash, R Butler. March 1957 – A L Durst, G Ledward, E Le Bas, M Osborne, A John, C Weight. 1964 - Lapsed Maurice Lambert ARA April April 1938 1941 W Reid Dick, G Ledward, C Wheeler, H Rushbury, RA 1952 F Dodd, Master 1950– A R Thomson, A Mason, E Maufe 1958

993 RAA/GA/11/2/3, 4 and 5. Nominations of Associateship.

994 An email of 31 March 2017 from Mark Pomeroy RAA Archivist to the author confirmed that no nominations were made for either Kenneth Armitage, nor Lynn Chadwick, both were directly welcomed as SRAs.

Appendices Page 219

Candidates Membership Date of Nomination and Nominators (A–Z) (in order of signature) Rita Ling Not elected March 1955 - J Skeaping, G Ledward, J Fitton, R Butler, (illegible), A Thomson. March 1963 – C Weight, R Butler. 1973 - Lapsed. Arnold Machin ARA April April 1946 - 1947 R Garbe, C Wheeler, F Dobson, E Maufe, L Knight, RA Feb 1956 A Mason, D Proctor, M Osborne, A Thomson. SRA Oct 1986

Master 1958– 66 Fredrick Edward ARA April 1955 – R Spear, R Butler, R V Pitchforth, E Le Bas, McWilliam 1959 J Fitton, A Mason. SRA Dec 1989 1956 – C Weight, G. Ledward, D McFall. Resigned 1963 Rejoined Dec 1989 Uli Nimptsch ARA April n/d 1958 D McFall, R Dunlop, J Fitton, A Machin, C, Wheeler, RA April 1967 G Ledward, A Davies, H Rushbury, A Mason, E Le Bas. SRA Dec 1972 Master 1966– 1969 Eduardo Paolozzi ARA April April 1971 - J Dickson, R T Cowern, B Kneale. 1972 Jan 1971 – R Brown, illegible, H Casson, R Darwin, RA May 1979 C Weight, P Coker, G Hermes. SRA Jan 1999

John Skeaping ARA April February 1936 – 1950 A Turner, G Ledward, C Wheeler, H Rushbury, RA Dec 1959 W Reid Dick, W McMillan. SRA Jan 1977 1940 – E Maufe, A Mason. March 1943 – G Ledward, C Wheeler, H Rushbury July 1943 – T C Dugdale, (illegible). Willi Soukop ARA April March 16 1954 – 1963 F Dobson, M Lambert, R Eunich, R Spear, C Wheeler, RA Feb 1969 S Charoux, (illegible). SRA Dec 1982 March 1961 – A L Durst, S Charoux, C Weight.

Master 1969- 82 Winifred Turner Not elected April 1934 G Ledward, H Knight, A Turner, C Wheeler, A Talmage, S Lee, E Gillick March 1941 - W McMillan, C Wheeler, C M Fere March 1948: C M Fere 1955 - Lapsed

Appendices Page 220

Appendix 4.1

Summer Exhibition Submissions, 1948―1959

Year Sculpture Total Amateur Total Amateur Total Academician Total Selection & Amateur sub- Amateur Sculptures Academician Sculptures Shown Hanging* sub- missions sub- Exhibited sub- Exhibited Cti995 missions accepted missions missions on 1st view Exhibited 1948 C Wheeler 11,738 2 1,103 177 324 30 1,427 996 R Garbe* A Machin

1949 R Garbe 11,013 8 1,084 123 295 18 1,379 997 G Ledward* M Lambert*

1950 G Ledward 11,649 1 1,078 119 332 23 1,410 998 W McMillan* S Charoux* 1951 W McMillan 11,725 2 878 124 375 34 1,253 999 M Lambert* J Woodford* J Skeaping* 1952 J Woodford 10,796 13 1,224 84 355 25 1,579 1000 C Wheeler*

995 List of Officers for the forthcoming year: RAA Annual Report 1947, 28. RAA Annual Report, 1948, 23. RAA Annual Report, 1949, 37. RAA Annual Report, 1950, 36. RAA Annual Report, 1951, 32. RAA Annual Report, 1952, 32. RAA Annual Report, 1953, 32. RAA Annual Report, 1954, 32. RAA Annual Report, 1955, 31. RAA Annual Report, 1956, 35. RAA Annual Report, 1957, 30. RAA Annual Report, 1958, 38.

996 RAA Annual Report 1948, 19–20.

997 RAA Annual Report, 1949, 28–29

998 RAA Annual Report, 1950, 27–28.

999 RAA Annual Report, 1951, 24–25.

1000 RAA Annual Report, 1952, 24–25.

Appendices Page 221

Year Sculpture Total Amateur Total Amateur Total Academician Total Selection & Amateur sub- Amateur Sculptures Academician Sculptures Shown Hanging* sub- missions sub- Exhibited sub- Exhibited Cti1001 missions accepted missions missions on 1st view Exhibited 1954 M Lambert 10,801 0 1,027 145 338 22 1,365 1002 F Dobson* A Durst* 1955 F Dobson 9,102 0 1,084 158 357 24 1,441 1003 G Ledward* J Skeaping* 1956 G Ledward 10,881 0 1,025 146 391 30 1,416 1004 W McMillan* D McFall* 1957 W McMillan* 10,636 0 1,163 169 391 33 1,554 1005 (unable to serve) A Machin* A Durst* 1958 A Machin 9,944 1 1,089 131 404 35 1,493 1006 S Charoux* E Kenning- ton* J Skeaping* 1959 S Charoux 9,995 0 1,183 153 359 21 1,542 1007 J Woodford* D McFall*

1001 List of Officers for the forthcoming year: RAA Annual Report 1947, 28. RAA Annual Report, 1948, 23. RAA Annual Report, 1949, 37. RAA Annual Report, 1950, 36. RAA Annual Report, 1951, 32. RAA Annual Report, 1952, 32. RAA Annual Report, 1953, 32. RAA Annual Report, 1954, 32. RAA Annual Report, 1955, 31. RAA Annual Report, 1956, 35. RAA Annual Report, 1957, 30. RAA Annual Report, 1958, 38.

1002 RAA Annual Report, 1954, 22–23.

1003 RAA Annual Report, 1955, 23–24.

1004 RAA Annual Report, 1956, 23–24.

1005 RAA Annual Report, 1957, 24.

1006 RAA Annual Report, 1958, 26–27.

1007 RAA Annual Report, 1959, 22–23.

Appendices Page 222

Appendix 4.2

Attendance for selected exhibitions, 1948–1959

Year RAA ICA ICA ‘Open Air ‘ Sculpture Festival of ‘Unknown Whitechapel Summer ‘40 Years ‘40,000 Exhibition in the Britain Political ‘This Is Exhibition of Modern Years of of Sculpture’ Home’ Prisoner’ Tomorrow’ Art’ Modern Art’ 1946 197,4571008 c.9,000 1009 1947 153,2601010 1948 237,3081011 c.16,000 c.20,000 148,9001014 1012 1013 1949 164,5611015 1950 166,3631016 1951 120,5121017 c.3,000 8,500,000 1018 1019 1952 139,3691020 1953 132,2481021 30,0001022 1954 151,0991023 1955 293,3351024

1008 RAA Annual Report, 1946, 12–13.

1009 Op. cit, Burstow, Robert. "'Sculpture in the Home': Selling Modernism to Post-War British Homemakers.". 2008, 37-50.

1010 RAA Annual Report 1947, 11–12.

1011 RAA Annual Report 1948, 11.

1012 Op. cit., Massey, Anne & Muir, Gregor. 2014, 21.

1013 Ibid., 29.

1014 LCC/MIN 9020. LCC Parks Committee Minutes, Record of Attendance, 8 October 1948.

1015 RAA Annual Report 1949, 11.

1016 RAA Annual Report,1950, 13.

1017 RAA Annual Report 1951, 12.

1018 Op. cit, Burstow, Robert. "'Sculpture in the Home': Selling Modernism to Post-War British Homemakers.". 2008, 37-50.

1019 Banham, M., and B. Hillier. A Tonic to the Nation: The Festival of Britain 1951. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976, 83.

1020 RAA Annual Report 1952, 12.

1021 RAA Annual Report 1953, 10.

1022 Op. cit., Burstow, R. 2000, 179.

1023 RAA Annual Report 1954, 10.

1024 RAA Annual Report 1955, 9.

Appendices Page 223

Year RAA ICA ICA ‘Open Air ‘ Sculpture Festival of ‘Unknown Whitechapel Summer ‘40 Years ‘40,000 Exhibition in the Britain Political ‘This Is Exhibition of Modern Years of of Sculpture’ Home’ Prisoner’ Tomorrow’ Art’ Modern Art’ 1956 167,5721025 ‘a thousand people a day’ (c.36,000) 1026 1957 174,4611027 1958 174,2311028 1959 117,7551029

1025 RAA Annual Report 1956, 12.

1026 Robbins, David. The Independent Group: Postwar Britain and the Aesthetics of Plenty. Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1990, 135.

1027 RAA Annual Report 1957, 12.

1028 RAA Annual Report 1958, 11.

1029 RAA Annual Report 1959, 10.

Appendices Page 224

Appendix 5.1.

Chantrey Acquisitions: Sculpture and selected Paintings, 1947–1959

Year Chantrey Artist Chantry Purchases Purchase Price Elected Associate Recommendation of the Royal Committee Academy – RAA Sculpture Representatives 1947 Charles Wheeler Arnold Machin Spring (1946)1030 £1,000 1947 James Woodford Gilbert Ledward 1948 Charles Wheeler Siegfried Charoux Youth (1948)1031 £1,000 1949 James Woodford Gilbert Ledward 1949 William Reid Dick no sculpture purchase William McMillan Gilbert Ledward 1950 William Reid Dick - The Resurrection £1,800 re-elected 1949 William McMillan painter (1924–27)1032 Gilbert Ledward no sculpture purchase 1951 James Woodford L S. Lowry - The Pond (1951)1033 £400 Maurice Lambert painter no sculpture purchase Siegfried Charoux 1952 James Woodford no sculpture purchase Maurice Lambert Siegfried Charoux 1953 Charles Wheeler Jacob Epstein Mrs McEvoy £315 Nominated in William McMillan 1925, lapsed 1935 (1909)1034 John Skeaping

1030 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 1 May 1946, 172. Voting: nine for, none against. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1946, listing number 1172, The Resurrection (1924– 27). The value of £1,000 in 1946 would have been equivalent to approximately £40,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

1031 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Council Minutes, 29 April 1948, 238. Voting: seven for, three against including the out-going President, Alfred Munnings. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1948, listing number 1382, The Pond (1951).

1032 RAA/PC/1/28. RAA Minutes, 23 May 1950, 397. This purchase was ‘very welcome’ to the Tate Gallery. Voting: eight for, one against. RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1950, listing number 557, Mrs McEvoy (1909). Also see Tate. "Sir Stanley Spencer, the Resurrection, Cookham (1924-1927)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/spencer-the-resurrection-cookham-n04239, accessed 24 August 2017. The value of £1,800 in 1950 would have been equivalent to approximately £60,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

1033 RAA Annual Report 1951, 68. In a typographical error the artist was listed as T. S. Lowry, rather than L. S Lowry.

1034 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 18 November 1952, 41. Voting: ten for, one against. Also see Tate. "Sir Jacob Epstein, Mrs Mary McEvoy (1909)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/epstein-mrs-mary-mcevoy-n06139, accessed 24 August 2017. The value of £315 in 1953 would have been equivalent to approximately £8,500 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

Appendices Page 225

Year Chantrey Artist Chantry Purchases Purchase Price Elected Associate Recommendation of the Royal Committee Academy – RAA Sculpture Representatives 1954 Charles Wheeler no sculpture purchase William McMillan John Skeaping 1955 Gilbert Ledward Rita Ling Galway Cow £70 Nominated in Frank Dobson (1955)1035 1955, Alan Durst renominated in 1963, lapsed in 1970.

L. S. Lowry A Young Man £85 1955 (1955)1036 1956 Gilbert Ledward Maurice Lambert Dame Margot £2,500 Frank Dobson Fonteyn de Arias Alan Durst (1956)1037 Uli Nimptsch Reclining Figure £800 1958 (1956)1038 L. S. Lowry - Industrial Landscape £525 painter (1956)1039 1957 Gilbert Ledward Henri Gaudier- Head of Horace £600 d. 1915 Arnold Machin Brzeska Brodzky (1913, cast David McFall 1956)1040 1958 Gilbert Ledward no sculpture purchase Arnold Machin David McFall 1959 William McMillan Uli Nimptsch Seated Girl (1959) £1,000 1958 Maurice Lambert David McFall

1035 RAA Annual Report 1955, 76.

1036 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 2 May 1957, 203. Voting: five for, four against. Also see Tate. "L S Lowry, 'a Young Man' (1955)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lowry-a-young-man-t00142, accessed 24 August 2017. The value of £85 in 1955 would have been equivalent to approximately £2,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

1037 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 16 April 1956, 161. Voting: ten for, none against. The value of £2,500 in 1956 would have been equivalent to approximately £60,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

1038 RAA/PC/1/29-40. RAA Council Minutes, 3 May 1956, 164. Voting: eight for, one against. The value of £800 in 1956 would have been equivalent to approximately £19,000 in 2018. Op. cit., BoE. "Inflation Calculator." 2018.

1039 RAA Annual Report 1956, 49.

1040 RAA Annual Report 1957, 43.

Bibliography Page 226

Bibliography

Primary Sources – Unpublished

Henry Moore Foundation Archive (HMF), Much Hadham, Hertfordshire

HMF. Moore, Henry. Art and Politics. unpublished. 1930. HMF. Moore, Henry. Diaries 1948–1980.

Henry Moore Institute Archive (HMI), Leeds

HMI. Astor, David. By Penelope Curtis. Accession File (transcript): Maquette for the Neighbours (1957-59). (1996). HMI. Frank Dobson/1999/10. Boxes 1– 3. HMI. Frank Dobson/2002.11/1. HMI. Alfred Hardiman/2003.7. HMI. Gertrude Hermes/1999.30 HMI. Gertrude Hermes/2000.40. HMI. Gertrude Hermes/2002.62. Brown, D. (nd) Research notes on Gertrude Hermes. HMI. Gilbert Ledward/1988.16/3. HMI. Gilbert Ledward/2002.40. HMI. Charles Wheeler/1999.11. Boxes 1-3. HMI. Charles Wheeler/2000.1.

London Metropolitan Archive (LMA), London

LCC/CL/PK/1/52–55. Minutes of the Parks Committee. LCC/MIN 9017. Letter of 15 May 1946 from Patricia Strauss to Mr Powe, Chief Officer of the LCC Parks Committee. LCC/MIN 8789–8790 and 9017-9021. LCC Parks Committee Minutes, 1945 to 1949. LCC/CL/HSG/1/99. Works of Art for Housing Estates.

Meetings with the Author

MaryAnne Stevens, 14 October 2016. Anthony Gormley, RA, 20 June 2017. Courtauld Sculpture Processes Group Meeting. Bill Woodrow, RA, 14 June 2017. Joy Fleischmann (widow of sculptor Arthur Fleischmann), 9 May 2018.

Munnings Museum Archive, Dedham, Essex

Munnings Estate. ARC 29. Letter of November 1938 from Violet Munnings to Alfred Munnings.

Bibliography Page 227

The National Archive (NA), Kew, London

WORK25/35/c3/44A. Festival of Britain. WORK25/35/C3/97. Festival of Britain. WORK25/35/C3/84. Festival of Britain. WORK25/200/D1/FOB 2136–8. Epstein. WORK25/206/D1/FOB-3217118. Lambert. WORK25/206/D1/FOB-3290. Doves and Dreams. WORK25/206/D1/FOB-3298–99. Lion and Unicorn. WORK25/206/D1/FOB-3319. ‘Youth Advances’. WORK25/206/D1/FOB-3363. ‘Rotating Doves’. WORK25/259/G2/C3/100. Farmer. WORK25/259/G2/C3/113. Hepworth. WORK25/259/G2/C3/82. Chadwick. WORK25/259/G2/C3/23. Macpherson. WORK25/259/G2/C3/1505. Hull.

Royal Academy of Arts Archive (RAA), London

RAA Exhibitions Master List. RAA Annual Report from the Council of the Royal Academy to the General Assembly of Academicians and Associates (cited as RAA Annual Report). 1938 to 1997. RAA. Constitution and Laws. London: William Clowes and Sons, Ltd. 1938. RAA/GA. Minutes of the General Assembly XI, 1932–1963. (cited as GA Minutes). RAA/GA/11/2/3–5. Nominations of Associateship. RAA/KEE/13/12. Keepers Papers pertaining to the Academy’s Schools. RAA/MUN/1/1. Letter of 22 May 1942 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight. RAA/MUN/2/1/2. Letter of 16 August 1943 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight. RAA/MUN/6/1. Letter of 1 January 1946 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight. RAA/MUN/9/1-2. Letter of 18 May 1948 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight. RAA/MUN/10/1. Letter of 5 May 1949 from Sir Alfred Munnings to Dame Laura Knight. RAA/PC/1/28. Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the RAA from 1944 to January 1952. (cited as Council Minutes). RAA/PC/29–40. Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the RAA from February 1952 to December 1959. (cited as Council Minutes). RAA/SEC/4/25. Members Files. RAA/SEC/4/121/7. Llewellyn Correspondence. RAA/SEC/8/62/1. Resolution, 17 March 1949. RAA/SEC/9/1/60. Correspondence Day Book. RAA/SEC/25/3/5. Annual Dinner folio: Alston, R. RAA Annual Dinner Broadcast 1958, BBC Home Service, 30 April 1958. Atlee, Clement. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 27 April 1950. Atlee, Clement. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 2 May 1951. Bodkin, Thomas. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 2 May 1956. Butler, R. A. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 2 May 1956. Churchill, Winston. S. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 2 May 1951. Clark, Kenneth. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 30 April 1958. Duke of Gloucester. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 3 May 1956. Justice Pearce. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 27 April 1955. Kelly, Gerald. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 30 April 1953. Lord Kilmuir. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 1 May 1957. Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 1 May 1957. Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 29 April 1958. Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 1959, 29 April 1959. Wheeler, Charles. RAA Annual Dinner Speech, 28 April 1960. RAA. (1967). Annual Dinner Folio, 26 April 1967. RAA/Schools/424/f. Notices.

Bibliography Page 228

Royal Ballet School Archive, Richmond, London

Letter of 13 October 2000 from Barbara O'Conor, RAA Registrar to Nigel Copeland, Bursar of the Royal Ballet School. Transfer of Title for the Sculpture, Dame Margot Fonteyn De Arias (1956), Signed 27 October 2000.

Tate Gallery Archive (TGA), London

TGA.4.2.384.1. Letter of 28 June 1938 from John Rothenstein to Eric Kennington. TGA. 806.1.155-159. Siegfried Charoux papers. TGA. 806.1.371. Correspondence. TGA. 819.3.2. Leon Underwood papers. TGA. 821.4.13. Siegfried Charoux (1951). Self Portrait. TGA. 921.15. John Skeaping Papers. TGA 843.0.27. Anthony Caro annotated note on ‘How Sculpture Gets Looked At’. TGA. 8812.1.3.646. Kenneth Clark papers. TGA. 955.1.2.1. (95/158). Report from Mr Purvis to Roland Penrose. TGA. 955.1.12.10. (18/54). Annotated extract of Alfred Barr’s (1939) Picasso: Forty Years of his Art. TGA. 955.1.12.10. (48/54). Letter of 6 December 1948 from Alfred Barr to Roland Penrose. TGA. 955.1.12.10. (54/54). MOMA Invoice: Shipping of Demoiselle’s D’Avignon. TGA 955.1.1.10 25/27. ICA. (1947). A statement of the policy and aims of the proposed Institute by members of the Organising Committee. TGA.955.1.12.10 (7-54). Read, H. (1948). Introduction Speech (annotated): 40,000 Years of Modern Art. 14 December 1948. ICA. TGA.955.1.14.5. Dorothy Morland, ICA, London interviews (transcripts): del Renzio, T. (1976) Hoellering, G. (26 January 1977) Penrose, R. (October 1976). TGA. 955.15.1.1-2. Read, H. (1948). Introduction Speech (annotated): 40 Years of Modern Art. ICA. TGA.955.951.912.910 (910-954). Read, H. (1948). Preliminary Preface Notes: 40,000 Years of Modern Art, ICA. TGA.955.951.912.910. (925-928). Letter of 11 October 1948 from Roland Penrose to Pablo Picasso. TGA.955.951.912.910. Penrose, R. (1948). Letter (nd) from Roland Penrose to Curt Valentin. TGA.955.951.912.910. (937-954). Letter of 28 September 1948 from Curt Valentin to Roland Penrose. TGA.955.951.912.910. (953-954). Telegram of 27 September 1948 from Curt Valentin to Roland Penrose. TGA.955.951.912.910-(955/954). ICA. (1948). ICA Collection Loan Form. TGA.955.951.912.910-(951/954). ICA. (1948). ICA Private View Invitation Card. TGA.955.951.912.910-(953/954). ICA. (1949). ICA Public Invitation Card. A Discussion on Primitive Art. TMA72/8. Tate Board Meeting, 18 September 1947.

Bibliography Page 229

Victoria and Albert Museum Archive (VAM) - The Arts Council Archive

VAM/EL3/105. Region 12, London. Report by Anne Carlisle, Director, September 1947. VAM/EL3/106 Region 12, London. Report by Anne Carlisle, Director, January to October 1948. VAM/EL4/. ACGB Annual Reports, 1946–1959. VAM/EL4/8. The Public and The Arts, 1953 VAM/EL4/9. Public Responsibility for the Arts, 1954. VAM/EL4. ACGB Minutes and Papers. 1942–59. VAM/EL4/43. ACGB Minutes 1946 - 1963. VAM/EL4/48. ACGB Council Papers, nos. 241–250, 1947–1948. VAM/EL4/49. ACGB Council Papers, nos. 251–260, 1948–1949. VAM/EL4/49. Wood, Cyril. Minority Report. Addendum to Arts Council Papers, no. 256: Arts Centres, Arts Clubs and Allied problems, 8 November 1948. VAM/EL/11. The First Ten Years, 1955. VAM/EL4/98. ACGB Executive Notes, nos. 37–70, 1946–1947. VAM/EL4/99. ACGB Executive Notes, nos, 71–100. 1948–1949. VAM/EL6/1. Early History of the Planning of the Festival of Britain, 1946–47. VAM/EL6/2 Festival Executive Committee Papers, 1947–1948. VAM/EL6/4. Office of the Lord President of the Council, 1947–1950.

Bibliography Page 230

Primary Sources – Published

ACGB

ACGB. The ACGB 1st Annual Report 1946. London: ACGB, 1946. ACGB. The ACGB 2nd Annual Report 1946-47. London: ACGB, 1947. ACGB. The ACGB 3rd Annual Report 1947-48. London: ACGB, 1948. ACGB. The ACGB 4th Annual Report 1948-49. London: ACGB, 1949. ACGB. The ACGB 5th Annual Report 1949-50. London: ACGB, 1950. ACGB. The ACGB 6th Annual Report 1950-51. London: ACGB, 1951. ACGB. The ACGB 7th Annual Report 1951-52. London: ACGB, 1952. ACGB. The ACGB 8th Annual Report 1952-53. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. The ACGB 9th Annual Report 1953-54. London: ACGB, 1954. ACGB. The ACGB 10th Annual Report 1954-55. London: ACGB, 1955. ACGB. The First Ten Years, London: ACGB, 1956. ACGB. The ACGB 11th Annual Report 1955-56. London: ACGB, 1956. ACGB. The ACGB 12th Annual Report 1956-57. London: ACGB, 1957. ACGB. The ACGB 13th Annual Report 1957-58. London: ACGB, 1958. ACGB. The ACGB 14th Annual Report 1958-59. London: ACGB, 1959.

Books

Caro, Anthony. Caro. London: Phaidon Press Ltd, 2014. Clark, Kenneth. The Other Half: A Self Portrait. London: John Murray Ltd., 1977. Frink, Elisabeth. The Art of Elisabeth Frink. London: Lund Humphries, 1972. Hepworth, Barbara. Barbara Hepworth: Carvings and Drawings. . London: Lund Humphries, 1952. Machin, Arnold. Machin Artist of an Icon. 2010 ed. Norfolk: Frontier Publishing, 2002. Moore, Henry. "Sculpture in the Open Air: A Talk by Henry Moore on His Sculpture and Its Placing in Open-Air Sites." edited by Robert Melville, 1955. Henry, Moore. Henry Moore on Sculpture. Edited by Philip James. London: Macdonald and Co., 1966. Munnings, A. J. An Artist's Life. London: Museum Press Ltd., 1950. Munnings, A. J. The Second Burst. London: Museum Press Ltd., 1951. Munnings, A. J. The Finish. London: Museum Press Ltd., 1952. Rothenstein, John. Summer Lease. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1965. Rothenstein, John. Brave Day Hideous Night. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1966. Skeaping, John Rattenbury. Drawn from Life. London: Collins, 1977. Wheeler, Charles. High Relief: The Autobiography of Sir Charles Wheeler Sculptor. Feltenham: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., 1968.

Bibliography Page 231

British Library, London, Recorded Interviews

Armitage, Kenneth. By John McEwan and Tamsyn Woollcombe. British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, 1991-06-08 to 1991-12-10. (1991). Caro, Anthony. By Annely Juda. British Library, NLSC, Artists' Lives, 1993-10-04." (1993). Casson, Hugh. By Cathy Courtney. British Library Recording, NLSC: Leaders of National Life,1966-03-17. (1966). Chadwick, Lynn. By Cathy Courtney British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, C466/28. (1995). Clark, Geoffrey. By Anna Dyke. British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives. (2006): Clatworthy, Robert. By (unnamed). British Library Recording, NLSC: Artists' Lives. 1999.09.12/14; 2001.03.22; 03.03.06. (1999). de Vasconcellos, Josefina. By Jon Wood. British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, 2000-11-30. C466/117. (2000). Frink, Elisabeth. By Sarah Kent. British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, 1992-12-28 to 29. (1992). Heron, Patrick. By Judith Bumpus. British Library: C798/118/23." (1977). Martin, Frank Graeme. By Melanie Roberts. British Library NLSC Artist' Lives, C466/58/01. Transcript 1997 08 11 and 1997 08 13. (1997). Meadows, Bernard. By Tamsyn Woollcombe. British Library Recording, NLSC: Artists' Lives:, C466/013/F2999-A: 1992.11.03; 1992.11.10; 1992.11.17;1992.11.20; 1992.11.26; 1992.12.15. (1992). Paolozzi, Eduardo. By (unnamed). British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, 1993-06-10 to 1995-01-05." (1993). Soukop, Willi. By Andrew Lambirth. British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, 1994-1- 021994. (1994).

Broadcasts

"Artists on Art: Reg Butler and Barbara Hepworth." BBC Third Programme, 26 August 1952.

"Frontrow" presented by Kirsty Lang, BBC Radio 4, Brian Sewell on Sir Alfred Munnings. 31 May 2013.

"Late Night Line Up." presented by Joan Bakewell with Charles Wheeler, BBC2, 23 May 1968.

"Munnings’s Speech at the RAA Annual Dinner" BBC Radio, 28 April 1949.

Bibliography Page 232

Exhibition Catalogues

ACGB. Sculpture in the Home, First Exhibition, 1946. London: ACGB, 1946. ACGB. Royal Academy Summer Exhibition, Regional Tour, 1947. ACGB. Vincent Van Gogh, Tate Gallery and Regional, 1947-48, 1947. ACGB. Picasso Fifty-five Lithographs, 1945-47. London: Lund Humphries, 1948. ACGB. A Retrospective Exhibition of Drawings by Henry Moore, London: ACGB, 1948. ACGB. A Selection from the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition. London: ACGB, 1948. ACGB. Art Treasures from Vienna, Tate Gallery. London: Shenval Press,1949. ACGB. Contemporary British Art from the Collections of the Arts Council and the British Council, New Burlington Galleries, November to December 1949. London: ACGB, 1949. ACGB. Sir Joshua Reynolds. London: ACGB, 1949. ACGB. Some Recent Purchases of The Contemporary Art Society. London: ACGB, 1949. ACGB. Thomas Gainsborough: An Exhibition of Paintings. London: ACGB, 1949. ACGB. Rembrandt (sponsored by the Edinburgh Festival Society) National Gallery of Scotland, 20 August to 9 September 1950. London: ACGB, 1950. ACGB. Sculpture in the Home, Second Exhibition, 1950-51. London: Lund Humphries, 1050. ACGB. The Festival of Britain 1951: Special Supplement to the Information Summary. London: ACGB, 1951. ACGB. Giovanni Pisano: Figures from the Baptistery at Pisa. London, ACGB, 1951. ACGB. Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, Tate Gallery, 2 May to 29 July 1951. London: Lund Humphries, 1951. ACGB. Splendid Occasions. London: ACGB, 1951. ACGB. Special Supplement to the Information Summary: The Arts in the Festival of Britain. (1951): 1-49. ACGB. The Tempera Paintings of William Blake: A Critical Catalogue. London: ACGB, 1951. ACGB. William Dobson 1611-1646, Tate Gallery. London: ACGB, 1951. ACGB. William Hogarth 1697-1764, Tate Gallery. London: ACGB, 1951. ACGB. Degas (sponsored by the Edinburgh Festival Society and the Scottish Royal Academy), Tate Gallery. London: ACGB, 1952. ACGB. Epstein, Tate Gallery, 25 September to 9 November 1952. London: ACGB, 1952. ACGB. A Selection from the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition 1952. London: ACGB, 1952. ACGB. The Camden Town Group. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Exhibition of Mexican Art. Organised under the auspices of the Mexican Government, Tate Gallery, 4 March to 26 April. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Modern Art in Finland. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Pre-Raphaelite Drawings and Water Colours. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Renoir (sponsored by the Edinburgh Festival Society), Tate Gallery, 25 September to 25 October 1953. London, ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Roman Portrait Busts. New Burlington Gallery, 30 October to 28 November 1953. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Sculpture in the Home, Third Exhibition. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Sutherland, Tate Gallery, 20 May to 9 August 1953. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Thomas Gainsborough 1727-1788. Tate Gallery. London: ACGB, 1953. ACGB. Ancient Bronzes from Sardinia. Sponsored by the Italian Government. London: ACGB, 1954. ACGB. Cézanne. Sponsored by the Edinburgh Festival Society, Tate Gallery. 29 September to 27 October 1954. London: ACGB, 1954. ACGB. Drawings by Stanley Spencer. London: ACGB, 1954. ACGB. Fifty Drawings by : Collection of Curt Valentin. Institute of Contemporary Art. November and December 1954. London: ACGB, 1954. ACGB. Manet and His Circle. Sponsored by L'Association Française d'Action Artistique, Tate Gallery, 24 April to 7 June 1954. London: ACGB, 1954. ACGB. Alberto Giacometti, Sculpture, Paintings, Drawings. New Burlington House. 4 June to 9 July 1955. London: ACGB, 1955. ACGB. Gauguin Paintings, Sculptures and Engravings. Tate Gallery, 30 September to 26 October. London: ACGB, 1955. ACGB. Some Twentieth Century Painting from the Collection of Peter Pears and Benjamin Britten. London: ACGB, 1955. ACGB. Vincent Van Gogh 1853-1890. Tate Gallery, 1955-56. London: ACGB, 1955. ACGB. Henry Gaudier-Brzeska 1891-1915, Sculpture, Pastels and Drawings. Tate Gallery. London: ACGB, 1956.

Bibliography Page 233

ACGB. Picasso Fifty Years of Graphic Art. New Burlington Gallery. 22 June to 5 August 1956. London: ACGB, 1956. ACGB. Some Contemporary British Sculpture. New Burlington Gallery, 16 to 24 June 1956. London: ACGB, 1956. ACGB. Wyndham Lewis and Vorticism. Tate Gallery & Regional. London: ACGB, 1956. ACGB. An Exhibition of Works by Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Tate Gallery, 7 June to 7 July 1957. London, ACGB, 1957. ACGB. Lynn Chadwick, ACGB Gallery, 5 July to 10 August 1957. London: Shenval Press, 1957. ACGB. Monet. Sponsored by the Edinburgh International Festival in association with the Royal Scottish Academy. Tate Gallery. London: ACGB, 1957. ACGB. Contemporary British Sculpture: An Open Air Exhibition, Regional. London: ACGB, 1958. ACGB. Sculpture in the Home, Fourth Exhibition. London ACGB, 1958. ACGB. Sculpture by Jacques Lipchitz, Tate Gallery, 14 November to 16 December 1959. London, ACGB, 1959. ACGB. Manzù. Tate Gallery, 1 October to 6 November 1960. London: ACGB, 1960. ACGB. XXth Century Masterpieces. Tate Gallery. London: ACGB, 1962. ACGB. Exhibition Tribute to Sculptor Frank Dobson, ACGB Gallery, 22 June to 2 July 1966. London: ACGB, 1966. ACGB. Sculpture in a City. London: ACGB, 1968. ACGB. Approaches to Modern Art: Reality and Artifice. London, 1979. ACGB. Arts Council Collection: A Concise Illustrated Catalogue of Paintings, Drawings, Photographs and Sculpture Purchased for the Arts Council of Great Britain between 1942 and 1978. London: ACGB, 1979. ACGB. Fragments against Ruins: A Journey Through Modern Art. London, 1981. ACGB. Modern British Exhibitions 1887-1988: Paintings, Drawings, Prints and Sculpture, 9 November to 9 December 1988. London: Agnew, 1988. ACGB. Making History: Art and Documentary in Britain from 1929 to Now. Liverpool: , 2006.

Alloway, Lawrence. This Is Tomorrow: Design as a Human Activity. London: Whitechapel Gallery, 9 August to 9 September, 1956.

Anthony Caro: Sculpture 1960-1963, September-October 1963, London: Whitechapel, 1963.

COID. Britain Can Make It. London: Council of Industrial Design, 1946.

Read, Herbert. "New Aspects of British Sculpture, in British Council." In The XXVI Venice Biennale: The British Pavilion. London: Westminster Press, 1952, introduction.

ICA. Extract: Picasso - Forty Years of His Art. London: ICA, 1948. ICA Forty Years of Modern Art, London: ICA, 1948. ICA. Forty Thousand Years of Modern Art a Comparison of Primitive and Modern (1948). foreword by Melville, R., & Archer, W. G.. London: ICA, 1948.

London Group 1914-64: Jubilee Exhibition, Fifty Years of British Art, 15 July to 16 August 1964. London: Tate Gallery, 1964.

Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture in Battersea Park. London: London County Council in association with the ACGB, 1948.

Palaces of Art: Art Galleries in Britain 1790-1990. London: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1991.

Bibliography Page 234

Exhibition Catalogues - continued

(Note: the RA Illustrated Catalogue ceased publication in 1940 and did not resume until 1948 due to paper shortages during the Second World War). Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1936. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1945. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1946. The Art of India and Pakistan at the Royal Academy of Arts. London, 1947. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1947. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1948. RA Illustrated: London, 1948. RAA Commemorative Exhibition Catalogue: The Art of India and Pakistan. edited by Ashton Leigh. London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 1949. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1949. RA Illustrated. London, 1949. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1950. RA Illustrated. London, 1950. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London1951. RA Illustrated. London, 1951. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1952. RA Illustrated. London, 1952. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1953. RA Illustrated. London, 1953. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1954. RA Illustrated. London, 1954. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1955. RA Illustrated. London:, 1955. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1956. RA Illustrated. London, 1956. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1957. RA Illustrated. London, 1957. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1958. RA Illustrated. London, 1958 Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1959. RA Illustrated. London, 1959. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1960. RA Illustrated. London, 1960. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1961. RA Illustrated. London, 1961. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1962. RA Illustrated. London, 1962. Royal Academy of Arts Summer Exhibition Catalogue. London, 1967. RA Illustrated. London, 1967. Royal Academy Diploma Works 1921-1981 - Leicester Museum and Art Gallery, Leicester: De Voyle Litho, 1982.

Reg Butler: Working Model for the Unknown Political Prisoner (1953) in Catalogue of Acquisitions 1978-80. London: Tate Illustrated, date. pp. 72-80

Ten Decades: Careers of Ten Women Artists born 1897-1906 (1992), Norwich Gallery, 30 March to 16 May 1992. Organised by Deepwell, K., & Checketts, L. Norwich: Norwich Gallery, 1992.

TGA 929/1/1563. Penwith Society of Art in Cornwall (1949) First Exhibition Catalogue. St. Ives.

This Is Tomorrow, Whitechapel Art Gallery, 9 August to 9 September 1956. London: The Trustees of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1956.

Bibliography Page 235

House of Commons (HOC), Palace of Westminster, London

Sunday Observance Act, 1780. The Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870, 1882 and 1893. Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1938 Slum Clearance Act 1938 Education Act 1944 Indian Independence Act 1947 National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954

Noel, Dempsey. Arts Funding: Statistics. Vol. No CBP 7655, London: House of Commons, 27 April 2016.

Gov. Report from the Select Committee on the Chantrey Trust: Together with Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence and Appendix. Session 1904. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1904.

Gov. Social Insurance and Allied Services (the Beveridge Report), Cmd 6404. London: HMSO, 1942.

HOC/c1307W. vol. 407 Education (Technical and Art Schools, Salaries). House of Commons Debate, 30 January 1045. HOC/cc219–20W. vol. 563. Art Schools and Students. House of Commons Debate, 31 January 1957. HOC/c59W. vol. 601. Art Students. House of Commons Debate, 5 March 1959. HOC/cc426–543. vol. 557. Education. House of Commons Debate, 25 July 1956.

Music

Bernstein, L. ‘Symphony No. 2 Age of Anxiety’ (1949). Inspired by Pulitzer Prize (1948) poem ‘In the Age of Anxiety (1944)’ In Auden W. H. The Age of Anxiety. 2011 ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1947.

Maconchy, Elisabeth. ‘Proud London’ (1953). Won the LCC prize for a Coronation Overture, first premiered October 1953, played by the BBC Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent. Essential Classics. BBC Radio 3, 21 November 2017. Also see Maconchy, Elisabeth. "Proud London." http://www.musicweb- international.com/classrev/2007/Oct07/Maconchy_LeFanu.htm, accessed 21 November 2017.

Bibliography Page 236

Primary Sources – Published

Journals

Adburnham, Alison. "Faces a La Mode." Punch (27 February 1957): 305. Adler, H. "Artist and Critics." The New Statesman & Nation XLV, no. 1154 (1953): 458. Alloway, Lawrence. "‘Art and the Communications Network’." Canadian Art 100 (January 1966): 35. Alloway, Lawrence "Britain's New Iron Men." Art News New York 54, no. 4 (1953): 20. Alloway, Lawrence. "The Public Sculpture Problem." Studio International 184, no. 948 (1972): 122-25. Alloway, Lawrence . "The Siting of Sculpture." The Listener LI (1954): 1044-46. Anon. "Amy Johnson." Women Engineers Society Journal 6, no. Winter, 1 (1944): 2-4. Anon. "Anthology: Sculpture Gallery." Architectural Review 101 (1947): 41. Anon. "Architecture and Crafts at the Royal Academy 1900." The Architectural Review Supplement to the Architectural Review: Disappearing London, No 16. (1900): 194-256. Anon. "Arnold Machin A.RA Ceramic Sculptor." Pottery and Glass, 8 August 1947 XXV, no. 8 (1947): 25-28. Anon. "The Arts in the Festival of Britain." The Burlington Magazine 93, no. 581 (1951): 249. Anon. "The Arts Starved of Capital: Urgent Need for Increased Government Patronage." The Times, (12 July 1957): 8. Anon. "Broadcasting and the Visual Arts." The Burlington Magazine 89, no. 535 (1947): 265-66. Anon. "Epstein's Critics." The Burlington Magazine 101, no. 680 (1959): 369. Anon. "Exhibition of the Chantrey Collection." The Burlington Magazine 91, no. 552 (1949): 80-81. Anon. "Exhibitions: Eduardo Paolozzi." The Architectural Review 113, no. 675, March (1953): 203. Anon. "Exhibitions: John Skeaping." The Architectural Review 109, no. 654, June (1951): 397. Anon "Exhibitions: Kenneth Armitage." The Architectural Review 113, no. 674, February (1953): 132-33. Anon. "Exhibitions: Siegfried Charoux." The Architectural Review 110, no. 655, July (1951): 62-63. Anon. "Frivolity and Reason at Burlington House." The Burlington Magazine 110, no. 779 (1968): 61-62. Anon. "Further Afield - Vienna." The Studio 151, no. 765, December 1956 (1956): 190. Anon. "Further Afield: David Wynne - Teamwork." The Studio 157, no. 792 (March 1959): 95. Anon. "House near Hallard, Sussex." Architectural Review 85 (1939): 63-78. Anon. "Institute of Contemporary Arts." The Burlington Magazine 90, no. 539 (1948): 51. Anon "London County Council's Architect's Department." 117, no. 697 (January 1955): 30-33, 55-59. Anon. "Mankind Needs Sculpture." The Monumental Journal XXII, no. 5 (1955): 303. Anon. "Notes of the Week: The RA Banquet Professor Richardson's Speech." Builder CLXXXVIII, (6 May 1955): 743. Anon. "Old V. Young: The RA Test." The Studio 152, no. 761, (August 1956): 52-55. Anon. "Opening of the Festival of Britain." Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 99, no. 4847 (18 May 1951): 488-500. Anon. "Paintings from the Royal Academy." The Studio 104, no. 473 (1932): 64-76. Anon. "Plea for Intelligence." The Spectator, 196, no. 6677 (15 June 1956): 826. Anon. "Prints and Sculpture at the Whitechapel Art Gallery." The Burlington Magazine 90, no. 547 (1948): 290. Anon. "RA Student Show Autumn 1958." The Studio 157, no. 790 (1959): 28-30. Anon. "Recent Sculpture USA." The Studio 158, no. 800 (December 1959): 148-49. Anon. "The Reprieve by Jean-Paul Sartre." The Listener XXXIX, no. 990 (15 January 1948): 90. Anon. "Shaft's from Apollo's Bow: An Encounter with the Infallible." Apollo LIV, December (1951): 151. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: Art by Black Magic." Apollo XLVIII (December 1948): 59. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow - Crux Criticorum: A Sunday Morning Meditation." Apollo LIII (June 1951): 149. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: Home and Beauty." Apollo XLII (October 1950): 99. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: In Defence [Sic] of Trustees." Apollo XLVII (May 1948): 102. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: Overheads." Apollo LI (February 1950): 63. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: Painting and Poppycock." Apollo LIII (February 1951): 33. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: Representative Men." Apollo LII (August 1950): 31.

Bibliography Page 237

Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: Sartre Resartus." Apollo XLIX (February 1949): 39. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: The Art of Being Choosey." Apollo LIV (July 1951): 3. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: The Importance of Being Serious." Apollo LI (May 1950): 153. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: The Morning After." Apollo LIV (November 1951): 121. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: The Raising of the Royal Standard." Apollo LIV (October 1951): 93. Anon. "Shafts from Apollo's Bow: The Royal Academy ". Apollo LIII, June (1951): 147. Anon. "Special Edition on the South Bank Exhibition." Architectural Review CX, no. 656 (1951): 142. Anon. "The Tate Affair." The Spectator, no. 6560 (1954): 5. Anon. "The Tate Controversy." The Burlington Magazine 96, no. 621 (1954): 365-66. Anon. "Those Present Including ... Sir Stafford Cripps." Women Engineers Society Journal 6, no. 1 Winter (1944): 2-4. Anon. "The Woman Engineer." Women Engineers Society Journal 6, no. Winter 1 (1944): 2-4. Anon. "The Younger School of Painting." The Studio 104, no. 472 (1932): 3. Anon. "A Note on the Sculpture at the Royal Academy." Art Quarterly 1, no. 1 (1957): 12. Anon. "Reach for the Skies." The Spectator 197, no. 6681(13 July 1956): 64-65. Anon. "Views on Television." The Listener 37, no. 954 (1947): 702. B, N. "40,000 Years of Modern Art." The Burlington Magazine 91, no. 551 (1949): 55-56. Banham, R. "Man and His Objects." Art News and Review 3 (1951): 5. Barlow, Thomas et al. "Memorandum Regarding the National Art Collections Bill." The Burlington Magazine 96, no. 610 (1954): 5-6. Barry, Gerald. "After the Ball Is Over." The New Statesman and Nation vol XLII (1951): 396-97. Barry, Gerald. "The Festival Is Britain's." Picture Post 50 (1951): 4-12. Barry, Gerald. "The Festival of Britain 1951." Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 100, no. 4880 (1952): 667-704. Barry, Gerald. "The Festival of Britain: Its Influence on Design Today." Builder, lecture to RSA on 15 February 1961 (1961): 354-56. Barry, Gerald., and et al. "Painting, Sculpture and the Architect, Extracts from the Speeches at the ICA and Mars Group Symposium." Architecture and Building News, RIBA on 2 September 1949 (1949): 283-84. Bell, Clive. "Mr. Munnings and Ultra-Modern Art." The New Statesman and Nation 19, (6 January 1940): 209. Berger, John. "Public Sculpture." The New Statesman and Nation XLV (1953): 15-16. Berger, John. "The Unknown Political Prisoner." The New Statesman and Nation XLV (21 March 1953): 337-38. Beveridge, William. "Social Insurance and Allied Services (The Beveridge Report), Cmd 6404, London: HMSO". (1942). Blunt, Anthony. "Drawings at the ICA." The Burlington Magazine 93, no. 585 (1951): 390-91. Bodkin, Thomas. "Charles Wheeler, CBE, RA." The Studio 151, no. 759, (June 1956): 161-65. Bone, Stephen. "LCC's Open-Air Free for All." The New Statesman and Nation XXXVI (1948): 9. Bone, Stephen. "The Royal Academy." The Manchester Guardian (2 May 1953): 3. Bowness, A. "The 1958 Biennale." The Burlington Magazine 100, no. 669 (1958): 435-36. Campion, Frank. "A President without an Enemy." Everybody’s (12 January 1957): 16-17. Charoux, et al. "Letter to the Editor: Refugees." The New Statesman and Nation (24 August 1940): 185-186. Charoux, Siegfried. "Forsaken Sculpture." Art Quarterly (British) 1, no. 2 (1957): 68-69. Charoux, Siegfried. "Modern Contemporary Authentic Art." Art Quarterly (British) 4, no. 1 (1961). Charoux, Siegfried. "Wien Und London." Tagbuch (Vienna) (1956): 10. LEMU archive. Clark, Kenneth. "Obituary: Sir Eric Maclagan." The Burlington Magazine 93, no. 584 (November 1951): 358. Clive, Bell. "Book Review - Landscape into Art by Kenneth Clark." The New Statesman and Nation 26 November (1949): 616. Connolly, Cyril. "Horizon." Horizon 16, no. 12 (December 1950): 94. Cooper, Douglas. "Reflections on the Venice Biennale." The Burlington Magazine 96, no. 619 (1954): 317-22. Cooper, Douglas, and Rodolfo Pallucchini. "Letters: The Venice Biennale." The Burlington Magazine 97, no. 624 (1955): 85-87. Creswell, H.B. "A New Scheme of Arrangement for Sculpture Galleries ". Architectural Review 8 (1900): 202-06. Derville, Antony. "Sculpture ". The Yorkshire Post, (20 January 1939): 6.

Bibliography Page 238

DM. "Review: Sculpture of the Twentieth Century." The Burlington Magazine 96, no. 620 (November 1954): 355. Durst, Alan. "Sculpture Can Survive." The Studio 140, no. 693 (December 1950): 177-84. Durst, David. "Artists and College Art Teaching." College Art Journal 16, no. 3 (1957): 222-29. Editorial. "The Contemporary Situation." The Burlington Magazine 157, no. 627, (June 1955): 163-64. Editorial. Painting at the Royal Academy: Russian Art and Artistic Activity in the U.S.S.R." The Burlington Magazine 101, no. 671 (1959): 43. Editorial. "Soviet Painting at the Royal Academy." The Burlington Magazine 101, no. 671 (1959): 43. Editorial. "The Burlington Fine Arts Club." The Burlington Magazine, April 94, no. 589 (1952): 97. Editorial. "The Pelican ." The Burlington Magazine 95, no. 607 (1953): 319. Elsen, Albert. "Lively Art from a Dying Profession, the Role of the Modern Artist." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 18, no. 4 (1960): 446-55. Ettlinger, L. D. "Review: The Nude in Art." The Burlington Magazine 99, no. 655 (October 1958): 348-49. Fagg, W. "Tribal Sculpture and the Festival of Britain." Man 51 (1951): 73-76. Farr, Dennis. "Fifty Years of Modern Art: 'Exposition Universelle'." The Burlington Magazine 100, no. 666 (September 1958): 319-20. FoB. "Special Edition on the South Bank Exhibition." Architectural Review CX, no. 656 (1951): 142. Garrett, Albert. "The Sculpture of F. E. McWilliam." The Studio 148, no. 740 (November 1954): 142-45. Goodall, Donald B. "The Art Student, Instruction, and the Academies." College Art Journal 12, no. 4 (1953): 345-48. Gordon, Cora J. "The Carvings of Alan Durst." The Studio 139, no. 682, (January 1950): 10-13. Gordon, Cora J. "London Commentary." The Studio 136, no. 665 (May 1948): 53-55. Gorer, Geoffrey. "Prosperity and the Working Class." The Spectator, 196, no. 6677 (15 June 1956): 784. Hall, Julian. "Summer Exhibition (Sculptures)." Truth (1957), np. RAA Press Cuttings. Hawkes, Jacquetta. "Prospect of Britain." British Vogue 108, no. 2 (1952): 59-69. Hodin, J. P. "Venice Reflects the Urge for Figuration." The Studio 156, no. 786, (September 1958): 72-77. Hoffmann, Edith. "Forty Years of Modern Art." The Burlington Magazine 90, no. 540 (1948): 82-83. Hoffmann, Edith. "The Magazine in War-Time." The Burlington Magazine 128, no. 1000 (1986): 478-80. Hoffmann, Edith. "Review: Sculpture Theme and Variations." The Burlington Magazine 97, no. 624 (March 1955): 88. Hoffmann, Edith. "Sculpture at Battersea Park." The Burlington Magazine 90, no. 544 (1948): 207-08. Holme, C. G. "From the Privilege of the Few to the Habit of the Many." The Studio 104, no. 475 (1932): 187. Hudson, Kenneth E. "The Nature and Function of a Professional School of Art." College Art Journal 15, no. 4 (1956): 352-54. James, Philip. "Killing Art by Kindness." The Listener XXXVIII, no. 968 (14 August 1947): 263-64. John, Augustus et al. "Letters to the Editor: Refugees (I)." The New Statesman and Nation (1940): 10 August 1940. 136. John, Augustus et al. "Letters to the Editor: Refugees (Ii)." The New Statesman and Nation (1940): 31 August 1940. 209. Keel, Edward. "The Moroccan Terracottas of Rita Ling." The Studio 142, no. 704, (November 1951): 142-43. Keynes, John Maynard. "The Arts Council: Its Policy and Hopes." The Listener XXXIV, no. 860, (5 July 1945): 3-4. Longden, A. A. "Art and Sport." The Studio 136, no. 665, (July 1948): 33-40. MacAgy, Douglas. "The Art School Problem." College Art Journal 4, no. 7 (1948): 297-301. Marvell, R. "Experiments in Broadcasting and Television." Hollywood Quarterly 2, no. 4 (1947): 391. Melville, Robert. "The Angel of Cubism (Juan Gris)." The Listener XXXVIII, no. 984 (1947): 988.

Bibliography Page 239

Melville, Robert. "British Portrait Sculpture Today." The Studio 149, no. 746 (May 1955): 138-43. Melville, Robert. "Exhibitions: John Bratby." The Architectural Review 121, no. 722 (1957): 204. Melville, Robert. "Giacomo Manzù." The Studio 153, no. 768 (March 1957): 80-84. Molesworth, D. "Book Review: Sculpture of the Twentieth Century." The Burlington Magazine 96, no. 620 (1954): 355. Molesworth, D. "Review: The Art of Sculpture." The Burlington Magazine 99, no. 654 (September 1957): 318. Mories, F. G. "The Terra Cottas of Frank Dobson." The Studio 135, no. 663 (June 1948): 186-88. Mortimer, Raymond. "The Islanders: Britain by Mass Observation." The New Statesman and Nation XVII, no. 411 (1939): 62. Newton, Eric. "The Future of the Arts in the Welfare State." Royal Society of Arts 99, no. 4835 (8 November 1950): 29-43. Pallucchini, Rodolfo, and Douglas Cooper. "Letters: The Venice Biennale." The Burlington Magazine 97, no. 624 (1955): 85-87. Pearce, Justice. "Notes of the Week: The RA Banquet." Builder (6 May 1955): np. See RAA/Sec/25/3/5. Penrose, Roland. "40,000 Years of Modern Art." The Architectural Review 105, no. 627 (March 1949): 144-45. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: Entente Cordial." Apollo LI (March 1950): 93. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: Festival." Apollo LIII (May 1951): 117. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: Gentlemen Versus Players." Apollo XLVII (June 1948): 121-22. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: In Corpore Sano." Apollo XLVIII (August 1948): 25-26. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: Painting - and Some Sculpture." Apollo L (December 1949): 149. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: The Grand Manner, and the Not-So-Grand." Apollo LIII (January 1951): 1. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: The Royal Academy." Apollo LIII (June 1951): 147. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: The Tate." Apollo XLVII (June 1948): 122. Perspex. "Current Shows and Comments: Youth Must Be Served." Apollo LIII (February 1951): 31. Pevsner, Nikolaus. . "Memorandum Regarding the National Art Collections Bill." The Burlington Magazine 96, no. 610 (1954): 5-6. Pike, Charles. "The RA Summer Exhibition: The Presentation of Architecture." Builder CLXXXVIII, no. 5855, 6 May 1955 (1955): 745-52. Pope, Arthur. "On Training Artists." College Art Journal 6, no. 3 (1947): 226-28. Ray, Cyril. "Private View." The Spectator, 196, no. 6672 (11 May 1956): 651-52. Read, Herbert. "Intellectuals in Exile." The New Statesman and Nation XVII, no. 417 (18 February 1939): 244-45. Read, Herbert. "Letters to the Editor: Institute of Contemporary Art." The Listener XXXVIII, no. 970 (28 August 1947): 352. Read, Herbert. "A Nest of Gentle Artists’." Apollo LXXVI, no. 7, September 1962: 536-38. Reid, Charles. "Wellington of Trafalgar Square." Punch (15 December 1956): np. RAA Press Cuttings. Reinhardt, Ad. "The Artist in Search of an Academy - Part 1." College Art Journal 12, no. 3 (1953): 249-51. Reinhardt, Ad. "The Artist in Search of an Academy - Part 2.". College Art Journal 13, no. 4 (1954): 314-15. Richards, J. M. "Europe Rebuilt: 1946-56." The Architectural Review 121, no. 722 (March 1957): 158-76. Richardson, Albert. "A Meal to Remember Date." John Bull (1958). RAA Press Cuttings. Romney-Towndrow, Kenneth. "Sir Gerald Kelly: The New President of the Ra." The Studio 139, no. 687 (June 1950): 161. Sandilands, G. S. "Arthur J Fleischmann His Sculptures in 'Perspex'." The Studio 152, no. 764, (November 1956): 144-47. Sandilands, G. S. "Josephine De Vasconcellos." The Studio 151, no. 754, (January 1956): 8-11. Schmeckebier, Laurence. "Drawing and the Art Schools." College Art Journal 14, no. 2 (1955): 135-41. Schoen, Max. "The Intellectual Temper of Contemporary Art." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15, no. 2 (1956): 139-51. Sorrell, Mary. "Charoux." Apollo XLVII, no. 724 (June 1948): 128-30.

Bibliography Page 240

Sorrell, Mary. "Charoux." The Queen MLD45 (8 August 1945): 12-40. Sorrell, Mary. "Epstein." Apollo LI, (February 1950): 36-38. Sorrell, Mary. "The Mexican Terracottas of John Skeaping ARA." The Studio 143, no. 708, (March 1952): 72-75. Sorrell, Mary. "Portrait of an Artist No. 142." Arts News and Review VI, no. 12 (1954): 1. Sorrell, Mary. "Siegfried Charoux A.RA" The Studio 146, no. 724 (July 1953): 16-19. Spencer, Charles S. "Benno Schotz His New Religious Work." The Studio 158, no. 796, (July 1959): 20-23. Spender, S. "British Intellectuals in the Welfare State." Commentary 12 (1951): 425. Stanley, Louis T. "The London Season." The Queen (19 March 1957): 44. Strachen, W. J. "Henry Moore's UNESCO Statue." The Studio 156, no. 789 (December 1958): 170-75. Strauss, Patricia. "Bevin and Morrison ". Harper's Magazine 182 (1940): 264. Strauss, Patricia. "The Lady Is an Engineer." Vogue 99, no. 10 (1942): 52. 97. Sylvester, A. D. B. "Big Pictures for the Festival." The Burlington Magazine 93, no. 583 (1951): 329. Sylvester, A. D. B. "Festival Sculpture." The Studio 142, no. 700 (July 1951): 72-77. Taubes, Frederic. "The Failure of Contemporary Art Criticism." The Studio 145, no. 718, (January 1953): 23-29. Taylor, Basil. "Review." London Calling, (5 July 1956): 14-15. Tindell-Hopwood, A. "The Royal Academy, 1947.". Nature 159, no. 4049 (1947): 764-65. Wallis, Neville. "General Notes: The Royal Academy." Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 103, no. 4951 (1955): 426-27. Wallis, Neville. "The Royal Academy Summer Exhibition." Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 102, no. 4937 (1954): 965-66. Wallis, Neville. "Royal Academy Summer Exhibition." Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 107, no. 5035 (1959): 507-09. Waterhouse, Ellis. "The First Royal Academy Exhibition, 1769." The Listener (1 June 1950): 944-47. Waterhouse, E. K. "The Exhibition 'the First Hundred Years of the Royal Academy'." The Burlington Magazine 94, no. 587 (1952): 48-54. Watson, F. "Art at the South Bank Exhibition." The Listener XLV, no. 1158 (1951): 776. Webb, M. I. "English Sculpture on Exhibition." The Burlington Magazine 95, no. 604 (1953): 242-45. Whittet, G. S. "Burlington House Styles Have Breadth." The Studio 154, no. 773 (August 1957): 50-54. Whittet, G. S. "Franta Belsky Sculptor." The Studio 154, no. 772 (July 1957): 8-11. Whittet, G. S. "London Commentary." The Studio 157, no. 790 (January 1959): 28-29. Whittet, G. S. "London Commentary: The Royal Academy." The Studio 144, no. 713 (August 1952): 59-63. Whittet, G. S. "Sir Alfred Munnings in Retrospect." The Studio 151, no. 759 (June 1956): 182-83. Whittet, G. S. "Sir Winston Churchill, Painter." The Studio 157, no. 795, (June 1959): 168-71. Williams, W. E. "Encouragement of the Arts in the ." The Educational Forum 14, no. 3 (1950): 267-69. Wright, P. "The Festival of Britain: Some Memories." RSA Journal 143, no. 5459 (1995): 52-55. Zilczer, Judith. "The Theory of Direct Carving in Modern Sculpture." Oxford Art Journal 4, no. 2 (1981): 44-49.

Bibliography Page 241

Primary Sources – Published

Newspapers

Anon. "12 Labour Party Candidates." The Times, 6 April 1939, 9. Anon. "73 Women Candidates." Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail, 21 March 1949, 1949, 6. Anon. "£1000 Bronze Missing from Battersea Park." Evening Express, 24 August 1951, 8. Anon. "Advertisement: Visit the Impressionist Exhibition - 24th Biennale at Venice." The Times, 6 July 1948, 6. Anon. "All Their Own Work, ." Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail, 23 June, 1948, 3. Anon. "An Amy Johnson Bust." The Daily Mail, 15 November 1944, 3. Anon. "Architect of Peace Date." The Times, 1946. Anon. "Art Courses to Be Reduced." The Times, 11 December 1956, 7. Anon. "Art School Proposals to Be Reviewed." The Times, 3 August 1956, 3. Anon. "The Arts Council as Patron." The Times, p. 7., 17 November 1951, 7. Anon. "Arts Council Man Quits in Protest." Daily Express, 1 July 1955, np. RAA Press Cuttings. Anon. "The Arts Starved of Capital: Urgent Need for Increased Government Patronage." The Times, 12 July 1957, 8. Anon. "Battersea Park: Open-Air Exhibition of Sculpture." The Times, 14 May 1948, 1948, 7. Anon. "Birthdays Today: Mr Siegfried Charoux 69." The Times, 15 October 1965, 14. Anon. "Birthdays Today: Mr Siegfried Charoux 70." The Times, 15 October 1966, 10. Anon. "Birthdays Today: Siegfried Charoux 68." The Times, 15 October 1964, 14. Anon. "Bogyman for City Tories, Unveiling in Islington." The Guardian, 16 September 1959, 8. Anon. "Boundaries: New Names in the Old Plan. His First Patron (Arnold Machin)." Derby Evening Telegraph, 3 June, 1947, 3. Anon. "Britain's Royal Ballet." The Times, 17 January 1957, 3. Anon. "British Art Abroad." The Times, 9 March, 1950, 7. Anon. "British Art for Venice." The Times, 8 April 1952, 9. Anon. "British Council Calls for Another £55,000 "Half Price of Misguided Missile's Tail." The Manchester Guardian, 23 October 1956, 2. Anon. "The British Council Date." The Times, 1950, 7. Anon. "British Council Takes a Hand: Anglo-Soviet Visits." The Manchester Guardian, 5 October 1955, 7. Anon. "British Paintings and "Iron Waifs" at Venice." The Manchester Guardian, 15 June 1952, 4. Anon. "British Prodded to Spend on Arts." The New York Times, 25 November 1956, 81. Anon. "British School at Rome." The Times, 25 February 1920, 11. Anon. "A Bust of Amy Johnson." The Times, 16 November 1944, 2. Anon. "Cabinet and Defence." The Times, 5 October 1946, 5. Anon. "Chelsea Art School Principal." The Times, 17 April 1958, 7. Anon. "Chelsea Art School Principal (2).", 7 October 1958, 12. Anon. "Chelsea Art School Principal: Prof. Lawrence Gowing Chosen for New Post." The Times, 7 October 1958, 12. Anon. "Contemporary Arts." The Times, 26 June 1947, 5. Anon. "Contemporary-Style at the Academy Date." The Times, 1963. Anon. "The Critics? I'll Ask Sir John for Tips, Says 'Mr. Academy'." Evening Standard, 13 December 1955, np. RAA Press Cuttings. Anon. "Deaths: Funeral Mr Siegfried Charoux." The Times, 2 May 1967, 12. Anon. "Editorial: Plans for the Colonies " The Times, 26 June 1947, 5. Anon. "Editorial: The End of an Era " The Times, 15 August 1947, 5. Anon. "Eighteen Young Sculptors " The Times, 11 May 1959, 3. Anon. "The End of RA's 'Purdah'." Daily Express, 27 April 1967, np. RAA Press Cuttings. Anon. "Four New A.RAS." The Times, 26 April 1947, 2. Anon. "From the RA Summer Exhibition." The Times, 3 May 1968, 16. Anon. "Funeral Mr Siegfried Charoux." The Times, 1 May 1967, 10. Anon. "Gerald Kelly Named Royal Academy Head." New York Times, 9 December 1949, 5. Anon. "Gossip of the Day: Coronation RA Day." The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury, 19 March 1953, 8. Anon. "The Henry Moore Exhibition " The Manchester Guardian, 1 June 1949, 3. Anon. "Henry Moore in Harlow." The Manchester Guardian, 18 May 1956, 8. Anon. "Italian Award to British Sculptor." The Times, 15 June, 1956, 10. Anon. "A Londoner Reflects on 1954." The Manchester Guardian, 31 December 1954, 3. Anon. "A Londoner's Retrospect." The Manchester Guardian, 30 December 1950, 3.

Bibliography Page 242

Anon. "Lord Tedder Receives the Freedom of the City." The Times, 29 May 1946, 6. Anon. "Midland Artists Impress." The Nottingham Journal, 3 May 1947, 3 May 1947, 6. Anon. "Mr Churchill on Why League Failed." The Manchester Guardian, 30 May 1946, 6. Anon. "Mr Henry Moore " The Times, 30 October, 1948, 6. Anon. "Mr. D. S. MacColl." The Observer, 22 December 1948, 3. Anon. "New Fountain in Regent's Park." The Times, 26 April 1950, 3. Anon. "News in Brief: Beer in the Parks Date." The Times, 1949, 3. Anon. "Obituary: Siegfried Charoux - a Distinguished Sculptor." The Times, 28 April 1967, 12. Anon. "Our London Correspondence: , Friday Night." The Manchester Guardian, 23 October 1954, 4. Anon. "Our London Correspondence - Strauss Memorial " The Manchester Guardian, 11 November 1954, 6. Anon. "Our London Correspondence - Too Cramping?" The Manchester Guardian, 23 October, 1954, 4. Anon. "Our London Correspondence - Tribute to Lord Cecil." The Manchester Guardian, 27 May 1946, 4. Anon. "Our London Correspondence: Fleet Street, Sunday Night." The Manchester Guardian, 7 January 1957, 4. Anon. "Our London Correspondence: Henry Moore in Harlow." The Manchester Guardian, 18 May 1956, 8. Anon. "P.RA'S Appeal for £20,000: Byam Shaw Art School in Difficulties " The Times, 11 October 1957, 2. Anon. "Parkinson's Law in Art." The Times, 3 March 1959, 3. Anon. "Picasso Painting "800 Square Feet of Absurdity"." The Manchester Guardian, 30 April 1957, 4. Anon. "Pictorial Views of Venice." The Times, 15 June 1956, 5. Anon. "Picture Gallery: 'A Classical Landscape' George Lambert (1745)." The Times, 5 January 1959, 12. Anon. "Plan to Combine Art Schools." The Times, 30 December 1957, 4. Anon. "Private Wire: Festival Remainders." The Manchester Guardian, 21 January 1952, 4. Anon. "Private Wire: London, Sunday Night." The Manchester Guardian, 21 January 1952, 4. Anon. "Private Wire: Our London Correspondence." The Manchester Guardian, 4 April 1952, 8. Anon. "Private Wire: The Gentle Physician " The Manchester Guardian, 10 July 1947, 4. Anon. "Private Wire: Venice Biennale." The Manchester Guardian, 4 April 1952, 8. Anon. "Prize for British Sculptor: The Unknown Political Prisoner " The Times, 13 March 1953, 11. Anon. "Profile: Royal Academy." The Observer, 4 May 1952, 2. Anon. "The Queen Opens £1m Courts." The Times, 2 October 1968, 2. Anon. "The Queen to Unveil Seaman's Memorial." The Times, 1 March 1955, 10. Anon. "Quiet - and Tolerant - Man in Reynold's Chair." The Manchester Guardian, 12 April 1958, 4. Anon. "R A Exhibition " The Scotsman, 7 May, 1947, 6. Anon. "RA President and "This Modern Art" " The Manchester Guardian, 29 April 1949, 7. Anon. "RA'S First One-Man Show: Work of Mr. Siegfried Charoux." The Times, 14 August 1958, 12. Anon . "Rival Theories of Art: An Attack on 'Reaction'." The Manchester Guardian, 8 September 1949, 3. Anon. "Rome Scholarship Awards " The Times, 24 April 1956, 3. Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 25 April 1957, 3. Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 25 April 1953, 8. Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 24 March 1951, 8. Anon. "Rome Scholarships " The Times, 3 May 1939, 10. Anon. "Rome Scholarships." The Times, 26 April 1958, 4. Anon. "Rome Scholarships." The Times, 12 April 1952, 8. Anon. "Rome Scholarships in Art " The Times, 2 May 1953, 8. Anon. "Rome Scholarships in Art." The Times, 26 April 1955, 16. Anon. "Rome Scholarships in Art." The Times, 20 April 1954, 10. Anon. "The Royal Academy." The Manchester Guardian, 29 April 1950, 5. Anon. "The Royal Academy." The Times, 3 May 1947, 5. Anon. "The Royal Academy Date." The Times, 1951, 7. Anon. "Royal Academy Dialogue: Savouries and Sweets." The Observer, 3 May 1959, 18. Anon. "Royal Academy Purchases." The Times, 14 May 1947, 7. Anon. "Royal Academy View Day a Fashion Nightmare." The Times, 5 May 1948, 2.

Bibliography Page 243

Anon. "The Royal Academy, 8 December." The Times, 8 December 1951, 7. Anon. "The Royal Academy: Sculpture and Water-Colours Date." The Scotsman, 1948, 4. Anon. "The Royal Academy: Simplicity the Theme in Sculpture Section." The Scotsman, 1 May 1950, 6. Anon. "The Royal Academy: Stanley Spencer and Augustus John Make It a Better Year." The Manchester Guardian, 29 April 1950, 5. Anon. "Royal Academy's New Look." The Times, 2 May 1958, 11. Anon. "Royal Visit." Evening News, 28 February 1955, np. RAA Press Cuttings. Anon. "Russian Art Show for London Date." The Manchester Guardian, 1958, 5. Anon. "Russian Art Show for London: Ikon and Modern Realism." The Manchester Guardian, 16 December 1958, 5. Anon. "Savouries and Sweets." The Observer 3 May 1959, 18. Anon. "Sculpture in Battersea." The Times, 14 May 1948, 5. Anon. "Sculpture in the Home." The Manchester Guardian, 16 November 1946, 3. Anon. "Sculpture in the Park?" The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury, 29 May, 1948, 2. Anon. "Sculpture of Two Centuries in the Open Air Date." The Times, 1957. Anon. "Sir Alfred Causes a Stir: Lively Academy Dinner." The Manchester Guardian, 3 May 1956, 14. Anon. "Sir Alfred Munnings - Art Critic: Advice to Chelsea." The Manchester Guardian, 2 November 1950, 3. Anon. "Sir Stafford Cripps Will Appeal against Expulsion." Bristol Evening Post, 30 January, 1939, 7-8. Anon. "The Storm Disaster Ship." The Times, 10 January 1959, 14. Anon "Study of Art in Rome." The Times, 10 May 1950, 3. Anon. "Study of Art in Rome: Scholarship Works on View in London." The Times, 10 May 1951, 3. Anon. "Swiss Sculptor's Exhibition." The Times, 7 June 1955, 2. Anon. "T.U.C. Sculpture Competition: No Awards Made." The Times, 23 October 1954, 3. Anon. "Tate Gallery Purchases " The Times, 6 July 1948, 6. Anon. "The Royal Academy." The Times, 5 May 1951, 1951, 7. Anon. "The Tate since 1938." The Times, 8 October 1954, 10. Anon. "Tories Will Lose in Event of Early Election." The Times of India, 30 August 1952, 3. Anon. "Trouble at the Wells " The Times, 1 March 1957, 3. Anon. "Turner Paintings in Venice." The Manchester Guardian, 25 May 1948, 6. Anon. "Unveiling of Memorial to Bomber Crews." The Times, 7 November 1955, 4. Anon. "The Venice Biennale." The Times, 12 April, 1950, 4. Anon. "The Venice Biennale: Wanted - a Patron." The Manchester Guardian, 24 August 1950, 4. Anon. "The Voyage of the "Renown"." The Scotsman, 10 January 1927, 10. Anon. "Winners of Industrial Art Bursaries." The Times, 5 March 1953, 10. Anon. "British Now " The Evening Telegraph, 15 November 1946, 3. Anon. "General Election Results,." Marylebone Mercury, 6 October, 1945, 3. Anon. "The Henry Moore Exhibition." The Manchester Guardian, 1949, 3. Anon. "Impressive Show of Modern Art." The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury, 20 March 1953, 5. Anon. "Our London Correspondence - Russian Exhibition." The Manchester Guardian, 7 January 1957, 4. Anon. "Rival Theories of Art." The Manchester Guardian, 1949, 3. Anon. "Russian Art Show for London." The Manchester Guardian, 16 December 1958, 5. Anon. "Showing Off British Art Abroad." The Manchester Guardian, 26 March 1959, 7. Anon. "'T. J.' Memorial Fund (Charoux)." The Observer, 13 May 1956, 3. Anon. "Veering to the Right " Cornishman, 16 October, 1947, 4. Astor, David. "Mr Siegfried Charoux." The Times, 3 May 1967, 12. Bagnall, D. N. K. "Cripps - "Political Innocent" Puts Sincerity First " Daily Mirror, 9 February, 1943, 3. Barr Jr, Alfred H. "Letters to the Editor: Britain at the Biennale." The Manchester Guardian, 3 September 1952, 4. Beasley, John. "The British Council in Australia." The Times, 15 January 1948, 5. Black, Misha. "Letters to the Editor: As Grandmother Liked It." The Times, 24 June 1960, 15. Bliss, Douglas Percy. "Sculpture in the Open Air: 'Plucky and Deserving Venture' on Banks of the Kelvin." The Scotsman, 25 June 1949, 9. Bodkin, Thomas. "Fonteyn Sculpture." The Birmingham Post, 5 May 1956, 7. Bone, Muirhead. "Letters to the Editor: Art Schools." The Times, 6 October 1939, 6. Bone, Stephen. "The Almost Total Failure Date." The Manchester Guardian, 1953, 5.

Bibliography Page 244

Bone, Stephen. "Ending Segregation of Styles." The Manchester Guardian, 2 May 1958, 7. Bone, Stephen. "An Exhibition of Christian Art." The Manchester Guardian, 12 May 1953, 5. Bone, Stephen. "Retrospect with Sir Alfred Munnings." The Manchester Guardian, 10 March 1956, 5. Bone, Stephen. "The Royal Academy." The Manchester Guardian, 1 May 1954, 3. Bone, Stephen. "The Royal Academy - an Average Exhibition." The Manchester Guardian, 30 April 1949, 6. Bone, Stephen. "The Royal Academy: Good - but Not Good Enough." The Manchester Guardian, 3 May 1952, 4. Bone, Stephen. "Sculpture in the Home." The Manchester Guardian, 8 May 1954, 3. Bone, Stephen. "Sculpture in the Park." The Manchester Guardian, 18 May 1948, 3. Bone, Stephen. "Unknown Political Prisoner Date." The Manchester Guardian, 1953, 5. Bones, Stephen. "The Royal Academy." The Manchester Guardian, 2 May 1953, 3. Brill, Reginald. "Van Gogh and the Tate, 23 December 1947." The Times, 23 December 1947, 5. Brown, Ivor. "Burlington Arcady " The Observer, 2 May 1948, 5. Burns, R. J. . "The Arts Council as Patron." The Times, 17 November 1951, 7. Casson, Hugh. "Our Royal Academy." The Observer, 16 August 1959, 10. Chapman, Max. "Art and Artists." What's On in London, 18 May 1956, np. RAA Press Cuttings. Clark, R. "Lightening up Heavy Metal " The Guardian, 4 January 1995, 7. Collis, M. "Art." The Observer, 6 May 1945, 2. Cooper, Douglas. "Letters to the Editor: Sculpture in Battersea." The Times, 17 May 1948, 5. Daniel, Clifton. "Londoners Cheer Modern Art's Foe." The New York Times, 30 April 1949, 8. Denver, Bernard. "Lynn Chadwick's Achievement at the Venice Biennale." The Manchester Guardian, 26 June 1956, 5. Devree, Howard. "Venice Art Show Will Open Today." The New York Times, 16 June 1956, 22. Editorial. "The British Council, 5 September." The Times, 5 September 1950, 7. Fogg, Rushworth. "Munnings: Man in the Street the Judge Date." Northampton Evening Telegraph, 1949, np. Munnings Archive Press Cuttings. Godfrey, D. E. R. Chairman, Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions. "Letters to the Editor: Art Schools." The Times, 3 January 1958, 9. Gordon, Jan. "The Royal Academy - Few Outside Exhibitors." The Observer, 3 May 1942, 7. Harding, Gilbert. Illustrated, 2 June 1956 np. RAA Press Cuttings. Hartley, L. P. "Letters to the Editor: Art Exhibitions Abroad." The Times, 21 April 1956, 7. Hendy, Philip. "Letters to the Editor: Art Students' Privilege." The Times, , 21 August 1950, 5. Hendy, Philip. "Recognition of British Art Abroad." The Times, 25 April 1956, 3. Honeyman, T. J. "State Aid for the Arts." The Observer, 24 July 1949, 4. John, Augustus, Matthew Smith, Henry Moore, John Piper, and Ceri Richards. "Chelsea School of Art." The Times, 6 January 1958, 9. Lawrence, Lesley. "Letters to the Editor: A London Art School " The Times, 15 October 1940, 5. Laws, Frederick. "Picking Winners at the Galleries." The Manchester Guardian, 5 March 1959, 6. Laws, Frederick. "Showing Off British Art Abroad." The Manchester Guardian, 26 March 1959, 7. Laws, Frederick. "Youth and Music in Sculpture." The Manchester Guardian, 14 August 1958, 5. Ledward, Gilbert. "Letters to the Editor: Sculpture in Battersea " The Times, 17 May 1948, 5. Lewis, John N. C. "Designers for Industry: Training in Art Schools - American Methods." The Times, 1 January 1945, 5. Liebling, A. J. "Table Talk - Charoux RA" The Observer, 11 August 1957, 9. Louchheim, Aline B. "Cultural Diplomacy: An Art We Neglect." The New York Times, 3 January 1954, SM16. Louchhiem, Aline B. "Art Patronage: London's New Effort." The New York Times, 4 April 1948, X11. Louchhiem, Aline B. "Cultural Diplomacy: An Art We Neglect." The New York Times, 3 January 1954, SM16. Love, Kennett. "Briton Tilts at Modernist Art; Satirizes It in Paint and Verse." The New York Times, 5 May 1956, 21. MacInnes, Colin. "At the Galleries: The Modern Movements." The Observer, 29 February 1948, 2. Moss, Robert. "The Henry Moore Exhibition: Reply to the RA President." The Manchester Guardian, 1 June 1949, 3. Newton, Eric. "Again That Question: What Is Modern Art?" The New York Times, 16 May 1948, SM12. Newton, Eric. "Art and Patronage in England." The New York Times, 26 September 1954, X12.

Bibliography Page 245

Newton, Eric. "Britain's Academy: The 1954 Annual Show Shows Little Change in Style over Last Twenty Years." The New York Times, 9 May 1954, X9. Newton, Eric. "Churchill the Artist - an Evaluation." The New York Times, 2 January 1949, SM10. Newton, Eric. "New Portrait of 'Bulldog and Cherub': Which Side of Me Will You Do?" The New York Times, 5 December 1954, SM14. Newton, Eric. "The Royal Academy of 1943." The Manchester Guardian, 1 May 1943, 4. Newton, Eric. "The Royal Academy: A Mood of Restraint." The Manchester Guardian, 2 May 1942, 4. Oliver, W. T. "Ambitious Spring Exhibition at Bradford." The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury, 21 March 1952, 3. Oliver, W. T. "Notable Work by Yorkshire Artists." The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury, 2 May 1949, 3. Oliver, W. T. "The Victory Academy: Beauty and Tranquillity at Burlington House." The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury, 4 May 1946, 4. Pendennis. "Table Talk: South Bank Exhibition." The Observer, 13 May 1951, 5. Pendennis. "Table Talk: Spectacular Interpreter." The Observer, 15 April 1956, 12. Pendennis. "Talk Talk: Russian Exhibition." The Observer, 6 January 1957, 7. Pevsner, Nikolaus. "Letters to the Editor: Study of Art History." The Times, 5 November 1952, 9. Read, Herbert. "Contemporary Arts." The Times, 26 June 1947, 5. Reddy, G. K. "Russian Art Show in U.K. - Red Flags Puzzle Londoners." The Times of India, 1 January 1959, 7. Richardson, A. . "London Sidelights." City Press, 11 March 1955, np. RAA Press Cuttings. Ridley, Jasper. "Van Gogh and the Tate, 24 December 1947." The Times, 24 December 1947, 5. Robertson, C. "Letters to the Editor: London Art Schools." The Times, 25 October 1939, 6. Robertson, Howard., A. H. Henson, and Charles Wheeler. "Rebuilding the City." The Times, 18 January 1954, 7. Rothenstein, John. "The Tate, 1897-1947." The Times, 21 July 1947, 1947, 5. Russell, Gordon Sir. "Art in Industry: Good Design as Asset to Export Trade." The Times, 25 April 1956, 11. Scarman, Leslie. "The Law: In the Past Five Years the Work of Law Reform in Britain Had Advanced at an Unprecedented Pace." The Times, 3 October 1970, 21. Sewter, A. C. "Sculpture in the Rain." The Manchester Guardian, 5 June 1958, 5. Somerville, Lillian. "An Exhibition of Sculpture " The Times, 12 March 1956, 11. Tennyson, Sir Charles. "Industrial Design: The British Trend." The Times, 1 January 1947, 12. Wallis, Neville. "Academy Guest - Segonzac." The Observer, 18 October 1959, 25. Wallis, Neville. "Art for the People." The Observer, 4 January 1959, 12. Wallis, Neville. "An Unusual Academy." The Observer, 30 April 1950, 6. Walton, Allan. "Industrial Design: Art and Technical Training." The Times, 27 December 1945, 5. Welles, B. "Churchill Clings to Painting Though Output Is Diminished." The New York Times, 27 May 1956, 5. Welles, Benjamin. "Row Spices Dinner at Royal Academicians; Britons Resent Attack on Modern Art Works." The New York Times, 29 April 1949, 5. Wheeler, Charles. "An Artist's Taxes." The Times, 14 April 1951, 7. Wheeler, Charles. "Money for the Arts." The Times, 30 January 1959, 11. Wheeler, Charles. "Mr Siegfried Charoux." The Times, 12 May 1967, 12. Whitehead, J. G. O. "Anglo-Soviet Exchanges - the British Council's Work." The Manchester Guardian, 6 January 1958, 6. Williams, W. E. "Letters to the Editor: The Arts Council." The Manchester Guardian, 19 October 1953, 4.

Bibliography Page 246

Primary Sources

Websites

Anon. "Frank Dobson Artist." The Frank Dobson Estate, http://www.frankdobsonartist.com/index.html, accessed 8 January 2017. British Council "The British Council 1934-1955: Twenty-First Anniversary Report." https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000100140005- 8.pdf, accessed 27 January 2018. Caro, Anthony. "Anthony Caro." https://www.google.co.uk/interstitial?url=http://www.anthonycaro.org/frames- related/biography.htm, accessed 27 November 2016. Caro, Anthony. "Obituary: Frank Martin." http:--www.independent.co.uk-news-obituaries- frank-martin-37971.html, accessed 3 December 2016. Gov. "Art Schools and Students. House of Commons Debate, 31 January 1957, Vol. 563, Cc219- 20w." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1957/jan/31/art- schools-and-students, accessed 14 January 2017. Gov. "Art Students. House of Commons Debate, 5 March 1959, Vol 601, C59w." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1959/mar/05/art-students, accessed 14 January 2017. Gov. "Declined Honours." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6112 6/document2012-01-24-075439.pdf, accessed 24 November 2017. Gov. "Education (Technical and Art Schools, Salaries)." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1945/jan/30/education- technical-and-art-schools, accessed 14 January 2017. Gov. "Education Act 1944." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/7- 8/31/contents/enacted, accessed 20 November 2017. Gov. "Education. House of Commons Debate, 25 July 1956, Vol. 557, Cc426-543." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1956/jul/25/education, accessed 14 January 2017. Gov. "Grants for the Arts." http://hansard.millabnksystems.com/commons/1963/mar/20/grants-for-the-arts, accessed 14 January 2017. Gov. "Honours Lists." https://www.thegazette.co.uk/honours-lists, accessed 24 November 2017. Gov. "Indian Independence Act 1947." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30, accessed 10 July 2017. Greenberg, Clement. "Avant-garde and Kitsch." http://sites.uci.edu/form/files/2015/01/Greenberg-Clement-Avant-garde-and-Kitsch- copy.pdf, accessed 24 May 2018. Knight, Laura. "No 1 Dressing Room 1947." http://www.damelauraknight.com/artwork/no-1- dressing-room-1947/, accessed 27 April 2018. Low, David. "David Low Gallery." https://www.theguardian.com/gall/0,,712437,00.html, accessed 20 September 2017. Silwood Video Group. "David Grist Narrative." http://www.spectacle.co.uk/projects_page.php?id=280, accessed 8 May 2017.

Bibliography Page 247

Secondary Sources

Books

Abercrombie, Patrick, and J. H. Forshaw. The County of London Plan. London: Macmillan, 1943. Adams, Brooks., Lisa. Jardine, Martin. Maloney, Norman. Rosenthal, and Richard. Shone. Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection. London: Thames and Hudson in association with the Royal Academy of Art, 1997. Addison, Paul. Now the War Is Over: A Social History of Britain 1945-51. London: BBC & Jonathan Cape, 1985. Agard, Walter Raymond. The Greek Tradition in Sculpture. Vol. 7: Ayer Publishing, 1979. AIA. Broad Sheet, No. 1: Devoted to Abstract Art: Artists International Association. London: Lund Humphries, 1951. Aldred, N. "Art in Postwar Britain: A Short History of the Ica." In British Culture of the Postwar an Introduction to Literature and Society 1945-1999, edited by A. Davies and A Sinfield. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Alison, Smith. Exposed the Victorian Nude. London: Tate Publishing, 2001. Alley, R. Graham Sutherland. London: Tate Gallery Publications, 1982. Alloway, Lawrence. The Venice Biennale 1895-1968 from Salon to Goldfish Bowl. London: Faber, 1969. Alston, David. "Foreword." In Within These Shores: A Selection of Works from the Chantrey Bequest 1883-1985, edited by Tate, 7. London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 1989. Archer, Michael, Marjorie Allthrope-Guyton, and Roger Malbert. How to Improve the World: 60 Years of British Art London: The Arts Council Collection, 2006. Ashton, Leigh. Style in Sculpture. London, New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1946. Atkinson, Harriet. The Festival of Britain a Land and Its People. London and New York: I B Tauris, 2012. Auden W H. The Age of Anxiety. 2011 ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1947. Baker, Denys Val. Britain's Art Colony by the Sea. London: George Ronald, 1959. Baker, E. The Character of England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947. Baker, Malcolm. Figured in Marble: The Making and Viewing of Eighteenth-Century Sculpture. London, Los Angeles: John Paul Getty Museum, 2000. Banham, M., and B. Hillier. A Tonic to the Nation: The Festival of Britain 1951. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976. Barassi, S. We the Moderns: Gaudier-Brzeska and the Birth of Modern Sculpture. Cambridge: Kettle's Yard, 2006. Barker, Emma. Art and Its Histories: Contemporary Cultures of Display. New Haven and London: Yale University Press in association with The Open University, 1999. Barker, Ian. Anthony Caro - Quest for the New Sculpture. Munich: Swiridoff Verlag, 2004. Barr Jr, Alfred H. Masters of Modern Art. New York: MoMA, 1954. Barr Jr, Alfred H. Picasso: Forty Years of His Art. New York: MOMA, 1939. Barr Jr, Alfred H. What Is Modern Painting? New York: MoMA, 1943. Barringer, Timothy J, and Tom Flynn. Colonialism and the Object: Empire, Material Culture, and the Museum. Vol. 2: Psychology Press, 1998. Barrington, Tim, and Elizabeth Prettejohn. Frederic Leighton Antiquity, Renaissance, Modernity. London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art and the Yale Centre for British Art, 1999. Barson, Tanya, Mark Nash, Lynda Morris, and David Campany. Making History: Art and Documentary: Postwar Britain and the Aesthetics of Plenty. Liverpool: Tate Liverpool in Association with Tate Publishing, 2006. Bayer, Herbert, Walter Gropius, and Ise Gropius. Bauhaus 1919-1928. London: Secker and Warburg, 1975. Beattie, S. The New Sculpture. New Haven, Connecticut, and London: Yale University Press, 1983. Behr, S., and M. Malet. Artists in Exile in Britain 1933-1945: Politics and Cultural Identity (the Year Book for the Research Centre for German and Austrian Studies) New York: Rodopi, 2004. Bennett, Richard. New Sights of London. London: The Garden City Press Ltd, 1960. Bereson, Bernard. Seeing and Knowing. New York: Graphic Society Art Library, 1953.

Bibliography Page 248

Berger, John. Art and Revolution. London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969. Berger, John. Ways of Seeing London: British Broadcasting Corp. and Penguin Books, 1972. Bernardini, Paolo. "Politics and Painting at the Venice Biennale, 1948-64: Italy and the Idea of Europe ". edited by Nancy Jachec, 237-38. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007. Berthoud, Roger. The Life of Henry Moore. London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 1987. Bianchini, Franco. "Remaking European Cities: The Role of Cultural Policies." In Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience, edited by Bianchini Franco. and Parkinson Michael., 1-20. Manchester: Manchester University, 1993. Bihalji, Merlin. Adventure of Modern Art: Similarities and Differences in Art Images, Primitive Ancient and Modern. New York: Abrams, 1966. Bilbey, Diane, and Marjorie Trusted. British Sculpture 1470 to 2000: A Concise Catalogue of the Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum. London: V&A Publications, 2002. Bindman, David. The Complete Graphic Works of William Blake. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978. Bingham, Neil. 100 Years of Architectural Drawings 1900-2000. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2013. Bingham, Neil, and Andrew Wood. Modernretro: Living with Mid-Century Modern Style. London and New York: Ryland, Peters and Small, 2005. Bird, Michael. Lynn Chadwick. Farnham: Lund Humphries, 2014. Black, Ian S. "Imperial Visions: Rebuilding the Bank of England, 1919-39." In Imperial Cities, Landscape, Display and Identity, edited by F Driver and D Gilbert, 96-113. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Black, Jonathan. The Sculpture of Eric Kennington. London: Henry Moore Foundation with Lund Humphries, London, 2002. Black, Jonathan., and B. Martin. Dora Gordine Sculptor, Artist, Designer. London: Dorich House Museum, in association with Philip Wilson Publishers, 2007. Blackwood, Jonathan. The Sculpture of John Skeaping. Aldershot: The Henry Moore Foundation, in association with Lund Humphries, 2011. Blake, Avril. Misha Black. London: The Design Council, 1984. Blomfield, Reginald. Modernismus. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1934. Blunden, J., and N. Curry. A People's Charter?: Forty Years of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. London: HMSO, 1990. Bockstefl, Gregor-Anatol. Siegfried Charoux Bildhauer Und Maler (Siegfried Charoux Sculptor and Painter). Vienna: Langenzersdorf Museum, 2017. Bonnefoy, Yves. Giacometti. Paris: Flammarion, 2012. Born, R. A. From Blast to Pop: Aspects of Modern British Art, 1915-1965. University of Chicago Press, 1997. Bowness, Alan. Barbara Hepworth: A Pictorial Autobiography. Tate Press, 2012. Bowness, Alan. Bernard Meadows Sculpture and Drawings. London: The Henry Moore Foundation in association with Lund Humphries Publishers, 1995. Bowness, Alan., Collins, Judith., Cork, Richard. . British Contemporary Art 1910-1990: Eighty Years of Collecting London: The Contemporary Art Society, 1991. Bowness, Alan. The Conditions of Success: How the Modern Artist Rises to Fame. Wisbech: Thames and Hudson, 1989. Bowness, Alan. Henry Moore: Vol Two Complete Sculpture, 1949-54. London: Lund Humphries, 1965. Bowness, Alan. Lynn Chadwick. London: Methuen, 1962. Bowness, Alan, and John Davies. Reg Butler. London: Tate Gallery Publications, 1983. Bowness, Sophie. Barbara Hepworth: Writings and Conversations. London: Tate Publishing, 2015. Bowness, Sophie, Clive Phillpot, and Sandra Beresford. Britain at the Venice Biennale 1895-1995. London: British Council, 1995. Boym, Svetlana. The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books, 2001. Bradbury, Ian, and Karen Wilkin. Anthony Caro. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1991. Broadbent, Arthur T. Sculpture Today in Great Britain 1940-1943. London: John Tiranti Ltd, 1944. Brown, Jane. The Pursuit of Paradise: A Social History of Gardens and Gardening. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999. Buckle, Richard. Jacob Epstein. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1963. Bulllus, Claire, and Ronald Asprey. The Statues of London. London and New York: Merrell, 2009.

Bibliography Page 249

Burke, Peter. Varieties of Cultural History. New York: Cornell University Press, 1997. Burstow, Robert. "Aesthetics: Forms and Meanings 1950-75." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 167-84. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Burstow, Robert. "The Geometry of Fear." In A British Vision of World Art, edited by B. Read and David Thistlewood, 119-21. London, 1993. Burstow, Robert. "Modern Sculpture in the South Bank: Townscape." In Festival of Britain: Twentieth Century Architecture - 5, edited by Elaine Harwood and Alan Powers, 96-106, 97. Twentieth Century Society: Harwood and Powers, 2001. Burstow, Robert. Symbols for '51. The Royal Festival Hall, Skylon and Sculptures for the Festival of Britain. 1996. Butlin, M., D. Farr, and M. Charmot. Tate Gallery: British Painting Drawings and Sculpture, Volume I, Artists A-L. London: Oldbourne Press. Co. Ltd., 1964. Cain, John The BBC: 70 Years of Broadcasting. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1992. Callahan, Raymond. Churchill: Retreat from Empire. Tunbridge Wells: Costello, 1984. Calvocoressi, Richard. "Public Sculpture in the 1950s." In British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century, edited by Sandy. Nairne and Nicholas. Serota, 135-53. London: The Trustees of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1981. Campbell, Katie. Icons of Twentieth-Century Landscape Design. London: Francis Lincoln Ltd, 2006. Carter, B. E. The Office of the Prime Minister. London: Faber, 1956. Casson, Stanley. "The Statue of Marshal Haig." In Art in England., edited by R. Lambert, 144-50. London: Pelican, 1938. Casson, Stanley. Some Modern Sculptors. 1929, 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1928. Causey, Andrew. Sculpture since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Cavanagh, Terry. Public Sculpture of South London. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2007. Chadwick, George F. The Park and the Town. London: The Architectural Press, 1966. Chambers, E. "Prototype and Perception: Art History and Observations at the Slade in the 1950s." In The Concept of the 'Master' in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present, edited by M. Potter, 189-214. London: Ashgate, 2013. Chapman, Keith. Robert Clatworthy: Sculpture and Drawings. Sansom & Co. Ltd., 2012. Charmot, M., D. Farr, and M. Butlin. Tate Gallery: British Painting Drawings and Sculpture, Volume I, Artists A-L. London: Oldbourne Press. Co. Ltd., 1964. Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. The Common Man. London: Sheed and Ward, 1950. Chevalier, Denys. Maillol. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1970. Churchill, W. S. Painting as a Pastime. London: Odhams Press Ltd., 1948. Clark, Kenneth. Civilisation. London: BBC, 1969. Clark, Kenneth. The Nude: A Study of Ideal Art. London: Pelican, 1956. Clements, Keith. Henry Lamb, the Artist and His Friends. Bristol: Redcliffe, 1985. Cockayne, E. Cheek by Jowl: A History of Neighbours, . London: The Bodley Head, 2012. Codrington, K. "Sculpture." In The Art of India and Pakistan at the Royal Academy of Arts, edited by Leigh Ashton, 3-10. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1947. Cole, G. D. H., Harold Joseph Laski, Mary Elizabeth Sutherland, and George Orwell. Victory or Vested Interest? London: Routledge, 1942. Cole, Roger. Burning to Speak: The Life and Art of Henri Gaudier Brezska. Oxford: Phaidon, 1978. Collini, Stefan. "Intellectuals in Britain and France in the Twentieth Century: Confusions, Contrasts and Convergence?". In Intellectuals in Twentieth-Century France, 199-225: Springer, 1993. Collins, Judith. Eric Gill the Sculpture. London: Herbert Press, 1998. Collins, Judith. Paolozzi. Farnham: Lund Humphries with the support of the Paolozzi Foundation, 2014. Collischan, Judy. Welded Sculpture of the Twentieth Century. . New York: : Hudson Hills Press in association with the Neuberger Museum of Modern Art, 2000. Compton, Ann. The Sculpture of . Much Hadham: The Henry Moore Foundation in association with Lund Humphries, 2004. Compton, Ann. "Infrastructures: Formation and Networks 1900-25." In Sculpture in 20th- Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 21-32. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Compton, Ann. War and Peace Sculpture. London: Imperial War Museum, 1985. Compton, Susan, and . British Art in the Twentieth Century: The Modern Movement. London: Lund Humphries, 1988.

Bibliography Page 250

Compton, Michael. "The Architecture of Daylight." In Palaces of Art: Art Galleries in Britain 1790-1990, edited by Giles Waterfield, 37-48. London: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1991. Conekin, Becky., F. Mort, and C. Waters. Moments of Modernity: Reconstructing Britain 1945- 64. London: Rivers Oram Press, 1999. Conekin, Becky E. The Autobiography of a Nation: The 1951 Festival of Britain, Representing Britain in the Post-War Era. 3rd (2003) ed. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1998. Coningham, William. An Inquiry into the Establishment of the Royal Academy: A Letter to the Earl of Bute from Robert Strange 1775. London: John Oliver, 1850. Coombs, David. Sir Winston Churchill's Life through His Paintings. London: Chaucer Press, 2003. Cork, Richard. Art Beyond the Gallery in Early Twentieth-Century England. Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1985. Cork, Richard. "The Emancipation of Modern British Sculpture." In British Art in the Twentieth Century: The Modern Movement, edited by Susan Compton, 31-53. London: Prestel, 1987. Cowling, Elizabeth. Visiting Picasso: The Notebooks and Letters of Roland Penrose. London: Thames and Hudson, 2006. Crellin, Sarah. "Infrastructures: Formation and Networks 1925-50." In Sculpture in 20th- Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 88-100. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Crellin, Sarah. The Sculpture of Charles Wheeler. Farnham: Lund Humphries in association with the Henry Moore Foundation, 2012. Crinson, Mark. "Architecture and 'National Projection' between the Wars." In Cultural Identities and the Aesthetics of Britishness, edited by Dana Arnold, 182-99. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Crippa, Elena. "From 'Crit' to 'Lecture-Performance'." In The London Art Schools: Reforming the Art World, 1960 to Now, edited by N. Llewellyn and B. Williamson, 133-50. London: Tate Publishing, 2015. Crosby, Theo. "Night Thoughts of a Faded Utopia." In The Independent Group: Postwar Britain and the Aesthetics of Plenty, edited by David. Robbins, 197-99. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1990. Culleme-Brown, Matthew, and Brandon Taylor. Art of the Soviets: Painting, Sculpture and Architecture in a One-Party State 1917-1992. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. Curry, N., and J. Blunden. A People's Charter?: Forty Years of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. London: HMSO, 1990. Curtis, Penelope. Modern British Sculpture from the Collection, Tate Gallery, Liverpool. Liverpool: Tate Gallery Publications, 1988. Curtis, Penelope. Patronage and Practice: Sculptors on Merseyside. Liverpool: Tate Gallery Publications, 1989. Curtis, Penelope. Sculpture 1900-1945. Oxford University Press, 1999. Curtis, Penelope. Sculpture in Twentieth Century Britain: Identity, Infrastructures, Aesthetics Display, Reception. Vol. 1, Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Curtis, Penelope, and Chris Stevens. Barbara Hepworth. London: Tate Publishing, 2015. Curtis, Penelope, Alan G Wilkinson, and Barbara Hepworth. Barbara Hepworth: A Retrospective. Tate Gallery Publication, 1994. Curtis, Penelope, and Keith Wilson. Modern British Sculpture. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2011. Darke, Johanna. A User's Guide to Public Sculpture. Swindon: English Heritage, 2000. Daval, J., and G. Duby. Sculpture from Antiquity to the Present Day. Koln: Taschen GmbH, 2013. Davies, Alistair, and Alan Sinfield. British Culture of the Post-War: An Introduction to Literature and Society 1945-1999. London: Routledge, 2013. Davison, Peter. George Orwell a Life in Letters. London: Harvill Secker, 2010. Dawson, Alison. Portrait Sculpture: A Catalogue of the British Museum Collection C. 1675- 1975. London: British Museum Press, 2000. Day, Gary, and Brian Docherty. "'Never Such Innocence Again': The Poetry of Philip Larkin." In British Poetry from the 1950s to the 1960s: Politics and Art, 33-47. Hampshire and London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1997. Dearborn, Mary. Peggy Guggenheim Mistress of Modernism. London: Virago Press, 2005. Deepwell, Katy. Women Artists between the Wars 'a Fair Field and No Favour'. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010.

Bibliography Page 251

Dempsey, Amy. Destination Art/Land Art/Site-Specific Art/Sculpture Parks. London: Thames and Hudson, 2011. Droth, Martina. "Conditions of Display 1900-25." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 43-54. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Duby, G., and J. Daval. Sculpture from Antiquity to the Present Day. Koln: Taschen GmbH, 2013. Duncan, Carol. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London and New York: Routledge, 1995. Earp, T. W. Frank Dobson Sculptor. London: Tiranti, 1945. Elliot, Thomas Stearns Notes Towards the Definition of Culture. London: Faber & Faber, 1948. Epstein, Jacob. Let There Be Sculpture. 2000 ed. Milton Keynes: Lightning Source, Hesperides Press, 1940. Eustace, Katharine. Continuity and Change Twentieth Century Sculpture in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 2001. Evslin, Bernard. Gods, Demigods and Demons, a Handbook of Greek Mythology. London: I B Taurus, 2006. Eyres, Patrick, and Fiona Russell. Sculpture and the Garden. London: Routledge, 2006. Farr, Dennis. Lynn Chadwick. London: Tate Publishing, 2003. Farr, Denise. Lynn Chadwick Sculptor. 2014 ed. Farnham: Lund Humphries Publishing Ltd, 2003. Farr, Dennis. Lynn Chadwick's Achievement at the Venice Biennale. London: Tate Publishing, 2003. Farr, Dennis. "The Patronage and Support of Sculptures." In British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century, edited by Sandy. Nairne and Nicholas. Serota, 9-37. London: The Trustees of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1981. Feather, Jessica. Art Behind Barbed Wire. Liverpool: National Museums Liverpool, 2004. Feeke, Stephen, and Jon Wood. With Hidden Noise. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2004. Fenton, James. School of Genius a History of the Royal Academy of Arts. London: Salamander Press Ltd, 2006. Ferran, Denise, and Valerie Holam. The Sculpture of F E McWilliam. Farnham: Lund Humphries in association with the Henry Moore Foundation 2012. Finch, Christopher. Image as Language: Aspects of British Art in 1950-1968. London: Penguin Books, 1969. Finn, David, and Henry Moore. Sculpture and Environment. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc. Publishers, 1976. Fitton, J. Lesley. Cycladic Art. London: British Museum, 1999. Fitzgerald, Michael C. Making Modernism: Picasso and the Creation of the Market for Twentieth Century Art. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996. Flynn, Tom. The Body in Sculpture. London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd, 1998. Foster, Hal, Rosalind Krauss, Yves-Alain Bois, and Benjamin H. D. Buchloh. Art since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. London: Thames and Hudson, 2004. Foster, Hal, Rosalind Krauss, Yves-Alain Bois, and Benjamin H. D. Buchloh. Art since 1945: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. Vol. 2, London: Thames and Hudson, 2005. Fox-Weber, Nicholas. Patron Saints. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1992. Foy, George, Sidney Lawrence, and Elizabeth B. MacDougall. Music in Stone. London: Frederick Muller, 1985. Frayling, Christopher. The Royal College of Art, One Hundred and Fifty Years of Art and Design. London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1987. Frayling, Christopher, and Claire Catterall. Design of the Times: One Hundred Years of the Royal College of Art. Somerset: Richard Dennis Publications, 1996. Frayne, M. Festival. Edited by M. Frayne, M Sissons and P. French. London: Penguin, 1963. Frink, Elisabeth. The Art of Elisabeth Frink. London: Lund Humphries, 1972. Fry, Roger. Vision and Design. reprinted 1961 ed. London: Penguin Books, 1920. Fyfe, Gordon. Art, Power and Modernity: English Art Institutions 1750-1950. London and New York: Leicester University Press, 2000. Gablik, Suzi. Has Modernism Failed? London and New York: Thames and Hudson 1984. Gadney, R. "Introduction." In Bernard Meadows, 7-9. London: Royal College of Art, 1980. Galenson, David. Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006. Gardiner, Stephen. Frink: The Official Biography of Elisabeth Frink. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999.

Bibliography Page 252

Gardner, James. Elephants in the Attic: The Autobiography of James Gardner. London: Orbis Publishing, 1983. Garlake, Margaret. "A Minor Language? Three Émigré Sculptors and Their Strategies of Assimilation." In Artist in Exile in Britain 1933-1945: Politics and Cultural Identity, edited by S. Behr and M. Malet, 167-200. New York: Rodopi, 2004. Garlake, Margaret. Artists and Patrons in Post-War Britain, Courtauld Research Papers No. 2. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2001. Garlake, Margaret. "Infrastructures: Formation and Networks 1950-75." In Sculpture in 20th- Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 155-66. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Garlake, Margaret. New Art New World: British Art in Postwar Society. New Haven and London: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, Yale University Press, 1998. Garlake, Margaret. "Revisiting the Geometry of Fear." In Rereading Read, edited by M. Paraskos, 134-43. London: Freedom Press, 2007. Garlake, Margaret. The Sculpture of Reg Butler. Farnham: Lund Humphries, 2006. Getsy, David. J. "Fallen Women: The Gender of Horizontality and the Abandonment of the Pedestal by Giacometti and Epstein." In Display and Displacement: Sculpture and the Pedestal from Renaissance to Post-Modern, edited by Alexandra Gerstein, 114-29. London: Courtauld Institute of Art Research Forum in association with Paul Holberton Publishing, 2007. Getsy, David J. Sculpture and the Pursuit of a Modern Ideal in Britain, C. 1880-1930. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Getsy, David J. "The Identity of the Sculptor 1900-25: Punks and Professionals." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 9-20. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Getsy, David J. "The Lycidas 'Scandal' of 1905: James Havard Thomas at the Crux of Modern Sculpture in Britain." In Sculpture and the Pursuit of a Modern Ideal in Britain C1880- 1930, edited by David J Getsy, 167-89. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Getsy, David J. "Tactility or Opticality, Henry Moore or David Smith: Herbert Read and Clement Greenberg on the Art of Sculpture, 1956." In Anglo-American Exchanges in Postwar Sculpture, 1945-1975, edited by Rebecca Peabody, 105-21. New York: Getty, 2011. Giedion-Welcker, and P Morton-Shand. Modern Plastic Art: Elements of Reality Volume and Disintegration. Zurich: Dr H. Girsberger, 1937. Gilboa, Raquel. Unto Heaven Will I Ascend: Jacob Epstein's Inspired Years 1930-1959. London: Paul Holberton Publishing, 2013. Gimpel, Jean. The Cult of Art: Against Art and Artists. New York: Stein and Day, 1969. Glaves-Smith, J. "Sculpture in the 1940s and 1950s: The Form and the Language." In British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century, edited by Sandy. Nairne and Nicholas. Serota, 125- 33. London: The Trustees of the Whitechapel Art Gallery. Goldstein, Carl. Teaching Art: Academies and Schools from Vasari to Albers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Goldsworthy, David. Colonial Issues in British Politics 1945-1961. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion. Vol. 1988, Oxford: Phaidon Press Ltd, 1959. Gombrich, E. H. Interview: Gombrich, E. H. British Library Recording, NLSC, Artists' Lives, 1999-09-17, 1999. Goodman, Jean. AJ: The Life of Alfred Munnings, 1878-1959. Norwich: Erskine, 2000. Gormley, Antony. "Foreword." In The Sculpture of Kenneth Armitage, edited by James Scott, 6-7. London: Lund Humphries, 2016. Gray, Clive. The Politics of the Arts in Britain. Hampshire and London: Macmillan Press, 2000. Greenberg, Reesa, Bruce W. Ferguson, and Sandy Nairne. Thinking About Exhibitions. London: Routledge, 1996. Greenhalgh, Paul. Ephemeral Vistas. The Expositions Universelles, Great Exhibitions and World's Fairs, 1851-1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988. Gropius, Ise, Walter Gropius, and Herbert Bayer. Bauhaus 1919-1928. London: Secker and Warburg, 1975. Gross, Hans Kurt. Die Wiener Jahre Des Karikaturisten Und Bildhauers Siegfried Charoux (the Viennese Years of the Cartoonist and Sculptor Siegfried Charoux. N P Buchverlag, 1997. Guggenheim, Peggy. Out of This Century. (2005). London: Andre Deutsch, 1946.

Bibliography Page 253

Holman, Valerie. "Reception: The Context of Reproduction and Dissemination 1925-50." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 125-35. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Halliday, Nigel. "Reception: The Context of Reproduction and Dissemination 1900-25." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Hamilton, James. A Strange Business: Making Art and Money in Nineteenth Century Britain. 2015 ed. London: Atlantic Books, 2014. Harper, Glenn, and Twylene Moyer. Landscapes for Art: Contemporary Sculpture Parks. Hamilton: International Sculpture Centre Press, 2008. Harries, Merion, and Susie Harries. The War Artists: British Official War Art of the Twentieth Century. London: Michael Joseph in association with The Imperial War Museum and the Tate Gallery, 1983. Harris, Jonathan. "Cultured into Crisis: The Arts Council of Great Britain." In Art Apart: Art Institutions and Ideology across England and North America, 177-91. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994. Harrison, Charles. English Art and Modernism 1900-1939. London: Allen Lane, 1981. Harrison, Charles. "Modernism." In Critical Terms for Art History, edited by Robert Nelson and Richard Shiff, 142-55. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Haskell, F. The Ephemeral Museum: Old Master Paintings and the Rise of Art Exhibitions. New Haven, Connecticut, and London: Yale University Press, 2000. Hebdige, D. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen, 1979. Hewison, Robert. In Anger: British Culture in the Cold War 1945-60. London: Methuen, 1981. Hewison, Robert. The Rise and Fall of Creative Britain. London: Verso, 2014. Hill, Jane. The Sculpture of Gertrude Hermes. Farnham: Lund Humphries in association with the Henry Moore Foundation, 2011. Hinrichsen, Klaus. "Visual Art Behind the Wire." In Immigrants and Minorities, edited by D. Cesarani and T. Kushner, 188-209. London: Routledge, 1992. Honeywell, Carissa. A British Anarchist Tradition: Herbert Read, Alex Comfort and Colin Ward. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011. Hoock, Holger. The King's Artists: The Royal Academy of Arts and the Politics of British Culture 1760-1840. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. Hopkins, Harry. The New Look. London: Secker and Warburg, 1963. Houfe, S. Sir Albert Richardson: The Professor. Luton: White Crescent Press, 1980. Houfe, Simon, and John Wilton-Ely. Sir Albert Richardson 1880-1964. London: RIBA Heinz Gallery, 1999. Hudson, D. For Love of Painting: The Life of Sir Gerald Kelly. London: Geoffrey Bles Ltd., 1975. Hunt, John Dixon. The Figure in the Landscape. London: The John Hopkins Press Ltd, 1976. Hutchinson, John, E. H. Gombrich, Lela B Njatin, and W.J.T. Mitchell. Antony Gormley. London: Phaidon Press Ltd., 1995. Hutchinson, Sidney. The Homes of the Royal Academy. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 1956. Hutchinson, Sidney Charles. The History of the Royal Academy 1768-1968. London: Chapman and Hall, 1968. Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. London: Chatoos and Windus, 1932. Hyman, James. The Battle for Realism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001. Hynes, Samuel, and George Orwell. Twentieth Century Interpretations of 1984. A Collection of Critical Essays. Edited by Samuel Hynes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971. James, Elizabeth. The Victoria and Albert Museum: A Bibliography and Exhibition Chronology, 1852-1996. Routledge, 2013. Jason, Gillian. Frank Dobson Sculptor 1886-1963. London: The Fine Art Society, 2012. Jason, Neville. The Sculpture of Frank Dobson. Aldershot: The Henry Moore Foundation, in association with Lund Humphries, 1994 Jellicoe, Geoffrey, and Susan Jellicoe. The Landscape of Man. London: Thames and Hudson, 1975. Jennings, Jeremy. Intellectuals in Twentieth-Century France. London: St. Martin's Press, 1993. Johnstone, William. Creative Art in Britain: From the Earliest Times to the Present. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1950. Jones, Amelia, and Andrew Stephenson. Performing the Body/Performing the Text. London: Routledge, 1999. Kalina, Richard. Imagining the Present: Context, Content and the Role of the Critic, Essays by Lawrence Alloway. London: Routledge, 2006.

Bibliography Page 254

Kelly, Jason. The Society of Dilettanti. London: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 2010. King, James. Roland Penrose the Life of a Surrealist. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016. Kirkpatrick, Diane. Eduardo Paolozzi. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 1970. Kolarevic, Branko and Ali. M. Malkawi. Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York: Spon Press, 2005. Konnertz, Winifred. Eduardo Paolozzi. Koln: Dumont, 1984. Koven, S. "The Whitechapel Picture Exhibition and the Politics of Seeing." In Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses and Spectacles, edited by I. Rogoff and D. Sherman, 22-48. London: Routledge, 1994. Krauss, Rosalind. The Originality of the Avant-garde and Other Modernist Myths. MIT Press, 1986. Kynaston, David. Austerity Britain: 1945-1951 (Tales of a New ). London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2008 Lacey, S. "Staging the Contemporary." In Politics in Postwar Social Realist Theatre, edited by S. Lacey, 57-80. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Laidlay, William. J. The Royal Academy. Its Uses and Abuses. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co., 1898. Lamb, Walter R. M. The Royal Academy: A Short History of Its Foundation and Development to the Present Day. London: Alexander Maclehose and Co., 1935. Lamb, Walter R. M. "What the Royal Academy Stands For." In Art in England, edited by W. Lambert, 47-54. London: Penguin Book Ltd, 1938. Lambert, R. A. Art in England. London: Pelican Books, 1938. LeGrove, Judith. Geoffrey Clarke: A Sculptor's Materials. Bristol: Sansom and Company, 2017. Leslie, George Dunlop. The Inner Life of the Royal Academy: With an Account of Its Schools and Exhibitions Principally in the Reign of Queen Victoria. London: John Murray, 1914. Lewis, Jeremy. David Astor. London: Jonathan Cape, 2016. Lewis, Wyndham. The Demon Progress in the Arts. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1954. Litt, Paul. The Muses, the Masses and the Massey Commission. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1992. Little, J. ""Festering Britain": The 1951 Festival of Britain, Decolonisation and the Representation of the Commonwealth." In Visual Culture and Decolonisation in Britain, edited by Ramamurthy A and Faulkner S, 21-42. London: Ashgate, 2006. Llewellyn, Nigel, and Ben Williamson. The London Art Schools: Reforming the Art World, 1960 to Now. London: Tate Publishing, 2015. Lom, Christopher. Franta Belsky Sculpture. and London: Richter, and A. Zwemmer Ltd., 1992. Long, Paul J. Only in the Common People: The Aesthetics of Class in Post-War Britain. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008 Lukes, Steven. Power: A Radical View. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1974. MacCarth, Fiona. Eric Gill. London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 1989. MacColl, D. S. Confessions of a Keeper. London: Alexander Maclehose and Co., 1931. Macdonald, Sharon. A Companion to Museum Studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. MacDougall, Elizabeth B., Sidney Lawrence, and George Foy. Music in Stone. Frederick Muller, 1985. Machin, Arnold. Machin Artist of an Icon. 2010 ed. Norfolk: Frontier Publishing, 2002. Maden, Sarup. "Home and Identity." In Traveller's Tales: Narratives of Home and Displacement, edited by George Robertson, 93-104. London: Routledge, 1994. Maguire, Patrick, and Jonathan Woodham. Design and Cultural Politics in Postwar Britain: The "Britain Can Make It" Exhibition of 1946. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1997. Mainardi, Patricia. The End of the Salon: Art and the State in the Early Third Republic. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Malbert, Roger, Marjorie Allthrope-Guyton, and Michael Archer. How to Improve the World: 60 Years of British Art. London: The Arts Council Collection, 2006. Maloney, Martin. "Everyone a Winner! Selected British Art from the Saatchi Collection 1987- 97.". In Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection, edited by Brooks. Adams, Lisa. Jardine, Martin. Maloney, Norman Rosenthal and Richard Shone, 26-34. London: Thames and Hudson in association with the Royal Academy of Art, 1997.

Bibliography Page 255

Malvern, Susan. "The Identity of the Sculptor 1925-50." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 77-87. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003.Manser, Jose. Hugh Casson: A Bibliography. London: Viking, 2000. Mansfield, Elizabeth. Art History and Its Institutions. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Marshall, Christopher R. "'The Finest Sculpture Gallery in the World!': The Rise and Fall - and Rise Again - of the Duveen Sculpture Galleries at Tate Britain." In Sculpture and the Museum, edited by Christopher R. Marshall, 177-96. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2011. Martin, B., and Jonathan Black. Dora Gordine Sculptor, Artist, Designer. London: Dorich House Museum, Kingston University in association with Philip Wilson Publishers, 2007. Marwick, A. British Society since 1945: The Penguin Social History of Britain. London: Penguin, 2003. Maryon, Herbert. Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd, 1933. Massey, Anne. "Forbidden Conversations: The Independent Group, Modernism, Urban Reality and American Mass Culture." In Blast to Freeze: British Art in the Twentieth Century, 139-69. Berlin: Hatje Cantz Publishers, 2002. Massey, Anne, and Gregor Muir. ICA 1946-1968. London: Institute of Contemporary Art, 2014. Massouras, Alexander. "The Art of Art Students." In The London Art Schools: Reforming the Art World, 1960 to Now, edited by N. Llewellyn and B. Williamson, 37-48. London: Tate Publishing, 2015. McConkey, Kenneth. The New English: A History of the New English Art Club. London: Royal Academy Publications, 2006. McGuigan, Jim. Cultural Change - Britain since 1945. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1945. Mellor, D. "Existentialism and Post-War British Art." In Paris Post War: Art and Existentialism 1945-55, edited by F Morris, 53-62. London: Tate Gallery, 1993. Meyer, Richard. What Was Contemporary Art? Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 2013. Miller, Alec. Tradition in Sculpture. London: Edmund Evans Ltd., 1949. Minihan, Janet. The Nationalization of Culture: The Development of State Subsidies to the Arts in Great Britain. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd, 1977. Mirzoeff, Nicholas. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Moggridge, Donald. Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography. 1995 ed. London: Routledge, 1992. Moholy-Nagy, Lagzlo. The New Vision. London: Faber, 1939. Monks, Sarah. "Introduction: Life Study ". In Living with the Royal Academy: Artistic Ideals and Experiences, 1768-1848, edited by Sarah Monks, John Barrell and Mark Hallett, 1-23. London: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013. Moore, Henry. Tribute to Herbert Read. from a BBC broadcast June 12, 1968, London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1969. Moore, Henry, and David Finn. Sculpture and Environment. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc. Publishers, 1976. Morgan, K. O. Britain since 1945: The People's Peace. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Moriarty, Catherine. The Sculpture of Gilbert Ledward. Farnham: Lund Humphries Publishers Ltd, 2003. Morris, C. J., and S. Watson. An Eye on the Modern Century: Selected Letters of Henry McBridee. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000. Morris, Lynda, and Robert Radford. A.I.A.: Story of the Artists' International Association, 1933-53. Oxford: Modern Art Oxford, 1983. Morrison, Herbert. Herbert Morrison an Autobiography by Lord Morrison of Lambeth. Odhams Press Ltd., 1960. Moyer, Twylene, and Glenn Harper. Landscapes for Art: Contemporary Sculpture Parks. Hamilton: International Sculpture Centre Press, 2008. Murphy, Derrick, and Patrick Walsh-Atkins. Britain 1945-2007. London: Collins, 2008. Muskett, Georgina. Greek Sculpture. London: Bristol Classical Press, 2012. Myrone, Martin. "William Etty: 'A Child of the Royal Academy'." In Living with the Royal Academy: Artistic Ideals and Experiences in England ... edited by Sarah. Monks, Mark. Hallett and Laura. Turner, 171-94. London: Routledge, 2013. Nairne, Sandy, Bruce W. Ferguson, and Reesa Greenberg. Thinking About Exhibitions. London: Routledge, 1996. Nairne, S., and N. Serota. British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century. London: The Trustees of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1981.

Bibliography Page 256

Neve, Christopher. Leon Underwood. Bradford: Lund Humphries, 1974. Newhouse, Victoria. Art and the Power of Placement. New York: The Monacelli Press, 2005. Newton, Eric. The Meaning of Beauty. London: Pelican, 1962. Nicolson, Vanessa. The Sculpture of Maurice Lambert. Aldershot: The Henry Moore Foundation in association with Lund Humphries, 2002. Nochlin, Linda. "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?". 1989 ed., 145-178 In Women, Art and Power and Other Essays, edited by L. Nochlin. New York: Harper and Row, 1988. Oliver, Anthony. Staffordshire Pottery: The Tribal Art of England. London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1981. Orwell, George. My Country Right or Left and Other Selected Essays and Journalism. London: Folio Society, 1968. Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty Four. London: Harvill Secker, 1949. Orwell, George. The Road to Wigan Pier. 2001 ed. London: Penguin, 1937. Osborne, John Look Back in Anger. 1960 ed. London: Faber and Faber, 1957. Paraskos, Michael. Rereading Read. London: Freedom Press, 2007. Parker, Rozsita, and Griselda Pollock. Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1981. Parkes, Kineton. Sculpture of Today: America, Great Britain, Japan. Vol. 1, London: Chapman and Hall, 1921. Paxman, Jeremy. A Life in Questions. London: William Collins, 2016. Pearson, Nicholas. The State and the Visual Arts: A Discussion of State Intervention in the Visual Arts in Britain, 1760-1981. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, 1982. Penrose, Roland. Scrapbook 1900-1981 (Painters and Sculptors). London: Thames and Hudson, 1981. PEP. The Art Enquiry: The Visual Arts, a Report Sponsored by the Dartington Hall Trustees. Oxford: Political and Economic Planning (PEP), Oxford University Press, 1946. Perkin, Harold. The Rise of Professional Society: England since 1880. London: Routledge, 1990. Pevsner, Nikolaus. Academies of Art, Past and Present. 1973 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940. Pevsner, Nikolaus. The Englishness of English Art: An Expanded and Annotated Version of the Reith Lectures Broadcast in October and November 1955. London: The Architectural Press, 1955. Phillpot, C., and Sophie Bowness. Britain at the Venice Biennale 1895-1995. London: British Council, 1995. Physick, John. "The Government School of Design." In Design of the Times: One Hundred Years of the Royal College of Art, 14-19. Somerset: Richard Dennis Publications, 1996. Pleese, P. Britain since 1945: Aspects of Identity. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2006. Pointon, Marcia. Art Apart: Art Institutions and Ideology across England and North America. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994. Pollock, Griselda. Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism and Art Histories. London and New York: Routledge, 1988. Pomeroy, Mark. Poster: A Century of Summer Exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts. London: Royal College of Arts, 2015. Potter, Matthew. The Concept of the 'Master' in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013. Potts, Alex. The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist. New Haven, Connecticut, and London: Yale University Press, 2000. Pound, Ezra. Ezra Pound and the Visual Arts. 1980 ed. New York: New Directions, 1918. Pound, Ezra. A Memoir of Gaudier-Brzeska. 1970 ed. New York: New Directions Publishing, 1916. Pound, Ezra, and Harriet Zinnes. Ezra Pound and the Visual Arts. New York: New Directions, 1980. Pound, Reginald. The Englishman: A Biography of Sir Alfred Munnings. London: Heineman, 1962. Preziosi, Donald. "Hearing the Unsaid: Art History, Museology, and the Composition of the Self." In Art History and Its Institutions, edited by Elizabeth Mansfield, 28-45. London: Routledge, 2002. Putz, C. Jacques Lipchitz: The First Cubist Sculptor. London: Paul Holberton Publishing, 2002. Quinn, M. "The Pedagogy of Capital: Art History and Art School Knowledge." In The Concept of 'Master' in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present, edited by M. Potter, 215-31. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.

Bibliography Page 257

Radford, Robert. Art for a Purpose: The Artists' International Association, 1933-1953. : Winchester School of Art Press, 1987. Ramsden, E. H. Sculpture: Theme and Variation. London: Percy Lund, Humphries and Co. Ltd., 1953. Ramsden, E. H. Twentieth-Century Sculpture. London: Pleiades Books, 1949. Ratuszniak, Annette. Elisabeth Frink Sculpture Catalogue Raisonné. Salisbury, Wiltshire: Harpvale, 1984. Read, Benedict. Victorian Sculpture. New Haven and London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, 1982. Read, B., and P. Skipworth. Sculpture in Britain between the Wars. London: The Fine Art Society, 1986. Read, Benedict, and David Thistlewood. Herbert Read: A British Vision of World Art. Leeds: Leeds City Art Galleries: The Henry Moore Foundation and Lund Humphries, 1993. Read, Herbert. Art and Industry. London: Faber and Faber, 1934. Read, Herbert. Art and Society. London: Faber, 1967. Read, Herbert. Art and Society. London: Faber and Faber, 1936. Read, Herbert. The Art of Sculpture: The a W Lectures in Fine Art 1954. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956. Read, Herbert. Education through Art. 1956 ed. London: Faber, 1945. Read, Herbert. Henry Moore: Sculptor. London: Zwemmer, 1934. Read, Herbert. The Innocent Eye. London: H. Holt and Co., 1947. Read, Herbert. The Meaning of Art. London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 1931. Read, Herbert. Modern Sculpture. 1994 ed. : Thames and Hudson, 1964. Read, Herbert. The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Art and Artists. New York and London: Thames and Hudson, 1985. Read, Herbert. Art and Industry: The Principles of Industrial Design. Faber and Faber, 1966. Redfern, David. The London Group: A History 1913-2013. London: The London Group, 2014. RIBA. Towards a New Britain. London: The Architectural Press, 1943. Rich, Jack C. The Materials and Methods of Sculpture. 1988 ed. New York: Dover Publications Inc, 1947. Richardson, Emeline. Etruscan Sculptures. Milan: Collins in associations with UNESCO, Amilcare Pizzi SpA Milano, 1966. Robbins, David. The Independent Group: Postwar Britain and the Aesthetics of Plenty. Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1990. Robert, Nelson, and Richard Shiff. Critical Terms for Art History. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. Robertson, Bryan, John Russell, and Anthony Armstrong-Jones. Private View: The Lively World of British Art. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1965. Rosenthal, Norman, and Susan Compton. British Art in the Twentieth Century: The Modern Movement. London: Lund Humphries, 1988. Rothenstein, John. Brave Day Hideous Night. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1966. Rothenstein, John. British Art since 1900. London: Phaidon Press Ltd, 1962. Rothenstein, John. Summer Lease. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1965. Russell, Fiona, and Patrick Eyres. Sculpture and the Garden. London: Routledge, 2006. Russell, John Henry Moore. Middlesex: Penguin, 1973. Russell, John. Treasures from the Commonwealth. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 1965. Rutter, F. V. Art in My Time. Rich and Cowan, 1933. Rutter, F. V. The Little Book of the Royal Academy 1924. London: G. T. Foulis and Co. Ltd., 1924. Ryan, Deborah S. Daily Mail: The Ideal Home through the 20th Century. London: Hazar Publishing, 1997. Saint, Andrew. London Suburbs. London: Merrell Holberton Publishers, 1999. Saler, M. T. The Avant-garde in Interwar London: Medieval Modernism and the London Underground. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existential Psychoanalysis. Washington: Henry Regnery, 1953. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Nausea. London. 2000 ed. Penguin Classics, 1938. Saumarez-Smith, Charles. The Company of Artists: The Origins of the Royal Academy of Arts in London. London: Modern Art Press in association with Bloomsbury, 2012. Savage, Nicholas. "Exhibitions and Academies: The Royal Academy of Arts." In Palaces of Art: Art Galleries in Britain 1790-1990, 121-34. London: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 2011. Schneer, Jonathan. Ministers at War. London: Oneworld Publications, 2015. Schneider, A. "Unfinished Dialogues: Notes toward an Alternative History of Art and Anthropology."

Bibliography Page 258

In Made to Be See Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology, edited by J. Ruby and M. Banks, 108-35. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Schotz, Benno. Bronze in My Blood: The Memoirs of Benno Schotz. Edinburgh: Gordon Wright Publishing, 1981. Schwertfeger, Jorg. Ark: Words and Images from the Royal College of Art Magazine 1950- 1978. London: Royal College of Arts, 2014. Scott, James, and Claudia Milburn. The Sculpture of Kenneth Armitage. London: Lund Humphries, 2016. Serota, N., and S. Nairne. British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century. London: The Trustees of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1981. Sharp, N. "Rothenstein’s Success? The Royal College of Art in the Interwar Years. ." In Design of the Times: One Hundred Years of the Royal College of Art., edited by C. Frayling and C. Catterall, 25–28. Somerset: Richard Dennis Publications, 1996. Shaughnessy, Adrian, and Tony Brook. F.H.K. Henrion: The Complete Designer. London: Unit Editions, 2013. Sher, Lawrence. Royal Academy Exhibitors, 1905-1970: A Dictionary of Artists and Their Work in the Summer Exhibitions of the Royal Academy of Arts. Wakefield: E P Publishing, 1981. Sickert, Walter. The Complete Writings on Art. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Simon, Robin, and Stevens MaryAnne. The Royal Academy of Arts History and Collections. London: In association with the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art and the Royal Academy of Arts, 2018. Sinclair, Andrew. Arts and Cultures: The History of the 50 Years of the Arts Council of Great Britain. London: Sinclair-Stevenson Ltd., 1995. Sinfield, Alan, and Alistair Davies. British Culture of the Post-War: An Introduction to Literature and Society 1945-1999. London and New York: Routledge, 2013. Skelton, Robin. Herbert Read: A Memorial Symposium. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1969. Skipworth, P., and B. Read. Sculpture in Britain between the Wars. London: The Fine Art Society, 1986. Sleeman, Joy. "Reception: The Context of Reproduction and Dissemination ". In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 200-11. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Smalley, U., S. McDougall, F. Lloyd, S. Gilman, R. Dickson, J. Black, and S. Behr. " Forced Journeys: Artists in Exile in Britain C. 1933-45." 2009 Solkin, David. Art on the Line: The Royal Academy Exhibitions at Somerset House 1780-1836. New Haven and London: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, Spalding, Frances. British Art since 1900. London: Thames and Hudson, 1986. Spalding, Frances. The Tate: A History. London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 1998. Sparke, Penny. As Long as Its Pink: The Sexual Politics of Taste. London: Harper Collins, 1995. Spielmann, M. H. British Sculptures and Sculptors of to-Day. London, Paris, New York and : Cassell and Company Ltd, 1901. Squire, Geoffrey. Dress, Art and Society, 1560-1970. London: Studio Vista, 1974. Stace, Alison. Sculpture Parks and Trails of Britain and Ireland. London: Bloomsbury Publishing plc, 2013 Stansky, Peter, and William Abrahams. London's Burning: Life, Death and Art in the Second World War. London: Constable, 1994. Stanton, Richard. The Forgotten Olympic Art Competitions London: Trafford Publishing, 2000. Stephens, Christopher. "The Identity of the Sculptor 1950-75." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 146-54. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Stephens, Christopher. "We Are the Masters Now: Modernism and Reconstruction in Post-War Britain." In Blast to Freeze: British Art in the Twentieth Century, 133-38. Berlin: Hatje Cantz Publishers, 2002. Stevens, Chris, and Penelope Curtis. Barbara Hepworth. London: Tate Publishing, 2015. Stevens, MaryAnne. "A Quiet Revolution." In The Royal Academy 1900-1950, 15-21. London: The Royal Academy of Arts, 1988. Stevens, MaryAnne The Edwardians and After: The Royal Academy, 1900-1950. London: Royal Academy of Arts in association with Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1988. Stevens, MaryAnne. "Towards a Definition of Symbolism.". In The Last Romantics: The Romantic Tradition in British Art - Burne-Jones to Stanley Spencer, edited by John Christian, 33-37. London: Lund Humphries in association with Barbican Art Gallery, 1989. Stephenson, Andrew. "Conditions of Display 1925-50." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 111-24. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003.

Bibliography Page 259

Stokes, Adrian. The Image in Form: Selected Writings of Adrian Stokes. Pelican, 1972. Stourton, James. Kenneth Clark: Life, Art and Civilisation. London: William Collins, 2016. Strauss, Patricia. Bevin and Co. The Leaders of British Labour. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1941. Strauss, Patricia. Cripps - Advocate and Rebel. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1943. Strickland, A "Opening the Doors: The Entry of Women Artists into British Art Schools 1871- 1930." In The Concept of the ‘Master’ in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present., edited by Matthew Potter, 127-44. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013. Sullivan, Greg. Sir Francis Chantrey and the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 2016. Sutherland, John, and D. H. Solkin. "Staging the Spectacle." In Art on the Line: The Royal Academy Exhibitions at Somerset House 1780-1836, edited by D. H. Solkin, 23-38. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001. Sylvester, David. About Modern Art: Critical Essays 1948-2000. 2002 ed. London: Pimlico, 1996. Sylvester, David. Henry Moore: Sculpture and Drawings 1921-1948. London: Lund Humphries and Zwemmer, 1957. Symes, Michael. Garden Sculpture. Vol. 8, Buckinghamshire: Shire Garden History, 1996. Tate. Forty Years of Modern Art 1945-1985. London: Tate, 1986. Taylor, Brandon. Art for the Nation: Exhibitions and the London Public, 1747-2001. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Taylor, P. The Projection of Britain Abroad. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1989. Thistlewood, David, and Benedict Read. Herbert Read: A British Vision of World Art. Leeds City Art Galleries: The Henry Moore Foundation and Lund Humphries, 1993. Tickner, Lisa. Modern Life and Modern Subjects: British Art in the Early Twentieth Century. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2000. Tickner, Lisa, and David Peters Corbett. British Art in the Cultural Field, 1939-69. Vol. 35, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Tolstoy, Leo. What Is Art? 1995 ed. London: Penguin, 1956. Tucker, David. British Social Realism in the Arts since 1940. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2011. Tucker, William. The Language of Sculpture. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974. Turner, Barry. Beacon for Change: How the 1951 Festival of Britain Shaped the Modern Age. London: Aurum Press Ltd., 2011 Underwood, Eric G. A Short History of English Sculpture. London: Faber and Faber, 1933. van Hensbergen, Gijs. Guernica. London: Bloomsbury Publishing plc, 2004. Waissenberger, Robert. Essay: Art and Humanity - the Work of Siegfried Charoux. Vienna: Brüder Rosenbaum, 1967. Wake-Cook, Ebenezer. Retrogression in Art and the Suicide of the Royal Academy. London: Hutchinson and Co., 1924. Wagner, Anne M. "Aesthetics: Forms and Meanings 1925-50." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 101-10. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Wallace-Hadrill, A. The British School at Rome: One Hundred Years. Rome: British School at Rome, 2001. Wallis, Brian. "Selling Nations: International Exhibition and Cultural Diplomacy." Chap. 265- 281 In Museum Culture: Histories, Discourse, Spectacles, edited by Daniel J. Shearman and Irit Rogoff. Minneapolis: Routledge, 1994. Ward-Jackson, Phillip. Public Sculpture of the City of London. Public Sculpture of Britain Volume 7. Liverpool: Liverpool University, 2003. Wardleworth, Dennis. William Reid Dick, Sculptor. London: Ashgate, 2013. Warner, Marina. Monuments & Maidens: The Allegory of the Women Form. California: University of California Press, 2000. Waters, C., F. Mort, and B. Conekin. Moments of Modernity: Reconstructing Britain 1945-64. London and New York: Rivers Oram Press, 1999. Waugh, Evelyn. Vile Bodies. London: Chapman and Hall Ltd, 1930. Wedgewood, Josiah. Staffordshire Pottery and Its History. London: Sampson Low, 1913. Wein, I. "Naturalising Tradition: Why Learn from the Masters? ." In The Concept of the ‘Master’ in Art Education in Britain and Ireland, 1770 to the Present, edited by Matthew Potter, 29–46. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013. Weingartner, Jorn. Art as a Weapon of War: Britain and the Shaping of a National Morale in Second World War. London: I B Tauris and Co Ltd., 2012.

Bibliography Page 260

Wells, Rachel. Scale in Contemporary Sculpture: Enlargement, Miniaturisation and the Life- Size. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013. West, Shearer. "Xenophobia and Xenomania: Italians and the English Royal Academy." In Italian Culture in Northern Europe in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Shearer West, 116-39. Cambridge: Cambridge, 1999. Westley, H. "The Many Lives of the Life Room." In The London Art Schools: Reforming the Art World, 1960 to Now, edited by H. Westley, Llewellyn, N. and Williamson, B., 49-74. London: Tate Publishing, 2015. Wheldon, Huw. Monitor. London: Macdonald, 1962. Whitehead, Christopher. "'Enjoyment for the Thousands': Sculpture as Fine and Ornamental Art at South Kensington, 1852-62." In The Lustrous Trade: Material Culture and the History of Sculpture in England and Italy, C. 1700–1860, edited by Cinzia Sicca and A. Yarrington, 222-39. London: Bloomsbury, 2000. Whitehead, Kate. The Third Programme: A Literary History. Oxford: Oxford English Monographs, 1989. Whiteley, Gillian. "Conditions of Display 1950-75." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 185-99. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Whiteley, Gillian "Re-Presenting Reality, Recovering the Social: The Poetics and Politics of Social Realism and Visual Arts." In British Social Realism in the Arts since 1940, edited by D Tucker, 132-71. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Whiteley, Nigel. Art and Pluralism: Lawrence Alloways' Cultural Criticism. Croydon: Liverpool University Press, 2012. Whiteley, Nigel. Roger Banham. London: MIT Press, 2002. Wilcox, D. J. The London Group 1913-1939: The Artists and Their Work. Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1995. Wilenski, Reginald Howard. The Meaning of Modern Sculpture. London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 1932. Willatt, H. The Arts Council of Great Britain: The First Twenty-Five Years. London: The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1972. Williams, Rosalind H. Dream Worlds: Mass Consumption in Late Nineteenth-Century France. University of California Press, 1991. Wilton-Ely, John, and Simon Houfe. Sir Albert Richardson 1880-1964. London: RIBA Heinz Gallery, 1999. , Matthew, and Jonathan Blackwood. "Aesthetics: Forms and Meaning 1900-25." In Sculpture in 20th-Century Britain, edited by Penelope Curtis, 33-42. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Wolfe, Tom. From Bauhaus to Our House. London: Cardinal, 1982. Woodham, Jonathan M. Twentieth Century Design. Vol. 5: Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, 1997. Wraight, Robert. Hip!Hip!Hip!RA. London: Leslie Frewin Publishers Ltd., 1968. Yarrington, Alison. "Art in the Dark: Viewing and Exhibiting Sculpture at Somerset House." In Art on the Line: The Royal Academy Exhibitions at Somerset House 1780-1836, edited by David H Solkin, 173-87. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001. Yarrington, Alison. "The Poetics of Sculpture: Pedestal, Vase and Inscription." In Display and Displacement: Sculpture and the Pedestal from Renaissance to Post-Modern edited by Alexandra Gerstein, 73-97. London: Courtauld Institute of Art Research Forum in association with Paul Holberton Publishing, 2007 Zukin, Sharon. Naked City the Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Bibliography Page 261

Secondary Sources

Journals

Anon. "The Contemporary Art Society." The Burlington Magazine 152, no. 1285 (2010): 211. Anon. "The Future of the Royal Academy." The Burlington Magazine 118, no. 878 (1976): 265. Anon. "Herbert Read and the Burlington Magazine." The Burlington Magazine 110, no. 785 (1968): 433-34. Anon. "The Royal Academy (1768-1968)." The Burlington Magazine 110, no. 789 (1968): 648. Anon. "The Royal Academy of Arts." The Burlington Magazine 146, no. 1218 (2004): 587. Anon. "What Happens Next - the Neighbours Restoration ". Icon News: Institute of Conservation, no. 36 (September 2011): 4-6. Atkinson, Harriet. "A "New Picturesque"? The Aesthetics of British Reconstruction after Second World War." Edinburgh Architecture Research 31 (2008): 24-35. Beechey, James. "Lynn Chadwick." The Burlington Magazine CXLV, no. 1209 (2003): 871-73. Benthall, Jonathan. "An Interview with Sir Robert and Lady Sainsbury." Anthropology Today 5, no. 1 (1989): 2-5. Binney, Marcus. "The Most Famous Artist You've Never Heard Of." Country Life, 26 July 2001 195 (2001): 30. Black, Jonathan. "The New (British) Sculpture and the Struggle for Realism between the Wars." The Sculpture Journal 21, no. 2 (2012): 23-36. Black, Jonathan. "'The Real Thing': Eric Kennington's 24th Infantry Division Memorial in Battersea Park, London (1921-24)." The Burlington Magazine CXLV, no. 1209 (2003): 854-59. Brazil, Kevin. "Histories of the Future: The Institute of Contemporary Art and the Reconstruction of Modernism in Post-War Britain." Modernism/Modernity 23, no. 1 (2016): 193-217. Brighton, Andrew. "Consensus Painting and the Royal Academy since 1945." Studio International, 188, no. 971 (November 1974): 174-76. Brighton, Andrew. ""Where Are the Boys of the Old Brigade?": The Post-War Decline of British Traditionalist Painting." Oxford Art Journal 4, no. 1 (1981): 35-43. Burstow, Robert. "Domestic Sculpture: Between 1946 and 1959, Arts Council." Apollo 168, no. 559 (2008): 78-84. Burstow, Robert. "Modern Sculpture in the South Bank Townscape." Twentieth Century Architecture: Festival of Britain 5 (2001): 95-106. Burstow, Robert. "'Sculpture in the Home': Selling Modernism to Post-War British Homemakers." The Sculpture Journal 17, no. 2 (2008): 37-50. Clegg, Michael, Martin Guttman, and Stephan Dillemuth. "Serving Communities." October 80, no. Spring (1997): 128-29. 40-48. Compton, Ann. "Affirmative Action: British Sculptors and Sculpture and the Monographic Form in Twentieth-Century Sculpture Studies.". The Sculpture Journal 22, no. 2 (2013): 77- 88. Correia, Alice. "Gimpels Fils, Barbara Hepworth and the Promotion of British Sculpture in the 1950s." The Sculpture Journal 24, no. 1 (2015): 97-112. Cranfield, Ben. "Between Consensus and Anxiety: Curating Transparency at the ICA of the 1950s." Journal of Curatorial Studies 1, no. 1 (2012): pp. 83-100. Cranfield, Ben. "It Is Time to Rethink What Institute and Arts Might Usefully Do in Relation to the Contemporary." Apollo CLXXXIV, no. 647 (2016): 34-38. Cranfield, Ben. "'Not Another Museum': The Search for Contemporary Connection." Journal of Visual Culture 12, no. 2 (2013): 313-31. Cribb, R. "Eric Gill's 'Mankind' and the Making of Modern Sculpture." The Burlington Magazine 149, no. 1257 (2007): 860-61. Crompton, Ann. "Mapping Sculpture in Context: Art History in an On-line Environment. ." The Sculpture Journal 21, no. 2 (2012): 87-98. Curtis, Penelope. "Barbara Hepworth's 'Biolith', 1948-49." The Burlington Magazine 148, no. 1245 (2006): 841-42. Curtis, Penelope "The Landscape of Barbara Hepworth." The Sculpture Journal 2 (1998): 106-12. Darke, Johanna. "Africa Awakening: Gilbert Ledward, Barclays Bank DCO and the End of Empire." The Sculpture Journal 16, no. 1 (2007): 34-46. Darke, Johanna. "Ledward's Vision and Imagination: A Further Note." The Sculpture Journal 16, no. 2 (2007): 92-93.

Bibliography Page 262

Editorial. "British Sculpture 'Outre-Manche'." The Burlington Magazine 147, no. 1233 (2005): 789. Editorial. "'I Collect, Therefore I Am' - Simon Sainsbury." The Burlington Magazine 150, no. 1265 (2008): 511. Editorial. "The Betrayal of the British Council." The Burlington Magazine 149, no. 1248 (2007): 147. Editorial. "The Contemporary Art Society Centenary." The Burlington Magazine 152, no. 1285 (2010): 211. Elderfield, John. "Alfred H. Barr, Jr's 'Matisse. His Art and His Public', 1951." The Burlington Magazine 152, no. 1282 (2010): 36-39. Farr, Dennis. "Cambridge, Kettle's Yard Circle: Constructive Art in Britain 1934-40." The Burlington Magazine 124, no. 951 (1982): 378.80. Fenton, Steve. "The Semi-Detached Nation: Post-Nationalism and Britain." Cycnos 25, no. 2 (2008): 245-60. Frantzen, A. J. "The Handsome Sailor and the Man of Sorrows: Billy Budd and the Modernism of Benjamin Britten." Modernist Cultures 3, no. 1 (2007): 57-70. Fraser, Inga. "The 'English Independents': Some Twentieth-Century Women Carvers." Sculpture Journal 23, no. 3 (2014): 369-78. Freedman, Kerry. "Art Education and Changing Political Agendas: An Analysis of Curriculum Concerns of the 1940s and 1950s." Studies in Art Education 29, no. 1 (1987): 17-29. Gardner, A., M. Nicholls, and A. White. "Cold War Cultures and Globalisation." Third Text 26, no. 2 (2012): 205-15. Garlake, Margaret. "Material, Methods and Modernism: British Sculpture C.1950." The Sculpture Journal 17, no. 2 (2008): 51-62. Garlake, Margaret. "A War of Taste: The London County Council as Art Patron 1948-1965." The London Journal 18, no. 1 (1993): 45-65. Geddes-Brown, Leslie. "Sculpture: Why Is It the Poor Relation of the Visual Arts?". The Spectator, 6 July 1996 277, no. 8764 (1996): 41. Goebel, Stefan. "Re-Membered and Re-Mobilized: The ‘Sleeping Dead’ in Interwar Germany and Britain." Journal of Contemporary History 39, no. 4 (2004): 487-501. Goldstein, Carl. "Towards a Definition of Academic Art." Art Bulletin LVII, no. 1 (1975): 102-09. Gouma-Peterson, Thalia, and Patricia Mathews. "The Feminist Critique of Art History." The Art Bulletin 69, no. 3 (1987): 326-57. Green, Christopher. "Blunt's Picasso." The Burlington Magazine 147, no. 1222 (2005): 26-33. Grieve, Alastair. "Light Flirtation or Serious Affair? Ben Nicholson, Victor Pasmore and Abstract Art in St Ives and London in the Early 1950s." The Burlington Magazine 151, no. 1273 (2009): 234-42. Grieve, Alastair. "'This Is Tomorrow", a Remarkable Exhibition Born from Contention." The Burlington Magazine CXXXVI, no. 1093 (April 1994): 225-32. Hadler, Mona. "Sculpture in Postwar Europe and America, 1945-59." Art Journal 53, no. 4 (1994): 17-19. Hall, James. "Clement Greenberg on English Sculpture and Englishness." The Sculpture Journal 4 (2000): 172-77. Hammer, Martin. "Kenneth Clark and the Death of Painting." Tate Papers 20, no. Autumn 2013 (2013). Harrod, Tanya. "Out There: Our Post-War Public Art." Sculpture Journal 25, no. 2 (2016): 288- 90. Heathcote, C. "Henry Moore and the Sculpture of the Cold War." Quadrant 58, no. 4 (2014): 52. Heilbrun, J. "Keynes and the Economics of the Arts." Journal of Cultural Economics 8, no. 2 (1984): 37-49. Highmore, Ben. "Richard Hamilton at the Ideal Home Exhibition of 1958: Gallery for a Collector of Brutalist and Tachiste Art." Art History 30, no. 5 (2007): 712-37. Hill, D. "Tribune 40." Quartet (1977): 58. Hinrichsen, Klaus. E. . "The Internment of Aliens in Twentieth Century Britain: Visual Art Behind the Wire." Immigrants and Minorities 11, no. 3 (1992): 188-209. Holman, Valerie. "Alfred Hardiman, RA, and the Vicissitudes of Public Sculpture in Mid- Twentieth -Century Britain." The Sculpture Journal 24, no. 3 (2015): 351-73. Holman, V. "A Fruitful Symbiosis: Sculptors and Publishers in Britain between the Wars." The Space Between VII, no. 1 (2011): 109-23. Hoock, Holger. "From Beefsteak to Turtle: Artists' Dinner Culture in Eighteenth-Century London." Huntington Library Quarterly 66, no. 1 of 2 (2003): 27-54. Hornsey, R. "'Everything Is Made from Atoms': The Reprogramming of Space and Time in Post- War London." Journal of Historical Geography 34, no. 1 (2008): 94-117.

Bibliography Page 263

Hulks, David. "Francis Bacon and the Geometry of Fear." The Sculpture Journal 19, no. 1 (2010): 79-90. Ireson, Nancy. "George Frampton, the Art Workers' Guild and 'the Enemy Alien in Our Midst'." The Burlington Magazine 151, no. 1280 (2009): 763-67. Jachec, Nancy. "Politics and Painting at the Venice Biennale, 1948-64: Italy and the Idea of Europe." Modern Italy 14:2 (2007): 237-38. Jolivette, Catherine. "London Pride: 1951 and Figurative Sculpture at the South Bank Exhibition." The Sculpture Journal 17, no. 2 (2008): 23-36 Kinross, R. "Émigré Graphic Designers in Britain: Around the Second World War and Afterwards." Journal of Design History 3, no. 1 (1990): 35-57. Klonk, Charlotte. "Patterns of Attention: From Shop Windows to Gallery Rooms in Early Twentieth Century Berlin." Art History 28, no. 4 (2005): 416-573 Koed, Erik. "Sculpture and the Sculptural." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63, no. 2 (2005): 147-54. Lambirth, A. "Exhibitions 1: Blast to Freeze: British Art in the Twentieth Century." The Spectator 290, no. 9097 (2002): 92. Lapp, Axel. "The Freedom of Sculpture - the Sculpture of Freedom: The International Sculpture Competition for a Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner, London, 1951-53." The Sculpture Journal 2 (1998): 113-22. Lavender, Andy. "Strolling through Town with the Players." The Times, no. 20 October (1992): 27. Legge, Elizabeth. "Reinventing Derivation: Roles, Stereotypes, and "Young British Art"." Representations 71, no. Summer (2000): 1-23. Leventhal, F. M. ""A Tonic to the Nation": The Festival of Britain, 1951." Albion 27, no. 03 (1995): 445-53. Loukopoulou, K. "Films Bring Art to the People: The Art Film Tour in Britain (1950-1980)." Film History 19, no. 4 (2007): 414-22. Lubbock, J., and M. Crinson. "Education for Change 1938-1960: The Creation of the 'Official System'." Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain (1993): 47-51. MacGregor, Neil. "Some Recent Sculpture Acquisitions by British Public Collections." The Burlington Magazine 122, no. 922 (1980): 83-84, 86, 89, 90, 93-94. Marcoci, Roxana. "The Anti-Historicist Approach: Brancusi, "Our Contemporary"." Art Journal 59, no. 2 (2000): 18-35. Margoliouth, H. M. "William Blake Historical Painter." The Studio 153, no. 760 (April 1957): 97-103. Marter, Joan. "Postwar Sculpture Re/Viewed." Art Journal 53, no. 4 (1994): 20-22. Martin, F. David. "Sculpture, Painting, and Damage." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37, no. 1 (1978): 47-52. Massey, Anne. "The Independent Group: Towards a Redefinition." The Burlington Magazine 129, no. 1009 (1987): 232-42. Massey, Anne. "The New Look: Design in the Fifties." Journal of Design History 6, no. 1 (1993): 68-69. McBrinn, J. "'A Populous Solitude': The Life and Art of Sophia Rosamond Praegar 1867-1954." Women's History Review 18, no. 4 (2009): 577-96. McDowell, F. "'At the Exhibition': The 1948 Open-Air Sculpture Exhibition, Battersea Park, in British Fashion Magazines." The Sculpture Journal 21, no. 2 (2012): 169-82. McEwan, John. "Whitechapel Art Gallery: British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century." The Burlington Magazine 124, no. 948 (1982): 183-85. McEwen, John. "Whitechapel Art Gallery: British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century." The Burlington Magazine 124, no. 948 (1982): 183-85. Mehring, Christine. "Television Art's Abstract Starts: Europe Circa 1944-1969." October 125, no. Summer 2008 (2008): 29-64. Miller, Roland. "International Art and National Identity." CIRCA 18 (1984): 20-24. Mitchell, Dolores. "Art Patronage by the London County Council (L.C.C.) 1948-1965." Leonardo 10, no. 3 (1977): 207-12. Moriarty, Catherine. "'Remnants of Patriotism': The Commemorative Representation of the Greatcoat after the First World War." Oxford Art Journal 27, no. 3 (2002): 291-309. O'Halloran. "'Better without the Ladies': The Royal Irish Academy and the Admission of Women Members." History Ireland 19, no. 6 (2011): 42-45. Olsen-Theiding, Kara. "Anxieties of Influence: British Responses to , 1900-04." Journal of Design History 19, no. 3 (2006): 215-31. Parsons, A. "'Vultures and Philistines': British Attitudes to Culture and Cultural Diplomacy." International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) 61, no. 1 (1984): 1-8.

Bibliography Page 264

Pereira, Dawn. "William Mitchell and the London County Council: The Evolution of a Classless Form of Public Art." The Sculpture Journal 21, no. 1 (2012): 57-70. Peterson, Richard A., and Roger M. Kern. "Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore." American Sociological Association 61, no. 5 (1996): 900-07. Picton, John. "A Tribute to William Fagg." African Arts 27, no. 3 (1992): 26, 29, 100. Powell, Jennifer. "A Coherent, National 'School' of Sculpture? Constructing Post-War New British Sculpture through Exhibition Practices." The Sculpture Journal 21, no. 2 (2012): 37-50. Quinn, R. B. M. "Distance or Intimacy? The Arm's Length Principle, the British Government and the Arts Council of Great Britain." International Journal of Cultural Policy 4, no. 1 (1997): 127-59. RA "Some Recent Sculpture Acquisitions by British Public Collections." The Burlington Magazine 122, no. 922 (1980): 83-94. Raev, Ada. "Do Sculptors See Differently? Thoughts on Sculptors' Drawing Practices." The Sculpture Journal 13 (2005): 103-14. Shone, Richard. "Roland Penrose at the ICA." The Burlington Magazine 122, no. 931 (1980): 705-07. Shone, Richard. "Twentieth-Century Sculptors' Drawings." The Spectator, 227, no. 8874 (14 September 1996): 46. Skipwith, Peyton. "Background Notes to Henry Moore's Time-Life Screen." The Burlington Magazine CXXXI (September 1989): 637-41. Sleeman, Alison "In the Queen's Parlour, Inspired by Tea and Made of Gentlemen: British Sculpture in the Twentieth Century as 'Sculpture Anglais'." The Sculpture Journal 1 (1997): 72-79. Snowman, D. "The Hitler Émigrés: The Cultural Impact on Britain of Refugees from Nazism." Historical Research 77, no. 197 (2004): 437-58. Sokoloff, Sally. ""How Are They at Home?" Community, State and Servicemen's Wives in England 1939-45." Women's History Review 8, no. 1 (1999): 27-52. Stephenson, Andrew. "Painting and Sculpture of a Decade '54-'64 Revisited." Art History 35, no. 2 (2012): 421-41. Steuber, Jason. "The Exhibition of Chinese Art at Burlington House, London, 1935-36." The Burlington Magazine CXLVIII (2006): 528-36. Steyn, J. "Realism Versus Realism in British Art of the 1950s." Journal of Design History 6, no. 1 (2008): 68-69. Stonard, John-Paul. Kenneth Clark's ‘The Nude’. A Study of Ideal Art. " 1956." The Burlington Magazine 152, no. 1286 (2010): 317-21. Street, S. "Cinema, Colour and the Festival of Britain 1951." Visual Culture in Britain 13, no. 1 (2012): 83-99. Turner, Sarah Victoria. "Ezra Pound's New Order of Artists: 'The New Sculpture' and the Critical Formation of a Sculptural Avant-garde in Early Twentieth-Century Britain." The Sculpture Journal 21, no. 2 (2012): 9-22. Vaughan, William. "The Englishness of British Art." Oxford Art Journal 13, no. 2 (1990): 11-23. Veasey, Melanie. "The Open Air Exhibition of Sculpture at Battersea Park, 1948: A Prelude to Sculpture Parks." Garden History Journal 44, no. 1 (2016): 135-46. Verney, John. "Siegfried Charoux." Orbit Visual Arts 1, no. 5 (1975): 23-24. Versari, Maria Elena. "Recasting the Past: On the Posthumous Fortune of Futurist Sculpture." The Sculpture Journal 23, no. 3 (2014): 349-68. Waterman, S. "Carnivals for Elites? The Cultural Politics of Arts Festivals." Progress in Human Geography 22, no. 1 (1998): 54-74. Watts, C. R., and E. M. McNertney. "An Economic Model of Artistic Behaviour." Journal of Cultural Economics 8, no. 1 (1984): 49-60. White, A., M. Nicholls, and A. Gardner. "Cold War Cultures and Globalisation." Third Text 26, no. 2 (2012): 205-15. Whiteley, Gillian. "Metal, Fire and Magic: Welded Sculpture of the Twentieth Century." The Sculpture Journal 6 (2001): 108-12. Whyte, W. "The Englishness of English Architecture: Modernism and the Making of a National International Style, 1927-1957." The Journal of British Studies 48, no. 2 (2009): 441-65. Wiebe, H. "Now and England: Britten's and the 'New Elizabethans'." Cambridge Opera Journal 17, no. 2 (2005): 141-72. Williams, Richard J. "Sculpture's Anxieties." The Sculpture Journal 8 (2002): 4-11. Wise, Michael. "Sculpture: An Encounter with the Widow of Hitler's Official State Sculptor, Arno Breker." The Spectator, 275, no. 8740 (20 January 1996): 40.

Bibliography Page 265

Wollen, Peter. "Raiding the Icebox: Reflections on Twentieth Century Culture." Verso (1993): 192. Wood, Jon. "'The New Sculpture: Reviewing the Persistence of an Idea'." Sculpture Journal 21, no. 2 (2012): 7-8. Woodson-Boulton, Amy. "The Art of Compromise: The Founding of the National Gallery of British Art, 1890-1892." Museum and Society 1, no. 3 (2003): 147-69. Wright, Barnaby. "Unveiling a : Barbara Hepworth from Her Centenary Year." The Sculpture Journal 11 (2004): 100-04.

Newspapers

Anon. "Art That Lifts Shopping Centres Wins Protection." The Times, 17 April 1998, 6. Anon. "Obituary: Lady Strauss." The Times, 21 July 1987, 12. Darke, Johanna. "Art and Architecture." The Times, 8 September 1998, 23. de Monchaux, Paul. "End of Rome Scholarships." The Times, 12 March 1980, 15. House, Christian. "Grand Designs." The Telegraph Magazine, 21 April 2018, 22-26. Januszczak, Waldemar. "Hallelujah, It's a Total Makeover." The Sunday Times, 20 May 2018, 10-11. Salter, Jessica. "From Henry Moore to Pop-up Pools: The Rise of Public Art." The Daily Telegraph, 17 February 2018, 4-5. Stourton, James. "How to Paint a War." The Daily Telegraph, 17 September 2016, 14-15. Taylor, John Russell. "Where Are They Now?". The Times, 18 March 1996, 12.

Bibliography Page 266

Secondary Sources

Websites

ACGB. "Geometry of Fear: Works from the Arts Council Collection." http://www.artscouncilcollection.org.uk/sites/default/files/Exhibition%20leaflet _3.pdf, 15 September 2015. Ades, Dawn. "‘Henry Moore and World Sculpture’, in Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity, Tate Research Publication." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research- publications/henry-moore/dawn-ades-henry-moore-and-world-sculpture-r1151458, accessed 30 May 2017. AIA. "Artists International Association." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/a/artists- international-association, accessed 9 March 2017. Alleyne, Richard. "Arnold Machin Plaster Cast Used for Image of Queen on Stamps Is Found." The Telegraph (3 September 2008), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/2674511/Arnold-Machin- plaster-cast-used-for-image-of-Queen-on-stamps-is-found.html, accessed 6 March 2017. Althorpe, Mike. "St. Swithin's House." http://postwarbuildings.com/buildings/st-swithins- house, accessed 9 December 2017. Anon. "Arnold Machin." http://www.thepotteries.org/did_you/011.htm, accessed 6 March 2017. Anon. "Brian Rice Artist." http://www.brianrice.info/about-the-artist, accessed 12 November 2016. Anon. "The Burlington Magazine." http://www.burlington.org.uk/about-us/about-the- magazine, accessed 28 November 2017. Anon. "Churchill Memorial Gates Unveiled." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4053171.stm, accessed 21 April 2016. Anon. "The Cost of a Car." https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/cost-car-year-born/, accessed 30 September 2017. Anon. "Festival of Britain." http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The- Festival-of-Britain-1951/, accessed 9 September 2017. Anon. "George Orwell's Grave." https://suttoncourtenay.co.uk/village-information/george- orwell-grave/, accessed 5 December 2016. Anon. "Highbury Quadrant Estate." http://www.londongardenson-line.org.uk/gardens-on- line-record.php?ID=ISL037, accessed 5 March 2016. Anon. "How UK Incomes Have Risen and Fallen since 1948." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8414447/How-UK-incomes-have- risen-and-fallen-since-1948.html, accessed 9 February 2017. Anon. "The LCC and the Arts I: The Open Air Sculpture Exhibitions." https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/lcc_open_air_sculpture, accessed 6 March 2016. Anon. "Obituary: David Astor." The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1364660/David-Astor.html, accessed 3 December 2016. Anon. "Obituary: Frank Martin." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/frank- martin-37971.html, accessed 10 February 2017. Anon. "Obituary: Gilbert Watt." http://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-gilbert- watt-sculptor-1-2818629, 12 November 2016. Anon. "Prizes and Awards by the City of Vienna - 1948." http://www.musa.at/en/museum/exhibitions/prizes-and-awards/item/3019-prizes- and-awards-by-the-city-of-vienna#P-St-W_1948, accessed 20 March 2016. Anon. "Rome Scholars." httP://www.romescholars.come/rome_scholars.hmtl, accessed 7 April 2015. Anon. "Senate House." https://www.senatehouseevents.co.uk/features/history-senate-house, accessed 9 December 2017. Anon. "Statue to Lessing." https://www.jta.org/1935/07/05/archive/statue-to-lessing-is- erected-on-jewish-square-in-vienna, accessed 30 June 2016. Anon. "Second World War: Petrol Ration." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war- two/6154781/World-War-2-Petrol-ration.html, accessed 24 January 2017. Anon. "Obituary: Lord Strauss." The Observer, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-lord-strauss-1490546.html, accessed 20 September 2015.

Bibliography Page 267

Art Biographies. "Royal British Society of Sculptors." https://www.artbiogs.co.uk/2/societies/royal-british-society-sculptors, accessed 9 March 2017. Art Biographies. "Royal British Society of Sculptors." http://www.artbiogs.co.uk/2/societies/royal-british-society-sculptors, accessed 9 March 2017. Art Biographies. "Seven Five Society." http://www.artbiogs.co.uk/2/societies/seven-five- society, accessed 9 March 2017. Arts Council. "Arts Council." http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/our-organisation/our-history, accessed 29 March 2017. Art Fund. "The Burghers of by ." https://www.artfund.org/supporting- museums/art-weve-helped-buy/artwork/168/the-burghers-of-calais, accessed 26 November 2017. Barbara Hepworth Org. "Barbara Hepworth." http://barbarahepworth.org.uk/biography/, accessed 7 February 2017. Batkin, Maureen. "Obituary: Arnold Machin." The Independent (15 March 1999), http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-arnold-machin- 1080769.html, accessed 6 March 2017. BBC. "1954: Housewives Celebrate the End of Rationing." http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/4/newsid_3818000/3818563.s tm, accessed 15 January 2018. BBC. "Artists on Art: Barbara Hepworth and Reg Butler." https://alexandralazar.com/reading/artists-on-art-barbara-hepworth-and-reg-butler- 1951/, accessed 6 August 2017. BBC. "The Third Programme 29 September 1946." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p046hx0c, accessed 4 January 2018. Ben, Johnson. "The Festival of Britain 1951." http://www.historic- uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Festival-of-Britain-1951/, accessed 9 September 2017. BFI. "Wheldon, Sir Huw (1916-86)." http://www.screenon-line.org.uk/people/id/473425/, accessed 3 January 2018. Billington, Michael. "Look Back in Anger: How John Osborne Liberated Theatrical Language." The Guardian, 30 March 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/mar/30/how-look-back-in-anger-john- osborne, accessed 16 July 2017. Barford Sculptures Ltd. "Anthony Caro." http://www.anthonycaro.org/biography, accessed 8 February 2018. Blanchard, Tamsin. "Arts: Sensation as Ink and Egg Are Thrown at Hindley Portrait." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/arts-sensation-as-ink-and-egg-are-thrown-at- hindley-portrait-1239892.html, accessed 5 December 2017. Bluett, Amy. "Naked Truth: The Story of Women Life Models at the RA." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/article/naked-truth-the-story-of-women, accessed 31 March 2017. British Museum. "The Parthenon Sculptures." http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/news_and_press/statements/parthenon_sc ulptures/facts_and_figures.aspx, accessed 2 October 2017. BoE. "Gold Standard Suspended 1931." https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history, accessed 30 March 2018. BoE. "Inflation Calculator." https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation, accessed 27 February 2018. Britannica. "Engelbert Dollfuss." https://www.britannica.com/biography/Engelbert-Dollfuss, accessed 30 March 2018. Britannica. "Prix De Rome." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Prix-de-Rome, accessed 21 November 2016. British Council. "British Council Established 1934." https://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/history, accessed 12 November 2017. British Council. "Venice Biennale 1940s." https://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/history/1940s, accessed 25 October 2015. British Council. "Venice Biennale 1950s." https://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/history/1950s, accessed 25 October 2015. British Council. "History." https://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/history, accessed 22 October 2016.

Bibliography Page 268

Brown, Mark. "'Old Flo' Makes Her Way Back to London from Yorkshire." http://www.londongardenson-line.org.uk/gardens-on-line-record.php?ID=ISL037, accessed 10 June 2017. Brückle, Wolfgang. "Face-Off in Weimar Culture: The Physiognomic Paradigm, Competing Portrait Anthologies, and August Sander's Face of Our Time, Tate Papers No. 19, Spring 2013." http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/19/face-off-in- weimar-culture-the-physiognomic-paradigm-competing-portrait-anthologies-and- august-sanders-face-of-our-time, accessed 2 March 2017. BSR. "British School at Rome." http://www.bsr.ac.uk/about/history, accessed 21 November 2016. BSR. "British School at Rome." http://www.bsr.ac.uk/awards/fine-arts, accessed 12 January 2017. Burstow, R. "Aesthetics: Forms and Meaning 1950-75." https://www.academia.edu/35602252/Aesthetics_Forms_and_Meanings_1950-75, accessed 8 January 2018. Bussell, Darcey. "Darcey Bussell on Margot Fonteyn: How Did the Great Ballerina End up Living in Poverty Abroad?" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/dance/what-to-see/darcey-bussell- margot-fonteyn-did-great-ballerina-end-living/, accessed 5 March 2017. Caro, Anthony. "‘Martin, Frank Graeme (1914–2004)’." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/93474, 10 February 2017. Charoux, Siegfried Joseph. "Mapping the Practice and Profession of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851-1951." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib2_217499427, accessed 10 March 2015. Chew, Peter. "The Painter Who Hated Picasso." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts- culture/the-painter-who-hated-picasso-133041704/, accessed 23 July 2017. Clayton, Eleanor. "The Whole Question of Plinths." Tate Paper, No. 25, http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/25/whole-question-of- plinths, accessed 10 July 2017. Clifford, Linda. "Obituary: Josefina De Vasconcellos." https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jul/21/guardianobituaries.artsobituaries, accessed 14 March 2018. Cobham, David. "John Skeaping: One Pair of Eyes." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpmsrMbfV_4, accessed 16 July 2016. Correia, Alice. "Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/henry-moore/henry-moore-om-ch- king-and-queen-r1172098, accessed 24 January 2017. Correia, Alice. "Henry Moore: Standing Woman (1924)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research- publications/henry-moore/henry-moore-om-ch-standing-woman-r1172058, accessed 28 November 2017. Council, East Sussex County. "Mass Observation Archive." http://www.thekeep.info/collections/mass-observation-archive/, accessed 4 January 2018. Council, Hull City. "Bronze Bust of Amy Johnson by Siegfried Joseph Charoux (C.1944)." http://museumcollections.hullcc.gov.uk/collections/theme.php?irn=169, accessed 16 April 2018. DAH. "Alfred Hamilton Barr." https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/barra.htm, accessed 25 August 2016. DAH. "David Sylvester." https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/sylvesterd.htm, accessed 28 November 2017. DAH. "Herbert Read." https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/readh.htm, accessed 28 November 2017. DAH. "Lawrence Alloway." https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/allowayl.htm, accessed 28 November 2017. DAH. "'Philip Hendy' (1900-1980)." https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/hendyp.htm, accessed 23 June 2016. DAH. "Sidney Charles Hutchinson." https://dictionaryofarthistorians.org/hutchisons.htm, accessed 26 November 2017. Darwin, Robin. "The Dodo and the Phoenix: The Royal College of Art since the War." https://search.proquest.com/openview/ecc40c62916fb14254a732ecf9689426/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816417, accessed 06 January 2017. Denman, James, and Paul McDonald. "Unemployment Statistics from 1881 to the Present Day." https:--www.ons.gov.uk-ons-rel-lms-labour-unemployment-since-1881-to-the-present- day, accessed 24 July 2016.

Bibliography Page 269

Dior. "The New Look Revolution." https://www.dior.com/couture/en_gb/the-house-of- dior/the-story-of-dior/the-new-look-revolution, accessed 3 October 2017. Dorment, Richard. "Single Form, Duveen Galleries, Tate Britain, Review." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/8531559/Single-Form-Duveen- Galleries-Tate-Britain-review.html, accessed 27 April 2018. Dyhouse, Carol. "Going to University: Funding, Costs and Benefits. 1 August 2007." http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/going-to-university-funding- costs-benefits, accessed 12 November 2016. Emil, Kren and Marx. Daniel. "Charles Towneley." https://www.wga.hu/html_m/z/zoffany/towneley.html, accessed 10 September 2017. Furness, Hannah. "Secret of Winston Churchill's Unpopular Sutherland Painting Revealed." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/winston-churchill/11730850/Secret-of-Winston- Churchills-unpopular-Sutherland-portrait-revealed.html, accessed 5 June 2016. Gadelrab, R. "Birthday Treat for the Neighbours, 4 September 2009." http://www.thecnj.com/islington/2009/090409/inews090409_16.html, accessed 6 May 2017. Gadelrab, R. "Estate Pleads: Save Our Statue, Islington Tribune, 8 December 2008." http://www.thecnj.com/islington/2008/121208/inews121208_06.html, accessed 15 May 2017. Gilmour, David. "‘Curzon, George Nathaniel, Marquess Curzon of Kedleston (1859–1925)’" http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32680?docPos=1, accessed 23 August 2017. Glasgow, University of. "Frank Dobson." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib2_1206746936&search=Frank%2 0Dobson, accessed 20 March 2016. Glasgow, University of. "Frank Graeme Martin (1914-2004)." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib4_1264423870, accessed 10 January 2017. Glasgow, University of. "Gilbert Watt." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib4_1264438070&search=Gilbert% 20Watt, accessed 12 November 2016. Glasgow, University of. "Lady Muriel Wheeler" http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib4_1210849203, accessed 11 September 2017. Glasgow, University of. "Mapping the Profession and Practice of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851–1951." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/, accessed 9 September 2015. Glasgow, University of. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/organization.php?id=msib2_1219747847, accessed 15 November 2016. Glasgow, University of. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/organization.php?id=msib2_1219747847, accessed 15 November 2016. Glasgow, University of. "'Siegfried Joseph Charoux'" http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib2_1217499427, accessed 10 January 2016. Glasgow, University of. "Wheeler, Muriel." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib4_1210849203, accessed 11 September 2017. Glasgow, University of. "William McMillan." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib2_1205349090, accessed 21 November 2016. Glasgow, University of. "William Reid Dick." http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib6_1205923927&search=Reid%20 Dick, accessed 2 February 2015. Glueckstein, Fred. "'Other Club'." https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/club-founded- churchill-f-e- smith/, accessed 2 June 2017. Gov. "Past Prime Ministers." https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers, accessed 11 January 2018. Gov. "Tate Gallery (Administration)." http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1955/feb/11/tate-gallery- administration#S5CV0536P0_19550211_CWA_6, accessed 24 August 2017. Graves, Robert. "The Naked and the Nude." https://allpoetry.com/The-Naked-And-The-Nude, accessed 22 August 2017.

Bibliography Page 270

Greenberg, Clement. "Avant-garde and Kitsch." http://sites.uci.edu/form/files/2015/01/Greenberg-Clement-Avant-garde-and-Kitsch- copy.pdf, accessed 24 May 2018. Historic England. "Christopher Martin Memorial." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1108324, accessed 7 January 2017. Historic England. "Christopher Martin Memorial (1945-46)." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1108324, accessed 7 January 2017. Historic England. "Exchange Buildings, Liverpool." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1245031, accessed 10 September 2016. Historic England. "Exchange Buildings, Liverpool." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1245031, accessed 9 December 2017. Historic England. "Government Offices." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list- entry/1066106, accessed 24 November 2017. Historic England. "The Neighbours (1959)." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list- entry/1031596, accessed 6 May 2017. Historic England. "Royal Festival Hall." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list- entry/1249756, accessed 9 December 2017. Historic England. "Venus Fountain 1953." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list- entry/1391739, accessed 15 September 2017. Historic England. "Venus Fountain (1953)." https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list- entry/1391739, accessed 15 September 2017. Holborn, Margaret, Emma Golding, Elisabeth Thurlow, and Elli Narewska. "Paper Rationing." https://www.theguardian.com/gnmeducationcentre/paper-rationing-second-world- war-teaching-resource-gnm-archive, accessed 4 December 2017. Jasper, Rees. "Darcey Bussell: Looking for Margot Was a Pleasant Tribute to the Brilliant Fonteyn – Review , 20 December 2016." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/12/20/darcey-bussell-looking-margot-pleasant- tribute-brilliant-fonteyn, accessed 5 March 2017. Jeffreys, T. "'How Do Academicians Get Elected?'." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/article/how-do-academicians-get-elected, accessed 26 February 2017. Jolivette, Catherine. "Frank Dobson: London Pride." http://www.frankdobsonartist.com/londonpride.html, accessed 24 January 2017. JTA. "Statue to Lessing Is Erected on Jewish Square in Vienna." http://www.jta.org/1935/07/05/archive/statue-to-lessing-is-erected-on-jewish-square- in-vienna, accessed 30 June 2016. Jury, Louis. "Royal Academy's Sensation Proves to Be a Shockingly Good Crowd Puller." The Independent (30 December 1997), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/royal- academys-sensation-proves-to-be-a-shockingly-good-crowd-puller-1291068.html, accessed 30 April 2017. Kettle's Yard. "Henri Gaudier-Brzeska's the Wrestler." https://wn.com/on_henri_gaudier_brzeska's_the_wrestler's_at_kettle's_yard_lynda_ nead,_sj_fowler_sarah_turner_1, accessed 5 February 2017. Kirkpatrick, Christian. "Potteries of Staffordshire." https://britishheritage.com/potteries-of- staffordshire/, 28 April 2018. Klonk, Charlotte. "The White Cube and Beyond." http://www.tate.org.uk/context- comment/articles/white-cube-and-beyond, access 5 October 2017. Krauss, Rosalind. "A View of Modernism." http://theoria.art-zoo.com/a-view-of-modernism- rosalind-krauss/, accessed 18 February 2017. Kyle, Leyden. "Emanuel Vincent Harris." https://kyleleyden.wordpress.com/tag/emanuel- vincent-harris/, accessed 9 December 2017. Labour. "Labour Party Manifesto 1945, Let Us Face the Future: A Declaration of Labour Party Policy for the Consideration of the Nation." Labour Party, http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab45.htm, accessed 17 January 2017. Lazar, Alexandra. "Artist on Art: Barbara Hepworth and Reg Butler, 1951." https://alexandralazar.com/?s=Artists+on+art, accessed 6 August 2017. Leeds Art Gallery. "The Fount." http://www.leedsartgallery.co.uk/gallery/listings/l0059.php, accessed 25 August 2016. Liss, Fine Art. "Rome Scholars in the Inter-War Years." http://www.romescholars.com/rome_scholars.html, accessed 7 April 2015.

Bibliography Page 271

London Parks and Gardens Trust. "Highbury Quadrant Estate." http://www.londongardenson- line.org/gardens-on-line-record.asp?ID=ISL037, accessed 7 May 2017. LTM. "Geraldine Knight: Armour." https://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/posters/print-to- order/armour- small#selection=pto_finish:Matt__970;pto_frame:Black__965;pto_size:Small__961; pto_mount:With%20Mount__973, accessed 3 March 2017. Lycett, Andrew. "No Mere Observer an Affectionate Portrait of David Astor." https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/no-mere-observer-an-affectionate-portrait-of- david-astor/#, accessed 10 December 2016. Maak, Niklas, Charlotte Klonk, and Thomas Demand. "The White Cube and Beyond." http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/white-cube-and-beyond, accessed 5 October 2017. Maddocks, Fiona. "In the Studio with Phillip King PPRA." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/article/in-the-studio-with-phillip-king-PPRA/blog, accessed 30 April 2017. Mallams. "Geraldine Knight." http://www.catalogue-host.co.uk/mallams/oxford/2011-12- 14/page_1, accessed 3 March 2017. Marcus, Laurence. "BBC Close Down." http://www.teletronic.co.uk/bbcclosedown.htm, accessed 11 January 2018. Marshall, Christopher R. "When Worlds Collide: The Contemporary Museum as Art Gallery, Reshaping Museum Space." http://hdl.handle.net/11343/34721, accessed 11 November 2016. Martin, Courtney J. "Art World, Network and Other Alloway." Tate Papers, http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/16/art-world-network-and- other-alloway-keywords, accessed 10 October 2016. Massey, A. "Cataloguing the ICA's History: An Ephemeral Past?" http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/16457/, accessed 13 August 2016. Massey, Anne. "ICA Exhibitions 1948-1961: From a Picasso Picture to a Headscarf: Paintings into Textiles." Paul Mellon Centre for the Study of British Art, http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/16458/, accessed 15 August 2016. Massey, Anna. "Exhibition Catalogues as Experimental Spaces: Cataloguing the ICA's History: An Ephemeral Past? Association of Art Historians Annual Conference 10-14 April 2014." http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/16457/, accessed 19 July 2016. McCrum, Robert. "The Masterpiece That Killed George Orwell." http://theguardian.com- books-2009-may-10-1984-george-orwell, accessed 3 December 2016. McDonald, Paul, and James Denman. "Unemployment Statistics from 1881 to the Present Day." https:--www.ons.gov.uk-ons-rel-lms-labour-unemploymentsince1881tothepresent, accessed 24 July 2016. McKever, Rosalind. ""Umberto Boccioni (1882–1916)". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000-." https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/umbo/hd_umbo.htm, accessed 27 July 2017. McLean, Bruce. "Obituary: Frank Martin." https:--www.theguardian.com-news-2004-mar-02- guardianobituaries.education, accessed 10 February 2017. Meyric-Hughes, Henry. "The Promotion and Reception of British Sculpture Abroad 1948-1960: Herbert Read, Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, and the "Young British Sculptors"." http://www.britishartstudies.ac.uk/issues/issue-index/issue-3/1945-1960, accessed 30 September 2017. Modern British Pictures. "Geraldine Knight." http://www.modernbritishpictures.co.uk/artist/geraldine-knight/, accessed 3 March 2017. Moonie, Stephen. "Mapping the Field: Lawrence Alloway's Art Criticism-as-Information." http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/16/mapping-the-field- lawrence-alloway-art-criticism-as-information, accessed 2 October 2016. Moscow Museum. "The Worker and Kolkhoz Woman." http://moscowmanege.ru/en/the- worker-and-kolkhoz-woman-the-profile/, accessed 10 December 2017. Motoring Research. "Car Cost Year Born." https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/cost- car-year-born/, accessed 30 September 2017. Mullins, Charlotte. "The Future Vision of the Royal Academy." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/art/24771/the-future-vision-of-the-royal- academy.html, accessed 30 March 2017. National Archive. "1946." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1945to1951/timeline.htm, accessed 10 November 2016.

Bibliography Page 272

National Archive. "1946 New Housing, 8 May 1946." www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/timeline.htm, accessed 10 November 2016. National Archive. "'Collar the Lot'." http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/collar-lot- britains-policy-internment-second-world-war/, accessed 21 January 2017. National Archive. "Education: Before and after the Second World War." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/before-after-second-world- war.htm, 12 January 2017. National Archive. "Films 1945-1951." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1945to1951/timeline.htm, accessed 10 November 2016. National Archive. "Leonardo Cartoon." http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C2040648, accessed 10 April 2017. National Archive. "National Divorce Statistics." http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080109155056/http://www.statistics.gov .uk/cci/nscl.asp?ID=7554&RT=128&PG=1, accessed 12 February 2018. National Archive. "Records of the Successive Works Departments, and the Ancient Monuments Boards and Inspectorate." http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C260, accessed 21 December 2017. National Archive. "Before the Second World War." http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/before-after-second-world- war.htm, accessed 12 November 2016. NEAC. "New English Art Club." https://www.newenglishartclub.co.uk/about-us/history-new- english, accessed 9 March 2017. National Gallery. "National Gallery." https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/media/16327/entertaining-at-the-national- gallery_2015_2.pdf, accessed 4 September 2017. National Gallery. "Old Masters." https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/glossary/old- master, accessed 22 May 2018. National Gallery. "Sandro Bottecelli." https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/sandro- botticelli, accessed 10 May 2017. Nicolson, Harold. "The British Council 1934-1955, 4-30." https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000100140005- 8.pdf, accessed 27 January 2018. Niland, Lauren. "Taking the Picasso." https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the- archive-blog/2011/oct/28/picasso-exhibition-1945-storm, accessed 3 April 2017. NPG. "Sandro Botticelli." https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/artists/sandro-botticelli, accessed 10 May 2017. NPG. "Seven and Five Group." https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/group/1135, accessed 9 March 2017. Oxford Dictionary. "Design." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/design, accessed 17 January 2017. Oxford Dictionary. "Shilly Shally." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/shilly- shally, accessed 11 April 2017. ONDB. Barry Smith. "‘Lambert, (Leonard) Constant (1905–1951)’" Oxford University Press, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34382, accessed 3 March 2017. ODNB. Burnet, G. W., revised by Blissett, D. G. "Barry, Edward Middleton" http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1556, accessed 3 September 2017. ODNB. Cooke, Gordon. " ‘Bone, Sir Muirhead'." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/31957, accessed 13 January 2017. ODNB. Gilmour, David. "Lord Curzon." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32680, accessed 23 August 2017. ONDB. Goodden, R. Y. "Darwin, Sir Robert Vere [Robin]" http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/31003, accessed 8 November 2016. ODNB. Cooke, Gordon. "Bone, Sir Muirhead" http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/31957, accessed 13 January 2017. ODNB. Grimsditch, H. B. and Robert (revised) Upstone. "‘MacColl, Dugald Sutherland (1859– 1948)’." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/34687?docPos=1, accessed 23 August 2017. ODNB. Gross, Hans Kurt. "Charoux, Siegfried Joseph." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32374, accessed 10 May 2016.

Bibliography Page 273

ONDB. Harris, Jose. "William Beveridge." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb- 9780198614128-e-31871, accessed 10 January 2017. ODNB. Neville, Jason. "Dobson, Frank Owen" http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32844?docPos=1, accessed 20 March 2016. ONDB. Olby, Robert. "Huxley, Sir Julian Sorell." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb- 9780198614128-e-31271, , accessed 7 January 2017. ODNB. Percival, John. "Fonteyn, Dame Margot" Oxford University Press, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/49643, accessed 2 June 2017. ODNB. Pimlott-Baker, Anne. "Arnold Machin" Oxford University Press, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/72096, accessed 6 March 2017. ODNB. Powers, Alan. "‘Casson, Sir Hugh Maxwell (1910–1999)’." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/72656?docPos=1, accessed 12 February 2017. ONDB. Shaw, James Byam. "Hendy, Sir Philip Anstiss" http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/31219?docPos=1, accessed 13 January 2017. ODNB. Stamp, Gavin. "Sir Edwin Landseer Lutyens." http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb- 9780198614128-e-34638?rskey=sDMZPC&result=1, accessed 9 December 2017. O'Donnell, Nathan. "Bread and Ballyhoo: Wyndham Lewis and the Arts Council of Great Britain." http://www.wyndhamlewis.org/images/JWLS-essays/2013/jwls-2013- odonnell.pdf, accessed 28 October 2016. P. A. "Obituary: Lord Gardiner." http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/10/obituaries/lord- gardiner-ex-judicial-head-and-reformer-of-laws-dies-at-89.html?mcubz=1, accessed 30 January 2017. Parkin, Leonard. "Franta Belsky Sculpture Unveiled in Bethnal Green 1959." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz2GY-pGF7k, accessed 9 May 2017. Physicians, Royal College of. "Robert Dick Gillespie." http://munksroll.rcplondon.ac.uk/Biography/Details/1766, accessed 23 April 2018. Pierce, Andrew, and Stephen Adams. "Anthony Blunt Confessions of a Spy Who Passed Secrets to Russia During the War." The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5889879/Anthony-Blunt-confessions-of- spy-who-passed-secrets-to-Russia-during-the-war.html, accessed 28 December 2017. PMC. "The Royal Academy Summer Exhibition, A Chronicle 1769-2018." https://chronicle250.com/, accessed 30 May 2018. PMSA. "St. Swithin's House." http://pmsa.org.uk/pmsa-database/330, accessed 25 May 2017. PMSA. "The Watchers." http://www.pmsa.org.uk/pmsa-database/945/, accessed 15 May 2017. postalheritage. "Arnold Machin - the Man Behind the Icon." https://postalheritage.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/arnold-machin-the-man-behind- the-icon, accessed 6 March 2017. Potts, Alex. "Paolozzi's Pop New Brutalist World, Tate Papers, No. 21." http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/21/paolozzis-pop-new- brutalist-world, accessed 10 April 2017. Powell, Jennifer. "Henry Moore and ‘Sculpture in the Open Air’: Exhibitions in London’s Parks." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/henry-moore/jennifer-powell-henry- moore-and-sculpture-in-the-open-air-exhibitions-in-londons-parks-r1151300, accessed 10 August 2016. Powell, Jennifer. "The Wrestlers." https://www.kettlesyard.co.uk/about/news/wrestlers- boxers-and-a-new-gaudier-brzeska-discovery/, accessed 5 February 2017. Prize, Nobel. "Lord Robert Cecil." https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1937/chelwood-bio.html, accessed 23 April 2018. RAA. "Annie Swynnerton A.RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of- art/annie-swynnerton-a-r-a, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Anthony Caro RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/anthony-caro- ra-1924-2013, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Antony Gormley RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/antony- gormley-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Arnold Machin RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/arnold- machin-ra, accessed 17 May 2018.

Bibliography Page 274

RAA. "Bill Woodrow RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/bill-woodrow-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Dame Laura Knight RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/laura- knight-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Diploma Collection." http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_areana/textual/NS/RA- COLLECTIONS, accessed 30 March 2017. RAA. "Emanuel Vincent Harris RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/emauel-vincent-harris-ra, accessed, 9 December 2017. RAA. "The Fallen Angel (Ca.1956)." http://www.racollection.org.uk/ixbin/indexplus?record=O1864, accessed 10 May 2017. RAA. "Francis Dicksee PRA." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/frank- dicksee-pra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Frank Dobson RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/frank-dobson- ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Henry Moore RA Painter." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/henry- moore-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Hugh Casson RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/hugh-casson- pra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "A. K. Lawrence RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/a-k-lawrence- ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Maurice Lambert RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/maurice- lambert-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Michelangelo Buonarroti." http://www.racollection.org.uk/ixbin/indexplus?record=O1720, accessed 5 October 2017. RAA. "Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564), Taddai Tondo (1504-1506)." http://www.racollection.org.uk/ixbin/indexplus?record=O1720, accessed 5 October 2017. RAA. "Past Academicians." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "The RA Schools." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/the-ra-schools, accessed 5 February 2017. RAA. "Richard Deacon RA Selects." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/richard- deacon-ra-selects, accessed 22 February 2018. RAA. "Richard Garbe RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/richard-garbe- ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Ruskin Spear RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/ruskin-spear- raa, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Teddy Boy and Girl (1955)." https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of- art/teddy-boy-and-girl-1955, accessed 28 February 2018. RAA. "Tracey Emin RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/tracey-emin-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "Walter Richard Sickert RA" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/walter- sickert-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAA. "William McMillan R. A.". https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/name/william- mcmillan-ra, accessed 17 May 2018. RAH. "Albert Einstein Speaks at the , 3 October 1933." https://www.royalalberthall.com/about-the-hall/news/2013/october/3-october-1933- albert-einstein-speaks-at-the-hall/, accessed 30 March 2018. RBA. "Rome Scholars." https://www.royalsocietyofbritishartists.org.uk/?s=rome+scholars, accessed 9 January 2017. RBS. "Royal Society of British Sculptors." https://rbs.org.uk/about-us/history, accessed 9 March 2017. RCA. "Ark 1959-1978." https://www.rca.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/ark--royal-college-art- magazine-1950-1978/, accessed 9 February 2017. RCA. "Royal College of Art." https://www.rca.ac.uk/more/our-history/college-history/history- 1837-2013, accessed 19 November 2016. RCA. "Royal College of Art." https://www.rca.ac.uk/more/our-history/college-history/history- 1837-2013, accessed 19 November 2016. RCA. "Royal College of Arts - Ark." https://www.rca.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/ark--royal- college-art-magazine-1950-1978/, accessed 9 February 2017.

Bibliography Page 275

Reynolds, Joshua. "Discourses on Art." accessed 25 March 2016, https://archive.org/stream/sirjoshuareynold00reynuoft/sirjoshuareynold00reynuoft_ djvu.txt, accessed 25 March 2016. RHCL. "Rupert Harris Conservation Limited." https://rupertharris.com/collections/sculpture- and-monuments, accessed 6 May 2017. RIBA. "Design for the British Pavilion at the Paris International Exhibition of 1937 (Exposition International Des Arts Et Des Techniques): Plan." https://www.architecture.com/image-library/ribapix/image- information/poster/design-for-the-british-pavilion-at-the-paris-international- exhibition-of-1937-exposition-internation/posterid/RIBA35999.html, accessed 22 December 2017. Rice, Brian. "Brian Rice." http://www.brianrice.info/about-the-artist, accessed 12 November 2016. Riggs, Terry "Stephen Bone." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/stephen-bone-779, accessed 28 November 2017. ROH. "Margot Fonteyn: Dancer." http://www.roh.org.uk/people/margot-fonteyn, accessed 3 March 2017. Rohrer, Finlo. "Back after the Break." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5054802.stm, accessed 10 February 2017. Roth, Andrew. "Obituary: Earl Haig." https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jul/15/obituary-dawyck-earl-haig, accessed 13 January 2017. Royal Ballet School. "Bust of Margot Fonteyn Unveiled at Upper School." https://www.royalballetschool.org.uk/2014/03/06/bust-margot-fonteyn-unveiled- upper-school, accessed 3 June 2017. Royal Mint. "Crowns." http://www.royalmint.com/help/help/how-can-i-dispose-of- commemorative-crowns, accessed 16 October 2017. Royal Mint. "Meeting and Remembering a Man Named Machin." http://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/Default.aspx?PageID=13234877&A=SearchResu lt&SearchID=2635809&ObjectID=13234877&ObjectType=1, accessed 27 January 2017. Royal-UK. "Royal Finances." https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0, accessed 5 January 2018. RSBA. "The Rome Scholarship." https://www.royalsocietyofbritishartists.org.uk/rome- scholarship/, accessed 9 January 2017. Sanchez, Isabel. "Culture in Fascist Italy." http://www.academia.edu/8515476/Culture_in_Fascist_Italy, accessed 12 October 2015. Sangster, Catherine. "Received Pronunciation and BBC English." http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/yourvoice/rpandbbc.shtml, accessed 11 January 2018. Schmitt, Peter. "Burlington House: A Brief History." http://royal-academy-production- asset.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/72550a73-b97e-4f99-9534- 5a34c03c7c42/architecture-guide-final-785.pdf, accessed 3 September 2017. Sedgwick, Michael. "Arnold Machin." http://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/history/people/artists/arnold- machin/index.html, accessed 6 March 2017. Smalley, Ulrike. "The Secret Purpose of the War Artists Advisory Committee." http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-secret-purpose-of-the-war-artists-advisory- committee, accessed 24 November 2016. Smart, Carol. "Divorce in England 1950 to 2000: A Moral Tale." https://www.leeds.ac.uk/cava/papers/wsp2.pdf, accessed 12 February 2018. Society, Artists' Collecting. "Geraldine Knight." http://artistscollectingsociety.org/members/geraldine-knight/, accessed 5 February 2017. Stephens, Christopher. "The Story of Jacob Epstein's 'Rock Drill'." http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/blogs/story-jacob-epsteins-rock-drill, accessed 22 January 2017. Steve, Parnell. "Alison Smithson (1928-1993) and Peter Smithson (1923-2003)." https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/reputations-pen-portraits-/alison- smithson-1928-1993-and-peter-smithson-1923-2003/8625631.article, accessed 9 December 2017. Talarico, Jessica. "Rationing in the Second World War." http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what- you-need-to-know-about-rationing-in-the-second-world-war, accessed 18 January 2018.

Bibliography Page 276

Tate. "Albert Einstein (1933)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/epstein-albert-einstein- n04754, accessed 24 August 2017. Tate. "Anthony Caro: 'Woman Waking up' (1955)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/caro- woman-waking-up-t00264, accessed 20 January 2017. Tate. "Arnold Machin St. John the Baptist C. 1944." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/machin-st-john-the-baptist-n05444, accessed 28 January 2018. Tate. "Arnold Machin the Annunciation () (C. 1944)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/machin-the-annunciation-two-figures-n05445, accessed 28 January 2018. Tate. "Artists International Association." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/a/artists- international-association, accessed 9 March 2017. . Tate. "Brutalism." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/b/brutalism, accessed 9 December 2017. Tate. "Edgar Degas: Little Dancer Aged Fourteen." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/degas- little-dancer-aged-fourteen-n06076, accessed 3 March 2017. Tate. "Galway Cow (1954)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/ling-galway-cow-t00038, accessed 6 January 2018. Tate. "Horace Brodzky (1956)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gaudier-brzeska-horace- brodzky-t00129, accessed 24 August 2017. Tate. "James Bolivar Manson." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/camden- town-group/james-bolivar-manson-r1105350, accessed 30 March 2018. Tate. "John Randall Bratby (1928-1992)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/john-bratby-804, accessed 5 October 2017. Tate. "John Rothenstein." http://www2.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/historyhtml/people_dir_rothenstein.htm, accessed 23 August 2016. Tate. "L S Lowry, 'a Young Man' (1955)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lowry-a-young- man-t00142, accessed 24 August 2017. Tate. "The Man Child (1921)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/dobson-the-man-child- t01322, accessed 16 March 2018. Tate. "New Generation Sculpture." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/n/new-generation- sculpture, accessed 22 June 2017. Tate. "Siegfried Charoux: Youth (1948) Exhibited 1948." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/charoux-youth-n05863, accessed 10 June 2016. Tate. "Sir Jacob Epstein, Mrs Mary McEvoy (1909)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/epstein-mrs-mary-mcevoy-n06139, accessed 24 August 2017. Tate. "Sir Stanley Spencer, The Resurrection, Cookham (1924-1927)." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/spencer-the-resurrection-cookham-n04239, accessed 24 August 2017. Tate. "Tate History." http://www2.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/historyhtml/war_reopen.htm, accessed 7 January 2018. The Fine Arts Society. "British Portraits." http://thefineartsociety.com/exhibitions/188/works/image_standalone1671/, accessed 8 February 2018. The Fine Arts Society. "The Five and Seven Group 1920-35." http://thefineartsociety.com/exhibitions/49/overview, accessed 9 March 2017. The London Group. "The London Group History." http://www.thelondongroup.com/history/, accessed 9 March 2017. The Sculpture Park. "Geraldine Knight." https://www.thesculpturepark.com/geraldine-knight, accessed 3 March 2017. Tom, Jeffreys. "How Do Academicians Get Elected?" https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/article/how-do-academicians-get-elected, accessed 26 February 2017. Trachtman, Paul. "Matisse and Picasso." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts- culture/matisse-picasso-75440861, accessed 31 May 2017. Tsvetkov, Kamen. "Rhetoric and Communications: The Communicative Potential of Non- Figurative Sculpture." http://journal.rhetoric.bg/, accessed 19 April 2018. UCL. "The Slade School." http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/about/history, accessed 19 November 2016. . UK-Political. "General Election Results Summary 1945." http://www.ukpolitical.info/1945.htm, accessed 17 January 2017.

Bibliography Page 277

UKPoliticalInfo. "1945." http://www.ukpolitical.info/1945.htm, accessed 17 January 2017. VAM. "CEMA" Http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/wid/ead/acgb/acgb-e11.html, accessed 7 April 2015. VAM. "Daily Mail the Ideal Home Records 1910-1990." http://www.vam.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/250114/idealhome_aad-1990- 9_20140709.pdf, accessed 18 January 2018.

Secondary Sources - Conference Papers

Bocher, Bruce. "The Historic Display of Sculpture at the Sloane Museum." In Sculptural Display: Ancient and Modern. at Senate House, London, 28 June 2017. MacDougall, Sarah., B. Dogramaci, and K. Wimmer. ""Separate Spheres of Endeavour?" Experiencing the Émigré Network in Britain, C. 1933-1945." In Netzwerke Des Exils Conference, Munich, 2010. Malet, M. "'Not Empty-Handed Like Beggars': Austrian Artists in British Exile in the 1930s: A Brief Introduction." In Austrian Cultural Forum. London, 2012. Massouras, Alexander. "Conference Paper: Dark Sunlight in Summer, 1963." In Royal Academy of Art Symposium. London: The Paul Mellon Centre for British Art Studies, 29-30 September, 2016. Moriarty, Catherine. "'The Sea Goeth It All About' Maritime Themes in British Public Sculpture." 1-8. Strasburg: Council of Europe, 2001. Palagia, Olga. "Sculptural Display in Ancient Greek Temples." In Sculptural Display: Ancient and Modern. at Senate House, London, 28 June 2017. Sylvester, A. D. B. "'Butler - a Young English Sculptor'." Paper presented at the CoI, London, 1949. Touloumi, Olga. "Building the Case, c.1945." In Association for Art History Conference, London, 7 April 2018.

Secondary Sources - Broadcasts

"Awesome Beauty: The Art of the Industrial", presented by Lachlan Goudie, BBC 4, 29 August 2017.

"Churchill: Blood, Sweat and Oil Paint" presented by Andrew Marr, BBC 4, 17 August 2015.

"Looking for Margot" presented by Darcy Bussell, BBC 1. 20 December 2016.

"The Coronation" BBC 1, 14 January 2018."

"The One Show: Machin’s Queen Elizabeth II Stamp: 50th Anniversary ", BBC 1, 19 December 2017.

"The Private Life of the Royal Academy", BBC 2, 12 May 2018.

"Venus Uncovered: Ancient Goddess of Love" presented by Bethany Hughes, BBC 1, 12 November 2017.

Bibliography Page 278

Thesis

Burstow, Robert. "Modern Public Sculpture in 'New Britain', 1945-53." Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Leeds., 2000. Cowdell, Theophilus Paul. "The Role of the Royal Academy in English Art, 1918-1930." Unpublished thesis (PhD), Sheffield City Polytechnic, 1980. Eastment, D. J. "The Policies and Position of the British Council from the Outbreak of War to 1950." Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Leeds, 1982. Ebong, Inyang. "The Origins, Organisation and Significance of the Festival of Britain 1951." Unpublished thesis (PhD), , 1986. Harris, Amy. "Made in Britain: Bought for the Nation: Foreign Sculptors in the Chantrey Bequest Collection of British Sculpture, 1877-1925." Unpublished thesis (PhD), Tate Britain and the University of York, pending. Lloyd, Fran. "The Emergence of 'New British Sculpture', 1977-1982." Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Manchester, 2003. McCann, David. "Sir John Rothenstein and the Advocacy of British Art between the Wars." Unpublished thesis (PhD), Southampton Solent University, 2006. Pereira, Dawn. "Art for the 'Common Man': The Role of the Artist within the London County Council, 1957-1965." Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of East London., 2008. Powell, Jennifer. "Constructing National Identities through Exhibition Practices in Post-War London: Anglo-French Exchanges and Contemporary Sculpture on Display, C. 1945- 66." Unpublished thesis (PhD) University of Birmingham., 2008. Rippy, Karissa. "A Moment for Sculpture: The 'New Iron Age' Sculpture in the British Pavilion at the Venice Biennale 1952 and Herbert Read's Interpretation of It'." Unpublished thesis (MA), Courtauld Institute, 1993. Sutton, Robert "The Educational Roots of Henry Moore's Public Works, 1938-1950." Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of York, , 2015. Thornton, Nicholas. "40,000 Years of Modern Art." Unpublished thesis (MA), Courtauld Institute of Art, 1998. Veasey, Melanie. "Humanising the Landscape: The Outdoor Placement of Twentieth-Century Sculpture and Its Aesthetic Impact Upon the Viewer." Unpublished thesis (MA), University of Buckingham, 2014. Waltl, Christian. "Siegfried Charoux: A Sculptor in Exile in England." Unpublished thesis (MA), University of Vienna, Austria, 1997.

List of Images Page 279

List of Images Copyright has not been granted for open access distribution of the following images.

Image Title Source

1.1 The Royal Academy of Arts Photographer unknown https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/royal- academy-america, accessed 5 June 2016.

1.2 Portrait of Sir Winston Churchill Photographer unknown (1954) https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/a Painter: Graham Sutherland rchive/03370/churchillfull_3370846b.jpg, accessed 10 January 2016.

1.3 Exhibition of Lynn Chadwick’s http://venicebiennale.britishcouncil.org/medi work at the Venice Biennale a/w485/installation_images/1956_lynn_chad (1956) wick_exhibition.jpg, Sculptor: Lynn Chadwick accessed 11 September 2015.

2.1 Unidentified student carving a Photographer unknown block of stone, © Courtesy of the RAA, London. Royal Academy of Arts (1953)

2.2 The Teaching Staff of the RCA http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/N/N (1951) 06/N06079_10.jpg, accessed 02 March 2018. Painter: Rodrigo Moynihan

2.3 Town Planning (1920s) Photographer: Robert Freidus Sculptor: Alfred Hardiman http://www.victorianweb.org/sculpture/hardi man/1.jpg, photo by Robert Freidus, accessed 19 November 2016.

2.4 Sir A E Richardson PRA Photographer unknown lecturing to students (1953) © Courtesy of the RAA, London.

2.5 Siegfried Charoux and Barker, I. Anthony Caro - Quest for the New Royal Academy Students Sculpture. Munich, Germany, Swiridoff Verlag, 2004, 30.

2.6 Maurice Lambert in his studio Photographer unknown (1950s) © Courtesy of the RAA, London.

2.7 (Untitled work) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Mary Milner, RAA Press Cuttings 1957. RCA Student

2.8 Schools Award Panel, Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2017. RAA Schools Corridor

2.9 Circe (1954) Photographer unknown Sculptor: RAA Press Cuttings 1954. Marie Helen Crawford Gill

2.10 Spring (1947) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Arnold Machin https://postalheritage.files.wordpress.com/20 11/09/0351-machinspring.jpg, accessed 16 January 2017.

List of Images Page 280

Image Title Source

2.11 Josefina de Vasconcellos Photographer unknown. https://i.pinimg.com/236x/76/33/83/763383 b20ba138f315bf3f0560f780db.jpg, accessed 14 March 2018.

2.12 Schools Floor Plan 1910 Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2017 © Courtesy of the RAA, London.

2.13 Schools Floor Plan c.1950 Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2017 © Courtesy of the RAA, London.

2.14 Sculpture Students at the Royal Photographer unknown Academy c.1950s https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/976x549_b /p02qxrdy.jpg, accessed 19 September 2017.

2.15 Alfred Hardiman’s Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2017 Admittance Token © Courtesy of the HMI See Alfred Hardiman archive.

2.16 Triton (1937–48) Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2017. Sculptor: William McMillan

2.17 Anthony Caro at the Photographer: Edna S Weiss. Royal Academy Sculpture School RAA, Caro file. c.1950 Also in Caro, Anthony. Caro. London: Phaidon Press Ltd, 2014. 8.

2.18 Armour (1962) Photographer unknown Painter: Geraldine Knight http://www.ltmcollection.org/posters/poster/ poster.html?_IXMAXHITS_=1&IXinv=1983/4 /7334&IXsummary=artist/artist&IXartist=Ger aldine%20Knight&_IXFIRST_=1, accessed 3 March 2017.

2.19 Lucifer (1952) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Maurice Lambert RA Illustrated 1952, 86, © Courtesy of the RAA.

2.20 The Neighbours (1959) Photograph: attributed to Siegfried Charoux, Sculptor: Siegfried Charoux Courtesy of a private collection.

2.21 BOC Ltd. Advertisement, 1948 The Listener, vol. XXXIX, no 992, 29 January 1948, 197.

2.22 Teddy Boy and Girl (1955) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Lynn Chadwick http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/sothe bys- pages/blogs/sothebysatauction/2015/5/teddy- boy-and-girl.jpg, accessed 15 September 2016.

3.1 The Ballot Box Photographer unknown https://d1inegp6v2yuxm.cloudfront.net/royal- academy/image/upload/c_limit,dpr_1.0,f_aut o,w_950/cviwezt7df0gf6gcyawn.jpg, accessed 1 March 2017.

3.2 Vellum Roll of Registration, Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2016. extract © Courtesy of the RAA, London.

List of Images Page 281

Image Title Source

3.3 Rita Ling carves a Snow-woman Photographer unknown (1952) http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-rita-ling- Sculptor: Rita Ling sculptress1310carves- snowman131031319521310c16211- 20323817.html, accessed 11 March 2017.

3.4 Elisabeth Frink Photographer unknown https://s-media-cache- ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9b/08/28/9b0828 23d1929ab3debb8e9880d7a094.jpg, accessed 30 March 2017.

3.5 Kenneth Armitage Photographer: Anne Purkiss http://cdn5.filmsnotdead.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/KENNETH- ARMITAGE.jpg, accessed 30 March 2017.

3.6 Lynn Chadwick Photographer: Anne Purkiss http://cdn2.filmsnotdead.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/LYNN- CHADWICK.jpg, accessed 30 March 2017.

3.7 Earth Rests(1930) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Gilbert Ledward http://www.racollection.org.uk/ixbin/indexpl us?record=O1861, accessed 28 May 2016. © Royal Academy of Arts, London.

3.8 Reclining Figure (1929) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Henry Moore http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/research/ 2562_10.jpg, accessed 28 May 2016. © Courtesy of the HMF.

3.9 Memorial Figure Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2014. (1945–1946) © Courtesy of the HMF. Sculptor: Henry Moore

3.10 Ariel of the Bank (ca.1936) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Charles Wheeler http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_arena/p hoto/large/23/PL003423.jpg, accessed 28 May 2016. © Royal Academy of Arts, London.

3.11 Telemon and Caryatids Photographer unknown (1930–1931) http://www.pmsa.org.uk/assets/db_images/C Sculptor: Charles Wheeler L_451_1235.jpg, accessed 31 May 2017.

3.12 Study for the Head of Pax (1933) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Frank Dobson http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_arena/p hoto/large/25/PL003425.jpg, accessed 03 June 2016. © Royal Academy of Arts, London.

3.13 Carving in Paros Marble (1937) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Maurice Lambert http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_arena/p hoto/large/35/PL002735.jpg, accessed 28 May 2016. © Royal Academy of Arts, London.

3.14 Crouching Figure (1930) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Frank Dobson HMI, Frank Dobson archive 1999/10. © The Frank Dobson Estate.

List of Images Page 282

Image Title Source

3.15 Woman Washing in the Bath Photographer unknown (c.1982) https://www.wikiart.org/en/edgar- Artist: Edgar Degas degas/woman-washing-in-the-bath-1892, accessed 20 May 2017.

3.16 Friends (1956) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Siegfried Charoux http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_arena/p hoto/large/24/PL000624.jpg, accessed 28 May 2016. © LEMU, Vienna.

3.17 Rolling Horse, Photographer unknown (ca. 1976) http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_arena/p Sculptor: Elisabeth Frink hoto/large/67/PL000667.jpg, accessed 30 March 2017 © Royal Academy of Arts, London.

3.18 Exhibition Catalogue: ‘RA Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2017. Diploma Works 1921–1981’ Courtesy of the Courtauld Library.

3.19 No Heroes Developed (1967) Photographer unknown Artist: Eduardo Paolozzi http://content.ngv.vic.gov.au/retrieve.php?siz e=1280&type=image&vernonID=74711, accessed 20 May 2017. © Eduardo Paolozzi Estate.

3.20 The Silken World of Michelangelo Photographer unknown (1967) Image courtesy of the RAA. Artist: Eduardo Paolozzi © Eduardo Paolozzi Estate.

3.21 Reclining Figure - Relief Photographer unknown (1953–1954) http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_arena/p Sculptor: Kenneth Armitage hoto/large/15/PL003415.jpg, accessed 30 March 2017. © Royal Academy of Arts, London.

3.22 The Fount (1948) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Frank Dobson http://www.leedsartgallery.co.uk/gallery/listin gs/images/59_2.jpg, accessed 10 May 2018.

3.23 Art War News 4 May 1949 Courtesy The Munnings Art Museum, Cartoonist: David Low Dedham, Essex. Press Cuttings.

3.24 Sir Alfred Munnings PPRA and Photographer unknown Sir Gerald Kelly PRA (1949) © Courtesy The Munnings Art Museum, Dedham, Essex.

4.1 Burlington House Courtyard, 1959 Photographer unknown © courtesy of the RAA

4.2 Plan of the Galleries, © courtesy of the RAA Royal Academy of Arts

4.3 The Wohl Central Hall, Photographer: Crispin Eurich Academy Exhibition, 1958 The Studio, January 1959, 157(790) pp. 28-30.

4.4 Buddhist Sculpture in the Lecture Photographer unknown Room, 1935–36. http://www.racollection.org.uk/asset_arena/p hoto/large/44/PL003344.jpg, accessed 12 September 2017

List of Images Page 283

Image Title Source

4.5 Duveen Gallery, Tate Gallery Photographer unknown http://www.panoramio.com/photo/61353470, accessed 4 September 2017

4.6 Installation for ‘Forty Thousand Photographer unknown Years of Modern Art’ (1948) Massey, A., & Muir, G. (2014). ICA 1946-1968. London: Institute of Contemporary Art, p. 26.

4.7 Installation for ‘This Is Photographer unknown Tomorrow’, (1956) https://www.architecture.com/image- library/imagecache/galleryitems/24220.1.434. 434.FFFFFF.jpeg, accessed 26 September 1956

4.8 Copy of the Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2017. Taddei Tondo (1504–06) © Courtesy of the RAA.

4.9 The Man Who Couldn’t Afford To © Health Robinson Estate. Go To The Academy (1935) Courtesy of the RAA. Cartoonist: Heath Robinson

4.10 The RAA Selection Committee Photographer unknown (1959) © Courtesy of the RAA.

4.11 The Selection Committee (1955) © Courtesy of the RAA. Painter: Alfred R Thomson

4.12 Does the Subject Matter? (1956), Image courtesy The Munnings Art Museum, Painter: Alfred Munnings Dedham, Essex. Copyright the estate of Sir Alfred Munnings, DACS 2018

4.13 Does The Subject Matter? (1956), RAA Press Cuttings, 1956 Cartoonist: Giles

4.14 Charles Wheeler outside St Photographer unknown James’s Church, Piccadilly, © Courtesy of the HMI. London Charles Wheeler/1999.11. Box 1

4.15 London Season - Opening of the Photographer unknown Royal Academy (1957) https://media.mutualart.com/Images/2013_0 Cartoonist: David Low 2/26/05/050332768/85fbeae8-533e-4315- a092-1892fc1aa8fc_570.Jpeg, accessed 20 September 2017 © Cartoonist: David Low

4.16 Procedures for the Royal Academy Photographer unknown Summer Exhibition (1931) © Courtesy of the RAA.

4.17 Procedures for the Royal Academy Photographer unknown Summer Exhibition (1967) © Courtesy of the RAA.

4.18 ‘Sculpture in the Home’ 1946 Photographer unknown ACGB ‘Sculpture in the Home’ 1946

4.19 ‘Sculpture in the Home’ 1950–51 Photographer unknown ACGB ‘Sculpture in the Home’ 1950

4.20 ‘Sculpture in the Home’ 1953–54 Photographer unknown ACGB ‘Sculpture in the Home’ 1953

4.21 ‘Sculpture in the Home’ 1958–59 Photographer unknown ACGB ‘Sculpture in the Home’ 1958

List of Images Page 284

Image Title Source

4.22 Rita Ling (1955) Photographer unknown Sculptor: John Skeaping © RAA Summer Exhibition catalogue 1955.

4.23 Reclining Figure (1957) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Uli Nimptsch © RAA Summer Exhibition catalogue 1956.

4.24 Venus and Amorini (1948) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Muriel Wheeler © RAA Summer Exhibition catalogue 1948.

4.25 Ophelia (1955) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Reg Butler http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/T/T 00/T00262_10.jpg, accessed 11 September 2017.

4.26 Venus Fountain (1953) unveiling Photographer unknown Sculptor: Gilbert Ledward © Courtesy of the HMI. Gilbert Ledward/1988.16/3.

4.27 Figure lying on its side (1957) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Kenneth Armitage http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/12/Kenneth-Armitage- Figure-Lying-on-Its-Side-v.5-%C2%A340-60k- %C2%A3852501.jpg, accessed 7 October 2017.

4.28 Nell and Jimmy Sandford (1958) Photographer unknown Painter: John Randall Bratby RA Illustrated 1958, p. 59. RAA Exhibition Catalogue 1958 listing number 159. © Courtesy of the RAA, London

4.29 Baroness Asquith, Photographer unknown RAA Annual Dinner (1967) http://www.nickelinthemachine.com/wordpre ss/wp-content/uploads/Baroness-Asquith-at- the-dinner.jpg, accessed 18 September 2017

4.30 Royal Academy of Arts Summer Photographer unknown Exhibitions c. 1950s https://i.pinimg.com/736x/50/c0/3b/50c03b 7f5f9b8ef1765756037ece5513--art-news-the- diary.jpg, accessed 15 August 2017.

5.1 Youth (1948) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Siegfried Charoux http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/N/N 05/N05863_10.jpg, accessed 30 December 2017. © LEMU, Vienna.

5.2 Albert Einstein (1934) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Jacob Epstein http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/N/N 04/N04754_10.jpg, accessed 30 December 2017.

5.3 Mrs Mary McEvoy (1909) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Jacob Epstein http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/N/N 06/N06139_10.jpg, accessed 30 December 2017.

5.4 Head of Horace Brodzky Photographer unknown (1913, cast 1956)] http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/T/T Sculptor: Henri Gaudier-Brzeska 00/T00129_10.jpg, accessed 10 December 2017

List of Images Page 285

Image Title Source

5.5 Galway Cow (1955) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Rita Ling RAA Summer Exhibition Catalogue 1955 © Courtesy of the RAA, London

5.6 Tate Trustees (c.1950s) Photographer unknown http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/research/ 3502_10.jpg, accessed 22 May 2016

5.7 Lycidas (1902–08) Photographer unknown Sculptor: James Havard Thomas http://www.victorianweb.org/sculpture/thom asjh/1b.jpg , accessed 30 December 2017.

5.8 Dame Margot Fonteyn de Arias Photographer unknown (1956) © Courtesy of the RAA, London Sculptor: Maurice Lambert

5.9 Dame Margot Fonteyn de Arias Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2017 (1956) Courtesy of the Royal Ballet School Bodice detail Sculptor: Maurice Lambert

5.10 Ministry of Defence, London Photographer unknown http://stories-of-london.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/08/Gardens-from-the- Air.jpg, accessed 30 December 2017.

5.11 Earth and Water (1950–53) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Charles Wheeler http://1.bp.blogspot.com/- mp1eD5M00ks/TZeE0JuBfRI/AAAAAAAAT0 k/ntjZw7-BdrA/s1600/DSCF6172.JPG, accessed 30 December 2017.

5.12 Three Standing Figures (1948) Photographer: Melanie Veasey, 2014 Sculptor: Henry Moore © Courtesy of the HMF

5.13 Worker and Kolkhoz Woman https://i.pinimg.com/originals/70/5f/ed/705f (1937) ed7d28aa693ba128ba9d9bca9b9b.jpg, Sculptor: Vera Mukhina accessed 30 December 2017.

5.14 Maquette for the Photographer unknown Unknown Political Prisoner http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/sothe (1953) bys-pages/blogs/Mod%20Brit/2014/5/reg- Sculptor: Reg Butler butler.jpg, accessed 30 December 2017.

5.15 The Islanders (1951) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Siegfried Charoux http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu- west1.amazonaws.com/43/main/61/681850.jp g, accessed 30 December 2017. © LEMU, Vienna.

5.16 Maquette for The Neighbours Photographer unknown (1957) © Courtesy of the HMI Sculptor: Siegfried Charoux

5.17 Reclining Figure (1951) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Henry Moore http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/research/ 3382_10.jpg, accessed 31 December 2017. © Courtesy of the HMF

List of Images Page 286

Image Title Source

5.18 Façade for St. Swithin’s House Photographer unknown (1951) © Courtauld Art Institute Sculptor: Siegfried Charoux http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu- west1.amazonaws.com/53/main/14/164546. jpg, accessed 25 January 2017

5.19 Family (1953) Photographer: Sylvia Hargreaves, 2018. Sculptor: Siegfried Charoux © LEMU, Vienna.

5.20 London Pride (1951) Photographer unknown Sculptor: Frank Dobson © Courtesy of the HMI

5.21 The Neighbours (1959), unveiling Photographer unknown Sculptor: Siegfried Charoux © Courtesy of the London Fire Brigade