Tate Britain,
London.
11 September 2008–4 January 2009.
Museo Nacional del
Prado, Madrid
3 February–19 April 2009
The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York
18 May–16 August 2009
Janet McKenzie,
Studio International, 30/12/08
Francis
Bacon (1909-1992) at Tate Britain heralds the artist’s centenary in
2009. It is the first retrospective since 1985, enabling a re-assessment
of his work, although the exhibitions in Edinburgh, Francis Bacon:
Portraits and Heads (2005) and Norwich, Francis Bacon in the
1950s (2006) at the Sainsbury Centre have been significant. The
present exhibition is informed by the revelation, following Bacon’s
death in 1992, of the contents of his studio. His working methods were
revealed, especially his reliance on photographs.
In interviews, Francis Bacon insisted that he never drew, and that his
compositions were intuitive. These claims were refuted by the posthumous
revelation of figure studies from the 1950s. Bacon usually commenced
painting a figure on to the blank canvas. In 1962 he claimed that the
genesis of his paintings came whilst daydreaming. In fact his methods
were often more orthodox. The works on paper and lists that came to
light after his death indicate that he collected a wide range of
material to use as points of reference. The present exhibition, which
makes a powerful impact on the viewer, comprises 65 paintings and 13
major triptychs. It is the most comprehensive exhibition to date, which
examines the artist’s sources, processes and thoughts. It is
accompanied by an excellent, scholarly catalogue; edited by Matthew Gale
and Chris Stephens; with essays by Martin Harrison, David Alan Mellor,
Simon Ofield, Gary Tinterow and Victoria Walsh.1
Widely regarded as one of the greatest artists of the twentieth
century, Francis Bacon can also be seen as one of the most powerful and
searing commentators of the human condition in Britain since the Second
World War, expressing unflinching images of sexuality, violence and
isolation. The exhibition is profound, haunting and iconic. Bacon’s
philosophy as an atheist is explored: man in a godless world is
presented as simply another animal, subject to the same natural urges of
violence, lust and fear. In this Bacon personified the age. The loss of
faith in humanity in the late 1940s was such that the human image in art
became increasingly difficult to portray. The existential despair
expressed by Jean-Paul Sartre in Nausea
(1938), found a visual counterpart in the images of despair and
alienation of Francis Bacon, the expressionism of Oskar Kokoschka and
the apocalyptic visions of Arthur Boyd. For the most part, abstraction
in the visual arts dominated because, after the horrors of Auschwitz,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, artists found images of humanity impossible to
create.
John Berger, formerly a harsh critic of Bacon, recently wrote:
“He repeatedly painted the human body, in discomfort or agony or want.
Sometimes the pain involved looks as if it has been inflicted; more
often it seems to originate from within, from the guts of the body
itself, from the misfortune of being physical”.2 In spite
of the hellish drama expressed, Bacon’s work is inspiring in the very
dedication to the craft of painting, and the intellectual dialogue
created. This is a profound exhibition, at once challenging and awesome.
In spite of the bewilderment that can so often be experienced in
confrontation with his painting, there is an unexpected affirmation in
the choice of formal language and the precision and care applied to the
act of painting: the placement of each head, each brush stroke, every
subtle hue, the manner in which the figure inhabits the space, the form
within the picture plane. A quiet authority is established by the artist
amid the shrieking pain, due in large part to the dialogue he has with
art from the past.
Bacon’s sources have been divided by various commentators now,
to include ‘high art’ sources and ‘low art’ sources. Bacon chose
only the most remarkable artists to aspire to: Michelangelo, Rembrandt,
Velasquez and Picasso. He also chose inspiration from the modern world:
men in suits, modern furniture, dangling light bulbs, gay comic books.
He depicted a low-life from gangster boyfriends, heavy drinking and
sexually dissipated Colony Room artists and intellectuals, a collision
of high and low culture, survival and destruction. Chance played
an important role in Bacon’s work – spontaneity was of key
importance in a Post-Surrealist context. Although he retained the human
figure in his work, he embraced the Abstract Expressionists’ love of
chance in art as in life. A primordial energy is central to many works,
the Bullfight paintings in 1969 being perfect examples of how Bacon
infused the image on canvas with a reckless, fatal movement. Describing
the collision of illustration of facts and an expression of the very
deepest feelings, Bacon noted: “one wants a thing to be as factual as
possible and at the same time as deeply suggestive or deeply unlocking
of areas of sensation other than simple illustration of the object that
you set out to do. Isn’t that what it’s all about?”3
Bacon had the highest ambition from a young age, claiming that his work
should either be in the National Gallery or the dustbin, with nothing in
between. His ambition as a painter was to define his existential,
atheistic stance in a post-photography world. Bacon was a habitual
destroyer of paintings; in 1962 he remarked that over-working was a form
of destruction, of clogging. Spontaneity was a vital quality, which
Bacon sought to capture.
Francis Bacon was born in Dublin, in 1909. He spent most of his
life in London, working as a self-taught painter from the 1930s. The
human figure was central to his work throughout his long and productive
career. He died suddenly in Madrid in 1992. Time has played an important
part in the appraisal of Bacon’s work; his unflinching approach to
violence and the human condition is more poignant than ever. In 1973 he
attributed his preoccupation with violence and war to the times in which
he grew up, interwar Germany and the rise of Sinn Fein in Ireland:
I grew up in an atmosphere of threat for a long time…And then I
was in Berlin at the beginning of the Nazi thing, my whole life had been
lived through a time of stress, and then World War Two, anyone who lived
through the European wars was affected by them, they affected one’s
whole psyche to that extent, to live continuously under an atmosphere of
tension and threat.4
The exhibition is accompanied by a catalogue, in which the most
scholarly essays, explore the lasting significance of his work for the
present day. Images of the abyss, of loneliness and the inescapable
suffering of human existence dominate the exhibition.
Francis
Bacon
at Tate Britain is broadly chronological. Room One, Animal,
examines Bacon’s early work from the 1940s where his attitude to
humanity is already evident. His bestial depiction of the human figure
combined personal feelings of anxiety with broader references to the
Second World War. He used reproductions from books, catalogues and
magazines. The male figure is used repeatedly in Bacon’s long career;
he often includes a scream or shout to reveal the internal repressed and
violent anxieties. The open mouth represents the tension that exists
between the individual and the broader context of time and place.
Room Two, Zone,
examines Bacon’s work of the 1950s where he carried out complex
experiments with pictorial space. He described the processes, in 1952,
as ‘an attempt to lift the image outside of its natural
environment’. This work established his easily recognisable images
with boxed figures in cage-like structures. Hexagonal ground planes
establish tense psychological zones; the use of shuttering, the vertical
lines of paint merge the foreground and background. This is the period
in which Bacon came of age as a painter. Yet his personal circumstances
were extremely difficult: homeless, in debt and in a tempestuous
relationship with Peter Lacy. During this time he searched for and found
appropriate subject -matter with which to express his deepest anxiety.
In the 1950s Bacon used the painting by Velazquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X, (c.1650), as his starting point to explore the
insecurities of the powerful. For Bacon, the choice of the portrait of a
Pope had nothing to do with religion; as a non-believer he was concerned
with the way man behaves to each other. For Bacon the portrait by
Velazquez was one of the greatest portraits ever painted for it opened
up feelings and prompted the imagination, beyond any real individual or
other art work. The colour is magnificent, prompting Bacon to give his
own images a sense of tragic grandeur, a sense of authority in painterly
terms. The Pope as a unique figure in the world suited Bacon’s
ambition to create a powerful image in which power is stripped of its
essence.
Room Three, Apprehension,
explores the pervading anxiety in all of Bacon’s work. The Cold War
anxiety that limited movement and personal freedom was combined in
Bacon’s case with the illegality at the time of homosexuality. His
sometimes, violent relationship, with Peter Lacy, is captured in the Man in Blue series, which concentrates on a
single anonymous figure in a dark suit. Although inspired by the
greatest artists from history, Bacon powerful images are achieved by
combining the authority of the history of art, with contemporary life.
The figure is portrayed in isolation, sitting at a table or at a bar.
Like many artists in the twentieth century, including the Italian
Futurists, who worked with the figure, Bacon drew from the photographic
work of Edweard Muybridge’s, The
Human Figure in Motion, (1887) sequential photographs of
animals and humans, which Bacon described as ‘a dictionary’ of the
body in motion.
Room Four at Tate Britain is devoted to one of Bacon’s most
famous and iconic series, of the Crucifixion.
He made works throughout his career at pivotal moments. As an atheist
Bacon saw the Crucifixion as a particularly poignant act of man’s
violence. Brutality and fear are developed in a particularly cruel
evocation of the famous religious scene. The ritual of sacrifice is
given a new dimension, the brutality emphasised with extreme abandon.
Meat carcasses are used by Bacon to diminish the human notion of
superiority in the wider scheme of life according to Christianity. In an
early interview Bacon describes how existing images breed others. He
chose the Crucifixion by Cimabue as a starting point, but readily admits
that without all the paintings that have been done on the subject, his
could not have produced his own. Often under the influence of alcohol,
and prone to drug abuse, and frequently suffering acute exhaustion,
Bacon would create Crucifixion images of profound despair. He also
juxtaposes fragments of films, such as those of Eisenstein, and isolated
stills allowing accident to play a major part in the creative process.
Three Studies for Figures at the Base of aCrucifixion,
(c.1944) is a key work and one that paved the way for his use of the
triptych format, and numerous later themes and compositions. The bestial
depiction of the human figure was central to Bacon’s oeuvre.
Displacing the traditional saints in Crucifixion paintings, Bacon later
referred to them as Furies from Greek mythology. In interview with David
Sylvester in 1966, he was asked about the use of meat carcasses in these
and other works. He stated, “Well, of course, we are meat, we are
potential carcasses”.5 Being human in Bacon’s world was
utterly debased. Bacon took works from the history of art that were
created within a spiritual context and slashed them to bits. In this he
felt completely justified, for the Vatican never openly condemned
Nazism. This was Bacon’s vendetta for the hypocrisy played out in the
name of God. Where artists such as Hieronymous Bosch created devastating
images of humanity in works such as his Judgement Day paintings, Bacon
chose the traditionally edifying form of portraiture, which entails a
degree of trust between painter and sitter, and destroyed it. His
disturbing papal images are like the burning of an effigy, leaving the
viewer with a sense of physical revulsion.
Room Five Crisis,
focuses on the period 1956-1961. Bacon travelled widely in Monaco,
France and Africa, mostly with Peter Lacy. He used new methods of
painting, choosing thicker paint, strong colour, often violently
applied. Using a self-portrait, The
Painter on the Road toTarascon(1888) by Vincent Van Gogh, as his source and inspiration, Bacon
painted works that were criticised for their ‘reckless energy’. With
hindsight the energy and drama in these works was necessary in
introducing chance into the painting process itself.
Room Six is the Archive
in the Tate’s exhibition, based on the revelations made by scholars
after Bacon’s death. The source material found in Bacon’s studio
revealed his reliance on photography and other sources that had not been
fully examined during Bacon’s lifetime. There were photographs of
athletes, film stills and reproductions of works of art. Further, his
practice of commissioning photographs of his friends by John Deakin was
fully realised, and formed an important component of the exhibition in
Edinburgh,Francis Bacon: Portraits andHeads, (2005). Bacon also took many photographs himself,
preferring to draw from photographs, for they were already
two-dimensional images. In his studio there were also lists of potential
subjects and preparatory drawings, which Bacon had denied making,
preferring to emphasise the spontaneous nature of the act of painting
directly onto canvas.
Room Seven Portrait,
is important given the findings in Bacon’s studio. In descriptions in
interviews, most famously those with David Sylvester, Bacon describes
his intention to reinvent portraiture. He drew upon the works he admired
of Velazquez and Van Gogh. His abiding concern was how a painter should
create portraits in an age dominated by photography. He distorted the
sitter’s appearance in order to extract a greater, more complete
likeness, informed by internal issues of personality and mood. George
Dyer his lover is depicted with a mixture of affection and contempt. Three Figures in Room, (1964) expresses a
range of human characteristics including absurdity, pathos, and
isolation.
Room Eight Memorial,
is dedicated to George Dyer, Bacon’s closest companion and model from
the autumn of 1963. Two days before the opening of Bacon’s exhibition
at the Grand Palais in Paris in 1971, Dyer committed suicide. The void
created by Dyer’s death, under such tragic circumstances prompted
Bacon to produce a number of works in his memory. The large-scale
triptych suited the grand nature of Bacon’s statements, enabling him
to isolate and juxtapose simultaneously. The energy in these works is
overwhelming. The depths of despair experienced in the loss of his
lover, are expressed with consummate skill and heartfelt anguish. Bacon
told Sylvester shortly after Dyer’s death: “You don’t stop
thinking about them; time doesn’t heal” He referred to his repeated
depiction of homosexual copulation as a form of exorcism. Although he
regretted its ‘sensational nature’, he was compelled to paint,
Triptych, May-June, 1973, “to get it out of his system”. As well as
repeated posthumous images of Dyer, he also made numerous
self-portraits.6
Room Nine, Epic,
examines the work Bacon produced in response to poetry and literature,
particularly the work of T.S Eliot. Bacon was emphatic in wanting to
make works that evoked the meaning and mood of the written word. They
were not illustrations.
For me realism is an attempt to capture the appearance with the
cluster of sensations that the appearance arouses in me. As for my
latest triptych and a few other canvases painted after I read Aeschylus.
I tried to create images of the episodes created inside me. I could not
paint Agamemnon. Clytemnestra or Cassandra, as that would have been
merely another kind of historical painting when all is said and done.
Therefore, I tried to create an image of the effect that was produced
inside me. Perhaps realism is always subjective when it is most
profoundly expressed.7
Bacon felt a great affinity for poetry, perhaps more so than
contemporary art. He appreciated a wide range of poetry ranging from the
work of Aeschylus, W.B Yeats, Federico Garcia Lorca, Ezra Pound, William
Shakespeare and especially T.S. Eliot. From Aeschylus’ Oresteia
Bacon found an evocative image: “the reek of human blood smiles out at
me”.8 In turn Bacon admired T.S. Eliot’s recasting of
Greek tragedy, seeing in it an appropriate model for modern society.
Bacon appreciated Eliot’s preoccupation with, ‘mortality, the
pathetic futility and solitude of life’, and the manner in which he
located ‘those existential conditions within a specific set of modern
circumstances’.9
Bacon’s description of the tightrope between abstraction and
figuration can also be used for poetry. “You have to abbreviate into
intensity”, he remarked, also an apt description for Eliot’s poetry.
Bacon chose painting to assuage the futility of life as he saw it. “I
think that man now realises that he is an accident, that he is a
completely futile being, that he has to play out the game within
reason... You can be optimistic and totally without hope”. Later, he
said, “I think of life as meaningless; but we give it meaning during
our existence”.10 By contrast, Eliot had a Christian faith
and belief in an afterlife.
The use of triptych, Bacon insisted was its resistance to
narrative: “it breaks the series up and prevents it having a story,
that’s why the three panels are always framed separately”. Yet the
sequence created by three canvases side by side could equally create a
story through the interrelatedness of the three images and specific
references within each. Specific intended meaning is always speculative
in Bacon’s work. The triptych emphasises Bacon’s fascination with
theatrical devices to observe the human condition. Likewise Eliot’s Wasteland,
‘describes specific scenes and events but does not tie them to a
single story’.11
Room Ten Late,
examines the last decade of Bacon’s life. The confrontation with
mortality was an abiding theme in his work, having lost key figures in
his life already. In 1993 he stated: “Life and death go hand in hand
…Death is like the shadow of life. When you’re dead, you’re dead,
but while you’re alive, the idea of death pursues you”.12
The very black paintings made in the 1970s which confronted the death of
George Dyer, gave way to more contemplative works, with a palpable
restraint and composure. In several paintings he draws on his admiration
for the work of the nineteenth-century French painter Jean-Auguste-Dominique
Ingres. Numerous reproductions of Ingres’ work were found in his
studio, which he combined with incongruous images from sporting figures.
Bacon also employed a controlled element of chance by throwing paint at
the canvas. The aftermath of violence, blood gushing from a victim onto
the pavement, for example, Bacon found exhilarating. Blood on Pavement, (c1988) is presented
with the artist’s extraordinary detachment. “Things are not shocking
if they haven’t been put into a memorable form. Otherwise, it’s just
blood splattered against a wall.”13 The theme of detachment
from violence and suffering is achieved throughout Bacon’s oeuvre,
from an early Wound for a
Crucifixion(c.1934)
to the Bullfight works in the 1960s to Oedipus
and theSphinx
after Ingres, (1983). The last paintings are the antithesis
of Bacon’s early frenzied works, and have been criticised for being
formulaic and lacking in tension. They have a monumentality and order,
yet returning to the same themes that had occupied him for forty years.
His last triptych of 1991 returns to the issue of sexual struggle, which
permeates much of his life’s work. His most private feelings are laid
bare, and to which he referred in 1971/3, “I’m just trying to
make images as accurately off my nervous system as I can. I don’t even
know what half of them mean. I’m not trying to say anything”.14
1. Matthew Gale and Chris
Stephens, Francis Bacon, Tate Publishing, London, 2008.
2. John Berger, Prophet in a pitiless world,The Guardian, 29
May 2004.
3. Gale and Stephens, On the Margin of the Impossible, op.cit.,
p.26.
4. Quoted by Stephens, Epic, op.cit., p.218.
5. Quoted by Matthew Gale, Crucifixion, ibid, p.137.
6. Chris Stephens, Epic, ibid, p.214.
7. Ibid, p.216.
8. Gale and Stephens, op.cit., p.26.
9. Ibid, p.26.
10. Ibid, p.26.
11.Epic, op.cit., p. 213.
12. Rachel Tant, Late, p.233.
13. Ibid, p.233.
14. Ibid, p.237.
Desperately seeking
Daddy
Lewis Jones is
fascinated and appalled by details of the demons that drove Francis
Bacon
The
Daily Telegraph Saturday,
December 20, 2008
In search of a cruel father: Francis
Bacon
Michael Peppiatt
knew Francis Bacon for nearly 30 years, and in 1997 published an
authoritative biography, Anatomy of an Enigma. The 14 essays and
interviews collected in Studies for a Portrait necessarily cover
much of the same ground, but offer fresh perspectives.
In Bacon’s Eyes,
for example, he publishes extracts from a discarded memoir he wrote as a
Cambridge undergraduate, when he drank with Bacon in the bars and clubs
of Soho. This is brave of him, as the passages selected are
embarrassingly self-conscious and derivative – his publisher remarked
that they would sound better in French. Still, they catch something of
the artist: “Gargoyle face jutting out on nightairs, with a bone
structure from a butcher’s. Under barlight, pinkchopped, the smooth
skin glistening over the powerful mandibles.”
Bacon was all of a
piece, and his talk – recorded here in interviews laid out in the
reverential French style – could be as brilliantly perverse as his
paintings. “I always think of friendship,” he said, “as where two
people can really tear each other to bits.” Such friendships are a
staple of his work.
In the essays,
Peppiatt writes perceptively about Bacon’s endlessly contradictory
nature, his generosity and cruelty, his violence and tenderness, his
dandyism and love of squalor, his spectacular dissipation and iron
self-discipline, and what he called his “exhilarated despair”. There
is a contradiction, too, in the biographer’s approach to his subject.
On the one hand, he accepts the artist’s assertion that his paintings
are inexplicable, signifying nothing, while on the other he naturally
does his best to explain their significance. He is excellent on
Bacon’s literary influences, particularly Aeschylus and TS Eliot, and
quotes some lines from The Family Reunion (where the two meet)
which perfectly describe the paintings:
In and out, in an
endless drift
Of shrieking forms
in a circular desert
Weaving with
contagion of putrescent
embraces
On dissolving bone.
His main source of
explanation, though, is the painter’s life, particularly his tortured
adolescence. Bacon’s sexual feelings were first aroused by his father,
a brutal military man turned unsuccessful horse trainer, who may have
had his asthmatic son horsewhipped by the stud farm grooms – a
possible inspiration for all the primal screams of the paintings (“the
moment of truth, where all pretence and deceit fall away”). In 1927,
when Francis was 16, Captain Bacon expelled him from home when he
discovered him trying on his mother’s underwear. The boy was entrusted
to a suitably manly uncle, who took him from the wilds of County Kildare
to Berlin and to his bed, then left him to fend for himself on the
streets.
Peppiatt argues
persuasively that Bacon spent the rest of his life in search of a
“cruel father”, a quest dramatised in his obsessive depiction of
demented authority figures, whether subfusc businessmen or empurpled
popes (“the ultimate Papa”).
He recreated his
Berlin experiences in London, amid the depravity of post-war Soho, where
he helped create the Colony Room, a seedy drinking club (still standing,
just) whose bilious green décor provides the background for some of his
paintings. In his novel England, Half English, Colin MacInnes captures
the atmosphere in the club, which he calls Mabel’s: “To sit in
Mabel’s, with the curtains drawn at 4pm on a sunny afternoon, sipping
expensive poison and gossiping one’s life away, has the futile
fascination of forbidden fruit: the heady intoxication of a bogus
Baudelairian evil.”
It was there that
Bacon met Peter Lacy, his perfect “cruel father”, a former Spitfire
pilot who drank three bottles of spirits a day and had an extensive
collection of rhino whips, with which he belaboured the painter and his
paintings. The couple spent time in Tangiers, where Bacon was repeatedly
found wandering the streets at night in an appalling state. A concerned
British consul alerted the chief of police, who reported, “Pardon,
mais il n’y a rien à faire. Monsieur Bacon aime ça.”
Bacon painted his
voluptuous abattoir visions – screaming monkey men, snarling cripples,
twisted, hacked and smeared – with the exquisite skill that Van Gogh
brought to his sunflowers. A few are lavishly reproduced in Studies
for a Portrait. Most of his masterpieces are to be found in full
coffee-table format in Peppiatt’s Francis Bacon in the 1950s,
first published two years ago as the catalogue for an exhibition of the
same name at the Sainsbury Centre at the University of East
Anglia.
El
Estado asegura en 1.252 millones las obras de Bacon que irán al Prado
El
Estado asegurará en un total de 1.252.110.772 euros 86 obras que se
mostrarán en la exposición que el Museo del Prado dedicará al pintor
británico Francis Bacon entre febrero y abril del próximo año.
bacon-exposicion
Terra
España, 19-12-2008
El Consejo de Ministros ha aprobado hoy para esta
exposición el importe de la garantía pública estatal, un sistema a
través del que el Estado asume el compromiso de asegurar las obras de
relevante interés cultural que se presten para exposiciones celebradas
en museos de titularidad estatal frente a la posible destrucción, pérdida,
sustracción o daño que aquéllas puedan sufrir entre el acuerdo del préstamo
y la devolución de la obra.
El otorgamiento no tiene, por tanto, un coste
inmediato, sino un compromiso del Estado, como asegurador, para hacer
frente a un pago si alguno de los bienes culturales resultase dañado,
según explica el Gobierno.
El Museo del Prado tiene previsto inaugurar el próximo
3 de febrero Francis Bacon, una retrospectiva del pintor británico
(1909-1992) que actualmente se muestra en la Tate Britain de Londres.
La exposición, que podrá visitarse en el Prado hasta
el 19 de abril próximo, comprende obras que abarcan casi medio siglo de
creación continua, una actividad que se vio interrumpida por el fatal
ataque cardiaco que el artista sufrió en Madrid.
Para el director del Museo del Prado, Miguel Zugaza, 'es
una gran oportunidad que esta exposición internacional, posiblemente la
más importante que se va a hacer en décadas sobre Bacon, se pueda
mostrar en Madrid y muy cerca de las colecciones que él visitó tanto'.
La muestra forma parte de la estrategia de la
pinacoteca de abrirse a una relación con el mundo del arte más
contemporáneo.
Según afirmó Zugaza hace un año al anunciar el
proyecto de esta exposición, 'después de Picasso, Bacon es el más
indicado' de ese período para visitar el Prado.
Francis
Bacon: A Centenary Retrospective
Huliq
News Thursday, December 18 2008
The first
major New York exhibition in 20 years devoted to Francis Bacon (British,
1909–1992)—one of the most important painters of the 20th
century—will be presented at The Metropolitan Museum of Art from May
20 through August 16, 2009. Marking the 100th anniversary of the
artist's birth,
Francis
Bacon: A Centenary Retrospective will bring together the most
significant works from each period of the artist's extraordinary career.
Drawn from public and private collections around the world, this
landmark exhibition will consist of some 70 paintings, complemented by
never-before-seen works and archival material from the Francis Bacon
Estate, which will shed new light on the artist's career and working
practices. The Metropolitan Museum is the sole U.S. venue of the
exhibition tour.
The
exhibition is made possible in part by The Daniel and Estrellita Brodsky
Foundation.
It was
organized by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, and Tate Britain,
London, in partnership with the Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid.
"Bacon
is more compelling than ever: Despite the passage of time, his paintings
remain fresh, urgent, and mysterious. Never before has this work been
more relevant to young artists," noted Gary Tinterow, Engelhard
Curator in Charge of the Metropolitan Museum's Department of
Nineteenth-Century, Modern, and Contemporary Art. "For these
reasons, we are very pleased to be able to present a retrospective
spanning his entire career to our viewing public."
Entirely
self-taught, Francis Bacon emerged in 1945 as a major force in postwar
art. He rose to prominence over the subsequent 45 years, securing his
reputation as one of the seminal artists of his generation. With a
predilection for shocking imagery, Bacon's oeuvre was dominated by
emotionally charged depictions of the human body that are among the most
powerful images in the history of art.
The
exhibition's loosely chronological structure will trace critical themes
in Bacon's work and explore his philosophy about mankind and the modern
condition with visually arresting examples. The earliest group of works,
from the 1940s and '50s, focuses on the animalistic qualities of man,
including: paintings of heads with snarling mouths (Head I,
1947–1948, The Metropolitan Museum of Art); images of men as pathetic
and alone (Study for a Portrait, 1953, Hamburger Kunsthalle,
Germany); and the human figure portrayed as base and bestial (Figures
in a Landscape, 1956, Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery,
England). The exhibition also features numerous versions of Bacon's
iconic studies (1949–1953) after Diego Velazquez's Portrait of
Innocent X (1650). Mortality is addressed directly in his last works
(Triptych, 1991, The Museum of Modern Art, New York).
In the
1960s, working in his classic style of much looser, colorful, and
expressive painting, Bacon showed the human body exposed and violated as
in, for example, Lying Figure, 1969 (Foundation Beyeler, Riehen/Basel,
Switzerland). In the following decade he increasingly used narrative,
autobiography, and myth to mediate ideas about violence and emotion, as
in the 1971 painting In Memory of George Dyer (Foundation Beyeler)
and Triptych Inspired by the Orestia of Aeschylus, 1981 (Astrup
Fearnley Collection, Oslo, Norway).
A number
of important works by Bacon will only be presented at the Metropolitan
Museum, including Study for Portrait I, 1953 (Denise and Andrew
Saul); Painting, 1946 (The Museum of Modern Art, New York); and Self
Portrait, 1973 (private collection, courtesy Richard Nagy, London).
Central to
an understanding of the artist's working methods are the large caches of
archival materials that have only become available since Bacon's death,
especially the contents of the artist's famously cluttered London
studio. A rich selection of 75 items from the artist's studio, his
estate, and other archives will be included in the exhibition. The
objects include pages the artist tore from books and magazines,
photographs, and sketches—all of which are source materials for the
finished paintings on view in the exhibition.
Francis
Bacon: A Centenary Retrospective is organized by Matthew Gale, Head of
Displays, Tate Modern, Chris Stephens, Head of Displays, Tate Britain,
and Gary Tinterow. The presentation of the exhibition at the
Metropolitan Museum is organized by Gary Tinterow and Anne L. Strauss,
Associate Curator, assisted by Ian Alteveer, Research Associate, all in
the Department of Nineteenth-Century, Modern, and Contemporary Art at
The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The
exhibition will be accompanied by a fully illustrated catalogue with
essays by Martin Harrison, David Mellor, Simon Ofield, Rachel Tant, Gary
Tinterow, and Victoria Walsh. The catalogue is published by Tate
Publishing and will be available in the Museum's book shops.
The
Metropolitan Museum will offer an array of education programs in
conjunction with Francis Bacon, including a symposium; gallery talks;
documentary films on the artist; and (on request) verbal imaging tours
for people with visual impairments. - www.metmuseum.org
Soho's
bohemian Colony Room Club faces extinction
The Colony
Room Club, London's fabled drinking den beloved of artists from Francis
Bacon to Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst, is set to close in Soho.
By Neil
TweedieThe Daily Telegraph 15/12/2008
Muriel Belcher with Francis Bacon
THE
denizens of the Colony Room Club should have been gathering last night
for a joyous, or at least well lubricated, occasion. London's fabled
drinking den celebrated its diamond jubilee yesterday – 60 years of
uninterrupted, heroic carousing.
If one
place still captures the seedy glamour of post-war Soho it is the
Colony, hidden up a dark flight of stairs on Soho's Dean Street. The
peep shows may have been overtaken by trendy, overpriced bars, but the
one-room dive remains, a bohemian reproach to modern, money-driven
conformity. That, at least, is how its membership – once a roll call
of the great and the bad in British art and which still includes the
likes of Emin and Hirst (who once served naked behind the bar) – like
to see it.
Vodkas all
around, then. Except that this week could be the last in the club's
history. The Colony is facing extinction at the hands of the man into
whose care it was entrusted.
Such is
the uncertainty over the club's future that it was unclear last night if
any celebration would be permitted. Its fate has for months now been the
subject of mistrust and rancour. Will the Colony survive? And should it
be missed?
A brief
history: it was in December 1948 that Muriel Belcher, a combative,
foul-mouthed but enterprising lesbian, opened the Soho establishment as
an intended meeting place for writers, painters and amusing hard
drinkers. The room – it is a small place – was initially decorated
in 'colonial' bamboo and leopard skin, in deference to Muriel's Jamaican
squeeze, Carmel.
Thus began
six decades of bad behaviour, involving some of the best names in the
business. Dylan Thomas threw up there, Tom Driberg propositioned there
and Jeffrey Bernard advanced towards literal leglessness in its smoky
confines, decorated in industrial green from the Fifties onwards.
Painters
in particular liked it, including Bacon (a lifelong regular who as a
young man was paid by Muriel to bring in interesting types), Freud and
the doomed John Milton. Bacon described it as: "A place to go where
one feels free and easy."
Under the
stewardship of Belcher and that of her protégé Ian Board (equally
foul-mouthed and possessed of an enormous nose swollen and purpled by
brandy), the Colony grew into and remained an institution. Its eclectic
membership was bonded by a supposed capacity for dazzling wit and a
definite capacity for enormous amounts of alcohol. Customers at its
little bar wallowed in the agreeable air of seediness, their imbibing
overlooked by sometimes fine works of art donated by the insolvent
artists in settlement of bar bills.
Muriel,
who liked to call her members "cunty", was mistress of the
put-down, while Board punished the unwary with sudden, violent eruptions
of invective. All forms of human frailty were indulged in the Colony,
except one: dullness.
Following
Board's death in 1994, the club was taken over by Michael Wojas, who had
worked under Board. Things continued as before, but the club inevitably
lost some of its lustre as its greatest characters drank themselves one
by one to death.
The
problems started a few years ago when the club's finances began to fall
into disrepair. Accounts were not properly prepared and tax and rent
went unpaid. The club is housed on the first floor of a Georgian house
and its lease was secure, so long as the rent was paid. With a
membership of 200-plus paying annual fees of £150 and expensive bar
prices, the club should have been able to pay the £12,500 rent easily.
But earlier this year, Wojas, citing financial pressures, announced he
would not be renewing the lease and the club would have to close. He
auctioned off some of the better artworks, which he claimed were his by
virtue of Board's will. The sale raised £40,000.
His
announcement sparked a rebellion among members who claimed he had no
right to close a club which belonged not to him but to them. They
succeeded in freezing the proceeds of the auction and securing a High
Court ruling in favour of a formal meeting. Last week, a new governing
committee was elected amid acrimonious exchanges between the pro and
anti Wojas factions. The new body believes it can renegotiate the lease,
secure a listing for the club from English Heritage and ensure its
future. Wojas, though, still holds the keys to the bar.
Speaking
yesterday, Michael Beckett, chairman of the committee, said: "It
still is a great place; all the members love it.
"It's
the last bit of old Soho. I always meet interesting people when I go in
there. Everyone speaks to each other – it's not some dull pub. It's
homely – it's a front room rather than a bar."
There will
be those who argue that, like empires, clubs rise and fall. That, over
time, what was once fresh and genuine becomes hackneyed and artificial,
the hollow replaying of bygone glories.
Critics of
the Colony would argue that nowadays there are rather more art students
than great artists among its members; more aspiring bohemians and
hell-raisers than real ones. But its members love it and that should be
reason enough for its survival.
What would
the formidable Muriel says about it all? There would be a few colourful
phrases in there, for certain.
No buyers
for Bacon at major Paris art auction
AFP11 December 2008
PARIS
(AFP) — Francis Bacon's Two Figures failed to find a buyer when
it went under the hammer at the first major auction of contemporary art
in Paris since the global financial crisis erupted.
The
1961 oil-and-sand painting by the late Irish-born English painter -
depicting two naked, contorted bodies - had been valued at five million
to seven million euros (6.68 million to 9.36 million dollars) by
Sotheby's.
Featured
at several Bacon exhibitions, most recently at the Palazzo Reale in
Milan earlier this year, it was regarded by art experts as the top lot
at the two-day auction that ended Thursday.
Overall,
the auction - with an estimated 12 million to 17 million euros worth of
art - raked in only 6.2 million euros, Sotheby's said, reflecting a
softening in the global art market.
Bacon
- the subject of an ongoing major retrospective at the Tate Britain in
London - set a Paris record in 2007 when Sotheby's sold another of his
works for 13.7 million euros.
True-Crime
Temptresses, Bacon’s Rubbish Fill Holiday Art Books
Review
by Martin Gayford, Bloomberg, December 11, 2008
Dec.
11 (Bloomberg) - Ripped photographs and newspaper clippings spattered
with paint: This isn’t what you expect in one of the year’s most
intriguing art books.
Francis
Bacon: Incunabula by Martin Harrison and Rebecca Daniels (Thames
& Hudson, 224 pages, $75, 39.95 pounds) is devoted to sweepings
from the floor of the world’s most expensive contemporary artist at
auction.
Bacon
often remarked that he drew his inspiration from an atmosphere of
chaos. After his death in 1992, his London studio and its contents
were moved to Hugh Lane Gallery in Dublin, where they were sifted and
studied like the detritus of an Egyptian tomb. This book presents some
of the results.
Though
these photos, clips and book illustrations were the raw material of
Bacon’s art, you can’t help wondering how accidental those
markings really are. Perhaps some of these altered images count as
artworks themselves.
Фотография
мертвого
Фрэнсиса
Бэкона
стала
частью
коллажа
Британская
фотохудожница
Катерина
Шекспир
Лэйн для
создания
своего
триптиха «Дань
уважения
Фрэнсису
Бэкону»
использовала
фотографию
мертвого
художника.
СЕГОДНЯ, Ukraine,
9 December 2008
Фрагмент
работыКатерины
Шекспир
Лэйн
В
центре
триптиха
помещена
перевернутая
фотография
тела
английского
художника-экспрессиониста
Фрэнсиса
Бэкона,
сделанная в
испанском
морге через
несколько
часов после
его смерти.
Тело лежит
на каталке,
помещенное
в
прозрачный
пластиковый
пакет. Это
изображение
обрамляют
различные
фотографии
внутренностей.
На
двух
оставшихся
частях
триптиха
помещен
Сальвадор
Дали,
стоящий у
распятия.
При этом
изображение
центральной
части
вызывает
ассоциации
с известной
картиной
Дали «Христос
святого
Хуана де ля
Круус».
Свой
коллаж
Катерины
Лэйн, лично
знавшая
Бэкона,
объясняет
отношением
самого
художника к
смерти. По
ее
утверждению,
художник
заявлял: «Все
мы
потенциальные
трупы. Когда
я захожу к
мяснику, мне
всегда
удивительно
представить
на прилавке
себя, а не
животных».
По
одному из
свидетельств,
Фрэнсис
Бэкон также
говорил о
желании,
чтобы его
тело после
смерти
положили в
пластиковый
пакет и
выбросили в
придорожную
канаву.
Триптих
будет
экспонироваться
в одном из
лондонских
баров в Сохо.
Британский
художник
Фрэнсис
Бэкон умер в
Мадриде в 1992
году от
сердечного
приступа.
The
first dark image of Bacon's death
Nick
Mathiason and Vanessa Thorpe, The Observer, Sunday December 7
2008
A
detail from Catherine Shakespeare' Lane's Francis Bacon Homage Triptych
work. Photograph: Catherine Shakespeare Lane
It
was a suitably macabre request from one of Britain's greatest and
darkest 20th-century painters. 'When I'm dead, put me in a plastic bag
and throw me in the gutter,' Francis Bacon told the barman at the
infamous Soho drinking club, the Colony Room Club.
Sixteen
years after the colourful artist's death, one of Bacon's circle of
friends has gone a long way to try to make his wish come true. A
photograph taken in a Spanish morgue hours after his death and never
seen before in public reveals that the artist had been placed in a
transparent body bag. The shocking image now forms the centrepiece of a
new work of art created by Bacon's friend, the photographer Catherine
Shakespeare Lane.
The
photograph is mounted on a background of offal and framed by two images
of Salvador Dalí standing by a crucifix. The bleakly humorous tribute
to Bacon and to the Spanish surrealist Dalí will go on display for the
first time this week at the famous London watering hole in London's Dean
Street, which is under threat of closing down.
Lane
believes her triptych is an appropriate homage to her late friend.
Bacon, she points out, once famously said: 'We are potential carcasses.
If I go into a butcher's shop I always think it's surprising that I
wasn't there instead of the animal.'
A
lifetime honorary member of the club, Lane hopes the hanging of the
image will serve as a fitting farewell to both the great painter and to
a venue which, since the Sixties, has been the haunt of many of the
leading creative names in the country, including Lucien Freud, Dylan
Thomas, the actors Peter O'Toole and John Hurt and the writer Jeffrey
Barnard.
'I'm
very sad that if the club closes at the end of the month,' said Lane. 'I
sincerely hope it does not die and can survive.'
A
last minute High Court order obtained by the so-called Shadow Committee
of club members preventing its closure before an annual general meeting
could yet save the day.
In
recent years controversial leading artists such as Damien Hirst, Tracey
Emin and Sarah Lucas and Sam Taylor Wood have all been habitues of the
club, with the model Kate Moss even tending the bar one evening. The
singer Lisa Stansfield and the film distributor Hamish McAlpine are also
regulars and have both tried to save the club by paying off some of its
debts.
Lane
defends the treatment of Bacon's dead body as in keeping with the way
that the artist saw the world. 'People always think of Francis as gloomy
and tortured because that is what they see in his work,' said Lane. 'But
he got all that out in his painting and when he was out with us it was
not like that. He was out to play.'
No
bed for Francis Bacon
Discipline
and chaos, suffering and human meat, as seen in the works of an
unusually articulate artist
Alan
Jenkins, The Times
Literary Supplement, December 3, 2008
When
Francis Bacon said “The only really interesting thing is what happens
between two people in a room”, he did not mean what happens between an
artist and his model – or if so, only indirectly. Bacon’s portraits
of himself, his friends and (male) lovers are among the most
enthusiastically acclaimed of all his pictures, but they were done
almost without exception from photographs and memory, not from life.
From a handful of paintings, early and late, it is clear that for Bacon
some of the most interesting things happened before, during or after
copulation – “or buggery, however you want to put it”, as he
himself put it in the late 1960s, with an insouciance that could have
been dangerous at any time before then.
Yet, as
John Russell pointed out nearly thirty years ago, “perhaps the most
persistent of Bacon’s preoccupations is the problem of what a man is
to do when he is alone in a room”, and with only a very few
exceptions, his pictures until the later 1960s more often than not
featured single figures: human males, animals, especially apes, heads or
heads-and-shoulders, isolated in indeterminate spaces, framed or
confined in a kind of geometric canopy or glass box, seen through strips
of (shower?) curtain, paint cascading down the interiors or, in the few
landscapes, deft strokes rendering wild grasses with Oriental precision.
True, it is not always clear from its posture and mass whether the
pictured form is human or ape; nor if in fact there is more than one of
them pictured. Bacon would sometimes, to achieve the desired “thickness”,
model his single figure on a sequence of photographs from Eadweard
Muybridge’s The Human Body in Motion that showed two men wrestling –
though at a glance, they could be having sex. (“I very often think of
people’s bodies that I’ve known, the contours of those bodies that
have particularly affected me, but then they’re grafted on to
Muybridge bodies”, Bacon explained.) Then, once he had begun to show
two or more people, the coupling – as in those earlier exceptions –
becomes explicit.
And, in
his later vision, coupling is murder. In panel after panel of the
large-scale triptychs which were Bacon’s preferred format from the
1960s on, the human carcass – mangled, butchered and bloodied, studded
with entry- and exit-wounds, spilling muscle tissue and entrails, or
intact but warped into terrible knots of tension, straining in climax or
death agony – is pinioned on carpets or sprawled on stained
mattress-ticking, like a police photograph at the scene of a sex crime.
And indeed other panels actually show spectators or recorders – one
holds a cinecamera – of the main event, be it coupling or crucifixion,
which has left its protagonist eviscerated.
Bacon
disavowed any moral or philosophical intention behind these images of
human suffering and detachment, and still more emphatically denied
trying to make a historical point – notwithstanding his brief
flirtation with the idea of publishing a pictorial “History of Europe
in [his] lifetime” (he was born in 1909). One of the most articulate
of painters, with a strong sense both for drama and self-presentation,
from the moment he became a succès de scandale Bacon was a tireless
subject of interviews (with Russell and David Sylvester, preeminently):
occasions he seized to rehearse a repertoire of anecdotes and
apophthegms, some haughty and whimsical, some purposefully discomfiting
in their frankness, but almost all prompted by the contradictory urges
to elevate his calling to a higher mystery or deflate its pretensions
with a rude reminder of fleshly limitation.
In this he
was both disingenuous and provocative, refusing, for example, to allow
in his own crucifixions the significance granted to the image by the
entire Western tradition – it was an example of human behaviour, no
more and no less. Behaviour, furthermore, that aroused in Bacon a sense
of his own wounded or tortured nature: a crucifixion, he said, was
almost a self-portrait. Almost from the beginning – in Painting,
1946, now too fragile to have made the trip from MoMA to the current
exhibition at Tate Britain – the painter evinced a fascination with
sides of meat, a motif that recurs in his later crucifixions and
couplings. When asked about its preponderance in his imagination he was
ready with a dual response. “Every time I go into a butcher’s”, he
said, “I’m surprised that it’s not me hanging there”; yet the
meat was simultaneously a purely aesthetic stimulus, its colours “absolutely
beautiful”. Questioned about his more Grand Guignol scenes he would
shrug, affect complete ignorance of their import, personal or otherwise,
and insist on his overriding desire to make “beautiful paintings”.
From the
very small number of canvases that survived Bacon’s apprentice years
it is far from obvious that this was his ambition when he started (if it
was, his idea of beauty was as convulsive as any Surrealist’s). The
big, bold canvases in the grand manner of his gilded middle age,
exposing lavish, ritualistic cruelties, are indeed very beautiful, and
only a handful of pictures on show here, from the later 1950s, seem
unsure in technique or faltering in composition. In the room titled “Crucifixion”
(the Tate’s hang is a compromise between a chronological and a
thematic arrangement), the body, whatever else it is being subjected to,
mostly retains recognizable limbs and a torso. Not so in the first room,
“Animal”, where a distended eye, mouth, teeth and phallic appendages
dominate: to these organs of appetite and aggression, in some of Bacon’s
early works, the human and the nightmarishly non-human alike are
reduced. Assisted by Bacon himself, commentators have established an
impeccably modern pedigree for these seemingly sui generis images: in
Picasso’s “biomorphic” beach scenes, 1930s photojournalism and the
films of Sergei Eisenstein and Luis Buñuel. (Lessons in form and
handling were learnt from Graham Sutherland and the Australian Roy de
Maistre, too, though Bacon was less prompt to acknowledge them in later
years.) In her catalogue essay Victoria Walsh cites Foundations of
Modern Art by Amédée Ozenfant (1931) as having perhaps fertilized the
insatiably curious young painter’s imagination in ways that would lie
dormant for years: “The search for intensity dominates the whole of
modern painting. There can be no intensity without simplification, and
to some degree, no intensity without distortion . . . of what is seen
naturally”.
In 1931,
Bacon was twenty-two, had made his way as, more or less, a rent boy in
Weimar Berlin, had learnt French living in Chantilly and was working in
London as an interior decorator and designer of Bauhaus-derived
furniture for clients who included the editor of Vogue and the novelist
Patrick White. But almost as soon as he began to paint in earnest (in
oil on canvas, from which he rarely deviated for forty-odd years), the
beauty was there as well, and was there till the end, in paintings that
proclaim him one of the great colourists of the last century: from the
startling orange ground against which the first three Studies for
Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944) writhe and shriek, to
the sumptuous deep reds of its grander, more imposing and artistically
pointless second version (1988). Orange flames out at us again from the Figure
Studies, 1945–6, while Figure Study II is the work in
which another of Bacon’s motifs – or obsessions – unequivocally
makes an entrance: the gaping mouth, open in a scream of terror, a snarl
of hatred or a howl of impotent rage. Indelibly fixed in Bacon’s
imaginary by Picture Post shots of Goebbels and Mussolini haranguing the
crowds, Poussin’s Massacre of the Innocents and the nurse’s
silent scream in The Battleship Potemkin, in Figure Study II,
where it is appended to a crouched or kneeling half-clothed form, the
mouth powerfully subverts those reliable signifiers of bourgeois
respectability, umbrella, herringbone tweed and potted plants.
In the
late 1940s (with a series of Heads) and the early 50s (Study
for Nude, 1951; Study of a Figure in a Landscape and Study
for Crouching Nude, both 1952) Bacon’s pictures posit an
extra-historical continuity between the human at its noblest, as in
Michelangelo’s drawings and sculpture, and the simian – almost to
the point of conflating them. Head VI (1949), though, returns us,
whatever Bacon thought or said, to the human in historical time,
combining the motifs of toothed, gaping mouth and wildly staring eye
with the vestments of a little brief authority: the highest authority on
earth, indeed, for many, though in Bacon the vestments are imperial
purple rather than rich pontifical red, as in his master-image, the Portrait
of Pope Innocent X by Velázquez. Bacon’s remarkable travesty
inaugurated a new series of studies “after” the great original,
though his fixation was inspired, in fact, by a reproduction. (Even when
he visited Rome, Bacon avoided seeing the Velázquez in the Doria
Pamphilj, a diffidence in which embarrassment perhaps played a part.
Much later he dismissed most of his repeated assaults on it as “silly”,
and it is hard to disagree, despite or because of the presence in the
current Tate show of two of his strongest and least familiar Popes,
as well as Head VI: one, once thought lost, from 1950, the other
from 1965 – this last looking as if he has been shot in the head at
close range, or as if the rage or terror that animated his predecessors
had finally exploded his face from within.)
That so
many of Bacon’s motifs derived, in complex, vigilant ways from
photography and film is entirely consistent with his acute awareness
that these new art forms had rendered representation in painting
obsolete, and with his horror of mere “illustration”. This was not
to say that painting should not deal in “fact”: just that fact
comprehended more than what is “seen naturally”. “One wants a
thing to be as factual as possible and at the same time as deeply
suggestive or deeply unlocking of areas of sensation other than simple
illustration of the object”, as Bacon put it to David Sylvester. He
was also one of the most literary of painters, an admirer of Ulysses, an
avid reader of poetry and drama who saw that the Oresteia and T. S.
Eliot’s Sweeney Agonistes were blood relations, who liked to
quote lines from both yet who repeatedly and sometimes fiercely
repudiated attempts to read “a story” into his own work.
But he
insisted too much. At one level, his habit of working in triptychs, and
at a deeper one the suggestiveness he often in fact achieved, not just
in triptychs but in single paintings, militates against that very
insistence. It is hard to look at such works as the Crucifixions
of 1962 and 65, Lying Figure (1969), Triptych, Studies from
the Human Body (1970) or Triptych March 1974 without a sense
of prelude, climax and aftermath – though not necessarily in that
order. Some such adumbrated narrative, an intimate human drama about to
be embarked on, concluded or aborted also haunts the restrained and very
beautiful portrait studies of a suited Man in Blue, his face and
hands bright-lit on a deep blue ground, that are at once the most “readable”
of all Bacon’s male figures, and the most ambiguous.
What is
common to all these images, early, late and middle, is the overwhelming
presence or threat (or promise) of violence. Bacon’s obsession with
the figure drove him repeatedly to disfigure it – to all but dismantle
the heads and bodies he painted on his canvases, and destroy the
canvases themselves, when he judged them to be failures. Working from
photographs, so the artist said, enabled him to do the necessary
violence to his subjects – the better to “distort them into
appearance”; and that could not happen if the subject was actually
present. (This showed an untypical délicatesse. Bacon’s definition of
friendship was two people “pulling each other apart”, and in sex his
pursuit of the roughest of rough trade bordered on the suicidal.) But he
also spoke repeatedly of his desire to make paintings that would “return
[the viewer] more violently to life”, by which he meant, as I
understand it, shock that viewer out of habitual or self-protective
ignorance and into awareness of his own physical reality. “An attempt
to bring the figurative thing up onto the nervous system more violently
and poignantly” was how he described his own work. “There is an area
of the nervous system”, Bacon believed, “to which the texture of
[oil] paint communicates more violently than anything else.”
Paintings
(some paintings anyway) could mysteriously “unlock the valves of
sensation” or of “intuition and perception about the human situation”;
could, by seemingly subliminal means, evoke a memory trace of raw,
unmediated existence. Somewhere behind this lay Baudelaire and Proust,
with their different ideas of involuntary memory. But for Bacon (who
also liked to cite Paul Valéry: “modern man wants the sensation
without the boredom of its conveyance”), to unlock the valves of his
own subconscious was to bring up onto the canvas and “onto the [viewer’s]
nervous system” an apprehension of life or “being-aliveness” as
violent, primordial struggle, redeemed only by an instinctive grace, or
a stroke of luck.
For Bacon,
a chronic asthmatic, the struggle began early: it was the struggle for
breath itself. The second son of a bad-tempered military
man-turned-horse breeder and the heiress to a Sheffield steel fortune,
he was brought up in Ireland and England in a succession of big houses
where the omnipresence of dogs and horses was a perpetual challenge to
his well-documented will to live. Bacon senior made no secret of his
disappointment in his sickly, sensitive son, whose party piece was to
appear at family gatherings in full drag. Michael Peppiatt is one among
many writers on Bacon to make the connection, in his absorbing biography
Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an enigma (1995, now revised, updated
and reissued by Constable in paperback), between the father’s
screaming rages, the child’s gasping for air and the importance of the
gaping mouth in the work of the mature artist. The killings and
house-burnings of the Irish uprising and Civil War (“Violence upon the
roads; violence of horses”, in Yeats’s words) formed the backdrop to
Bacon’s childhood, further enlivened by the attentions of the grooms
who were encouraged to take horsewhips to the young master to punish him
for the attentions he was over-fond of paying them.
Three of
his four siblings died premature deaths, but Francis would enjoy long
life, vigorous appetites and legendary resilience, physical and
psychological. Ejected from the family at sixteen, he soon discovered
the resourcefulness and the hunger for risk that would sustain him both
as a homosexual adventurer and a painter, along with his preferred modus
vivendi: to lurch between opulence and squalor, between a punishing
creative routine and an equally punitive, if delighted (and delightful),
dissipation. In later life the prices commanded by his paintings made
him rich, but he had established his careless mastery over money much
earlier, in the casinos of Berlin and Monte Carlo. The centrality to
both gambling and painting of chance, risk, instinct – in painting
Bacon subsumed these under what he called “accident”, the way one
mark might suggest another, or perhaps an entirely new image, without
the apparent intervention of the will or conscious direction – made
them more than analogous: they were two sides of the same life force,
the same compulsion to live at the maximum pitch of intensity, for the
same high stakes and correspondingly high rewards.
In some
sense all Bacon’s paintings represent another throw of the dice, a
record not of how he “saw the world” but of the only way he, human
meat and a carcass-in-waiting as he was, could yet feel himself to be
truly alive. Peppiatt, Sylvester and other witnesses have made clear
that this life-and-death struggle issued as often as not in despair and
self-disgust; but of course for the artist there was no choice. The
paradox – and it strikes with greater force in the final two large
rooms of the Tate exhibition, showing works from the last fifteen years
of Bacon’s very productive life – is that intensity itself could
become a habit; that so many of these later works look as mannered and
fussy, in their beautiful, wearyingly nasty way, as anything from the
Academic schools of the nineteenth century, in theirs.
The great
exceptions are the paintings shown here in a room titled “Memorial”.
Bacon’s companion, George Dyer, committed suicide in their hotel room
on the eve of the artist’s retrospective at the Grand Palais in Paris
in 1971; three extraordinary triptychs from 1971–3 recall Dyer’s
living presence, and imagine his last hours, with monumental and moving
factuality. Bacon often remarked on the “awfulness” of his personal
life – another of his lovers, Peter Lacey, had steadily drunk himself
to death in the 1950s – and while no one would wish he had known more
unhappiness of this kind, we can regret that he did not always achieve,
or desire, the direct appeal to human emotion these pictures make, while
surrendering nothing of painterly value: they have a stunning aura in
which grandeur, indignity and grief are all present, and inseparable.
As with
Eliot in poetry, Bacon’s art sinks deep roots into the whole
psycho-physical life and attempts a reinvention of tradition (“the
figurative thing”), rather than the Freud-sponsored violation of the
natural order to which Surrealism aspired. To that extent, the confusion
of the Times reviewer, faced with Bacon’s very first solo show in
1934, was understandable: “The difficulty . . . is to know how far his
paintings and drawings . . . may be regarded as artistic expression and
how far as the mere unloading on canvas and paper of what used to be
called the subconscious mind”. (Cited in “Bacon and his Critics”,
by Gary Tinterow, in the Tate catalogue.) Mere! We like to think we have
come a long way since then, but Bacon and the best of his commentators
are part of the long way we have come. The catalogue contains a useful
chronology, but none of its seven essayists adds substantially to what
has already been written by Russell, Lawrence Gowing, Michel Leiris and
Gilles Deleuze. Michael Peppiatt’s new book, Francis Bacon: Studies
for a portrait, contains interviews with and recollections of the
artist from the 1960s almost until his death: that is, either the raw
materials of Peppiatt’s biography or bits of the biography distilled
into essays and articles. For completists only, it does include the
full, fascinating text of Bacon’s answers when he was interviewed for
the first time by his future biographer, in 1963, before celebrity began
to overtake some of his responses.
Much
recent scholarly interest in Bacon has focused on the “drawings”
controversy: whether the many preparatory sketches and studies found in
the artist’s studio and elsewhere after his death – studies which,
while he was alive, he insisted he never produced – could be genuine.
(It seems pretty obvious that some are, and some aren’t.) A room at
the Tate (“Archive”) is devoted to some genuine-looking sketches,
over-painted photographs and “doctored” images, while Francis
Bacon: Incunabula by Martin Harrison and Rebecca Daniels is a
spellbinding pictorial record of the most significant of Bacon’s
visual sources. The entire fantastic compost of rags, paints, brushes,
magazines, torn-out pages and tattered reproductions laid down over
decades in Bacon’s South Kensington mews has been reconstructed entire
at the Dublin City Gallery, the Hugh Lane. While the artist’s living
space was almost monastic in its austerity, his workroom was a
materialization of the rich, sedimented strangeness of his inner world.
To him, both discipline and chaos seem to have been indispensable.
FRANCIS BACON
(Tate Britain, until January 4, 2009)
Matthew
Gale and Chris Stephens, editors
FRANCIS BACON
288pp. Tate Publishing. £24.99.
978 1 85437 738 8
Michael
Peppiatt
FRANCIS BACON
Studies for a portrait
272pp. Yale University Press. £18.99 (US $35).
978 0 300 14255 6
Martin
Harrison and Rebecca Daniels
FRANCIS BACON
Incunabula
256pp. Thames and Hudson. £39.95 (US $75).
978 0 500 09343 3
Alan Jenkins is Deputy Editor of the TLS. Drunken Boats, his translation
of Arthur Rimbaud’s Le Bateau ivre, was published last year.
Bacon's
theatre of the absurd
On
Francis Bacon at the Tate Britain, London.
By David Yezzi, The
New Criterion, December 2008
High-priced
meat-under-glass has been a staple of British art for the better part of
a century, long before Damien Hirst’s fashionable sharks and calves
appeared on the scene. Witness the current career retrospective of
paintings by Francis Bacon (surely the ultimate nom de charcuterie),
timed in accordance with the artist’s centenary in 2009. [1] Bacon’s
take on the human condition was simple: “We are meat,” he liked to
say. His paintings of sixty years, from Crucifixion (1933) to Triptych
(1991) in the Tate show, rarely stray off message, recapitulating his
dark matter in image after traumatic image. (From the mid-1960s on,
Bacon displayed most of his sanguinary subjects behind glass, placed in
gilded frames.) It is worth noting that the exhibition originates at
Tate Britain, not at Tate Modern, as I initially assumed—a far better
venue for staking Bacon’s claim as the greatest British painter since
Turner (and, in the eyes of many, as one Tate press release has it,
Britain’s greatest painter period!). But Bacon’s ubiquity and
collectability, abetted by his famously theatrical subjects and bravura
technique, mainly confirm his star status, not his mastery.
Certainly,
anyone possessed of a glancing acquaintance with modern art knows what a
Bacon looks like: arrays of distended viscera, steaming sides of beef,
screaming Popes in “space-frames,” crucifixions, menacing dogs,
swirled faces, contorted nudes decomposing on divans, Muybridge-esque
figures recast in blurs of paint. Brutal, bloody stuff. It’s also
attention-grabbing stuff, both pictorially and commercially. Even those
who couldn’t give a fig for art will have noticed Bacon’s recent
record-breaking outing in the marketplace: Triptych (1976)
sold in May at Sotheby’s for over $86 million, the highest price ever
paid at auction for a contemporary art work. Last month, Study for
Self-Portrait (1964), estimated at $40 million, sat on the block
at Christie’s without a bid, but one assumes this was due more to our
economy’s recent resemblance to a Bacon painting than to any decline
in Bacon’s blue-chip stock.
Only
Bacon’s friend Lucian Freud, among the London School painters, comes
close to rivaling his celebrity and mystique. Bacon worried that his
biography would over-weight viewers’ interpretations of his work, and
not without reason; his was a colorful life tinged with tragedy. One
needn’t scratch the surface very deeply before biographical details
emerge, particularly in the portraits and late paintings. Bacon’s
reputed drinking, gambling, and masochism (he fled one severe beating
clothed only in fishnet stockings) fueled his image as a peintre
maudit. His greatest subject was ultimately Francis Bacon.
A
darling of the
bohemian intelligentsia, Bacon spent his bad-boy early years in London
commuting “between the gutter and the Ritz” (as he put it): dodging
rents, committing petty crimes, and living off of patrons and friends.
He took pride in the fact that he never received formal training as a
painter. Born in Ireland to English parents, he fled a violent homelife
in which his horse-trainer father oversaw regular whippings of his son
by the grooms. In 1927, Bacon traveled to Germany with Cecil
Harcourt-Smith, a family friend (with whom he wound up in bed). He found
Berlin in the Twenties much as Auden described it at that time—“a
bugger’s daydream.” It was seeing Picasso’s work in Paris, where
he traveled after Berlin, that set him on the road to becoming a
painter.
Bacon’s
earliest painting in the Tate exhibition is his spindly,
Picasso-inflected Crucifixion (1933). Crucifixions became a
signature motif for the artist. Among his most well-known images are Three
Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944), his first
major triptych, and Painting (1946), a splayed cow carcass and
bloody-mouthed figure arranged as an abattoir-altarpiece, which Alfred
Barr acquired for the Museum of Modern Art. Bacon followed these with a
series of Popes, beginning with HeadVI
(1949) and culminating in the streaked and gilded bombast of Study
after Velázquez’s Portrait of Pope InnocentX
(1953). The Popes were one of a number of motifs Bacon would come back
to later in his career with diminishing returns. (Bacon was extremely
self-critical and destroyed a great deal of work, but by the time he
came to repent the Popes presumably it was too late to get his hands on
them.)
Bacon
often equivocated when asked questions about his influences and the
significance of his work, but certain things were repeated often enough
to be believed: 1) that he was an Nietzschean atheist, 2) that Picasso
had meant a great deal to him, 3) that he intended no religious meaning
with his crosses and Popes, and 4) that his greatest guiding principle
as a painter was the Surrealist notion of chance. According to Michael
Peppiatt in his recently updated biography, [2] what Bacon most wanted
was to “excite” himself, to stir emotion ruthlessly, to “remove
veils” from experience, to provide direct access to the valves of
feeling. His means: bloody mouths, bones, flesh, screaming heads.
Peppiatt once claimed, in the September 1984 issue of Connoisseur,
that “even his detractors would agree that there is nothing of the
easy chair about the work of Francis Bacon. Far from ease, it offers
extreme disquiet.” I can’t say that I’m convinced. A kind of
bathos dogs Bacon’s work, arising from the fact that his disquiet is,
so to speak, always in an “easy chair,” swathed in gorgeous magenta
and crimson and served up with a Sargent-like facility of the brush.
Bacon’s
seductive paint handling is the first thing that viewers notice after
the carnage. His methods of applying paint were as idiosyncratic as they
were versatile. Hugh Davies and Sally Yard describe his
everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach, in which his materials ranged
from
Brillo pads to cashmere sweaters, as brushes are
joined by rags, cotton wool, sponges, scrub brushes, garbage-can lids,
paint-tube caps, the artist’s hands, and whatever else he can find in
the studio for the application and shaping of painterly passages… .
Thick impasto coexists with thinned washes of pigment and raw canvas,
sand and dust are occasionally used to give texture to the paint. A few
works of the 1980s are veiled in the haze produced by applying paint
with an aerosol spray.
Reviewing
Bacon’s show at the Malborough-Gerson gallery in 1968, Hilton Kramer
found him “one of the most dazzling pictorial technicians on the
current scene.” Why, then, he asks, does the work “strike me as
being clever rather than profound—brilliant rather than authentic?”
Kramer ends with a recognition of “exactly how safe an artist Mr.
Bacon really is.”
Safe
and also stagey. Bacon’s characteristic space is theatrical,
suggesting operating theaters, thrust stages, wrestling rings, circus
rings, bull rings, throne rooms, closets, altars—all playing areas in
Bacon’s theater of the absurd. Beckett is a name that tends to come up
when considering Bacon’s vision, but it’s closer to Genet (whose
plays he recommended to friends). Think of the bishop in Le Balcon,
who is in fact a man in costume acting out a ritualistic sexual fantasy
in a brothel that the madame calls a “house of illusions.” In the
critic Martin Esslin’s description, absurdist theater portrays “a
world that functions mysteriously outside our conscious control… . It
no longer has religious or historical purpose; it has ceased to make
sense.” This is Bacon’s world, in which the artist rejects both
narrative and didactic purpose and attempts to confront, in Esslin’s
phrase, “the spectator with the harsh facts of a cruel world and his
own isolation.”
This
sense of chance and of confrontation is a key element of Bacon’s most
touted images, such as Painting (1946), with its absurdist
illogic and raw imagery. Yet the “safety” that Kramer perceived in
the late Sixties already exists here in the picture’s pink and mauve
symmetrical background. Bacon’s paint handling is so delicious, it’s
like a mountain of crème Chantilly—far from horrified by it, you want
to eat it with a spoon. Bacon is continually betrayed by his beginnings
as an interior designer, no where more so in Three Studies for
Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion. As Peppiatt notes of the
background colour of Studies, “It is worth recalling that
cadmium orange, which had become the fashionable colour in
avant-garde interior design in the 1930s, remained Bacon’s favourite
colour.” Bacon’s fashion colours and mod furniture come off as
frivolously elegant.
Frivolity is, of course, the last thing most people associate with Bacon’s
work. As Bacon’s Soho crony and (unauthorized) biographer Daniel
Farson writes: “To appreciate Bacon’s work, it helps to see him as a
deeply moral artist.” This strikes me as exactly what Bacon is not, so
much so that I wonder if Farson could really believe it himself.
Elsewhere he says that Bacon repeatedly told him that he believed in “nothing.”
John Richardson, the biographer of Picasso, repeats the error: “By
holding a mirror up to our degenerate times Bacon proves himself to be
one of the most moral artists of the day. Far from titillating us, he
castigates us.” But Bacon does no such thing. Firstly, he is not
concerned with our “times” in any historical sense, except in so far
as he personally embodies them. For Bacon, images from news photographs
and films—the screaming nurse on the Odessa steps in Potemkin
or a Nazi armband, for example—have little to say about “our
degenerate times” and volumes to say about Bacon’s roiling inner
life. When a television commentator suggested that Bacon’s work was a
condemnation of man’s inhumanity to man, Bacon retorted: “That’s
the last thing I think of.”
It
is not Bacon’s stark subject matter that disqualifies him as a “moral
artist”; it is his aestheticization of the horror depicted. As the
critic Yvor Winters explains, the moral artist does not shy from
exploring the extremes of human experience, but he portrays evil as evil
and makes us know it as evil. This is not the case with Bacon, either in
his professed world view or in his practice:
In all the motor accidents I’ve seen, people
strewn across the road, the first thing you think of is the strange
beauty—the vision of it, before you think of trying to do anything…
.
There’s
no one more unnatural than myself, and, after all, I’ve worked on
myself to be as unnatural as I can. I can’t really talk about painting
because I only work for myself and just by chance it happens that for
some reason I’ve been lucky enough to be able to live by something
that obsesses me, but I haven’t got any morals to preach… . I just
work as closely to my nerves as I can.
One
leaves the Bacon show at the Tate feeling beaten up by images of the
dying George Dyer (Bacon’s tragic lover) vomiting into a sink, the
gaping wounds, the twisted flesh. Bacon sought to transmit emotion as
immediately as possible, which in a sense he did, but it’s not emotion
he transmits so much as sensation. Shock lends Bacon’s work its edge,
but it diminishes it as well. The paintings register like a trauma on
the spinal column, without ever reaching the more complex centers of the
brain. Later in Bacon’s career, when shock gave way to chic, the game
was lost. Second Version of Triptych 1944, his reworking of Three
Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, replaces the
brushy energy of the earlier work with a spray-painted softness that
makes Bacon’s phallic Furies look like tchotchkas in a Madison Avenue
boutique. His Innocent X
of 1965 replaces the pontiff’s rictus with the taffy-pull features of
the later portraits. Bacon became convinced that he could have done the
Popes better than he had, but this is no proof. Nor is the reworking of Painting
from the 1960s (not included in the Tate show), which dresses the
macabre scene up with a sunny yellow background and what look like paper
garlands—a travesty of Gauguin’s Yellow Christ (1889).
Bacon detested illustration, but in the end he failed to escape it, and
the portraits moved him even further in this direction.
The
Peppiatt book contains a revealing quotation: “When I was young, I
needed extreme subject matter for my paintings… . Then as I grew older
I began to find my subject matter in my own life. During the 1960s the
Furies, the dictators and screaming Popes, the anonymous figures trapped
in darkened rooms gave way to portraits of living identified beings.”
And here is the disconnect: Bacon reviled abstraction because for him it
was all design, empty aesthetics. Bacon relied on his figures to ground
his work in reality, to lend his paintings the force and horror of the
real world. But the triptychs and portraits of the Sixties and later
marinate in the very aesthetic stew he had hoped to avoid. Bacon’s
contortions of angst become so pretty, so tasteful. The large squares of
pink and orange (orange is the new pink, or is it the other way
around?), the natty black suits, the distinctive chaises and tables make
the lot seem very “safe” indeed.
The
selection of works for the exhibition is judicious, suggesting more
variety in the work than is really there. After the monotony of the
Bacon treatment—floating central figures against disconnected flat
colors—sets in, the decline is steady: the final paintings are his
least interesting. As David Sylvester prophesied in 1955, “many of the
things that make [Bacon] exciting today may render him laughable for
future generations.” The colored arrows pointing to newspapers and
wounds and bodies on toilets; the globs of thrown white paint; the
increased staginess—all seem like precious, empty gestures. The Tate
retrospective carefully elucidates Bacon’s photographic sources; it
includes BBC footage of
Bacon in conversation with David Sylvester that highlights his
considerable charm, but the work itself seems no different that it did
at the MOMA
retrospective in 1990—except that it has grown a little more tired
with the passage of time.
Bacon’s
paintings, ostensibly transmitting high-pitched emotion, are cut off
from emotion. He never flinched from working on a grand scale, from
putting his feet up against the masters—Grünewald, Titian, Vélazquez—but
in the end his almost mechanical serialism and cool shocks bring him
closer to Warhol, whose films Bacon admired even as he turned his nose
up at the paintings. Rather than being the greatest British painter
since Turner, Bacon may better be seen as the great precursor to the
soullessness of Damien Hirst, whose shark is currently on view at the
Met. When Francis Bacon arrives in New York next summer, viewers
will have a chance to consider the two artists under one roof.
Notes
1.
Francis Bacon opened at Tate Britain, London, on September 11,
2008 and remains on view through January 4, 2009. The exhibition will
travel to the Museo National del Prado, Madrid (February 3–April 19,
2009) and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (May 18–August 19,
2009). A catalogue edited by Matthew Gale and Chris Stephens, with
essays by Martin Harrison, David Alan Mellor, Simon Ofield, Gary
Tinterow, and Victoria Walsh, has been printed by Tate Publishing (288
pages, £24.99 paper).
2.Francis
Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma,
by Michael Peppiatt; Constable, 456 pages, £12.99 paper.
David
Yezzi is the Executive Editor of The New Criterion.
Leading
20th Century Artists Present at Sotheby's Contemporary Art Sale in Paris
Art
Daily, Tuesday, December 2, 2008
PARIS.- Sotheby’s
two-session sale of contemporary art, to be held in Paris on December
10/11, has an overall estimate of €12-17 million and features 142
important works by leading 20th century artists. Several represent
landmarks in their artists' careers or number among the handful of works
by the artist still in private hands.
The top lot at the evening sale is expected to be Francis Bacon's Two
Figures (1961), featuring two sturdy, naked figures shown contorted
and convulsed, their faces wracked in pain (lot 11, estimate €5,000,000-7,000,000).
This sort of subject recurred in Bacon's work for many years, but this
painting is particularly important as it marks a watershed in his
figurative approach. By placing the Two Figures in an abstract
setting, Bacon underlines both their solitude and captive condition –
they are imprisoned, as it were, within a dull field of faded pink and
dirty grey, where space and time are frozen.
Sotheby’s Paris has now offered major works by Francis Bacon on three
occasions, including Seated Woman (a portrait of Muriel Belcher),
which holds the record price for contemporary art in France at €13.7m.
Sotheby's
Contemporary Art
Sale:
PF8020 | Location: Paris Auction Dates: Session 1: Wed, 10 Dec 08
7:00 PM
Lot
11 Francis Bacon 1909-1992 TWO FIGURES
5,000,000—7,000,000 EUR: Unsold
Two Figures 1961 Francis Bacon
MEASUREMENTS
198 x 142
cm; 77 7/8 x 55 7/8 in.
DESCRIPTION
huile et
sable sur toile
Exécuté
en 1961.
Cette
oeuvre sera incluse dans le Catalogue Raisonné de l'oeuvre de
Francis Bacon actuellement en préparation par Martin Harrison.
PROVENANCE
Marlborough
Fine Art, Londres
McCrory Corporation, New York
McKee Gallery, New York
Edward R. Broida, Los Angeles
EXHIBITED
Londres,
Tate Gallery, Francis Bacon, 1962, illustré no.87
Mannheim, Kunsthalle, Francis Bacon, 1962, illustré no.76
Turin, Galleria Civica d'Arte Moderna, Francis Bacon, 1962,
illustré, no.81
Zurich, Kunsthaus, Francis Bacon, 1962, no.75
Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum, Francis Bacon, 1963, illustré,
no. 66
New York, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum et exposition itinérante à
Chicago, Art Institute, Francis Bacon, 1963-1964, illustré pp.
29 et 53, no. 53
Orlando, Museum of Art, The Edward R. Broida Collection: A Selection
of Works, 1998, illustré p. 34
Milan, Palazzo Reale, Bacon, 2008, no. 30, illustré p. 122
LITERATURE
AND REFERENCES
Stephen
Spender, Quandrum XI, décembre 1961, illustré p. 53
John Rothenstein, Ronald Alley, Francis Bacon, édition Thames
and Hudson Londres, 1964, no. 184, illustré p. 137
CATALOGUE
NOTE
oil
and sand on canvas. Executed in 1961.
«
... De ma
prison, je vois tout. Dans ma cabine en verre isolant, on m'observe.
Seuls mes pieds solubles s'échappent sur les soupiraux de l'inconnu,
chiens perdus des rois déchus. Je chante, je hurle, je ricane,
j'insulte, je sanglote. Alors explosion. Il tombe des flocons de chair
qui s'accumulent et se transforment en paysages, en sphinx. De la terre,
de mon corps, en fouillant, j'extrais les vestiges de leurs secrets. Les
fantômes n'ont pas d'âge ; sous leurs travestis, ils sont humains. ...
».
Roland Penrose (in Francis Bacon, galerie Rive Droite, Paris,
1957)
«
Bacon, à
Paris, devrait faire l'effet d'une bombe.
».
(Cimaise, Michel Ragon, janvier 1963, compte rendu de la rétrospective
Bacon à la Tate Gallery à Londres ouverte en mai 1962 dans
laquelle Two Figures était exposée)
«
Bacon, à
Paris, devrait faire l'effet d'une bombe.
».
En écrivant ces lignes, extraites de la revue d'art française
Cimaise parue au mois de janvier 1963, Michel Ragon rapporte
l'actualité artistique anglaise. Il évoque en particulier
l'événement survenu au mois de mai 1962, à la Tate Gallery à Londres.
La respectable institution a offert à Francis Bacon une grande
rétrospective composée de 90 œuvres de l'artiste, parmi lesquelles Two Figures
était incluse. Cette exposition majeure ensuite itinérante et
présentée, jusqu'en 1963, à Mannheim, Turin, Zurich et Amsterdam,
marque aussi la prééminence de l'artiste parmi les peintres anglais
qui lui sont contemporains.
Si Francis Bacon jouit en Grande-Bretagne, et cela depuis fort longtemps,
d'une cote considérable, son succès s'illustre aussi en 1960 à
Londres à la Marlborough Gallery où il réalise sa première
exposition en collaboration avec cette galerie prestigieuse.
Cette-dernière constitue à l'époque l'un des plus grands et des plus
beaux locaux de Londres ou de Paris. Elle compte dans son programme le
plus grand sculpteur anglais vivant, Henri Moore, et ne se limitant pas
à l'art contemporain, elle organise aussi des expositions des œuvres
de Vincent Van Gogh, de Degas, de Monet ou de Renoir.
Quand Two Figures est peint en 1961, Francis Bacon a 52 ans.
Le corps et le visage de l'homme sont pour lui des leitmotivs depuis
longtemps. Ils deviennent avec la représentation du mouvement des
thèmes incontournables dans l'œuvre de l'artiste, aussi bien qu'un
tableau intitulé Turning Figure apparaît en 1962. Il
qualifie à l'évidence un mouvement de torsion de la figure sur
elle-même, tout en conservant cette impression que le corps est
comprimé nerveusement. Les prémices de Turning Figure
s'observent précisément dans Two
Figures qui est réalisé l'année précédente. Two Figures
apparaît dès lors comme une œuvre essentielle, infléchissant
l'ensemble du système figuratif que Francis Bacon mettra désormais en
place. Ainsi coupée des formes conventionnelles de la figuration, l'œuvre
de Francis Bacon témoigne de l'inutilité des anciens mythes et de
l'impossibilité de raconter tout récit à partir de son œuvre.
«Vous
avez compris que ce n'est pas pour les autres que je peins. C'est pour
moi. Je n'ai personne à séduire, à tromper, à orienter.».
(Entretien avec Pierre Descargues, Marseille 1976, in L'Art est
vivant, p. 311).
Pour atteindre ce moment crucial dans l'évolution de sa peinture,
Francis Bacon est captivé: « Michel-Ange et Muybridge se mêlent
dans mon esprit, ainsi je pourrais peut-être apprendre des positions de
Muybridge et apprendre de l'ampleur, de la grandeur des formes de
Michel-Ange. ...Comme la plupart de mes modèles sont des nus masculins,
je suis sûr que j'ai été influencé par Michel-Ange qui a réalisé
les nus masculins les plus voluptueux des arts plastiques.». Les
fragments harmonieux des sculptures grecques, les dessins parfaits de
Michel-Ange se confondent dans son souvenir des corps aimés et des
photographies d'Eadweard Muybridge, pour enfin se concrétiser dans la
pulsion du geste de peindre. Si les photographies d'Eadweard Muybridge
(1830-1904) oscillent entre la science et l'art et sont célèbres pour
leurs décompositions du mouvement, les modèles qu'elles représentent
rejoignent le maniérisme caractéristique des sculptures de Michel-Ange
(1474-1564). Ce dernier inspire, notamment dans l'aspect «inachevé»
de ses Esclaves du musée de l'Académie à Florence,
l'ouverture vers l'infini, traduisant la lutte de l'esprit cherchant à
se libérer de la matière.
La figure se trouve dans l'alternance de sa présence et de son absence.
Sortie dans un vide, ou plutôt dans un plein, elle semble sortir d'un
miroir où les deux chairs se confondent. Two Figures sculpte
les modèles dans le tableau. En évoquant le double mouvement de
l'inscription et de l'effacement des corps dans l'espace, une telle
tension renvoie vers l'œuvre d'Alberto Giacometti, avec qui Francis
Bacon se nouera d'ailleurs d'amitié ; dans les sculptures de ce-dernier
le corps de l'homme est souvent représenté, en rendant justement un
peu plus indistincte la frontière entre l'absence et la présence de la
matière. Les tourments du vide sont aussi évoqués dans Two
Figures avec la présence de l'ombre noire, habillant le
personnage qui est situé au premier plan de l'oeuvre. Le titre en
anglais de celle-ci, dénombrant deux modèles, devient dès lors très
ambigü. La lecture de deux personnage dans le tableau est assez
difficile et renvoit directement au rapport que Francis Bacon entretient
avec la mort: "La mort est comme l'ombre de la vie. Quand on est mort,
on est mort, mais tant qu'on est en vie, l'idée de la mort vous
poursuit... ." (Francis Bacon, Entretiens avec Michel
Archimbaud, 1991-1992, 1996 Gallimard, Folio Essais p.126).
" On ne sait jamais d'ailleurs ce qu'une image produit en vous.
Elles entrent dans le cerveau, et puis après on ne sait pas comment
c'est assimilé, digéré. Elles sont transformées, mais on ne sait pas
comment. " (Francis Bacon, Entretiens avec Michel
Archimbaud, op. cité, p.18). Comme l'artiste donne à le
comprendre, l'image se transforme souvent au cours du travail et la
relation avec le sujet s'établit dans le mouvement même de la peinture.
Ce que Francis Bacon cherche à créer sur la toile, c'est de donner au
modèle la place centrale, en le situant au milieu des énergies
tournoyantes créées par la tension intérieure des corps en mouvement.
Dans Two Figures l'artiste réussit avec virtuosité ce tour
de force esthétique et transmet ces énergies à travers l'ardeur des
traces de sa main qui maintient le pinceau.
Se libérer de la matière pour mieux concevoir la beauté d'un être,
c'est aussi le savoir disparaître dans l'ardeur d'une intolérable
combustion. Les corps les plus robustes de Two Figures se
tordent dans un mouvement apparemment brutal, convulsif, renforcé par
l'impersonnalité croissante du visage grimaçant devenu presque
illisible. Le modèle, pivotant dans un mouvement maniériste,
superposant les attitudes comme il le ferait dans une construction
cubiste, se contractant dans une position délibérément faussée,
désaxée, est soumis à une volonté paradoxale consistant à le
défigurer pour rendre sa figuration plus forte, directe et saisissante.
En plaçant Two Figures dans un décor abstrait, la solitude
des modèles nus augmente, l'un d'entre eux n'ayant pour défense
apparente que ses dents sorties avec rage. La captivité des personnages
dans la couleur sourde du vieux rose et du blanc mêlé de gris
composant le fond du tableau fige en outre l'espace et le temps. Temps
voluptueux rendu visible, dont les personnages semblent vouloir briser
le cours. En surgissant dans une pièce réduite à l'essentiel pour
exister à la frange de l'abstrait, les modèles donnent l'impression de
vouloir franchir les lignes de démarcations du tableau et en détruire
la vitre. Quoique figés, ce que les modèles rendent paradoxalement
explicite, c'est encore la vitesse du pinceau et des brosses. Vitesse
d'ailleurs volontaire à la recherche de l'accident. Dans cette
démarche, Francis Bacon rappelle également celle poursuivie par Cy
Twombly dans une représentation purement abstraite: introduire le
déséquilibre, l'erreur, la rature, et constituer un univers par le
renversement des valeurs essentielles traditionnelles.
La tension intérieure de Two Figures démontre avec maestria
le style puissant de Francis Bacon. L'artiste affirme aussi, en
recherchant obstinément la vérité devant le sujet, que l'avenir de
l'homme est dans l'homme: pensée peut-être la plus ouverte et la plus
généreuse que l'on appelle l'humanisme.
Charles
Darwent recommends spending Boxing Day with Kandinsky's colours or on
Francis's studio floor
The Independent on Sunday, 30 November
2008
Freud's
friend and nemesis, Francis Bacon, slyly affected never to draw,
although this was a lie. Bacon, incredibly, would have been 100 next
October, which explains the sudden outbreak of Baconia in art
publishing. Among the best of the resultant books is Francis Bacon:
Studies for a Portrait (Yale £18.99) by the late artist's friend
and chronicler, Michael Peppiatt, a collection of essays and interviews
that offer a uniquely intimate glimpse into the life of a notoriously
unintimate artist.
Martin
Harrison can't match Peppiatt in the Boswell stakes, but his
encyclopaedic knowledge of Bacon minutiae and connections to the
artist's estate make him a pretty good runner-up. His earlier In Camera
explored Bacon's debt to photography. Now, Francis Bacon: Incunabula
(Thames & Hudson £39.95) picks through the sweepings on Bacon's
studio floor. Scraps torn from medical books, reproductions of
Velázquez portraits, Muybridge stills, over-worked shots of massacres
from newspapers – all were grist to Bacon's satanic mill. Harrison
presents this trove without intervening text, as though we were
truffling through the detritus on the floor at 7 Reece Mews ourselves.
It's a good way of approaching Bacon; also of whiling away a wet
Christmas afternoon.
The Sunday
Times books of the year: Art
The
Sunday Times, November 30, 2008
It was, of
course, an image inspired by the Bolshevik revolution - the bloodied
face of the nurse from Eisenstein's film The Battleship Potemkin
(1925, and therefore too late for Bowlt to mention) - on which Francis
Bacon based the heads of his screaming popes. He habitually painted from
photographs, most torn from magazines and books, wilfully folded, daubed
with paint and discarded feet-deep on the floor of his studio. Francis
Bacon: Incunabula by Martin Harrison (Thames & Hudson £39.95)
illustrates some 200 of these ephemeral images (everything from gay porn
and pictures of skin diseases to, yes, stills from Potemkin), all
furnished with brief explanatory notes. If you're a Bacon fanatic with
an insatiable appetite for information about his guarded working methods
you'll like this book. You'll also be drawn to Michael Peppiatt's
Francis Bacon: Studies for a Portrait (Yale £18.99), an anthology
of interviews and essays, several unpublished, a few repetitive, all
relevant. Peppiatt writes about Bacon with refreshing and sometimes
revealing candour.
Bacon
appears in several places (in one, seemingly pulling his trousers down)
in Lucian Freud's impressive On Paper (Cape £50). With an
introduction by Sebastian Smee and an essay by Richard Calvocoressi,
this is an extravagantly illustrated, satisfyingly fat volume about
Freud's drawings in every medium. It spans his entire career from
juvenilia signed in old German script to recent, densely worked
etchings. Some of it looks clumsy, but more is mesmerising in its
clairvoyant intensity. All of it suggests that Freud's most considerable
achievements are the result of his abiding desire to reconcile drawing
and painting. The texts are helpful, too, though this isn't chiefly a
book to be read.
Lucian Freud’s
early obsessions
Lucian
Freud’s early works speak volumes about the shy artist’s sensuality
— and the combination of intensity and detachment that women find
irresistible. Waldemar Januszczak looks at the formative relationships
of a master in the making
The
Sunday Times, November 30, 2008
It was
also around this time that Freud met Francis Bacon. They were introduced
by Graham Sutherland and met at Victoria station while setting off for a
Sutherland weekend. Bacon seems to have freed Freud of any remaining
guilt he may have harboured. “His work impressed me, but his
personality affected me.” Bacon, who talked fondly of “the
sensuality of treachery”, showed Freud “how to wing it through life,
how to court risk, tempt accident and scorn the norm”. When Freud drew
him one evening, Bacon pointedly unbuttoned his trousers.
“I
think you ought to use these,” he said, sliding them down to reveal
his hips. How strange that the only signs of unmistakable eroticism in
Freud’s drawings should be supplied by a man.
Art: From
canvas to cameras
By
Michael Glover
, The Independent, Friday, 28
November 2008
It's
been a good year for lovers of the energising, sado-masochistic gloom of
Francis Bacon. The catalogue of his Tate Britain show does him proud
(Tate Publishing £24.99), and two other books thicken the tortured plot
of his life. Incunabula (Thames & Hudson, £39.95) shows us
images of the photographs and visual documents which fed into the wild
frenzy of his painting. His friend and official biographer Michael
Peppiatt has assembled Studies for a Portrait (Yale, £18.99), a
marvellously absorbing book of essays and interviews.
Rare works
of Bacon defy art auction gloom
ABC
News Australia, 25 November 2008
Two
paintings of Francis Bacon, by an Australian artist believed to have
been his lover, were sold for well over their pre-auction price last
night.
The works
by Roy de Maistre - Francis Bacon's Studio and Portrait Of
Francis Bacon - were sold for $180,000 and $96,000 respectively at
Sotheby's sale of modern Australian art in Melbourne.
The two
paintings, among a collection of six de Maistre works, had not been seen
by the public for nearly 50 years.
"I
think both works illustrate very well that even in the present climate,
works of exceptional provenance which carry conservative estimates are
strongly competed for by enthusiastic collectors," Georgina
Pemberton, head of Sotheby's Australian paintings, told Reuters.
"All
of de Maistre's paintings sold tonight."
The de
Maistre star lots, which depict one of Bacon's many studios and a
portrait of the young artist with carefully drawn eyebrows and bright
red lips, had been estimated by Sotheby's at between $37,600-$50,000 and
$5,000-$7,500.
Sotheby's
paintings specialist David Hansen said they had been painted in the
1930s, when the two artists were "associating."
"They
were certainly closely associated both personally and professionally.
Close, but exactly how close is not known," Mr Hansen said of the
two artists.
De Maistre,
who died in 1968, was considered a leading exponent of early modernism
in Australia.
Bacon, who
died in 1992, is believed to have made de Maistre's acquaintance when he
was about 20-years-old, possibly in France or London.
Francis
Bacon: Studies for a Portrait
Michael
Peppiatt. Yale
Univ., $35
(208p) ISBN 978-0-300-14255-6
Publishers
Weekly, 11/24/2008
Peppiatt,
having already written Bacon's biography (Francis Bacon: Anatomy of
an Enigma), now submits a collection of essays and interviews
spanning his career of writing on the artist. Some of the pieces,
updated with material originally omitted because Bacon (1909–1992) was
still living, take on new life. They also echo each other, as when, in
an essay for Art International, Peppiatt writes that “comparatively
few artists were admitted into Bacon's pantheon, and even they tended to
be pared down to one or other aspect of their oeuvre”—Degas was one,
as Bacon says in one interview: “Degas is complete in himself. I like
his pastels enormously.”
Each
piece describes a different period in Bacon's life, a theme in the work,
influences or significant companions. As each topic is inscribed with
the biographical essentials, the motifs stand out in relief from the
background details. The book gains a certain rhythm as the portrait is
made simultaneously more simple and more complex. The effect, cast in
Peppiatt's intimate reportage, works well, and the book will enrich the
library of any Bacon enthusiast. 16 pages of colour and 35 b&w
illus. (Jan.)
Rare works about Francis Bacon defy art auction gloom
Reuters, Monday November 24, 2008
Portrait of Francis Bacon Roy
de Maistre
MELBOURNE
(Reuters Life!) - Two rare artworks by Australian painter Roy de Maistre,
which feature artist Francis Bacon who was believed to be his lover,
will be auctioned by Sotheby's on Monday among a collection of
Australian modern art.
Of the six
de Maistre paintings, the two works - Francis Bacon's Studio and Portrait
of Francis Bacon - have not been seen by the public for nearly 50
years.
"All
six of the de Maistre's works on offer were painted in London in the
1930s when the two artists were associating," David Hansen, senior
researcher and paintings' specialist at Sotheby's, told Reuters.
Francis
Bacon's Studio, with a pre-sale estimate of between
A$60,000-A$80,000 ($37,600-$50,000), depicts one of Bacon's many studios
while Portrait of Francis Bacon, with a pre-sale estimate of
between A$8,000-A$12,000 ($5,000-$7,500), shows a young Bacon, with
carefully drawn eyebrows and bright red lips.
"The
young Bacon was well known amongst members of London's gay subculture
for his cosmetic display," Hansen said.
"They
were certainly closely associated both personally and professionally -
close but exactly how close is not known," he said of the two
artists. "It was often said that de Maistre taught Bacon how to
paint, though both artists denied it."
Sotheby's
said the auction, which also includes works by Australian artists John
Perceval and Brett Whiteley, had generated substantial interest with
potential buyers from Britain and Australia.
The works
on offer have a collective pre-sale estimate of A$3.3 million-A$4.4
million ($2.1 million-$2.75 million).
De Maistre,
who died in 1968, was considered a leading exponent of early Modernism
in Australia. Bacon, who died in 1992, is believed to have made de
Maistre's acquaintance when he was about 20 years old, possibly in
France or London.
(Reporting
by Pauline Askin, Editing by Miral Fahmy)
ROY DE MAISTRE, AUSTRALIAN, 1894-1968
PORTRAIT OF FRANCIS BACON
8,000—12,000 AUD Lot Sold.
Hammer Price with Buyer's Premium: 96,000 AUD
MEASUREMENTS
66 by
43.6m
DESCRIPTION
Signed
lower right
Oil on
board
Painted in
1935
PROVENANCE
Dimitri
Mitrinoviæ
Trustees of the New Atlantis Foundation
Glady MacDermot; thence by descent
Private collection, Switzerland
EXHIBITED
Roy de
Maistre: A restrospective exhibition of paintings and drawings 1917-1960,
Whitechapel Art Gallery, London, May-June 1960, cat. 40
LITERATURE AND REFERENCES
Neville
Wallis, 'In the Humanist Tradition', The Observer, 15 May 1960,
p. 20 (illus.)
Daniel Farson, The Gilded Gutter Life of Francis Bacon,
Century, London, 1993, p. 28 and illus.
Heather Johnson, Roy de Maistre: The English Years 1930-1968,
Craftsman House, Sydney, 1995, p. 26
CATALOGUE NOTE
Soon after
moving to London in 1930, de Maistre began a relationship with Francis
Bacon. Possibly a lover but certainly a good friend and benevolent
father figure, de Maistre provided the technical advice and support
which enabled bacon to make the transition from interior decorator to
painter.
He was also a social and professional mentor; at de Maistre's Eccleston
Street studio salon Bacon met people like the artists Henry Moore and
Graham Sutherland, the young writer Patrick White and the expatriate
Australian collector and art dealer Douglas Cooper, as well as patrons
such as R.A. Butler and Gladys MacDermot, who commissioned Bacon to
entirely redesign her Bloomsbury apartment.
De Maistre painted his young friend's portrait in 1930, and included the
work in the three-man exhibtion – de Maistre paintings, Bacon pictures
and rugs and pastels by Jean Shepeard – held in Bacon's studio in
1930. The present work is dated to some years later and shows Bacon in
his mid 20s, looking, as de Maistre put it, 'like a somewhat dubious
choirboy'.
It is indeed a strange, tense, enigmatic portrait of the young artist.
Posed in three quarter profile in a strongly lit, shallow space in front
of a blood-red curtain, Bacon's oddly unexpressive, even doll-like face
is at once abstracted and alert, while his clasped hands seem to convey
both formality and anxiety. In addition to the familiar cowlick quiff
and the piercing blue eyes, the painting also shows carefully-drawn
eyebrows and bright red lips. The young Bacon was well known amongst
members of London's gay subculture for his cosmetic display. Michael
Peppiat records that 'shortly after he had gained some recognition as an
artist, he walked into a London bar where a well known homosexual wit
was sitting. When their gazes met, the wit said loudly: "as for her,
when I knew her, she was more famous for the paint that she put
on her face than the paint she put on canvas"' Later, Patrick White
was to recall Bacon's 'beautiful pansy-shaped face, sometimes with too
much lipstick on it,' while 'a young relative of de Maistre remembers
meeting Francis and wondering whether she should tell him he must have
sucked his paintbrush and got red paint all over his mouth.'
Portrait of Francis Bacon is an affectionate and revealing
image of the celebrated British artist at the start of his career, and
an important memento of his constructive relationship with the older and
wiser Australian.
1. Daniel Farson, The Gilded Gutter Life of Francis Bacon, Century,
London, 1993, p. 28
2. Michael Peppiatt, Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma,
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996, p. 56
3. Patrick White, Flaws in the Glass: a self-portrait, Jonathan
Cape, London, 1983, p. 62
4. Peppiatt, op. cit., p. 56
We are most grateful to Heather Johnson, Andrew Brighton and Elizabeth
Gertsakis for their assistance in cataloguing this work.
ROY DE MAISTRE, AUSTRALIAN, 1894-1968
FRANCIS BACON'S STUDIO
60,000—80,000 AUD Lot Sold.
Hammer Price with Buyer's Premium: 180,000 AUD
MEASUREMENTS
91 by 76cm
DESCRIPTION
Signed
lower right; dated 1932 on the reverse
Oil on
canvas
PROVENANCE
Dimitri
Mitrinoviæ
Trustees of the New Atlantis Foundation
Glady MacDermot; thence by descent
Private collection, Switzerland
EXHIBITED
(possibly)
Roy de Maistre, Mayor Gallery, London, October-November 1934 (Mayor
Gallery label on stretcher bar on reverse) Roy de Maistre: A retrospective exhibition of paintings and drawings
1917 - 1960, Whitechapel Art Gallery, London, May - June 1960, cat.
21 Francis Bacon, Tate Gallery, London, 24 May-1 July 1962, cat. 93
(as Francis Bacon's Studio, 1932, lent by Roy de Maistre).
Partial Tate Gallery exhibition label attached to reverse.
LITERATURE AND REFERENCES
John
Rothenstein and Ronald Alley, Francis Bacon, Thames &
Hudson, London, 1964, p. 10
Mary Eagle, Australian Modern Painting Between the Wars 1914-1939,
Bay Books, Sydney, 1989, p. 50 (illus.)
John Russell, Francis Bacon, Thames & Hudson, London, 1993,
pp. 16-17
Andrew Sinclair, Francis Bacon: His Life and Violent Times,
Crown Publishers, New York, 1993, p. 64
Heather Johnson, Roy de Maistre: The English Years 1930-1968,
Craftsman House, Sydney, 1995, pp. 24, 77, 234
CATALOGUE NOTE
When Roy
de Maistre and Francis Bacon met, the 21 year old Bacon had begun to
establish himself as a fashionable furniture designer, producing severe
glass and tubular-steel tables and chairs and synthetic-cubist screens
and woven floor rugs. This art deco aesthetic chimed with de Maistre's
own taste for geometric flat pattern, and he responded with strikingly
moderne but 'topographically precise' views of Bacon's studio: Francis
Bacon's Queensbury Mews Studio (1930, collection of the late
Francis Elek) and Interior (1930, Manchester City Art Gallery).
They were the first of some ten pictures of Bacon's work spaces that de
Maistre would produce during the early 1930s. In addition to these two
and to Still Life (1933, National Gallery of Australia) and Mr
Francis Bacon's Studio, Royal Hospital Road (1934, private
collection), there are no fewer than six related paintings of one of
these rooms, a whitewashed attic prism with open door and pictures
leaning against the walls.
The precise location depicted is uncertain. John Rothenstein maintains
that these works, too, depict the studio at 71 Royal Hospital Road,
Chelsea , but Heather Johnson notes that 'sketches for the work were
thought to have been made circa 1932, in which case the studio
represented could have been one of the many Bacon occupied after leaving
his Queensbury Mews studio in 1931 and before he moved into the Royal
Hospital Road studio...Bacon had studios in Fulham Road, Cromwell Place
and Glebe Place during this time.'
For those with an interest in the early Bacon, the picture's key
interest lies in the two curious, Picassoesque works 'carefully,
irreplaceably recorded by de Maistre'. 'Against bare boards and angular
white surfaces, canvases are stacked, two turned towards the painter's
brush, one of a skeletal and feathered bird, another of the quartered
outline of a horse or dragon – the start of a movement from
geonometric abstraction towards a more organic image... these are works
of transition, those of an embryo trying to flesh itself.'
The picture also has a special importance for de Maistre scholars. The
original version was purchased by Gladys MacDermot, de Maistre's great
supporter both in Australia and in England, and attracted the particular
interest of another of MacDermot's protégés, Dmitri Mitrinovic,
political and aesthetic visionary and polemicist, and founder of the
journals New Britain and New Atlantis. While MacDermot's painting was
destroyed during the London Blitz, Johnson records that 'Mitrinovic
commissioned a version...for himself, New Atlantis... almost identical
to the original work' and that 'several other versions and variations of
the work were also produced: a third, smaller work done for Mitrinovic
and given to a follower, Jack Murphy... a fourth work also done for
Mitrinovic and presently in a private collection associated with the New
Atlantis Foundation...(the present work) and a sixth work, White Figure,
Art Gallery of Western Australia. All the extant works are believed to
have been done circa 1933 developed from sketches de Maistre made in
Bacon's studio in 1932.'
1. Michael Peppiatt, Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma,
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996, p. 51
2. John Rothenstein and Ronald Alley, Francis Bacon, Thames
& Hudson, London, 1964, p. 10
3. Heather Johnson, Roy de Maistre: The English Years 1930-1968,
Craftsman House, Sydney, 1995, p. 77
4. John Russell, Francis Bacon, Thames & Hudson, London,
1993, p. 16
5. Andrew Sinclair, Francis Bacon: His Life and Violent Times,
Crown Publishers, New York, 1993, p. 64
6. Heather Johnson, Roy de Maistre: The English Years 1930-1968,
Craftsman House, Sydney, 1995, p. 77
We are most grateful to Heather Johnson, Andrew Brighton and Elizabeth
Gertsakis for their assistance in cataloguing this work.
Francis Bacon: gesto y agonía de la figura humana
CARLOS
M. LUIS,
ARTES Y LETRAS Especial/El Nuevo Herald
El
Nuevo Herald, Miami, 23 de Noviembre del 2008
Como
parte de la celebración del centenario en el 2009 del nacimiento de
Francis Bacon, la Tate Gallery de Londres ha inaugurado una
retrospectiva de este pintor. Entre los meses de febrero y agosto la
muestra viajará a los museos del Prado y al Metropolitan de Nueva York.
Los 60 cuadros que serán expuestos permiten indagar sobre la vida y la
obra de uno de los grandes pintores de todas las épocas. Pocos como
Bacon - quizás ninguno - ha llevado tan lejos el tratamiento de la
figura humana en la forma que este pintor lo ha hecho.
Habría
que remontarse a las representaciones que los artistas medievales hacían
de los condenados para acercarnos a las suyas. O podemos acudir a Goya
como un antecedente. Para situarnos en el siglo XX, las mujeres de De
Kooning, el ''Grito'' de Edward Munch, o ciertas obras de Chaim Soutine,
de Van Gogh o los autorretratos de Artaud entre otros, pueden ubicarse a
su lado. Pero nadie como Bacon realizó una visión tan escatológica
del ser humano, abriéndole al mismo tiempo, un espacio para ser
representado en la soledad y el sufrimiento. En su caso no podemos
acusarlo de que lo hizo tomando la figura humana como un simple tema
pictórico. Su vida de alcohólico y de homosexual sadomasoquista lo
situó dentro de una realidad que él experimentó hasta la saciedad de
los excesos, pues para Bacon los extremos se tocaban para desgarrarse
entre sí.
Estamos
prisioneros en nuestra piel dijo Wittgenstein en sus diarios. En el caso
de Bacon podemos decir que éste encerró a la humanidad dentro de la
piel de los cuerpos que él pintó. Ese permanente contacto suyo con las
fuerzas elementales que emanan de la anatomía humana y animal lo
convirtió de paso en un filósofo visual sin quererlo. Podemos a partir
de sus cuadros especular toda una teoría acerca de la condición humana,
partiendo de una ''lógica de la sensación'' como lo hiciera Gilles
Deleuze en su libro sobre el pintor. En el mismo el pensador francés
exploró las resonancias que pueden existir entre la filosofía y las
artes visuales. Tomando ese concepto como punto de vista, Deleuze
discute tres aspectos fundamentales de la pintura de Bacon: la figura,
los espacios de color que la rodean y las estructuras que los separan.
Esos tres aspectos aparecen claramente configurados en Bacon como parte
de su dinámica pictórica. Veamos los tres por separado.
La figura:
la atracción que posee el cuerpo humano para Bacon le brinda la ocasión
para interpretarlo, de acuerdo con su visión de la existencia, como un
acto límite. Es por eso que sus cuerpos van sufriendo toda suerte de
distorsiones hasta llegar a ser irreconocibles. Bacon entonces actúa
sobre los mismos como representando una especie de ritual frenético,
cuyo sadismo hace palidecer a las coreografías sexuales del Marqués.
Bacon se sintió influido por los experimentos fotográficos de Eadweard
Muybridge, quien a finales del siglo XIX, realizara una serie de fotos
de personas y animales sorprendidos en diversas posturas. Posiblemente
pudo también sentirse atraído por los dibujos anatómicos del
renacentista Andreas Vesalius. Por otra parte Velázquez le sirvió de
modelo para interpretar sus retratos. La versión que el maestro español
hiciera del papa Inocencio X fue objeto de una de las obras más emblemáticas
de Bacon.
El color:
contrario al tratamiento del color propio de los expresionistas, Bacon
utilizó el suyo en forma plana, realzando su brillantez. El contraste
que esto provoca con sus figuras retorcidas es notable. El color se
extiende por el espacio de sus cuadros, creando zonas de intensas gamas,
sin componer un contrapunto - como lo hacen muchos expresionistas - con
el dramatismo de las figuras. De ese modo el color queda, sobre todo en
los cuadros de su última época, como una especie de trasfondo donde
podemos observar, si eliminamos las figuras de los mismos, una
distribución constructivista del espacio.
La
estructura: Bacon compone sus cuadros partiendo de un sentido espacial
muy preciso. De esa forma coloca sus figuras dentro de compartimentos,
semejantes muchos de ellos a grandes cajas de cristal. Esa manera suya
de encerrar a sus personajes nos recuerda el juicio de Eichmann en
Jerusalén, donde el famoso nazi permaneció dentro de un cubículo
durante todo el proceso. También nos puede traer a la memoria la
secuencia del filme Silence of the Lambs, seguramente inspirada
en Bacon, cuando Hannibal Lecter tuvo que ser enjaulado en una gran cárcel
de cristal en medio de un salón. Ambas escenas muestran una teatralidad
que su pintura nos comunica a través de la gestualidad de muchas de sus
mejores obras. Por otra parte y a la manera de los pintores medievales,
Bacon gustaba de pintar trípticos como grandes retablos que reproducen
variaciones sobre un tema determinado. Uno de éstos, basado en la
crucifixión, llevó hasta el paroxismo de lo grotesco la representación
de ese acontecimiento central de la cultura cristiana.
Baudelaire
afirmó que el Romanticismo no consistía tanto en la verdad exacta como
en la manera de sentir esa verdad. Bacon, que en el fondo pertenece a la
tradición romántica, está interesado en capturar una verdad que le
sirva para expresar un sentimiento ''agónico''. Cada uno de sus modelos
que tuvieron en un momento dado existencia propia fueron sometidos a una
interpretación delirante de la verdad que encarnaban. Fue de esa forma
que Bacon logró crear imágenes que quedarán grabadas indeleblemente
en la historia del arte. •
Francis
Bacon: Space and Surface, symposium organised by Brian Hatton
Speakers at the symposium included: Andrew Brighton, James Cahill,
Nigel Coates, Martin Hammer,John
Maybury, Bob Maxwell & Brian Hatton.
To
complement the Francis Bacon exhibition at Tate Britain, this symposium
considers spatial and architectural aspects in Bacon's art. Bacon
composed his pictures by risking spontaneous acts and chance effects of
painting within carefully designed and projected spatial frameworks,
often deploying traces of his early work in furniture and interior
decoration. This double aspect of Bacon's work has interested not only
painters but also architects and filmmakers. Presentations will be made
by: Andrew Brighton, James Cahill, Nigel Coates, Mark Cousins, Martin
Hammer, Brian Hatton and John Maybury. The symposium will conclude with
a roundtable discussion.
All welcome
No advance booking required
Please note: The AA Bar (1st Floor) will be open between 11.00 and 6.00
providing regular bar services.
Joel Cadbury seeks
a Colony
It is the drinking
den whose patrons have included such artists as Francis Bacon and Tracey
Emin, but the Colony Room in Soho may be about to have a surprising new
owner.
Richard
Eden The Daily Telegraph 15
Nov 2008
Mandrake
can disclose that Joel Cadbury, whose chocolate-producing ancestors were
abstemious Quakers, is lining up a bid for the louche private members'
club. "Joel has been approached about taking it over and is
seriously considering it," says a friend of the 36-year-old son of
Peter "the Cad" Cadbury.
Joel,
who is married to Divia Lalvani, the daughter of an Indian electronics
tycoon, is a non-executive director the Groucho Club, the haunt of media
and theatre professionals, which is next door to the Colony Room.
Last
year, Cadbury sold his Soho health and fitness club, The Third Space, to
a management buyout team backed by private equity for £22 million. The
deal came just over a year after he sold the Groucho to the same
private-equity group, Graphite Capital, for £20 million.
The
Colony Room was established 60 years ago to provide a refuge for members
when the pubs closed. Earlier this year, Michael Wojas, the club
secretary and chief barman, said he would close it when he retires in
March because of the impact of the smoking ban, an expiring lease and a
general downturn.
Art boom over as
auctions fail to bring home Bacon
Ben
Hoyle, Arts Reporter, The Times, November 14, 2008
When a Francis Bacon
triptych became the most expensive contemporary artwork sold at auction
earlier this year it fuelled hopes that the art market might be
credit-crunch proof.
Six months later the
failure of another important Bacon work to attract a single bid at
auction in New York has underlined what the leading auction houses have
long feared and recently suspected: the art boom is over and it will not
be back any time soon.
A sobering fortnight
of big sales in New York ends this afternoon with little prospect of
transactions totalling $1 billion (£676 million).
That might seem like
an obscene sum of money to lavish on art in the midst of an economic
crisis but it is well short of the auction houses’ own combined
minimum estimate for the sales of $1.7 billion.
The fortnight
included four star-studded evening sales of Impressionist and Modern and
Contemporary and PostWar art, which traditionally set the tone for the
art market over the next six months.
This year, despite
the presence of John McEnroe, the tennis player, Salma Hayek and Steve
Martin, the actors, Valentino, the fashion designer and various
billionaire art collectors in the auction rooms, the four sales at
Christie’s and Sotheby’s pulled in only $608.5 million, against a
low estimate of $1.007 billion.
About a third of the
works on offer failed to sell at all, including pieces by Picasso,
Rothko, Manet, Monet, Modigliani, Matisse, Van Gogh, Cezanne, Warhol,
Lichtenstein and Hirst, while many of those that did went for
substantially less than the asking price.
Some records were
set, brightening the gloom for the auction houses. Suprematist
Composition by Kazimir Malevich, the Russian abstract pioneer, sold for
$60 million and there were record prices for works by Munch and Degas
among others.
Attention, however,
was inevitably focused on the failures, notably the Bacon.
In May it was
revealed that Roman Abramovich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea
Football Club, was the mystery buyer of an $86.2 million Bacon triptych.
Days earlier he paid $33.6 million for Benefits Supervisor Sleeping by
Bacon’s old friend Lucian Freud.
This double splurge
was seized on as evidence that the art market would weather the economic
downturn thanks to stupendously wealthy collectors from Russia, China,
India and the Middle East.
But those buyers
were notably absent on Wednesday night when a 1964 self-portrait by
Bacon, estimated by Christie’s at $40 million, failed to sell.
There were gasps in
the hall when it was withdrawn from the sale.
The differing
fortunes of the two Bacons reflect the seismic shifts in the global
financial markets in the past two months, a connection summed up by the
presence in Wednesday’s sale of 16 works, belonging to the family of
Richard S. Fuld Jr, a former chief executive of Lehman Brothers, that
Christie’s had guaranteed at $20 millon. The price estimates for these
sales were set before the markets went into meltdown in September and
European buyers were handicapped by the strengthening of the dollar.
As a result dealers,
sellers, collectors and auctioneers emerged from the New York sales
looking for the bottom of the market whereas not long ago they were
trying to spot the peak. Ian Peck, chief executive of Art Capital Group,
a merchant bank specialising in art world affairs, said: “It’s like
the aftermath of a rugby match with everybody limping off the field. It’s
a different universe compared to where we were six months ago.”
Marc Porter,
president of Christie’s North and South America, said after the
Wednesday evening sale: “The market is adjusting down.”
The New York sales
followed a pattern set in significant recent auctions in London and Hong
Kong.
The auction houses
are the most obvious victims of the downturn. Christie’s and Sotheby’s
both spent tens of millions buying lots whose prices they had guaranteed
but which failed to sell. Sotheby’s share price has collapsed from
more than $40 a year ago to just over $8 yesterday.
Robert Read, group
fine art underwriter for Hiscox, the insurer, said that the auctions
could have been much worse. “It’s no longer a champagne market,”
he said. “Its more of a modest chablis, but it is still drinkable,
still functioning.”
Upper East Side:
Linger (Quietly) for a While
By KAREN ROSENBERG, The New York Times,
November 13, 2008
Works by Francis
Bacon, left, and Giacometti at the Gagosian Gallery show Isabel and
Other Intimate Strangers.
Chelsea has been the
undisputed center of the art market for the last decade, and the young
and the new are concentrated below 14th Street. The Upper East Side will
always have Museum Mile, but what do the galleries in this staid enclave
have to offer?
Simply put, the
Upper East Side is a quieter, more idiosyncratic art neighbourhood.
Particularly in the cloistered townhouse galleries off Madison Avenue,
you have the sense of walking into someone’s living room. Chelsea can
make you feel rushed, herded from one concrete-floored box to the next;
uptown the atmosphere is much more conducive to lingering. You will
often be the only visitor in the gallery, even on a Saturday.
At the
ever-expanding Gagosian, as at Acquavella, the artist-muse relationship
inspires an exhibition worthy of the Museum of Modern Art. Isabel and
Other Intimate Strangers: Portraits by Alberto Giacometti and Francis
Bacon inaugurates the gallery’s new fourth-floor exhibition
space. The show was organized by Véronique Wiesinger, the director of
the Giacometti Foundation in Paris, and Martin Harrison, who is
overseeing Bacon’s catalogue raisonné.
The woman singled
out in the title is the model Isabel Rawsthorne, whose chiseled
cheekbones inspired several paintings by Bacon and sculptures by
Giacometti. Other captivating figures in the exhibition include Lucien
Freud, in Bacon’s portraits, and Giacometti’s wife and mistress (in
separate, and markedly different, paintings)
Francis Bacon
portrait pulled from sale after failing to attract bids
A Francis Bacon
self-portrait was withdrawn half way though a Christie's auction in New
York after bidding failed to take off.
By Tom Leonard in
New York The Daily Telegraph 13
Nov 2008
Study for Self
Portrait 1964 Francis Bacon
Study for Self
Portrait, painted in 1964, was billed as the highlight of the
contemporary art sale with an estimate of $40 million (£27 million).
However, when
bidding dried up at $27.4 million, the sale was abruptly halted,
prompting gasps of surprise in the auction room.
A Bacon triptych
fetched $86 million – a record for the painter – at an auction in
New York in May.
But the self
portrait was among almost a third of works in the 75-lot sale that
failed to find buyers. The auction brought in $113.6 million – half
the pre-sale low estimate.
In keeping with
other recent sales, the lots that did sell went for less than their
estimate.
At Christie's, a
collection of 16 drawings sold by Kathy and Richard Fuld, the
controversial former chief executive of Lehman Brothers, brought in
$13.5 million after being expected to fetch $20 million.
However, Christie's
had promised the Fulds had an undisclosed sum regardless of the outcome
of the sale. Mrs Fuld is a keen collector and the couple have kept most
of their works.
The Christie's sale
came a day after a similarly underwhelming New York auction at
Sotheby's.
Prices at both sales
were set earlier in the year before the financial crisis and are now
considered far too high.
Art market in shock
as Christies calls halt to Francis Bacon sale
Anne Barrowclough,
The Times, November 13, 2008
Francis Bacon's
self portrait failed to sell at a Christie's auction last night
A Francis Bacon
self-portrait failed to sell at auction in New York last night, in a
significant sign that the global financial tsunami is beginning to sweep
over the international art market.
Bacon's 1964 Study
for Self Portrait - billed as a highlight of Christie's contemporary
art auction - was estimated to take in around $US40 million (£26.2
million). A Bacon triptych went under the hammer in New York last May
for $86.2 million (£56.4 million), a record for the British painter and
it was expected that the self portrait would fetch a similarly high
price.
But when bidding
reached $27.4 million (£179.3 million) the auction house dramatically
halted the proceedings, to a chorus of gasps from a stunned audience.
Seventy-five
contemporary works were on sale on Wednesday. Among the most important
lots was a Jean-Michel Basquiat painter of a boxer, owned by Metallica
co-founder and drummer Lars Ulrich, which fetched just over $13.5
million but short of the record $14.6 million for a Basquiat.
A chill had already
entered the art market last month, when a rare portrait of Francis Bacon
by Lucien Freud sold for £1.6 million less than expected, and the
autumn season of art sales, which began on November 3, was being closely
watched.
However in the
fortnight since the autumn season began, there has been a big drop off
of sales of impressionist, modern and contemporary works of art.
The number of unsold
works has often exceeded 30 or 40 per cent of lots since November 3, and
barring a few notable exceptions the sales prices are lower than the
estimates for the majority of pieces.
Art sales were still
high in the spring sale season earlier this year, with records set at
Sotheby's and Christies' for works by Monet, whose Le Pont du chemin
de fer a Argenteuil went for a record $41.4 million (£27.1 million)
and Munch, whose Girls on a Bridge sold for $30.8 million (£20.2
million), a record for the artist.
The record sales
were seen as a sign that the art market was protected from the deepening
economic gloom.
At the time David
Norman, chairman of Sotheby's impressionist and modern department, said
the sales had displayed the "underpinnings of a really strong
market that we believe is going to continue as long as we keep the
estimates appealing to the consignors and choose the right
property."
He added:
"There is still so much liquidity and so many buyers from
everywhere."
Such optimism has
evaporated recently, and last night's sale will cast a further pall over
the international market. Some experts say the fall in sales is due to
the disappearance of hedge fund managers and Russian oligarchs from
auction rooms.
But some of Francis
Bacon's work still seem popular - at least within a certain market. His
paintings of popes - of which there are just 40 in the world - are seen
as a trophy by some collectors, according to Sarah Thornton, the author
of Seven Days in the Art World.
"These
paintings are of a very powerful man in purgatory, in like a free-fall
into Hell," she told National Public Radio (NPR) in the US on
Tuesday. "The popes look terrified. I think, oh my God, that must
be what it's like to be a hedge fund manager right now."
No buyer for a
Bacon as New York art sale ends
By Christopher
Michaud, Reuters, Thursday 13 November 2008
NEW YORK, Nov 13
(Reuters) - The fall New York art sales limped to a close on Wednesday,
leaving a market bruised and bloodied but still standing.
Christie's post-war
and contemporary auction took in $113.6 million, half a low pre-sale
estimate of $227 million, with 68 percent of the lots on offer finding
buyers.
The spotty sale was
consistent with Impressionist, modern and contemporary art auctions at
Christie's and rival over the past two weeks.
The result was
"about as expected going in," said Amy Cappellazzo,
international co-head of contemporary and post-war art at Christie's,
given the turmoil gripping world financial markets for the past two
months.
Despite high points
including a nearly $15 million Richter, a $13.5 million Basquiat and new
records for Joseph Cornell and Yayoi Kusama, the evening's star lot
failed to sell.
Francis Bacon's Study
for Self-Portrait had been estimated to go for $40 million or more,
but no bid approached even $30 million. Bacons have seen huge price
spikes in recent seasons, including a record $86 million.
"The market is
continuing, but clearly at a different price level," Christie's
president Marc Porter said.
"There's no
panic in the market, but there is an adjustment," he told Reuters,
contrasting that to the volatility gripping other markets such as oil or
real estate.
"While it had
declined, you've seen it find a stable level, with a lot of
support."
Baird Ryan, managing
director of the art-related financial services firm Art Capital Group,
agreed with auction officials' contention that the two weeks of sales,
while falling about one-third shy of estimates set before the financial
crisis, showed there continues to be demand for fine art.
'A CORRECTION'
But Ryan noted that
other markets had seen a fall-off of about 20 to 40 percent, "and
that's what you're seeing here. There is a correction going on." He
said auction houses will have to edit sales to offer "a selected
group of works with cautious estimates."
Still it was
impressive that "in such a period of remarkable financial stress
you can sell over $100 million worth of art in an evening," Ryan
added. "People are focused, and active."
Art expert and
author Sarah Thornton, who chronicled several years spent infiltrating
the art world for the book Seven Days in the Art World, said the
sales "could have gone much worse."
"Given the
state of the financial world, it's remarkable to see a group of people
spending money the way they are," she said. "There are
obviously some people who still have a lot of money to spend."
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
Mixed Results for
Contemporary Art Sale at Christie’s
By
Carol Vogel, The New York Times, November
12, 2008
In a bumpy sale of
contemporary art at Christie’s on Wednesday, some paintings,
drawings and sculptures were eagerly sought, but there were also big
disappointments as the art market struggled to adjust to today’s
financial climate.
What was expected
to be the star — a 1964 self-portrait by Francis Baon that was
estimated at $40 million — went unsold without so much as a bid. But
other works brought prices that surprised even Christie’s
executives.
“In the
beginning we thought we were witnessing a gravity-defying auction,”
Edward Dolman, Christie’s chief executive, said after the sale. “But
it was disappointing not to sell the Bacon. There were some good
prices, but it’s inconsistent.”
The evening,
dominated by American buyers, brought $113.6 million, well below its
low estimate of $227 million. Of the 75 works on the block, nearly
one-third failed to sell.
Some works that
were considered overpriced sold — but for what buyers wanted to pay,
not what the house had envisioned.
After the sale,
dealers and collectors milled about trying to make sense of the
results. “The auction house may not have done well,” said Allan
Schwartzman, an art adviser, “but some collectors did.”
Abbreviate into
intensity
Francis Bacon Tate Britain (sponsored by Bank of America), until 4 January 2009
Andrew
Lambirth, Spectator, Wednesday, 10th September 2008
Francis Bacon in Soho 1970 James Jackson
At Tate Britain is a
glorious centenary show of paintings by one of our greatest modern
painters, Francis Bacon. It’s more than 20 years since the last Bacon
retrospective at the Tate, but the Bacon industry has been chugging
steadily away in the interim. His studio — which the Tate declined,
astonishingly — was transported to Dublin, and opened there with much
fanfare over the vast archaeological operation of decoding the layers of
source material and detritus which comprise the studio floor. Then there
was the revelation of the cache of Bacon drawings (shown at the Tate in
1999) after the artist himself and the leading Bacon expert David
Sylvester had spent their lives insisting that Bacon never drew. Other
exhibitions have taken place — most recently Bacon in the 1950s at the
Sainsbury Centre in Norwich (2006) — and various books have appeared.
The Bacon industry,
then, is booming, and represents big business. Since the artist’s
death in 1992, the management of his estate (reputedly worth hundreds of
millions of pounds) has been transferred away from Marlborough Fine Art,
Bacon’s dealers since 1958, to Faggionato Fine Art in London and Tony
Shafrazi in New York, in a manoeuvre that cost some £10 million in
lawyers’ fees. One man caught in the crossfire was Michael Peppiatt,
the leading authority on Francis Bacon, and his official biographer. (Peppiatt’s
biography, Anatomy of an Enigma, was first published in 1996 and
now appears in a revised and updated version from Constable, priced
£12.99.) Although Peppiatt knew Bacon well for nearly 30 years, and
thus takes on the mantle of David Sylvester as chief Bacon interpreter,
he has been oddly marginalised by the estate. The massive task of
producing a three-volume catalogue raisonné has been assigned elsewhere
and even the accompanying catalogue to the Tate Britain show includes no
contribution from Peppiatt. Thankfully, Yale are about to publish
Peppiatt’s collected Bacon essays in a handsome volume entitled
Francis Bacon: Studies for a Portrait (£18.99).
I was privileged to
preview the Tate show with one of its curators, Chris Stephens, while
paintings were still being unpacked and hung. Stephens is an
enthusiastic and knowledgable man and clearly proud of the exhibition
— quite rightly, for it gives the public the chance to see an
excellent selection of great paintings. After all the necessary work of
organisation and research, Stephens emphasises his own enjoyment of
simply looking at the paint surfaces and effects Bacon achieves. The
artist would no doubt have approved: he employed all manner of
diversionary tactics when it came to explaining the work. As he said:
‘I’m just trying to make images as accurately off my nervous system
as I can. I don’t even know what half of them mean. I’m not trying
to say anything.’
This show returns
you to the paint in no uncertain terms. Stephens claims his conservatism
of approach as a bonus: this exhibition presents the work largely
chronologically, grouped in loosely connected themes, without trying to
substantiate any particular theory. As Stephens says: ‘To make a
point, you have often to show the less good works. We didn’t want to
do that.’ Bacon was the great modern painter of the male figure, and
his themes encompassed mortality, and the futility and solitude of life.
There is less violence in the work than is often suggested by stories of
the artist’s own rackety bohemian existence and taste for
sadomasochistic sex.
Bacon is famous for
using photographs as source material, in fact preferring good
black-and-white photos to the actual person if he was painting a
portrait. As Stephens notes: ‘One of the peculiar things about Bacon
is how open he was from very early on about his subject matter.’ He
made no effort to disguise his use of photography, as demonstrated here
in an Archive room. Transforming into telling painted images the reduced
information supplied by photos was Bacon’s speciality, and to this end
he employed all manner of formal strategies and devices to re-enrich the
image, such as different techniques of applying the paint and using the
reverse of the canvas. His actions were actually very controlled and
thought-through, and he was adept at texture, placing and drawing. He
was in fact an exceptionally skilled painter producing grand images of
the human condition, whose ambition was to make work for ‘either the
National Gallery or the dustbin’.
At Tate Britain, the
show starts with the paintings of 1945, and particularly Figure in a
Landscape, full of unusually worked paint, scratched in places,
loosely brushed in others, vivid and immediate in its effect. Bacon is
not known for his thick paint, but look at the ribbed and pelleted
facture of ‘Head II’ (1949). Then there is the series of men in
suits, thinly stained blue canvases in which the faces are worked subtly
in pink and white. Gradually the big familiar subjects emerge: the Pope,
the Crucifixion, van Gogh, the nurse from the film Battleship Potemkin.
Among these it is very good to find less well-known pictures. I had
never before seen Figure in a Mountain Landscape (1956), from
the Kunsthaus, Zurich, with its marvellous paintwork reminiscent of
Soutine. But the strength of the show can perhaps best be seen in the
room subtitled ‘Epic’, when Bacon sweeps the viewer through his own
literary obsessions (T.S. Eliot, Aeschylus, Lorca) in passages of
beautiful paint and disquieting imagery. In the last room, a canvas
entitled Study from the Human Body (1981) features a figure
disappearing into a void. It’s an immensely suitable note to end on,
but also an efficient summation of Bacon’s peculiar mixture of
exhilaration and despair.
Thankfully, it’s
not a huge show. Bacon was the master of the triptych, and there are 13
triptychs here, each counting of course as a single work. So, there are
70 paintings plus a handful of drawings. A good size for an exhibition
of such intense work (‘You have to abbreviate into intensity,’ Bacon
said); there’s a lot to absorb. The exhibition will tour to the Prado
in Madrid (3 February–19 April 2009), and then on to the Metropolitan
Museum of Art in New York (18 May–16 August).
For those who don’t
like Bacon, I can recommend the display of Victor Pasmore’s work in
Room 22 of Tate Britain (until 5 April 2009). Sometimes I yearn for a
different ordering of the art world, in which important artists who are
not — and may never be — brand names nevertheless receive the proper
showing the quality of their work deserves. Victor Pasmore (1908–98)
is a major figure in 20th-century British art, a superb and poetic
realist painter (Whistler meets Seurat) who underwent a much-publicised
conversion to abstraction in 1948. Thereafter he produced collages and
contructions of radical geometric impulse and wonderful organic abstract
paintings. A great draughtsman and subtle colourist, Pasmore is not at
the height of fashion these days. His centenary is celebrated by a
single room at Tate Britain, which, however good, is too meagre a
representation. Interestingly, it’s also curated by Chris Stephens,
and it comes garlanded with a revealing quote from David Sylvester,
better known for his championship of Bacon. Of Pasmore he said: ‘No
other British artist of the 20th century has produced such a quantity of
beautiful work.’ That’s praise.
One
of the most elusive and enigmatic creative geniuses of modern times,
Francis Bacon was a man of endless contradictions and facets. In this
invaluable book Michael Peppiatt, a major art critic and close friend of
Bacon's, offers an entertaining and uniquely well-informed portrait of
this complex artist. Peppiatt's collection of interviews and essays spans
more than forty years - from 1963, when the two men met, to 2007, when
Peppiatt wrote an essay explaining Bacon's passionate involvement with
Van Gogh. The pieces in between include discussions of Bacon's working
methods and techniques, his unlikely relationship with his London
dealer, his attitude toward Christian belief and classical myth, and his
defining friendship with the eminent French writer Michel Leiris.
Peppiatt also provides fascinating anecdotes about the artist's early
life, his intimate relationships, and his connections with the artists
who were his contemporaries and friends. In addition, among the
interviews reproduced for the book are new transcripts of two interviews
presenting previously omitted material that brings out many little-known
aspects of Bacon's presence and personality.
Yale
University Press 2008
Francis Bacon with Michael Peppiatt
It all began with
Freud and Bacon...
She's
made a bestselling career examining the mores of suburbia, but as Shena
Mackay admits, her literary life started in the fleshpots of Soho
Rachel
Cooke, The Observer, Sunday November 9 2008
Mackay was born in
1944. Her father did a series of jobs, from miner to ship's purser, and
was often away; his marriage to Mackay's mother was mostly unhappy. She
wanted to be a writer early on, a poet preferably. 'It was through
reading, and loving words. I could read when I was three.'
Shortly before she
left school - the family was living in Blackheath by this time and
Mackay was attending Kidbrooke comprehensive, which she hated - she won
a Daily Mirror poetry competition, judged by the likes of Kathleen Raine.
The prize was £25. 'It was a huge amount of money, but because I was
leaving school [she left with two O-levels], I had to buy these boring
clothes for my job as an office junior; it had to be squandered on
pleated skirts and cardigans.'
The job didn't work
out but, soon after, she got another one, working in an antique shop in
Chancery Lane. This turned out to be life-changing, in its way. The shop
was owned by the parents of David Sylvester, the art critic, with whom
she later had an affair (he was the father of her daughter, Cecily
Brown, the artist). The Sylvesters' son-in-law, playwright Frank Marcus,
who is probably best known for The Killing of Sister George,
worked there with her. It was Marcus who encouraged her to keep at the
novel she had begun writing. 'He found me an agent. He had it typed out
for me.'
David Sylvester,
meanwhile, introduced her to every painter you care to think of, from
Frank Auerbach to Jasper Johns. She would visit the Colony Room Club in
Soho with him, for nights out with Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud. 'Yes,
I did meet them, but I was a young girl and they were middle-aged.' But
she realised how famous they were? 'Oh, yeah. I mean, I met Giacometti.
I certainly realised who he was. Sometimes, the impression is given that
I used to hang out in the Colony Room. But I didn't really. They were
David's friends, not mine.
'Francis could be
scary. He could either be lovely or spiteful - though he was never
spiteful to me. He liked me, so that was all right. It was a great time
and I loved it, but at a certain point, that kind of life becomes quite
sad. I realised it was much more glamorous actually to have a real
life.'
Art world's
after-hours haunt, the Colony Room, may be saved from closure
Jack
Malvern, The Times, November
8, 2008
The impending
closure of the Colony Room, the Soho drinking den patronised by louche
figures from the art world including Francis Bacon and Tracey Emin, may
be averted after an intervention by English Heritage.
The advisory body is
rushing through an inspection to determine whether the club, which has
witnessed 60 years of booze-soaked misbehaviour by some of Britain's
most creative drunks, merits listed status.
The club is under
threat after Michael Wojas, its secretary and chief barman, said that he
would close it when he retires in March. He claims that the lease is up,
but members who wish to preserve the club are concerned that he may have
surrendered the lease without consulting them.
If English Heritage
is impressed, it will recommend to the Government that the club be
listed as culturally important. The final decision rests with Barbara
Follett, the Culture Minister.
Artists who are
campaigning to keep the Colony Room open believe that listed status will
help them to come to an arrangement with the landlord because it would
be harder to redevelop the premises.
The club, a
single-room venue founded to provide a refuge for members when the pubs
closed, has also received the support of Boris Johnson, the Mayor of
London, who wrote an open letter this week to Simon Thurley, the head of
English Heritage. “I hope that you would agree that it is important
for London to preserve venues and collections that bring inspiration and
artistic pleasure to local, national and international visitors,” he
wrote.
English Heritage
told The Times that the building must have architectural and
historical merit on a national scale. “We are aware that there are
development pressures on the building,” a spokeswoman said. “The
application has been pushed towards the top of the pile to be
considered. We are aware of the enthusiasm about the cultural relevance
of the building, and the people who are associated with it.”
She said that an
inspection would take place within a fortnight.
Rosemarie MacQueen,
head of planning for Westminster City Council, said that if listed
status were granted it would be an important consideration if the
landlord attempted to change the building. “The Colony Room is
basically a room with a staircase,” she said. “The real interest is
20th-century culture. If it is listed, that is the thing you're trying
to protect. Any application for change of use would have to take that
into consideration.”
The club has been a
regular haunt for artists and musicians including Lucian Freud, Peter
O'Toole, John Hurt, Sir Peter Blake, George Melly and Damien Hirst.
Mr Wojas did not
respond to inquiries yesterday.
Boris Johnson moves
to save the Colony
The FIRST POST,
Wednesday November 5, 2008
London mayor Boris
Johnson is attempting to save one of the city's seediest
cultural landmarks, the Colony Room Club in Soho, which is currently
under threat of closure. In a letter to the chairman of English
Heritage, Simon Thurley, Johnson pledges his
unequivocal support for the preservation of the drinking dive, once the
haunt of the painter Francis Bacon and in more recent
times Damien Hirst and his YBA (Young British Artists)
cronies, and calls for it to be listed.
"I write to you
in support of the campaign to prevent the iconic Colony Room Club from
possible closure," writes Boris. "The Colony is a unique and
important place for the capital both in terms of cultural and
architectural significance. It represents an important part of part of
London's post-war cultural heritage... I hope that you would agree that
it is important for London to preserve venues and collections that bring
inspiration and artistic pleasure to local, national and international
visitors."
So why does it need
saving? As reported here, the club's secretary and head barman, Michael
Wojas, announced he was closing the club in March. It later
transpired that Wojas had neglected to pay the rent on the premises for
several months and recently, to the astonishment of everyone trying to
save the place, he surrendered the lease to the landlord, an act which
effectively signed the 60-year-old club’s death warrant.
In reaction to this,
the members who want
the club to survive - the Save The Colony Room Campaign - are attempting
to oust Wojas and the committee that supports him at an annual general
meeting today, a move they see as regrettable but essential if they are
to have any chance of saving their beloved club from extinction.
"It's a
desperate situation," says a member of the campaign team.
"Michael Wojas will probably win the vote at the AGM because he has
been ringing old members who know nothing about what he's been up to.
"What's
unbelievable is that he maintains he's representing the interests of the
members. By closing the club? By handing over the lease? By not paying
the rent and flogging off the art works? I don't think so."
Ah, the art works.
In September, Wojas put up for sale many of the Colony's artworks,
raising some £40,000. This was allegedly to be his "pension
pot". But the Save the Colony Room Campaign said that many of these
were gifts to the club and so not Wojas's to sell, a claim supported by
many of the donors. As a result of intense legal activity, the campaign
managed to have the proceeds from the auction, held by the London firm
Lyon and Turnbull, placed in an escrow account until true title of
ownership had been established.
Christie's
The Modern Age:
The Collection of Alice Lawrence
5 - 6
November 2008
New York, Rockefeller Plaza
Lot 44/Sale 2255
Lucien Freud (b. 1922) Head of a Man
Head of a Man 1966 Lucien Freud
Lot Description
Lucian Freud (b.
1922) Head of a Man
signed and dated 'Lucian F 1966' (on the reverse)
oil on canvas
18¼ x 15 3/8 in. (46.4 x 39.1 cm.)
Painted in 1966
Estimate
$1,800,000 -
$2,500,000
Price Realized
$1,800,000 -
$2,500,000
Pre-Lot Text
The Collection of
Alice Lawrence
Provenance
Marlborough Gallery,
London.
Mr. H. J. Renton, London
His sale; Sotheby's, London, 30 June 1988, lot 643.
Acquired at the above sale by the late owner.
Painted in 1966, Head
of a Man is one of only two oil portraits by Lucian Freud of George
Dyer, the lover and companion of his friend and fellow artist Francis
Bacon. The picture dates from a period when Freud and Bacon were seeing
each other on an almost daily basis. Their friendship, which had been
struck up during the 1940s following their introduction to each other by
Graham Sutherland, was important to both men on a personal and an
artistic level. Freud and Dyer featured in a great number of Bacon's
paintings. However, Bacon and Dyer each appeared only in two of Freud's
oils (his 1952 portrait of Bacon, formerly in the collection of the
Tate, was stolen when on exhibition in London), making Head of a Man an
extremely rare insight into their friendship.
Dyer has become one of the most legendary of Bacon's friends and
companions; their relationship even inspired the 1998 film Love Is
the Devil, starring Daniel Craig and Derek Jacobi. Bacon, himself an
incorrigible spinner of exaggerated tales, claimed he had caught Dyer, a
petty criminal, in the act when he attempted to break into the artist's
home, and that this marked the beginning of their relationship. However,
a more prosaic and more indicative explanation of their first meeting
was included in Michael Peppiatt's biography of Bacon, who explained
that in 1964:
I was drinking with John Deakin, who had just done some photographs for
me, and lots of others. George was down the far end of the bar and he
came over and said, You all seem to be having a good time. Can I buy you
a drink?' And that's how I met him. I might never have noticed him
otherwise (Bacon, quoted in M. Peppiatt, Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an
Enigma, London, 1999, p. 211).
Dyer had been brought up in a family that had a history of petty crime,
and it was in this vocation that he attempted to make his way. He was
caught often enough that he spent time first in borstals as a young
offender and then in prison. There was a physical presence to the man
that implied strength and violence, and this, along with his crooked
nose, has been captured in Freud's Head of a Man, where the sheer
bulk of head and shoulders are emphasised. This serves to highlight the
sensitivity of the eyes and facial expression which, according to
memoirs, were often in stark contrast to the gangster image that he
tried to project, mimicking the style of figures such as the Kray twins
in his sharp suits and thin ties.
From the point of Dyer's first acquaintance with Bacon, he was seldom
out of his company, and came to figure in many of his paintings too. Now
Dyer, no longer actively embroiled in the criminal fraternity that had
formerly provided his milieu, was in the company of a celebrated artist
and bon vivant, a situation that meant that he and his friends seldom
lacked for alcohol or company. Bacon's own recollections about Dyer
provide some insight into the paradoxes and complexities of the man who
tragically took his own life on the eve of the painter's 1971
retrospective in Paris:
His stealing at least gave him a raison d'être, even though he
wasn't very successful at it and was always in and out of prison. But it
gave him something to think about. When George was inside, he'd spend
all his time planning what he would do when he came out. And so on. I
thought I was helping him when I took him out of that life. I knew the
next time he was caught he'd get a heavy sentence. And I thought, well,
life's too short to spend half of it in prison. But I was wrong, of
course. He'd have been in and out of prison, but at least he'd have been
alive. He became totally impossible with drink. The rest of the time,
when he was sober, he could be terribly engaging and gentle. He used to
love being with children and animals. I think he was a nicer person than
me. He was more compassionate. He was much too nice to be a crook. That
was the trouble. He only went in for stealing because he had been born
into it (Bacon, quoted in David Sylvester, Looking back at Francis
Bacon, London, 2000, p. 135).
The strange tension between Dyer's criminality and his gentle, tender
side is in evidence in Head of a Man.
In Head of a Man, even the brushwork owed its existence in part
to the artistic relationship between Bacon and Freud. When they had
first met, and indeed into the 1950s, Freud had painted in a meticulous
style, usually seated at his easel, using extremely fine sable-hair
brushes. It was with some justification that Herbert Read had referred
to him as the "Ingres of Existentialism." However, in the
early 1950s, in part through a feeling of the constraints of that style
and influenced by Bacon's own handling of paint, Freud began to use
larger brushes, standing behind his easel, allowing him more movement,
more gesture, and therefore resulting in pictures that were more
painterly, as is the case in Head of a Man. "His work
impressed me but his personality affected me," Freud has explained
of his relationship to Bacon.
It was through that and through talking to him a lot. He talked a great
deal about the paint itself carrying the form, and imbuing the paint
with a sort of life. He talked about packing a lot of things into one
single brushstroke, which amused and excited me and I realized it was a
million miles from anything I could ever do (Freud, quoted in W. Feaver,
Lucian Freud, New York, 2007, p. 321).
Within a short time, Freud had developed the virtuoso painterly style
for which he is so famed, and which is clear in the almost organic way
that he has built up the sense of flesh in Dyer's features in Head of
a Man. There is a pulsing impression of life, of vitality in the
oils in this picture, that demonstrates his insistence that, "I
would wish my portraits to be of the people, not like them. Not having a
look of the sitter, being them. I didn't want to get just a likeness
like a mimic, but to portray them, like an actor. As far as I am
concerned the paint is the person. I want it to work for me just as
flesh does" (Freud, quoted in L. Gowing, Lucian Freud,
London, 1982, pp. 190-91). It is for this reason that Freud continues to
focus, in his portraiture, on those people who form a part of his family
or his circle, people whom he knows and who can relax in front of him,
while being scrutinized by him, for long enough for the painting to be
complete.
This sense of life, captured in oils, perhaps reveals some artistic
cousinship between Freud and the seventeenth-century Dutch painter Frans
Hals. Discussing Hals, Freud celebrated that vivid sense of life that he
managed to capture in his laughing cavaliers, banqueters and revelers:
They still shock people very much. I remember Francis had a friend
called George (Dyer) who had never looked at any painting in his life.
He'd been a sort of lookout man, a very bad one, and he saw a book of
Hals, he looked at it and his face absolutely lit up. He said what a
marvelous idea making people look like that. He thought they were
modern. That's right really. I mean they are all talking, eating,
grinning - I think of Shakespeare a bit - done from a kind of detached
(and not all that detached) wit and observation" (Freud, quoted in
Feaver, op.cit., 2007, p. 322).
In Head of a Man, while Dyer may not be talking, eating or
grinning, Freud has nonetheless captured a similarly vivid sense of his
subject's life and character.
Head of a Man 1966 Lucien Freud
Top 100 Treasures
Roberta
Maneker, Art & Antiques, November 2008
If
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then where does value lie? Ask the
child who tucks away a seashell as a souvenir of summer; or the flea
market hunter-gatherer who pays a pittance for antique pottery others
are ignoring; or the mutual fund manager who knows a stock’s worth can
change by the hour; or the Russian billionaire who has just plunked down
more than $80 million for a must-have trio of Francis Bacon’s
exquisite, anguished-expressionist canvases. Value is in the eyes,
hearts and minds of those who recognize and create it. While often
measured in dollars or rubles or euro or yen, in the art market, at
least, it’s this ineffable sense of the kind of appreciation certain
objects deserve that helps transform price-tagged objects into
inestimable, ever-more-desirable treasures.
2:
Bringing Home the Bacon
The Francis Bacon market is exploding. In 2007 alone, Bacon works at
auction brought more than $250 million. In May his monumental Triptych,
1976, painted in muted, if not lugubrious tones, became the most
expensive work of contemporary art sold publicly, bringing $86.3
million. It might, however, be a bargain per square inch: Each panel
measures approximately a staggering 6 by 5 feet. Sotheby’s announced a
European private buyer, but other sources named London-based Russian
billionaire Roman Abramovich. — R.M.
FRANCIS BACON
Les sublimes
tortures de Bacon
Les
Échos, France, Lundi 3 Novembre 2008
Rendez-vous à
Londres pour découvrir les aspects méconnus d'un peintre de génie et
de tourments.
A
la Tate Britain,
jusqu'au
4 janvier.
tél.
: 00.44.207.887.88.88.
Faire
sienne l'histoire de l'art pour être capable de créer une nouvelle
peinture... Tout comme Picasso, Francis Bacon (1909-1992) puisa dans le
répertoire classique de la peinture. Mais, contrairement à son aîné
espagnol, l'Irlandais de Londres s'intéressait plutôt aux
reproductions des oeuvres, comme s'il redoutait la puissance du contact
avec la toile. Jusqu'au 4 janvier, la Tate Britain le montre sous un
jour inédit. Une rétrospective magistrale qui met en exergue des
toiles moins connues et les dernières recherches issues de l'étude de
son lieu de travail.
Une
des grandes obsessions de Bacon est une reproduction qu'il possédait en
plusieurs exemplaires du pape Innocent X, peint par Vélasquez en 1650,
aujourd'hui conservé à la galerie Doria Pamphilij de Rome. Selon l'ami
du peintre et historien Michael Peppiatt, Bacon a peint pas moins de 45 Papes
entre 1949 et 1971. Mais il n'a jamais cherché à voir la toile de Vélasquez,
même lors de son passage à Rome.
Dévoreur de
photographies
En
homme du XXe siècle, il était un dévoreur de photographies. Les
images jonchaient le sol de son atelier de Londres. C'est cette matière
première assemblée par une sensibilité tourmentée, agrémentée d'un
sens des couleurs hors du commun - il avait exercé dans sa jeunesse le
métier de décorateur -, qui donne corps à l'oeuvre de Francis Bacon.
A
la Tate Britain, l'espace a été divisé en thématiques pour ouvrir
les yeux du spectateur sur des points clefs de son langage. La première
abordée, celle de l'animal, est un leitmotiv dans sa création. Montrer
l'aspect le plus sauvage de l'être humain, c'est produire des corps
torturés et tordus, des visages déformés par des cris infinis. En
1944, il crée Trois études pour personnages de la crucifixion reconnues
comme son premier chef-d'oeuvre. Sur un fond orange, un être surréaliste
en gris dont émerge un cou tendu et une énorme bouche. Le catalogue de
l'exposition explique que cette imagerie de l'homme bestial est puisée
dans un fonds de photos qui est disposé dans le studio de l'artiste et
qui mélange des reproductions de Vélasquez, Grünewald, Rodin et aussi
des photos de leaders nazis comme Joseph Goebbels en train de discourir.
Une
des caractéristiques fortes de la peinture de Bacon consiste aussi à
circonscrire un champ de vision au sein de la toile. C'est au sujet de
cette « zone » qu'est consacrée une partie de l'exposition. Etude
de chien de 1952 est une toile dépouillée au centre de
laquelle figure l'animal. Il est dans un cercle délimité par une ligne
verte, lui-même situé dans un polygone bordé de orange. Bacon
explique qu'il a puisé l'idée de zone dans son expérience de décorateur
et qu'elle permet d'extraire le sujet de son environnement naturel.
Etudes et soirs
d'ivresse
Crucifixion
: voilà un thème prisé par le peintre masochiste. De la viande, du
sang, de la douleur... une véritable boucherie, comme dans les « Trois
études pour une crucifixion » de 1962. L'ensemble est saturé de
teintes fortes mises au service du drame. Le sol est orange, les murs
rouges en contraste avec des formes géométriques noires. Les études
faites autour de cette peinture, réalisée un soir de désespoir et
d'ivresse, montrent l'influence des Demoiselles d'Avignon,
de Picasso, du crucifix de Cimabue à l'église Santa Croce de Florence,
mais aussi d'une photo de Mussolini pendu par les pieds, prise après sa
mort.
Une
salle entière de la Tate Britain explique comment le peintre fait usage
des images. L'étude du mouvement en photographie par Muybridge à la
fin du XIXe siècle se retrouve dans sa peinture, tout comme un portrait
photo d'Isabel Rawsthorne debout dans une rue de Soho dont le visage va
être consciencieusement déformé et replacé au sein d'une sorte d'arène
cerclée de bleu roi. En 1981, Bacon écrivait à l'écrivain français
Michel Leiris : « Nous sommes forcés d'inventer des méthodes par
lesquelles la réalité peut prendre le dessus sur notre système
nerveux d'une manière nouvelle qui permette néanmoins de ne pas perdre
la vision objective du modèle. »
JUDITH
BENHAMOU-HUET
Own a Francis
Bacon? We’ll Pay You $$!
Sotheby’s, lender
of last resort.
Alexandra
Peers, New York Magazine, November 2, 2008
One art-world business
is booming: collectors looking to borrow against works they own,
especially before the fall sales threaten to lower values. “We’ve
been contacted by lots of people who are feeling some sort of margin
call,” says Sotheby’s CEO, Bill Ruprecht. Other lenders have
virtually stopped lending against art recently, but Ruprecht says
Sotheby’s is still “very comfortable” doing so. (At 2007’s end,
the auction house had $176.4 million loaned out; by the middle of this
year, it was $212 million.) Tobias Meyer, who runs the contemporary-art
department, says he’s also seeing more “consignment
advances”—sellers agreeing to put their art on the block and getting
some money up front. But he’s also finding owners disappointed by
their holdings’ worth. “Just because we sold a great, rare $80
million Francis Bacon, everyone with a Bacon thinks theirs is worth $40
million,” he says. “It doesn’t work that way.”
Francis Bacon,
Urbanist, at Tate Britain
Ken Livingstone,
Joseph Rykwert and others discuss art and architecture.
Text
by Ned Beauman | DazedDigital,
31 October 2008
Would
Francis Bacon prefer the London of today to the London he actually grew
up in? That was the question posed last week at the second of two
Architecture Foundation panels at Tate Britain, this time featuring
architects Nigel Coates and Denise Scott Brown, critics Joe Kerr and
Joseph Rykwert, and former mayor Ken Livingstone.
Londoners, argued Coates in his opening keynote, often feel a great
excitement about the fact that the city decays faster than it can be
rebuilt, and Bacon’s attraction to the “entropic aspects” of
cities comes through clearly in his paintings. So does his attraction to
cramped, crowded places – pubs, butcher shops, boxing matches and back
alleys - all of which anticipate the claustrophobic spaces he put down
on canvas. Also influential were the possibility of impending doom that
characterised much of the 1950s, and a certain disillusionment about the
concrete sterility of what was being thrown up to repair the destruction
of the Blitz.
In the clean, safe, prosperous modern London, of course, all that
darkness is mostly gone, but the sterility is still here, simply
transfigured from concrete into glass and steel. Kerr drew a parallel
between the way that, in the Thatcher era, the city became predictable
and therefore lost a certain complex, inscrutable eroticism, and the way
that, after the passage of the Wolfenden Act that liberalised
homosexuality, gay people were no longer driven into the small, dark,
weird spaces that many of them came to relish. But is it dangerous to be
nostalgic about a vanished London? Yes, said Rykwert: every generation
thinks that London isn’t as good as it was.
Ken Livingstone, addressing this issue, described himself as an ‘urban
chauvinist’, for whom cities are all that really matter. He argued
that the post-war Abercrombie plan to reduce the population of London to
five and a half million would have led to a horribly dull capital, and
that, although today’s London may have lost some of its looseness, it
is at least full of human diversity, which Bacon would have appreciated;
and the real challenge for cities like Shanghai and Mumbai is to be open
to population change, as well as population growth. Livingstone
admitted, however, that there is one aspect of modern London that he’s
glad he didn’t grow up with: “None of us had our own flat or our own
car, so thank god there was no CCTV in alleys back then or we all would
have been 25-year-old virgins.”
Bacon
in close focus
Rebecca Daniels praises the curators' discriminating selection of
works in Tate's impressive Bacon exhibition.
Rebecca
Daniels, Apollo, 1st November, 2008
Despite
claims that the Tate's Francis Bacon exhibition is the biggest
retrospective of him ever staged, it is, in fact, substantially smaller
than the gallery's 1985 show. However, the decision to be more selective
has resulted in a very high-quality exhibition. It is really a
celebration of Bacon's larger paintings and the few smaller works
included, such as Study for Head of George Dyer (1967; private
collection), tend to be over-shadowed. The focus on large-scale works is
justified given the crowds likely to flock to this show and the
paintings have been generously spaced, maximising the chances for an
unimpaired view of them.
This is particularly apparent in the opening room, which is hung with
only seven works, introducing the paintings that Bacon completed after
Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (around 1944;
Tate). The absence of that seminal work from Room 1 (it is included in a
later room devoted to the Crucifixion) prevents the viewer from
appreciating it as Bacon subsequently intended: he made clear that it
was the painting that launched his career and anything he completed
prior to it should be destroyed. Also missing, undoubtedly due to its
fragile condition, is Painting 1946 (1946; Museum of Modern Art,
New York), a work that held a lifelong importance for Bacon. These
exclusions from Room I highlight the fact that this is the first
exhibition held here since Bacon died and, without the control he
exercised over the previous Tate show, the curators have had a new
freedom in the presentation and reassessment of his art.
There are two principal thematic detours from what is a loosely
chronological hang, and these provide the most dramatic and visually
powerful displays in the exhibition. The first features Bacon's
recurring preoccupation with the theme of the Crucifixion, the earliest
version being the haunting Crucifixion (1933, Murderme, London),
which Herbert Read illustrated in Art Now (1933), when Bacon was
unknown. Bacon's art is often characterised as violent and brutal but,
with a few exceptions, this does not hold up under analysis. However,
the Crucifixion triptychs are indeed violent, as the exhibition's
curator Chris Stephens noted in a BBC interview, and the decision by him
and his co-curator, Matthew Gale, to hang Three Studies for a
Crucifixion (1962; Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York) and Crucifixion
(1965; Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich; Fig. 2) facing each other, as if
in gladiatorial combat, is inspired.
A source for the mutilated bodies that appear in both the 1962 and the
1965 Crucifixion paintings is probably, as Martin Harrison has observed
in the catalogue that accompanies the exhibition, an illustration in a
book Bacon owned, The True Aspects of the Algerian Revolution (1957).
The prominence of carcasses in both triptychs was prompted by a feature
on abattoirs in Paris Match in November 1961 (which was found in
Bacon's studio). Furthermore, the controversial inclusion of a swastika
in the 1965 Crucifixion was influenced by photographs of Hitler
and his entourage. Therefore, the inspiration for the motifs in these
important triptychs is drawn, as in so much of Bacon's art, from
magazines, newspapers and books. Yet, despite the importance of this
material, several reviewers have denounced the exhibitions inclusion of
a room devoted to archival material as a distraction from the paintings.
To me, the archive room enhances the experience of Bacon's work, as it
adds to an understanding of Bacon's preparatory methods in the same way
that Michelangelo's preliminary studies (incidentally a major source of
inspiration to Bacon) enhance an understanding of his finished frescoes.
The second thematic room, 'Memorial', is devoted to triptychs of George
Dyer, Bacon's lover and muse. The three large triptychs were all
completed in the years following Dyer's death in October 1971. The
first, Triptych - In memory of George Dyer (1971; Fondation
Beyeler, Riehen/Basel; Fig. 1) is unusual in Bacon's oeuvre as it
appears to illustrate episodes in Dyer's life, while Triptych,
May-June 1973 (1973; private collection, Switzerland) recalls events
of his lonely suicide by graphically showing him vomiting in a sink in
one panel and in another slumped on a toilet (where he was found dead).
Despite Bacon's dislike of narrative interpretation, these triptychs
seem to encourage a biographical reading, an approach that the curators
have invited by collecting these works under the heading 'Memorial'.
While it is tempting to analyse these works solely as a sentimental and
nostalgic pining for lost love
- and there is undoubtedly an element of
that poignantly expressed in Bacon's diary on 24 October 1972 ('George
died a year today')
- it must also be remembered that shortly before his
death Dyer had planted drugs in Bacon's studio, leading to Bacon's
arrest and trial only four months before Dyer's suicide. It is perhaps
because such complex personal emotions underlie these works that Bacon,
unusually, has been unable to frustrate a narrative reading of his
works.
Bacon's penchant for painting in themes is well represented and there is
a good selection of popes, businessmen, crouching figures and animal
paintings. The decision to hang the paintings at an extremely low level
(often just above the skirting boards) enables the viewer to examine the
variations in Bacon's application of paint. Nowhere is this more marked
than in Head II (1949; Ulster Museum, Belfast; Fig. 3), where the
top half of the canvas has paint so thick that it seems impenetrable
(Bacon was trying to capture the effect of rhinoceros skin) but the
lower left is just raw canvas (revealing also that Bacon painted on the
unprimed side of the canvas). Subtle nuances in technique and colour can
be appreciated with the low hang of the series works, particularly of
the Popes, where the marked differences in such compositional elements
as the 'space frames', curtains or 'shuttering' and the depiction of the
throne are worthy of close attention.
The one problematic aspect of the hang is the decision to break up the
series paintings, particularly the crouching figures, which are
displayed over several different rooms and therefore offer no chance to
view them comparatively. Nevertheless, in the case of the businessmen -
which are all hung in one room - interspersing them with animal
paintings forces one to view them independently of each other, and
subtle differences appeared that I had not noticed before. The
exhibition also has a wonderful range of Bacon's important late works,
particularly a room filled predominantly with triptychs from the 1960s
to 1980s, including Triptych (1976; private collection), which
was recently sold in London for the highest price ever paid for a
post-war work of art.
The quality and range of the works on display provide an opportunity to
show Bacon at his best to a new generation too young to have seen the
1985 show. I left the exhibition feeling, as one should, visually
exhausted but exhilarated.
Rebecca Daniels is a researcher on Francis Bacon: The Catalogue
Raisonne.
Bacon har en
stillhet mitt i fasan
FRUSEN
OBJEKTIVITET Trots skräcken och plågan hos figurerna är Francis
Bacons penselskrift ömsint, delikat. Carl-Johan Malmberg har sett Tates
tredje retrospektiv med den irländsk-brittiske målaren, och läst en
bok som belyser det sakrala hos Bacon.
Francis Bacon.
Studies for a Portrait
Michael
PeppiattYale
University Press
Även recension av
Francis Bacon, Tate Britain, London
SVD Sweden, 31 Oktober
2008
Det
sägs ibland att England bara haft två och en halv verkligt betydande
målare: William Blake, William Turner – och så Francis Bacon (1909–1992);
han räknas bara som en halv eftersom han var född på Irland.
Av 1900-talets engelska målare är Bacon hur som helst den enda som
under seklet nådde utanför England, och det trots – eller kanske
tack vare – att hans måleri redan vid debuten 1945 med triptyken Three
studies for figures at the base of a crucifixion, ett måleriskt
bombnedslag, gick stick i stäv med de rådande abstrakta strömningarna.
Vid den tiden förstod bara några få Bacons betydelse, bland dem de
tongivande kritikerna Herbert Read och Kenneth Clark, liksom ledningen
för Tate Gallery. Där tog man något motvilligt emot den
skräckinjagande triptyken några år efter tillkomsten, som gåva av
konstnärens dåvarande älskare, en förmögen affärsman.
I höst är Bacon aktuell med sin tredje retrospektiv på Tate (de
tidigare var 1962 och 1985). Det är en storslagen utställning som ger
en enastående överblick över livsverket. Triptyken är givetvis
central, inte bara som startpunkten för konstnärskapet. Här finns
mycket av det som under de kommande decennierna skulle komma att
känneteckna Bacon, denne envist borrande mullvad: figurernas
monstrositet, det klaustrofobiska och samtidigt gränslösa rummet, den
kliniska ljussättningen, den relativt tunt pålagda, glanslösa färgen,
och en underligt frusen objektivitet, en stillhet mitt i fasan –
kanske det som Bacon själv, apropå Picasso, skulle kalla ”the
brutality of fact”.
Bacon tillhör de konstnärer som kombinerar det radikalt främmande med
något man ändå tycker sig känna igen; Freud döpte denna egenskap
hos så mycket stor konst till das Unheimliche, det kusliga. En av
hemligheterna med Bacon är legeringen av det gengångaraktiga med det
aldrig tidigare skådade. Vi har varit här förr – och vi är här
för första gången.
Han sökte aldrig sin stil, han fann den tidigt, eller rättare sagt,
han trädde fram som målare först när han funnit den. När han gjorde
triptyken var han 35 år. I Tate-retrospektiven samsas den med ett drygt
sjuttiotal andra verk, flera av dem triptyker, men denna första ter sig
nu nästan intim. Bacons favoritstorlek kom senare att bli betydligt
större dukar som rymde människan i helformat, dukar om 2x1,5 meter,
och utställningen visar hans besatthet av det formatet.
En viss monotoni står på spel; målningarna är vid första påseende
mycket lika varandra: en enstaka eller ett par figurer, manieristiskt
vridna, i ett rum med gåtfulla, liksom provisoriska, kanske mer för
kroppen än för ögat förnimbara avspjälkningar.
Det likartade förstärks av att samtliga målningar är glasade och de
flesta dessutom i tunga guldramar. Jag har alltid trott att detta var
galleriernas och samlarnas påhitt, det gör Bacons säregna,
spindelvävstunna måleriska textur svår att uppfatta med mindre än
att man trycker näsan mot glaset.
Men Michael Peppiatt, den främste kännaren av Bacons person och konst
sedan David Sylvester dog, skriver i sin nyutkomna essäsamling Francis
Bacon. Studies for a Portrait: ”Bacon ville att hans bilder skulle
bestå; och det var säkert det underliggande skälet till att han lät
glasa dem i allt deras överdåd och förse dem med massiva guldramar,
med den råa paradoxen och gåtfullheten intakt, precis som de
inneslutna mästerverken runt om i världens kyrkor och museer.”
Peppiatt skriver detta i The Sacred and the Profane, bokens
viktigaste essä och tveklöst bland det bästa som skrivits om honom.
Han visar hur Bacon i sin våldsamma uppfattning av det sakrala går vid
sidan av den kristna mytologi han hämtat så mycket visuell inspiration
från (alla dessa korsfästelser), och liksom lösgör element, smärtan,
det plågade skriket, offrandet av människokroppen, ur berättelserna
till ett slags slagkraftiga punktfenomen. Den plågade, sargade kroppen
blir vardagsmänniskans. Skriet, som finns redan i triptyken från 1945,
blir till existentiell urbild. Vi är födda att dö och däremellan
finns skriet.
Jag vet inte om någon har kopplat ihop Bacons återkommande skri –
inte minst de skrikande påvarna, hans mest kända bilder – med
Jesajas 40:e kapitel där det, i den engelska bibelöversättning som
Bacon läste, heter: ”The voice said, Cry… All flesh is grass.”
Här finns inte bara urskriket – Gud uppmanar Jesaja att skrika ut
kroppens dödlighet. Här finns också en möjlig urcell för Bacons
besatthet av kroppen, köttet.
I vår gamla bibelöversättning heter det ”Allt kött är hö.”
De orden är en god sammanfattning av Bacons måleri. Han förvandlar
det av våld, av lust, av båda tillsammans, eller bara av att finnas
till plågade mänskliga köttet till gräsliknande penselstråk. Hans
penselskrift är trots skräcken och skriken hos figurerna ömsint,
delikat. Det ser man vid närgranskning.
En vakt ber mig att inte gå så nära målningarna. Jag förklarar att
jag gärna skulle gå in i dem helt och hållet. Men inte i deras
händelser utan i deras stoff.
Carl-Johan
Malmberg
Tapped Out?
By
CAROL VOGEL
The
New York Times October
29, 2008
A $60 million
painting by Kazimir Malevich. A $40 million self-portrait by Francis
Bacon. It hardly seems the ideal moment to be selling such pricey art.
As Sotheby’s, Christie’s and Phillips de Pury brace for their big
fall auctions in New York, starting with a sale of 71 Impressionist and
Modern paintings, drawings and sculptures at Sotheby’s on Monday
night, anxiety is the dominant mood.
Only 10 days ago,
Sotheby’s reported a loss of $15 million in guarantees — the
undisclosed amount that the houses promise to sellers regardless of the
outcome of a sale — from recent auctions in Hong Kong and London.
Millions of dollars
of art went unsold at those September and October sales, with many works
going for well below their estimates. Since then auction house officials
have been busy trying to get sellers to lower their expectations. Much
of the art up for auction this week and next was secured early in the
summer, when the world seemed a far different place. Now, with the net
worth of so many buyers plummeting, auction houses have been trying to
persuade sellers to lower their reserves, that is, the undisclosed
minimum price that a bidder must meet for the art to be sold.
“Prices of all
assets have fallen — stocks, gold, oil, real estate — and it would
be unrealistic to expect works of art to be immune to the market’s
pressures,” said Marc Porter, president of Christie’s in America.
“We are actively encouraging consignors to set reasonable reserves.”
Minimizing risk is
the message of the moment. While Sotheby’s has said that it has
provided only half the number of guarantees it did a year ago, the
company still has outstanding guarantees of $285.5 million.
Unlike Sotheby’s,
Christie’s is not a public company, and is not obligated to release
figures, but officials there acknowledge having a similar level of risk.
As for buyers, the message is a little trickier. With them, Mr. Porter
said, Christie’s is making the argument that the objects they desire
“might not reappear on the market next season at an even lower price.”
The big question is
who will be buying this expensive art. With hedge-fund traders, Russian
oligarchs and wealthy Middle Easterners having taken a hit in the
financial markets, the auction houses, whistling in the dark, are hoping
for a return of old money.
“Americans who
fled when prices began soaring will jump back into the market but at a
different price level,” said Tobias Meyer, Sotheby’s head of
contemporary art. Among the standouts in the fall lineup at Sotheby’s
are paintings like Edvard Munch’s Vampire (1894), priced to
bring more than $35 million, and an Yves Klein wall relief estimated at
more than $25 million. Christie’s is offering a 1934 portrait of
Picasso’s mistress Marie-Thérèse Walter estimated at $18 million to
$25 million and a Basquiat painting at $12 million and $16 million. “I
still hold the belief that the great works will find buyers,” said Guy
Bennett, of Christie’s. But at what price remains to be seen.
No
Guarantee for This One
EARLY last summer a
New York collector negotiated a hefty guarantee from Christie’s in
consigning his 1964 Study for Self-Portrait by Francis
Bacon for the fall auctions. In the months it took to hammer out details
of the contract, economic turmoil grew so worrisome that Christie’s
got cold feet and withdrew the guarantee.
The auction house
persuaded the seller to offer the Bacon anyway, and it is one of the
highlights of Christie’s Nov. 12 sale. Experts say that the
full-length portrait, in which the artist is shown sitting on a bed, his
body twisted from head to toe, should sell for around $40 million.
Christie’s is
obviously hoping to capitalize on the record prices paid for Bacon’s
works recently. A 1976 Bacon triptych went for $86.3 million in May at
Sotheby’s in New York, and a 1975 self-portrait brought $34.4 million
at Christie’s in London in June. Those were among the highest prices
ever paid for the British artist, who is the subject of a current
exhibition at the Tate in London that travels to the Metropolitan Museum
of Art in New York in May.
Still, there is no
getting around the fact that “the market has changed,” said Brett
Gorvy, co-head of Christie’s postwar and contemporary art department.
Architecture and Design in the Bacon Era: Texture
Mark Cousins
The Architecture
Foundation, Tate Britain Auditorium, Wednesday 1 October 2008
I
can’t remember now whether it was in the catalogue of the current
exhibition of Bacon or whether on it was on one of those panels but at
some point there was a quotation from Bacon saying “I suppose in the
end we’re just meat” and I wanted to try and start off, as it were,
some thoughts about both texture and also materiality by considering
some of the problems, what we might call the aesthetic problems, of meat
especially in that difficult area that we call ugliness or which other
people call ugliness, I want to try and suggest this evening this is not
how it’s normally portrayed and if properly handled is an extremely
powerful and valuable artistic and architectural instrument.
Let
me invite you first to engage in a thought experiment. You look at some
ones face as we scan some ones face we look, as it were, for signs of
expression, in some sense for the way in which the face is thought to be
able to represent emotions or states of mind or whatever.As
we do it invariably we have a fantasy that this expression does not
simply belong to the surface but it has a depth and we frequently
actually experience that as a depth but of course it has this
peculiarity because the depth is not remotely localised.
If
we say he looked sad we don’t say it looked about two centimetres deep
in the sadness of it. Now nowhere I think is it more remarkable than if
you add in to this picture of a face which you experience partly through
the dimension of the depth of its expression then imagine suddenly in
some process, the face suddenly manifests a wound and you suddenly see
that underneath the infinitesimally thin layer of skin there’s blood and
there’s flesh and there’s bone; normally people have a kind of
visceral turning away from this experience. Now if you try to follow
through this action of turning away, we might wonder: what is it that we’re
turning away from?...
The
appearance of the wound indicates suddenly the collapse – a collapse
of what; I mean, I’m going to say representation but I don’t mean it
in a representational way. It’s as if I can’t continue having a
fantasy about the depth of your sadness or the extent of your pleasure;
I can’t do it any longer because, as it were, it is disrupted by the
appearance of a wound. Essentially unless your medically knowledgeable,
what you’re seeing, and I think Bacon was correct to use it in a
general sense, is what he calls meat. Let’s kind of make a formula in
some sense as saying: what meat is at a kind of level of experience, is
almost the collapse of representation or of signification…
This
collapse of representation is I think part of what we might call the
experience of ugliness, the turning away, at which point we might begin
to hypothesise that this is not what I think it is, it is what I think
people experience it as; an experience of the ugly in that sense is
this: it is without signification it is without being a part of the a
space of representation, it is stuff, it is meat…People’s
experience of the ugly - again I’m not saying that’s what it is - is
a defence against this moment - a moment which is too raw and is too,
almost, unnerving; we might say that the popular experience of the ugly
is: it’s that which is there but at the same time, is perceived as it
shouldn’t be there - or sometimes it’s the same but the other way
round: it’s that which is not there but should be.
In
Leroux’s novel The Phantom of the Opera there’s a wonderful
moment when the scene shifter describes to the girls of the corps de
ballet that he has seen the ghost in box five; he describes the ghost to
the girls and he says, in a way in which logic itself can’t tolerate,
but clearly we know exactly what he means, he says: and the ghost has no
nose and that no nose is a horrible thing to look at. It’s something
that isn’t there but should be… I want to suggest that one dimension
of the achievement of Bacon is in a sense to take this problem on board
directly and, in a way that it is very difficult to describe in his
achievement, but has the achievement of as it were, bringing back meat
into our understanding, bringing back meat into a kind of poetics, that
which is always, as it were, normally excluded; I was at the exhibition
on Sunday and it’s not just a question obviously of meat, it is those
strange puddles of existence which you see so clearly in the three
triptychs in homage to George Dyer - it is, indeed, a sublime moment…
Now
in a sense all I’ve said is an attempt to say that what people
describe as being ugly we should consider it a defence and if you can
undo this defence, if, like Bacon, you can propel the spectator into the
midst of meat and find it not only human but essentially human, then, as
it were, you remove some of the defences which so often kind of disable,
I don’t mind putting it bluntly, disable public taste. It is a
struggle. Now if something like this is the case, that I’m more than
aware that I haven’t said directly anything about architecture and
texture, then one of the ways we might consider the issues this evening
is to think within the scope of Bacon’s adult career what also happens
within architecture to be able to do that: at the level of a certain
materiality and at the level of texture, that is to say, to undermine
the public defence against the ugly and actually to propel it towards
something new and powerful and human not in a humanistic way but human
almost in a somewhat unnerving way. Thank you very much.
Art in
the flesh
The Daily’s Whitney Mallett gets a taste for meat as medium and
muse
The McGill Daily,
Monday, Oct 27 | Volume 98, Issue 16
Francis Bacon & Meat by Francis
Giacobetti 1991
“Imagine
you’re hanging from a meat hook.” A dance teacher made this
analogy to me years ago, and I will never forget it. There is
something eerily beautiful about the suspension of raw meat. Of
course, this beauty is matched with the discomfort that comes from
visualizing yourself as a hanging carcass. Painter Francis Bacon would
have probably liked the idea. He once said, “Hams, pigs, tongues,
sides of beef seen in the butcher’s window, all that death, I find
it very beautiful. And it’s all for sale – how unbelievably
surrealistic!”
Bacon
often painted hanging meat. He was not the first artist to be seduced
by the texture, colour, and marbling of raw flesh. Rembrandt painted
his famous Carcass of Beef centuries before and, during Bacon’s
own lifetime, Chaim Soutine rendered a more modern, bloodier version
of Rembrandt’s suspended ox.
In
the later part of the 20th century, meat made a transition from the
subject of art works to the very fabric of them. In 1987, Canadian
artist and Concordia graduate Jana Sterbak first showed her dress
constructed of 50 pounds of salted flank steak in Montreal. Over the
course of the exhibit, Vanitas: Flesh Dress for an Albino Anorectic
transformed from raw to cured state, in some ways imitating the human
aging process. Sterbak followed up her meaty success with another in
1996: Chair Apollinaire, a chair made from over 150 pounds of steak,
also cured. The piece is a pun on the French word for flesh: chair.
Fittingly,
Sterbak strongly emphasizes that her works are not about meat, but
about flesh. “And flesh is what we are!” she adds. A steak’s
muscle, fat, and tissue, when juxtaposed against human flesh,
encourage us to consider our own animality – something that usually
escapes our consciousness. When meat’s typical function is
perverted, and it is presented as flesh and not food, it becomes prime
material for self-reflection.
Chinese
artist Zhang Huan donned a meat suit in his piece My New York to
explore his complex relationship with his adopted city. The suit, made
of raw steaks, was shaped to give Huan a brawny body-builder
aesthetic, but its flayed surface contrasted strength with
vulnerability. During the performance piece, Huan released doves,
alluding to the Buddhist tradition amassing grace by freeing live
animals.
Huan’s
piece was an attempt to reconcile the culture he came from with a
culture thrust upon him. He explains that although a body-builder
slowly builds up muscle, he adopts the aesthetic overnight. Donning
the meat suit parallels his forced adoption of American culture. The
connotations of red meat as a conspicuous example of American society’s
disproportionate consumption cannot be ignored in the piece. Meat is
not just flesh used to explore mortality and self-reflection; for Huan,
it is undoubtedly also a symbol of a culture whose habits of
consumption differ drastically from the rest of the world.
In
a 2005 interview with Jonas Storsve, Sterbak explained: “The two
most evident connotations of flesh, but not necessarily of meat, are
the sexual and the mortal.” The relationship between carnage and
carnality is explored in some of the earliest recorded art using meat.
Carol Schneeman’s 1964 performance Meat Joy – shown first
in Paris and then again in New York City – was a Dionysian piece in
which eight partially nude figures danced and played in raw fish and
chicken, sausage, paint, and paper. It was meant to celebrate flesh as
a material.
The
same year, American performance artist Robert Delford Brown’s Meat
Show also used meat to invoke sexuality. In the Washington Meat
Market, he created brothel-like rooms out of tons of blood and raw
meat strewn with yards and yards of sheer fabric suggestive of
lingerie. Visitors walked through the decorated meat locker in white
coats and were then fed sausages. Brown, notorious for invoking shock
and scandal in his avant-garde art, located the viewers’ own
consumption of meat while meat surrounded them. The show only lasted
three days.
Meat
goes bad fast. Meat art often has to be performed or captured on film
because otherwise it will rot. Its impermanence reminds us of our own
mortality – one day, we too, will rot. Sterbak cures steak to
prevent her work from putrefying, but the piece’s transformation
from fleshy and raw to its shrivelled, salted state recalls changes
that take place in our bodies over time. “Art, when successful,
comes close to resembling life; and life, as well as love, is
ephemeral, perishable, and fleeting,” she professes.
Pinar
Yolacan also uses meat to explore human decay. For Perishables,
she photographed elderly women wearing garments constructed from
poultry and tripe – each piece imitates the individual subject’s
wrinkled face. The state of the aging women and their perishing garb
is immortalized in the photographs. In an interview with The New
York Times in 2004, Yolacan commented on her choice of material:
“I’ve always been interested in the impermanence of things,” she
said.
While
Sterbak and Yolacan prevented their pieces from going rancid, Jan
Fabre exploits the rotting process in his installation piece, Temples
of Meat. The project involved wrapping columns at Ghent University
in Belgium with 200 pounds of decaying steak, bacon, and minced meat
to make them “come alive” by attracting flies. Meat is essentially
lifeless, but at once becomes a source of life, and a metaphor for
life’s transient nature.
Meat’s
expiration illustrates life’s impermanence, and its decomposition
exemplifies the cyclical nature of life and death. Whether it’s
rotting or not, meat can be disgusting. Meat evokes a visceral
reaction: being confronted by a material representation of death can
instinctively repel us. But most of us also depend on meat for
survival. When it is presented before us as art, this complex
relationship is explored.
Meat
exposes us to what is below the skin’s surface. We are often
disconnected from our own insides; for whatever reason, we are
revolted when confronted with a suggestion of the body turned
inside-out. Viewers were repulsed by Chilean artist Gabriela Rivera’s
2005 film Efímero: she covered herself in raw meat strips to
construct a metaphor for the relationship people have with their
mirror image. Meat is intimately related to the body. It resembles our
own flesh; it even becomes a part of us when we ingest it. Disguised
in meat, Rivera’s flayed, Frankenstein-like figure provoked her
audience members to examine their own body images. However, many
people were just shocked and repulsed by the film.
McGill
student Alex Cowan is also interested in meat as provocation. He
strewed rotting scraps around public spaces in Montreal – what he
thought would be a foolproof plan to invoke some sort of reaction. But
only a congregation of seagulls and pigeons seemed to take notice. “Some
people looked disgusted; most people were entirely indifferent. Most
people tuned it right out of their consciousness,” he
explains.
Indifference
toward this display of meat suggests society’s disconnect between
ground-up meat in a Styrofoam container and the concept of a dead
animal. Sterbak notes the linguistic dichotomy: “Consider that in
many languages the name of the animal changes when it arrives on your
plate. For example, cow becomes beef; pig becomes pork.” Meat is
defined by our consumption of it. “In the abstract, idealized world
that we live in most people don’t want to make the connection
between meat and a pig. Humans create their own world. We have
developed meat as a commodity because that’s what we think it ought
to be,” says Cowan.
The
commodification of meat has reached the point that it has become a
symbol of objectification. Ann Simonton wore a bologna dress to
protest women being treated as meat. The phrase “treated as meat”
connotes a complete lack of respect and devaluation.
Art
can provoke us to question the disconnection between the process and
the product. The transition from dead animal to food, however, can
itself be an art. Michelle Boubis, a butcher at Jean Talon Market,
argues that butchery is an art form “because it ennobles the animal,
giving value to what we eat.” Treating butchery as an art means
treating the animal like a living thing, and not merely as
objectified, consumer-defined, meat.
This
type of processing is rare today. While Boubis receives animals whole,
directly from the farm, most meat is packed in industrial factories.
The meat hanging from butchers’ windows that Bacon found so
beautiful is becoming less and less common. Instead, packaging
appeases our conceptualized ideal of meat. “Many people, myself
amongst them, have doubts about meat consumption, and, above all, the
way our society takes care of its livestock intended for mass
consumption…. This is why meat does not resemble itself in the
effort to divorce it from any appearance that may recall our own
flesh,” Sterbak stated in an interview with Storsve.
These
concerns are not new. In his 1924 silent film Kino-Glaz, Dzia
Vertov critically examines industrial meat processing. He playfully
presents the sequence of a cow’s slaughter in reverse, inspiring
both delight and horror in the viewer. Life springs from the
materiality of death lying on the slaughterhouse floor. A dead ox
appears to be sewn back up by mechanical knives, leaps to its feet,
and is driven backward to the pasture.
The
relationship between meat and art has manifested itself in different
ways. A New York Times article from 1909 titled “Meat
Packers and Art” describes meat as a currency to purchase treasured
European art. The article reports fears that the art would be
exchanged for $2-million “accumulated in meat packing.” Historic
European works were said to be dangled before the “covetous,
meat-packing eyes” of American millionaires, contrasting modern
industrial society with established artistic tradition. Both art and
meat were marketed as commodities then, just as they are now. The
market was ascribing the two equivalent values for exchange before
artists were using meat to draw metaphors in their art.
Whether
hanging in a butchers’ window or on display in art gallery, meat is
for our consumption. As food, or as art, meat is a product – whether
it ends up on our plate or not. It isn’t hard to engage critically
with meat when it’s presented subversively as art. But hopefully we
can begin to consume it as critically with our mouths as we do with
our eyes.
Bacon
makes a meal out of tragedy
The Daily Telegraph 25/10/2008
Steadily,
since the Thirties, the painter Francis Bacon had established himself
as one of the greatest figures of 20th century British art. And, as a
heavy-drinking Soho low-lifer with a string of violent boyfriends, he
thought he had seen it all. His first lover, Peter Lacy, an older man,
would often tear up the young artist's paintings or beat him up and
leave him on the street half-conscious.
But
in 1971, he was to suffer a grievous blow. George Dyer, an East End
petty criminal Bacon had lived with since he caught him breaking into
his home in 1964, committed suicide on the eve of a major
retrospective in Paris.
The
artist was devastated and started painting Triptych. An attempt
to exorcise Bacon's pain and guilt, it is a portrait of Dyer before
his death and has been called one of his "supreme
achievements", more tragic and sensitive than any of his other
works.
In
2008, Francis Bacon's Triptych 1976 became the most expensive
work of contemporary art, fetching $86.3m.
Francis Bacon
CHRISTIE’S
Post-War
& Contemporary Art Evening Sale
New York, Rockefeller Plaza 12 November 2008
Lot
27/Sale 2048 Francis Bacon (1909 - 1992) Study for
Self-Portrait
Study for Self-Portrait 1964 Francis Bacon
Lot
Description
Francis Bacon
(1909-1992)
Study for Self-Portrait
titled and dated 'SELF PORTRAIT NO 1 1964' (on the reverse)
oil on canvas
60 x 55 in. (152.4 x 140 cm.)
Painted in 1964.
Estimate on
request ($40
million to $60 million)
Unsold
Provenance
Marlborough Fine
Art, London
Peter Stuyvesant Foundation, Amsterdam, 1965
Waddington Galleries, London, 1976
Mark Goodson, New York
Richard Nagy Ltd., London
Acquired from the above by the present owner
Literature
L. Ficacci, Francis
Bacon: 1909-1992, New York, 2003, p. 95 (illustrated in color).
Exhibited
London, Marlborough
Fine Art, Francis Bacon: Recent Paintings, July-August 1965, no.
3 (illustrated).
Hamburg, Kunsthalle; Stockholm, Moderna Museet and Dublin, Museum of
Modern Art, Francis Bacon: Gemälde 1945-1964, January 1965-1966,
n.p., no. 61 (illustrated).
Manchester, City Art Gallery, Francis Bacon, 1966-1967.
London, The Tate Gallery, Recent British Painting: Peter Stuyvesant
Foundation Collection, November-December 1967, p. 48, no. 13
(illustrated in colour).
Adelaide, The Art Gallery of South Australia and Auckland City Art
Gallery, Recent British Painting: Peter Stuyvesant Collection
Foundation, 1970-1971, n.p., no. 11 (illustrated).
Tokyo, Le Musée National d'Art Occidental, English Portraits,
October-December 1975, no. 72 (illustrated in colour; also illustrated
on the cover).
Paris, Galerie de France, Peintres Anglais 1960-1980, December
1980.
New York, Pace Wildenstein, The Mark Goodson Collection: Modern
Masters from the Collection of Mark Goodson, 1995.
New Haven, The Yale Center for British Art; The Minneapolis Institute of
Arts; The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco and The Modern Art Museum of
Fort Worth, Francis Bacon: A Retrospective, January-October 1999,
pp. 132-133, no. 41 (illustrated in colour).
Lot
Notes
Francis Bacon's
intense and probing self-portraits are among his most important works,
and are without a doubt part of the canon of great self-portraits in the
history of art. A modern master of the human figure, Bacon naturally
chose to paint his own image; as he explained, "after all, as we
are human beings, our greatest obsession is with ourselves" (F.
Bacon, quoted in D. Sylvester, The Brutality of Fact, Interviews with
Francis Bacon, London, 1987, p. 116). A rare example of a
full-length self-portrait, Study for Self-Portrait of 1964
emblematically represents the painter's complex character painter, a
tour-de-force of his indelibly original style.
When Bacon executed Study for Self-Portrait, his public
recognition had recently and dramatically shifted - metamorphosing from
maverick to master in the worldwide audience's eyes. Just two years
prior, he reached a new zenith in his career, receiving accolades for
his monumental first retrospective at the Tate in London, followed by
another triumphant exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum in New York in
1963. A few years later, shows such as Nineteenth and Twentieth
Century Masters celebrated him as one of the greatest British
painters in history. The year he painted the present work, both a
catalogue raisonné and a monograph by the esteemed historian John
Russell critically praised his career. Such accolades seem to have
fuelled deep introspection, as Bacon took stock of his relationship to
painting - as a friend recalled, "I sensed that for once Francis
was deeply content, possibly as satisfied with his work as he had ever
been - yet overwhelmed, too, and possibly frightened" (D. Farson, The
Gilded Gutter Life of Francis Bacon, New York, 1993, p. 158). Devastating
news accompanied his success at the Tate: his lover Peter Lacy, with
whom he had a tortured affair, had died in Tangiers. Nevertheless, Bacon
continued experimenting and pushing his painterly powers further than
ever before in the wake of this mixture of professional success and
personal tragedy.
Bacon depicts himself unsparingly, offering an intimate view in the
vulnerable position of sitting on a bed. Bacon grasps his hands together
tightly on his lap, making palpable the tension simmering within.
Swirling rhythms of paint move from his head to the tip of his toe
suggesting the storm of his inner psyche. His startling facial
convolutions - one of his most important signatures - only amplify the
painting's powerfully expressive effect. This paradox, that distorting
one's physiognomy could yield deeper insight and truth, is central to
Bacon's artistic enterprise. As he described in an interview published
the year he painted Study for Self-Portrait, "I have
deliberately tried to twist myself, but I have not gone far enough. My
paintings are, if you like, a record of this distortion. Photography has
covered so much: in a painting that's even worth looking at, the image
must be twisted if it is to make a renewed assault upon the nervous
system. That is the peculiar difficulty of figurative painting now. I
attempt to re-create a particular experience with greater poignancy in
the desire to live through it again with a different kind of
intensity" (F. Bacon, quoted in Cambridge Opinion, 1964).
Despite his customary deformations, Bacon's subjects are always
surprisingly recognizable - as in his self-portrait, where his
distinctive forelock of dark hair emerges in the paint's twisting
complexities. Bacon scrutinized himself not only in the mirror, but also
in photographs of himself. He worked from memories of these sources,
building up a complex matrix of shifting perspectives.
Bacon cast himself as heir to two of the greatest painters in the
history of Western art, both famed for their self-portrait series,
Rembrandt and Van Gogh. Bacon admired Rembrandt's haunting
self-portraits, in which the play of light across his visage offers a
poignant mediation on the painter's own mortality. Bacon claimed that,
"I think the self-portraits are the greatest thing Rembrandt ever
did because they were formally the most extraordinary paintings. He
altered painting in a way by the method by which he dealt with himself,
and perhaps he felt freer to deal with himself in this totally liberal
way" (F. Bacon quoted in D. Sylvester, Looking back at Francis
Bacon, London, 2000, p. 241). By extension, one can understand how
Bacon must have keenly felt free to experiment in rendering his own
image. His swirls of thick impasto recall not only the heavily encrusted
surface of Rembrandt's portraits, but also the canvases of Van Gogh.
Like Van Gogh's obsessive return to his own image in his wide-ranging
series of self-portraits, Bacon used this format to come to terms with
himself throughout his career. Bacon made a number of copies after
self-portraits by Van Gogh in the late 1950s and early 1960s, including Self-portrait
with Pipe in 1960. Indeed, Bacon's palette of high-keyed blue and
green tones echoes Van Gogh's legendary coloration, just as Bacon's
passages of juicy impasto share the acute expressiveness of Van Gogh's
brushwork, where certain dabs of paint seem so alive as to be almost
sensate. Another great master on whose legacy Bacon builds is of course
Picasso. Indeed it was in 1927 at an exhibition of Picasso's work at
Pierre Rosenberg's gallery in Paris that first inspired Bacon to become
a painter. Picasso's biomorphic contortions of figures, especially in
works from the late 1920s and early 1930s, particularly influenced
Bacon. Yet Picasso never submitted his own image to such radical
pictorial convolutions as Bacon, preferring instead to experiment upon
his models.
Bacon's trenchant dedication to figural painting, and especially to
portraiture, went against the grain of the avant-garde art world in the
post-war era. Bacon continued to be fascinated by the endless expressive
possibilities in depicting spatially isolated figures over the span of
five decades. By the time he painted the present work in 1964, Pop art
was at its apogee. Yet Bacon eschewed such meditations on the world of
popular culture and mass reproduction in favour of his universe of
intimate portraits, a world behind closed doors, populated for the most
part with images of himself and his closest friends. Likewise, he
repudiated the ability of the dominant modern form of painting,
abstraction, to delve into the human condition - which he saw as his
artistic goal - stating that "Man is haunted by the mystery of his
existence and is therefore much more obsessed with the remaking and
recording of his own image of his world than with the beautiful fun of
even the best abstract art. Pop art is made for kicks. Great art gives
kicks, too, but it also unlocks the valves of intuition and perception
about the human situation at a deeper level" (F. Bacon, quoted in Cambridge
Opinion, 1964).
Yet while Bacon's squarely emphasizes the figure, he nevertheless
mastered the language of abstraction, from the virtual colour field
painting that comprises the spare architectural setting for the figure,
to the emphatic gestural splashes and slashes of his paint. This stems,
at least in part, from the impact of a 1959 exhibition at the Tate
called New American Painting, which featured the work of Jackson
Pollock, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko among others. Yet his
empathetic extemporaneous brushwork - only heightened in contrast to the
background's smooth passages of flat fields of paint, and raw exposed
canvas that peeks out intermittently - also reveals Bacon embracing of
the seductive thrills of chance. Famously, he had long greatly loved
gambling (even hosting an illegal gambling parlour in his own home),
particularly roulette. By the time he painted the present work in 1964,
he embraced in his paintings both elements of chance and an almost
violent abandon to the action of painting. "I do," Bacon
explained, "work very much more by chance now than I did when I was
young. For instance, I throw an awful lot of paint onto things, and I
don't know what is going to happen to it. I throw it with my hand. I
just squeeze it into my hand and throw it on. I can't by my will push it
further. I can only hope that the throwing of paint onto the
already-made or half-made image will either re-form the image or that I
will be able to manipulate this further into - anyway, for me - a
greater intensity" (F. Bacon, quoted in D. Sylvester, Brutality
of Fact, p. 90). The spray of black paint behind his head combines
painterly abandon and aggression, made all the more potent as it
radiates from the head, suggesting either psychic implosion or outright
violence. In the present work the dark, ambiguous geometric form that
frames the painter's head. As Bacon often favored painting smaller-scale
self-portraits that featured his face isolated against a dark
background, this passage of the painting can be seen as a mise-en-scène
of one such work.
The present work was the sole self-portrait in Bacon's 1965 solo
exhibition in London at the Marlborough gallery, part of a group of nine
exceptionally strong works, including Crucifixion of 1965 (now in
the collection of Staatsgalerie Moderner Kunst in Munich). The
exhibition was timed to coincide with the Giacometti retrospective at
the Tate. Giacometti and Bacon had struck up a friendship, and
Giacometti even left an opening reception for his own show to visit
Bacon's exhibition. Bacon and Giacometti were firmly established as two
of the era's most important artists, capturing the despair of postwar
existence by depicting isolated humanity. Bacon above all admired
Giacometti's drawings, yet he was also prompted to consider creating
sculpture due to his impact, an idea that, although soon abandoned,
finds resonance in the emphatically sculptural quality of his head in
the present self-portrait as well as other works.
Bacon titled this, and other finished works, "studies," to
emphasize the fact that although the works were complete in themselves,
they are part of an open-ended and ceaseless meditation on his subjects,
and existence itself. Study for Self-portrait conveys in the most
visceral way the artist's own subjectivity, and manages to be both
sensual and terrifying, lushly painted but also underscored by a sense
of violence. Above all, it truly succeeds in Bacon's avowed goal in
portraiture: "The living quality is what you have to get. In
painting a portrait the problem is to find a technique by which you can
give over all the pulsations of a person" (F. Bacon, quoted in D.
Sylvester, Looking Back, p. 98).
Detail from Study for Self-Portrait 1964 Francis
Bacon
Exceptional
Work by Francis Bacon Leads Christie's New York Post-War &
Contemporary Art Sale
Art
Daily - The First Art Newspaper on the Net, Sunday, October 26, 2008
Detail from Francis
Bacon’s Study for Self-Portrait, 1964
NEW YORK, NY.- Christie's is pleased to announce the sale of the
Francis Bacon’s Study for Self Portrait, 1964, (estimate on
request) in the New York Post-War and Contemporary Art Evening Sale on
12 November 2008. A rare example of a full length self-portrait, this
work is truly a consummate representation of the artist’s complex
character, as well as a tour-de-force of his indelibly original style
of painting.
According to Christie’s International Co-Head of Post-War and
Contemporary Art, Brett Gorvy, “This crucial work by Francis Bacon
is bound to attract international interest in the November Evening
Sale. Study for Self-Portrait, is a rare and outstanding apogee
in Bacon’s creative output.”
Study for Self Portrait is triumph of Bacon’s unapologetic
metamorphosing of the human form. Grasping his hands while sitting on
a bed, the subject is twisted from head to toe. The work affords the
viewer a visceral awareness of the subjectivity within the artist,
managing to achieve a sentiment that is both sensual and unsettling,
lushly painted but underscored with a sense of violence. Study for
Self-Portrait draws upon Rembrandt’s renowned self-portraits in
its introspective depiction of Bacon’s inner struggle. Bacon depicts
himself with a distorted twisting face so as to illustrate the complex
matrix of perspectives that lie within, achieving a haunting effect
that not only presents his physical person, but in fact reveals every
pulsation existing within his being.
Bacon executed the present work in one of the most significant years
of his career and life, experiencing the enormous satisfaction of
critical acclamation in both a catalogue raisonné and a monograph by
John Russell, and the unbearable anguish of the death of his lover,
Peter Lacy. However, it was in this wake of professional success and
personal tragedy that Bacon transitioned from a maverick to a master,
a triumph which is evident within Study for Self-Portrait.
Today, Bacon’s self portraits are widely regarded as one of his most
important bodies of work, and unquestionably part of the canon of
great self-portraits in the history of art. This assessment became
apparent last spring based on the tremendous demand for such works at
Christie's Post-War and Contemporary Art Evening Sales when the
intimate-scaled works Three Studies for Self-Portrait, 1976
realized $28,041,000/£14,380,000/€18,090,968 in New York, and Three
Studies for Self-Portrait, 1975 led the June sale in London with
£17,289,250/$34,457,475/€21,767,166.
ISABEL
AND OTHER INTIMATE STRANGERS
Portraits by
Alberto Giacometti and Francis Bacon
Gagosian Gallery, November 4 - December 13, 200
980
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10075 USA
Tel 212.744.2313 Fax 212.710.3825 Tue-Sat 10-6
Francis Bacon by Jorge Lewinsk
Giacometti by Ernst Scheidegger
"To
make a head really lifelike is impossible, and the more you struggle to
make it lifelike the less like life it becomes."
- Alberto
Giacometti
Gagosian Gallery is pleased to announce Isabel and Other Intimate
Strangers: Portraits by Alberto Giacometti and Francis Bacon. This
exhibition brings together important loans and rarely seen works from
international museums and private collections, including the Fondation
Alberto et Annette Giacometti, The Metropolitan Museum, the Museum of
Modern Art, the Nasher Collection, the Detroit Institute of Arts, and
the Sainsbury Collection. It explores the enduring fascination of
Giacometti and Bacon with the existential challenges and ineffable
mysteries of the human figure and psyche, explored throughout their
careers in the portraits, or likenesses, that they produced of close
friends and family.
One such subject was the model and muse Isabel Rawsthorne, a compelling
figure of consuming vitality and recklessness. While Rawsthorne
generally made an instant and overwhelming physical impression on
people, over time her effect on Giacometti produced profound conflictual
responses in him. Beyond the clearly identified bronze busts of her such
as Tete d'Isabel I and II (1936 and 1937-38 respectively),
his female standing figures, from Femme qui marche (1932-36) to
the diminutive pedestal sculptures and the Amazonian Grandes Figures,
are said to have been inspired by his vision of her standing some
distance away from him on a street one night, distant and imperious.
Isabel's relationship with Francis Bacon was quite different, that of
kindred spirit and drinking companion rather than muse, yet her
distinctive presence is one that haunts his work, like Giacometti before
him. One of Bacon's finest pictures, Isabel Rawsthorne Standing in a
Street in Soho (1967), is based on a fleeting memory of her, while
in the high-keyed, viscerally rendered triptychs Three Studies for a
head of Isabel Rawsthorne (1965 and 1965), Bacon's perennial
struggle with experience and its depiction plays itself out in what he
described as "shifting sequences where one picture reflects on the
other continuously."
Bacon's 1954 David Sylvester Walking flanked by Giocametti's
Striding Man and a Head
Giacometti's most enduring and remarkable relationship was with his
younger brother Diego, the subject of his first sculpture, Testa di
Diego, completed when he was just thirteen years old. Companion,
consultant, and studio assistant, Diego became his brother's favourite
model and male archetype. Giacometti's wife Annette, the subject of
hundreds of paintings and sculptures, and his professional model and
mistress Caroline would become similarly pervasive referents, inspiring
more subjective variations on the feminine form, from the tiny yet
shapely bronze Figurines (c. 1954-56) and seated sculptures (Femme
Assise, 1956) to paintings such as Annette (1952) and Caroline
dans sa robe rouge, 1965.
During the 1960s, Bacon, who had made very few named portraits in the
first half of his career, concentrated increasingly on himself and a
handful of close friends as his subjects - from his boyfriend, George
Dyer, to Lucien Freud, Muriel Belcher (who ran The Colony Room, Bacon's
favourite drinking club), and Henrietta Moraes. Bacon said that he
thought of friendship as "two people pulling each other to
bits" and, in his unsettling portraits, he vivisected his friends
in no uncertain manner.
Isabel and Other Intimate Strangers will be accompanied by a full
colour publication with essays by Véronique Wiesinger, director of the
Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti in Paris who is also responsible
for the catalogue raisonné of Alberto Giacometti; and Martin Harrison,
director of the project for the catalogue raisonné of the work of
Francis Bacon. The Fondation Alberto and Annette Giacometti has overseen
the selection of Giacometti works for this exhibition.
The exhibition inaugurates Gagosian's fourth floor galleries at 980
Madison Avenue. It also coincides with the first major survey of Alberto
Giacometti's work in Russia, opening at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow on
September 16, and Tate Britain's historic exhibition marking Francis
Bacon's centenary (September 8, 2008 – January 4, 2009)
Art market boom
slows, but Lucian Freud's Francis Bacon makes 'astronomical' £5.4m
Only
58% of lots were sold at Sotheby's, and it's a similar story at
Christie's
Charlotte
Higgins, Chief Arts Writer, The Guardian, Tuesday October 21 2008
The contemporary
art-market boom, which has brought wealth to auction houses and some
artists over the past five years, is coming gently and quietly to an
end.
Observers have
been waiting for these few days where auction houses hold their
high-profile contemporary art sales to take the temperature of the
market. And, if it has not plummeted, then it is, finally, showing a
dip.
Yesterday the day
sale of contemporary art at Sotheby's saw only 58.6% of its lots sold.
The auction raised £7.1m, well short of its pre-sale estimate of £10.9m
to £15.3m. The day sales tend to auction work by younger, less
established artists - it is the evening sales where the big guns come
out, and the well-groomed clientele, not to mention the staff, are
dressed as if for a night at the opera. But even there, while the
numbers are big, they are on the slide. Sotheby's big contemporary and
modern art evening sale made £22.8m - well short of its estimate of
£30.6m. Fifteen of the 62 lots failed to sell. Two had been withdrawn
from the auction before it began. It was a far cry from the feeding
frenzy of 2007, when record after record came crashing down in the
salerooms.
The auctioneer,
the suave, assured Oliver Barker, conducted the sale as if there was
nothing wrong: but when the star lot of the evening came up - a set of
10 skull paintings by Andy Warhol - a frisson went through the room as
the bidding paused, stagnated and finally stuck altogether at £3.5m.
The final price,
once the so-called buyer's premium was added, was £4.35m; the
estimate had been £5m to £7m. The work sold, none the less -
Sotheby's admitted having renegotiated lower reserve prices with the
sellers (known as consigners). "We did it on a lot-by-lot
basis," said Barker after the sale. "Most people gave us
flexibility." He called the bidding on the sale "very
rational and very considered".
Christie's Sunday
evening sale told a similar story. The auction made a total of £31.97m,
but of the 47 lots only 26 sold. Serious works of art - such as a
Francis Bacon portrait of Henrietta Moraes, and Jean-Michel Basquiat's
Desmond - failed to reach their reserves.
The star work of
the night was Lucian Freud's portrait of Francis Bacon. It sold for £5.4m
- inside its estimate of £5m to £7m - though "still
astronomical money", according to Sarah Thornton, an art market
observer.
After the sale the
Christie's bosses put on a brave face. Chief executive Ed Dolman said:
"The sale wasn't as successful as last season's [2007's
equivalent made a record-breaking £33.9m] and we are perhaps seeing a
correction from the past few seasons. But there is significant
liquidity and a surprising amount of activity when a lot of people
thought there would be no activity at all. The real message is one of
cautious optimism. The turbulence hasn't hit our market as much as it
has in other areas. There has been a surprising amount of cash moving
round the market in the past few days, especially in terms of Chinese
and Middle Eastern art. This gives us a belief that the new buyers who
have emerged are here, and here to stay."
The new buyers
propping up the market include super-wealthy Russian and Qatari
collectors, relatively insulated from the turbulence caused by the
banking crisis. "When the sub-prime problems kicked in last
summer I noticed fewer bidders at auctions - but the Qataris and
people like Roman Abramovich had joined the game," said Thornton,
who believes that the art market peaked in the summer of last year.
"People were shocked when it was revealed that Abramovich had
bought the Bacons [two works, a portrait and a triptych, collectively
worth £60m] earlier this year. But I do feel that May 2007 was the
last time that eyes were really popping at prices."
Amy Cappellazzo,
of Christie's, was upbeat. "I think this was a staggering result
given the other financial markets. It's pretty amazing that people
still want to turn up on a Sunday and kick out a million bucks."
The key, she said, was that art gives the investor a tangible object.
"If you bought something, you bought something real."
Portrait of Bacon
sells for £5.4m but painting by Bacon fails to sell
CONOR
LALLY, The Irish Times,
Monday, October 20, 2008
Lucien Freud's unfinished portrait of Francis Bacon
AN UNFINISHED
portrait of Francis Bacon by Lucian Freud, one of only two he ever
painted of his friend and the only one whose whereabouts is known,
sold for £5.4 million pounds (€6.96 million) in London yesterday.
However, a Francis
Bacon painting which was expected to fetch up €10 million at
Christie's in London was one of a number of works which failed to
sell.
The Portrait of
Henrietta Moraes had a presale low estimate of £5.5 million
(€7.08 million).
Christie's
International failed to sell 45 per cent of works on sale because of
the depressed international art market. "Obviously we need to
adjust our prices," said Ed Dolman, Christie's chief executive
officer. "There isn't too much confidence out there."
The unsold Bacon
work was bought by Guinness heir Garech Browne for his home at Luggala,
Co Wicklow in 1970. At one stage it was the only Bacon painting in
Ireland, despite the artist being born in Dublin. Browne, a
69-year-old who founded Claddagh Records, was a friend of Bacon
and Moraes. He has long been a patron of the arts.
Moraes was a
famous 1960s model and socialite who was one of Bacon's favourite
subjects. The painting is one of his first portraits of her. It is
signed on the back by Moraes: "For the first time a vision of me
by my friend Francis Bacon, Henrietta Moraes."Mr Browne decided
to sell the painting because it was too valuable to insure and keep at
his estate.
He lent the
painting to the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery in Dublin. He also secured
the Francis Bacon studio for the gallery through his friendship with
Bacon's former lover John Edwards.
Freud's intimate
portrait of his friend Bacon sold for £5.4m
By
Arifa Akbar, arts correspondent
The Independent, Monday, 20
October 2008
Lucian Freud's portrait of Bacon
A rarely seen oil
portrait of the artist Francis Bacon, painted by his friend Lucian
Freud, has been sold for £5.4m. The work, which offers an intimate
glimpse into the collaborative friendship of two giants of post-war
art, is one of only two oil portraits of Bacon painted by Freud and
the last remaining: the second was stolen from an exhibition in Berlin
in 1988.
The portrait,
estimated to sell for between £5m to £7m at Christie's auction house
in London, was painted in 1956 and shows the artist with a downward
gaze. Bacon, who sat knee-to-knee with Freud while he worked on the
painting, is said to have "grumbled but sat consistently"
during the first six months of sitting, according to Christie's. It is
thought Bacon left suddenly, most likely to pursue his lover, Peter
Lacy, in Tangiers.
Although it
remained unfinished, art critics agree it offers a snapshot into the
working methods of the younger artist at a critical point of his
development; Freud had begun to work in a more expansive way, using
thicker brushstrokes, liberating the paint and creating a more worked
complexion, more seasoned and full of life.
The portrait was
part of Christie's sale of post-war and contemporary art. The auction
may come to mark a turning point in the fortunes of the art market,
which has until now defied the economic downturn. Of 47 lots, only 26
were sold and the sale made £32m, against pre-auction estimates of £57m
to £75m.
By contrast, the
record for a painting by Freud was set at Christie's in May, with his
naked, large-scale work, Benefit Supervisor Sleeping, selling
for £17.3m. The record for a Bacon work stands at £43m, for
Triptych, created in 1976.
The Bacon portrait
sold yesterday was acquired in 1972 by a private collector from a
London gallery and had remained in the same hands since.
Graham Sutherland,
a mutual friend and artist, introduced Freud to Bacon in 1945,
inviting them to his house. They formed a close friendship and saw
much of one another in the following years.
Bacon had a great
influence on the younger Freud and is often credited with liberating
his style and fuelling his desire to depict human life.
In the early
1950s, the artists sat for each other; Bacon's first portrait of Freud
came in 1951, and many others followed. Freud painted Bacon just
twice.
Growing signs of
art slump as Freud's portrait of Bacon makes only £5.4m
Alexi Mostrous
and Rachel Campbell-Johnson, The Times, October 20, 2008
An economic chill blew through the art world yesterday when a rare
painting of Francis Bacon by Lucian Freud sold for £1.6 million
less than expected. The unfinished portrait, one of only two Freud
painted of his friend and fellow artist, was predicted to go for at
least £7 million at the auction at Christie's last night. The only
other painting by Freud of Bacon was stolen in Berlin in 1988,
making the one sold yesterday even more desirable.
But
in a sign of the frail financial climate, the sale netted only £5.4
million, perilously close to the auction house's low estimate of £5
million. In contrast, Freud's Benefits Supervisor Sleeping
sold for £17.2 million in May, the highest price paid in an auction
for a work by a living artist. The poor sale is likely to be seen as
the canary in the coalmine in the art world - a clear warning that
the market may be about to blow.
On
Friday, a Sotheby's auction of contemporary art raised £22 million,
far below the pre-sale estimate of between £31 million and £43
million. A spokesman for the London auction house said that it was
pleased with the results but admitted that “the sale was assembled
in a very different economic climate from that which prevailed
today.”
With
both Christie's and Sotheby's due to stage key November sales in New
York, experts fear that plunging stock prices, oil prices and the
broader effects of the credit crunch could see the end of the art
market boom. There are rumours that buyers reneged on their bids at
the Damien Hirst sale last month, and both Sotheby's and Christie's
have let it be known that they are not offering any credit.
Art
consultancies in New York are apparently being offered pieces at the
sort of discounts that would not have been countenanced just a few
months ago. At last week's Frieze art fair in London, long regarded
as a trusty indicator of the health of the contemporary art markets,
the mood in some quarters was sour.
“There
is a lot of apprehension in the trade,” said Charles Dupplin of
the art insurance company Hiscox.
“You
could fire a cannon down the aisles this year and not hit
anybody,” a dealer at the fair added. Top-end works have recently
been fêted as a relatively safe bet compared with the turbulence
gripping other investments, but the severity of falls in the value
of equities, oil, property and other assets has left art -
particularly contemporary pieces - vulnerable to a significant
downward correction.
Portrait of
Francis Bacon by Freud sells for £5.4 million
Irish
Times, Sunday, October 19, 2008
An
unfinished portrait of Francis Bacon by Lucian Freud, one of only two
he ever painted of his friend and the only one whose whereabouts is
known, sold for £5.4 million today, auction house Christie's
said.
The
85-year-old Freud's only other picture of his fellow artist Bacon,
painted in 1952, was stolen from a show in Berlin in 1988 and has
never been seen since in public.
The
two men were firm friends. While Freud, who is regarded as one of the
world's greatest living artists, frequently sat for Bacon the latter,
who died in 1992, returned the favour for only two portraits.
The
unfinished portrait dates from 1956/7 and as with the missing painting
it shows Bacon with downcast eyes.
"The
present work offers a fascinating snapshot into the working methods of
the artist at a critical point of his artistic development," said
Christie's in a statement.
"Freud
had begun to work in a more expansive way using thicker brushstrokes,
liberating the paint and creating a more worked complexion, more
seasoned and full of life."
Estimated
to sell for between £5 and £7 million, the picture has been the
property of the current owner since 1972 and has only rarely been seen
in public, in 2002/3 and 2005.
In May
Bacon's Triptych, 1976 sold for $86 million setting a record
for postwar art, while the day before that sale Freud's Benefits
Supervisor Sleeping established a new mark for a living artist
when it sold for $33.64 million.
Lucien Freud's
portrait of Francis Bacon sells for less than expected
A Lucien Freud
portrait of his friend Francis Bacon has sold for £5.4 million at
auction, significantly less than expected.
By Matthew Moore, The Daily Telegraph 19/10/2008
Francis Baconby Lucian Freud
The unfinished
work, one of only two oil paintings that Freud ever undertook of
Bacon, had been predicted to fetch £7 million when it went under the
hammer at Christie's in London.
It is the second
disappointing price for a major contemporary work in the capital's
auction rooms in recent days, as the financial crisis takes its toll
on what had been a booming market.
Freud's painting
of an overweight JobCentre worker asleep on a sofa sold for £19.1
million in New York in May, a record for a living artist, but there is
now concern that prices have passed their peak.
Freud and Bacon,
both British painters, were friends for many years until the latter's
death in 1992. The portrait, which was completed [sic] in 1967 [sic]
and had been owned by a private collector since 1972, was sold for £5,417,
250.
The auction was
timed to coincide with this weekend's Frieze Art Fair in Regent's
Park.
Christie's
Sale Misses Target as Crisis Quells Demand
By Scott Reyburn
and Katya Kazakin, Bloomberg,
19th October, 2008
Oct. 19
(Bloomberg) - The contemporary-art market took another beating when
Christie’s International failed to sell 45 percent of works at its
October auction tonight in London.
Collectors are
delaying purchases in the worst financial crisis since the Depression,
dealers said. The evening sale, which included works by Francis Bacon,
Lucio Fontana and Lucien Freud , followed auctions at Sotheby's
and Phillips de Pury & Co. that also fell below expectations.
Christie's 47-lot auction took 32 million pounds ($55.3 million) with
fees, below the presale low estimate of 57 million pounds.
There was an eerie
hush in a crowded room as auctioneer Jussi Pylkkanen knocked down the
lots in less than an hour.
Three of these
failed to sell, including Bacon's Portrait of Henrietta Moraes (1969).
The small yellow canvas flopped against a presale low estimate of 5.5
million pounds. These failed guaranteed lots were expected to fetch at
least 7.95 million pounds.
"Things have
been overpriced; they need to come down,'' said Glenn Scott-Wright,
director at London's Victoria Miro gallery, who attended the sale.
"If Christie's had dropped the reserves by 20 percent, it would
have done better.''
Freud's Bacon
London dealer
Stephen Ongpin, bidding for a collector, bought the evening's other
high-value lot, Freud's 1956-57 unfinished portrait of Bacon. He paid
5.4 million pounds for the life-size face of the artist, against the
presale low estimate of 5 million pounds.
"Obviously
we need to adjust our prices,'' said Ed Dolman, Christie's chief
executive officer. "There isn't too much confidence out
there.''
Why a portrait of
Francis Bacon terrifies us all
Tonight,
Lucian Freud's portrait of his friend Francis Bacon is to be
auctioned. The art world hopes it will net £7m, but there are signs
the market is stalling. So will the Christie's sale indicate that the
global financial crisis is about to get worse?
By
Andrew Johnson
The Independent on Sunday, 19
October 2008
Francis Bacon 1956 Lucian Freud
The face seems to
be peering through a tear in the canvas, lips pursed and eyes
downcast. To the art world, and the rest of us, this could be the face
of doom.
The portrait of
Francis Bacon by fellow artist Lucian Freud is the centrepiece of an
important sale today. Christie's auction house hopes it will fetch £7m.
If it doesn't – as now seems likely – dealers in the previously
lavish market for contemporary art will know that they face deep
financial trouble. It will also indicate that the global financial
crisis is affecting even the super-rich.
The Frieze Art
Fair last week attracted stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow but sale prices
were much lower than expected. The signs are that buyers are holding
back until they know what happens to the Freud portrait: it's seen as
the canary in the coalmine that could tell everyone the market is
about to blow.
"There is a
lot of apprehension in the trade," said Charles Dupplin of the
art insurance company Hiscox. Staff at Christie's are said to be
worried about today's sale.
The first signs of
trouble came on Friday when an auction of art at Sotheby's in London,
timed to coincide with Frieze, fell far short of what was expected.
The estimated sales total of £30m had been low, but the actual figure
was £22m. Even Andy Warhol, one of the most bankable artists of the
20th century, failed to live up to expectations: a series of skulls
expected to fetch at least £5m went for £4.3m.
"People won't
be surprised if Frieze is quite muted," said Mr Dupplin. The
global market is all but dead already, he said, except for buyers of
"trophy art" whose fortunes have previously seemed
unassailable. If they stop bidding, prices will plummet.
Among them is the
Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. Earlier this year he paid £17.2m
for Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, making Lucian Freud the
highest-priced living artist at auction. He also made the late Francis
Bacon the most expensive artist ever by spending £43m on Triptych
(1976). So it seems reasonable to expect he might bid big for a
portrait of one of those painters by the other.
The only other
picture of its kind was stolen in 1988 and has never been found. This
one was begun in the winter of 1956, but abandoned after Bacon refused
to continue with the sittings. If it doesn't sell well, it will be
proof that even the trophy hunters are cutting back. If it does, then
a surge in confidence will keep the market going. For now.
Francis Bacon
painting may sell for up to €10m
RONAN
McGREEVY, The Irish Times, 18 October, 2008
Portrait of
Henrietta MoraesGloria
MacGowran, Francis Bacon and the Hon. Garech Browne
FRANCIS Bacon
painting which once hung in the drawing room of Luggala in Co Wicklow
is to go for auction at Christie's in London tomorrow and is expected
to fetch €7 million to €10 million.
The Portrait
of Henrietta Moraes was bought by Guinness heir Garech Browne for
his home at Luggala in 1970 and at one stage was the only Bacon
painting in Ireland, even though the artist was born in Dublin.
Browne (69), the
founder of Claddagh Records and a long-time patron of the arts, was
friends with both Bacon and Moraes.
He met Bacon
through the artist Lucian Freud. Freud was married to Mr Browne's
cousin Caroline Blackwood. Their friendship was strengthened through
membership of London's infamous bohemian Colony Club, which is shortly
to close down.
Moraes was a
famous 1960s model and socialite who was one of Bacon's favourite
subjects and the painting, to be sold on Sunday, is one of his first
portraits of her.
She was also
regularly painted by Freud. Moraes was an alcoholic and addict, and
was jailed at one time. She sobered up in later years and lived for
several years as the caretaker of Roundwood House, Co Wicklow.
The painting is
signed on the back by Moraes, who writes: "For the first time A
vision of me by my friend Francis Bacon with Gareth at Luggala
30-6-767 I love y 2 good heavens Henrietta Moraes."
Mr Browne helped
secure the Francis Bacon studio for the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of
Modern Art in Dublin through his friendship with Bacon's former lover
John Edwards, who inherited the Bacon estate.
Mr Browne also
lent the painting to the gallery. "It was the Edwards family who
promised me, with the support of the Bacon Foundation, to donate
something to Ireland. This was the most extraordinary gift that this
State has received recently," he said.
Mr Browne said the
painting is too valuable to insure and keep at his estate, but he is
hopeful that a buyer will lend it to an Irish institution to go on
exhibition.
"To my mind,
Francis Bacon is, along with Lucian Freud, the greatest artist of the
second half of the 20th century.
"Contrary to
what people think, Bacon did not hate Ireland. This painting means so
much to me and to other people and I would like to see it kept in
Ireland in some form," he said.
The painting was
admired by many of the hundreds of artists who have visited Luggala.
The film director
John Boorman said: "For more than 30 years Henrietta Moraes has
looked down from her Bacon portrait on the walls of Luggala and
witnessed the parade of poets (including after her death, her former
husband Dom Moraes), scoundrels and musicians that have enjoyed Garech
Browne's favour. We will miss her."
The poet Seamus
Heaney said: "Garech a Brún has played host to generations of
writers, artists and musicians in his home at Luggala, and it was in
that magical setting, half way between bohemia and Parnassus, that I
met the distinguished Indian poet, Dom Moraes, one of the first
contemporary poets I had read."
Interest in
Bacon's work has never been greater among the art-collectors.
A record price for
a Bacon of $55.465 million (€41.2 million) was paid by Russian
billionaire and Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich in May for the Triptych
1976.
Freud's
Bacon Portrait Recalls Bohemian Soho
Preview by Martin
Gayford, Bloomberg, October 17, 2008
Great
British artists, it seems, are like buses. None comes along for ages,
then two arrive together.
In
the early 19th century there were Constable and Turner, then - with
the arguable exception of Sickert - no painter of truly international
stature until Lucien Freud and Francis Bacon appeared in the 1940s.
On
Oct. 19, one of only two painted portraits of Bacon by Freud will go
under the hammer at Christie’s International in London, with an
estimate range of 5 million pounds ($8.6 million) to 7 million pounds.
The other picture of Bacon by Freud was stolen from a Berlin show 20
years ago and has never been recovered. Bacon also painted Freud on
numerous occasions, but for reasons that can only be guessed at never
with such intensity.
In
the past few years those two have come to bestride the contemporary
art world like twin colossi. This year, Freud took the title of the
world's most expensive living artist at auction, with the sale of Benefits
Supervisor Sleeping (1995) for $33.6 million at Christie's in New
York on May 13.
A
mere 24 hours later Bacon, who died in 1992, achieved the title of the
most expensive contemporary artist when Triptych (1976) sold
for $86.3 million at Sotheby’s in New York.
Bacon,
born in 1909, was 13 years Freud's senior, but was only just emerging
as a major talent when Freud first encountered him. They met through a
common friend, Graham Sutherland.
Best
in Britain
One
day, Freud told me recently, he asked Sutherland who was the greatest
artist at work in Britain. Since Sutherland himself was a celebrated
painter, this was a distinctly tactless inquiry. "I was young at
the time, though that's no excuse,'' Freud said.
Sutherland
took it well, however, and replied, "It's someone you've never
heard of called Francis Bacon.'' Soon afterwards they were introduced.
In
the late 1940s and early '50s, Bacon and Freud shared a milieu,
centering on certain bars and clubs in London's Soho area.
Another
member of their circle was the wild and bohemian Henrietta Moraraes, who
had a relationship with Freud. She posed for Girl in a Blanket (1952),
one of a number of rarely seen early works by Freud on show in a
museum-quality loan exhibition of early Freud works at the Hazlitt
Holland-Hibbert Gallery, 38 Bury St. (through Dec. 12).
Nude
photographs of Moraes by John Deakin were later the basis for numerous
paintings by Bacon in the '60s. One of these is expected to fetch as
much as 7.5 million pounds in the Christie's Oct. 19 London sale.
Freud's
lost portrait of Bacon (1952) was - and one hopes, still is, wherever
it is hidden - a masterpiece. "I saw a lot of him at that time,''
Freud told me in 2001, "and we were very friendly, so it was
natural for me to paint him.''
Bacon's
Gripes
In
comparison with Bacon's own methods - generally he worked from
photographs - Freud's paintings require an enormous investment of time
from his model.
"Bacon
complained a lot about sitting, which he always did about everything,
but not to me at all,'' Freud said. "I heard about it, you know,
from people in the pub. Really, he was very good about it.''
In
an attempt to recover the lost portrait, Freud designed a "wanted''
poster (an example is on show at the Hazlitt Holland-Hibbert Gallery),
which was distributed in Germany seven years ago, sadly with no
success.
The
later portrait of 1956-57 that is going to be auctioned is only the
beginning of a picture. Still, because of Freud's unusual technique
Bacon's face is almost complete. Freud tends to begin at a point and
work outwards. In this case, when Freud had reached the fringe of his
hair and the lower edge of his face, Bacon suddenly disappeared,
probably on a jaunt to Tangier, leaving the picture a brooding
fragment. Even so, it is a powerful record of one of the most
intriguing pairings in 20th- century art.
John
Russell: an appreciation
John
Russell, art critic and author, born January 22, 1919. Died August
23, 2008
Richard
Cork, The Times, October 16, 2008
Russell was
ever grateful to be allowed to "to conduct his education in
public"
Looking back,
I realise that John Russell had a formative and wholly beneficial
influence on my growing involvement with art. In 1960, when I was
thirteen years old, I wandered into the Wallace Collection and had
an unforgettable epiphany. The paintings there by Rubens, Poussin,
Velazquez and above all Rembrandt overwhelmed me. From then on,
looking at art became my obsession, and every weekend John’s art
column in The Sunday Times enriched my mind.
Trapped at a
boarding school in Bath, I envied John his ability to roam around
London, Paris, Venice and the rest of Europe visiting the best
exhibitions on offer. His life struck me as idyllic, and the fact
that he also wrote books and curated exhibitions sharply increased
my admiration. John’s inspiring example made me realise that art
critics need not confine themselves to penning a weekly review.
They can also write at length, and in depth, about the art that
matters most to them. John, a famously and enviably swift writer,
became a prolific author. He also curated a succession of
impressive exhibitions, surveying the achievements of Modigliani
in 1964, Rouault in 1966 and Balthus in 1968.
Reading his
regular criticism, I warmed to a writer whose reviews were always
informed by a discerning awareness of history. But I particularly
liked John’s growing engagement with the art of his own time.
During the 1960s he was quick to champion young artists at the
time of their emergence. Painters and sculptors as outstanding as
David Hockney, Ron Kitaj, Howard Hodgkin and Anthony Caro all
benefited from his enthusiastic response at crucial points in
their careers. Hungry for adventurous new art myself, I was
fascinated by John’s reviews of these and other artists in the
1960s.
At a time when
so many British gallery-goers still waxed vehement in their
scornful dismissal of innovative art, John stood out as an
enlightened exception. He realised, increasingly, that the 1960s
was an extraordinary period for contemporary art in Britain. And
he refused to court popularity with his more philistine readers by
dismissing the boldest experimenters out of hand. Far from
sneering and playing for easy laughs by condemning the most
audacious young artists, he preferred to advance understanding and
discover how they were enlarging the language of art.
In other
words, John provided a tonic and played an important part in
countering the knee-jerk hatred of modernism which had poisoned
British culture for so long. At a time when plenty of people were
ready to sneer at Warhol or Lichtenstein, he organised with Suzi
Gablik a defiantly celebratory survey of Pop Art at the Hayward
Gallery. And he was no less willing to stand against the
antagonism so often aimed at Francis Bacon. When I first met Bacon
in 1971, he made clear that he expected nothing but hostility from
his fellow-countrymen. Without any self-pity, Bacon told me he had
recently looked through “all the reviews I’ve had from my
Marlborough shows over the years”, and “all of them, virtually
without exception, were bad.” But in that very same year, 1971,
John published a book on Bacon which provided a far more positive
and insightful analysis.
Bacon’s work
brought out the most dynamic, supple and visceral side of John’s
critical writing. Just listen to this passage, where he closes
with relish on the essence of Bacon’s restless and tormented
vision: “Bacon wrenched, reversed, abbreviated, jellified and
generally reinvented the human image. The paint-structure was by
turns brusque and sumptuous, lyrical and offhand, pulpy and
marmoreal. Swerving, pouncing, colliding with itself, taking for
granted the most bizarre conjunctions of impulse, it produced a
multiple imagery which was quite new in painting.”
I admired
John’s open-mindedness, and respected his willingness to fight
British philistinism with vigour. Even after he moved to New York,
John was more than ready to weigh in on the side of audacious art.
When the so-called bricks rumpus exploded on this side of the
Atlantic in 1976, tabloid newspapers crowed over the Tate’s
acquisition of Carl Andre’s sculpture. The Daily Mirror plastered
its front page with the headline “What A Load Of Rubbish”, but
John sent a fiercely supportive letter commending the Tate’s
willingness to purchase the bricks.
When I started
out at as a critic myself, on the Evening Standard, plenty
of reactionaries dismissed my championship of conceptual
developments. In 1973, when I curated a show of young artists like
Richard Long, older critics deplored the exhibition. But John
saluted my efforts by referring to D.H.Lawrence, who once declared
that he would like his writing to make people “alter, and have
more sense.” John claimed that Lawrence had defined “the
eventual aim of all art that is worth talking about.” But I
believe that Lawrence’s words could equally well be applied to
John’s own work. He succeeded, through his energetic, incisive,
eloquent and impassioned writings, in making us “alter, and have
more sense.” I am delighted to pay tribute to John’s immense
and indispensable achievement.
Munch,
Bacon and Warhol at Sotheby's Show
Marina
Kamenev,The Moscow Times, Issue 4011, 16 October 2008
There was
little evidence of the financial crisis inside the new branch of the Moscow
Museum of Modern Art, at Gogolevsky Bulvar, where Sotheby's preview of its
upcoming November auctions is exhibited.
"Some of you may have seen or read that we have economic trouble in the
world. But I can assure that we are here to stay. We love Russia, and we will
come here in good times and not so good times," said Lord Mark Poltimore,
chairman of Sotheby's Russia. "One thing I can assure you is that good art
correctly priced will always make good prices."
Inside are 50 works, most from the 20th century, from artists including Francis
Bacon, Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso, altogether valued at $200 to $300 million.
The works will be sold at auctions in New York in November.
In the last two years, Russia's buyers have helped Sotheby's break world records
for art sold at auction. Earlier this year, Francis Bacon's painting Triptych,
1976 was bought by Roman Abramovich for $86 million. Sotheby's is predicting
that Russia's art market will continue to blossom. "We are not just being
optimistic, we are certain of our success," said Mikhail Kamensky, the
general director of Sotheby's in Russia and the C.I.S.
Norwegian expressionist Edvard Munch's painting Love and Pain is a rare
find, as most of Munch's works are already housed in museums in Scandinavia. The
painting of a pale red-headed woman leaning over and passionately clutching a
man on her lap is expected to sell for $30 to $40 million.
The auction will also offer documents belonging to the first cosmonaut, Yury
Gagarin. One of them is the account of a manned space flight performed by the
Soviet spaceship Vostok on April 12, 1961. The documents were previously owned
by businessman Ross Perot, but he is selling the letters and diaries to support
a fund for space research.
Kamensky said Gagarin's words before his space mission encapsulated the feeling
at Sotheby's. "I feel completely ready for the upcoming flight, my health
is good, and I don't doubt the success of this flight."
Sotheby's top lots from the main New York autumn auctions runs to Sun. at The
State Museum of Modern Art of Russian Academy of Arts, located at 10 Gogolevsky
Bulvar, M. Kropotkinskaya.
Francis Bacon
painting by Lucian Freud expected to fetch £7m at Christie's auction
By
Stephen Adams, Arts Correspondent
The Daily
Telegraph 14/10/2008
Francis Bacon
by Lucien Freud. The painting is expected to raise £7 million at auction
A portrait of
the painter Francis Bacon by his friend and colleague Lucian Freud is expected
to sell for up to £7 million at auction this week even though it was never
finished.
Bacon
abandoned sitting for Freud before he could complete the study, which was
undertaken over three months in 1956-7. Bacon, who died in 1992, is said to have
"grumbled but sat consistently".
It is only
one of two oil paintings that Freud ever undertook of Bacon, despite a
friendship that lasted for decades.
The other, which Freud painted in 1952, was stolen from the Neue Nationalgalerie
in Berlin in 1988 while on loan from the Tate. It has never been found.
Christie's put the picture on display on Tuesday, ahead of its auction on Sunday
evening.
Pilar Ordovas, head of post-war and contemporary art at Christie's London, said:
"This incredibly rare painting is one of the highlights of a week in which
the international art world will turn their attention to London, and in which we
will offer an exciting selection of post-war and contemporary art at
Christie's."
The Frieze Art Fair starts on Thursday, while Christie's rival Sotheby's is also
holding two major auctions over the next week.
Works by both
Freud and Bacon, both British artists, have broken auction records this year.
Freud's Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, of an overweight JobCentre worker
asleep on a sofa, sold for $33.6 million (£19.1 million) in New York in May, a
record for a living artist.
Chelsea FC
owner Roman Abramovich bought a triptych by Bacon the same month for $86 million
(£48.9 million), a record for a piece of contemporary art at auction.
The modern Irish
master
You don’t have to
travel all the way to the Tate Britain in London to see a unique piece of
Francis Bacon’s legacy, says Caroline
O’Leary
Trinity
News, Ireland's oldest college newspaper, Monday 13 October, 2008
As a country, Ireland
prides itself on its cultural talent, having produced four Nobel Prize
winners for literature and many important figures in the areas of acting,
theatre, film, poetry and more. Yet few Irish artists have truly succeeded
in making their mark on the world canvas and distinguishing themselves
outside of their home country. Painter Francis Bacon is a unique exception
to this rule, an artist of such talent and innovation that his works are
now almost equal in value to those of masters Pablo Picasso and Claude
Monet.
Such is Bacon’s
success that last year his work Triptych, 1976 sold at Sotheby’s
auction house for a post-war record of €56.465 million, making it the
twelfth most expensive painting ever sold. In celebration of Bacon and his
career, a major retrospective exhibition of his work is now on show at the
Tate Britain in London, coinciding with the centenary of the artist’s
birth next year. This exhibition, the first since Bacon’s death in 1992,
is a cross-section of the artist’s life and works, celebrating his
unique talent and inspiring us to examine the life and painting of this
enigmatic artist who we seem to so rarely notice.
At first glance, there
is something about Bacon’s work that intrigues the viewer. Triptych -
August 1972 is a quintessential example of his technique. The flat,
stark backgrounds throw the distorted foreground figures into high relief
and expose the full extent of twisted limbs, gaping mouths and staring
eyes. Curator of the Tate exhibition, Chris Stephens, describes Bacon as
“probably the most important painter of the human figure ever.” Yet,
as with Bacon’s greatest inspiration, Picasso, it is not the figures
themselves that draw the viewer in but rather their unsettling
manipulation. Such manipulation ranges from distorted limbs and features
to the dissection of certain figures, exposing not only the blood and
tissue that is common to man and animal but also the vulnerability they
share.
A Francis Bacon
painting is difficult to mistake, or, indeed, avoid and the artist was
capable of both repulsing and fascinating the viewer – a rare ability
possessed only by a few artists, such as master of surrealism, Salvador
Dali. Also affecting the viewer is the texture of his works, a result of
his preference for painting on the unprimed side of canvas and enhanced by
his own deliberate “printing” with materials such as cotton, corduroy
and cashmere. Looking at these paintings, you are transported into
Bacon’s own garish world.
Bacon’s rather
extraordinary life explains somewhat the inspiration behind both the
artist’s subjects and his innovative techniques. Born in Dublin to
English parents in 1909, his life reads like a bizarre, hedonistic soap
opera. At the age of 16, he was banished from his Naas family home after
being caught by his father cross-dressing in his mother’s underwear, the
final nail in an already strained relationship with his family due to his
homosexuality. Bacon then worked his way around London and later Europe,
advertising himself as a “gentleman’s companion.”
The cultural
influences of Paris and Berlin, specifically exhibitions of artists such
as Picasso and Nicolas Poussin, eventually inspired him to return to
London and take up painting. Seemingly entirely self-taught, Bacon first
began a business as a furniture designer and interior decorator before
moving onto oil paintings and rugs with the support of well-connected
friends.
His first and most
important painting of that time was Three Studies for Figures at the
Base of a Crucifixion, 1944, which established his signature style
with its burnt orange backgrounds and stone gray monstrous figures. Based
on the furies of ancient Greek mythology, the biomorphic quality of these
characters are an obvious allusion to Picasso’s own distorted figures.
The painting was both acclaimed for its originality and feared for its
grotesque and unnerving creatures, the like of which had not been seen in
art before.
Bacon’s talent and
technique – and, thus, his acclaim – evolved steadily, but his
personal life continued to be blighted with misfortune, something
identifiable in his work. In particular, the suicide of his partner and
muse George Dyer on the eve of his first major retrospective exhibition in
1973 can be seen in pieces such as In Memory of George Dyer and
May-June 1973. In the latter, lost, shadowed figures of his former
lover are presented in different poses and guises, expressing the
figure’s dark, unhappy life and Bacon’s own grief at his loss. Less
personal subjects were also dealt with in great detail, as can be seen in
some of his most celebrated paintings, such as his series of studies based
on Velázquez’s famous Portrait of Pope Innocent X.
After experiencing a
difficult childhood in Ireland, Bacon was not a frequent visitor to his
birth country. Yet, despite his constant travelling and home-base in
London, his former partner John Edwards bequeathed the entire contents of
Bacon’s studio to the Hugh Lane Gallery in Dublin after his death. Draft
material and papers, originally gifted to friend Barry Joule, were later
donated to form the Barry Joule Archive in Dublin. These materials,
particularly the studio, delighted critics by offing unprecedented insight
into Bacon’s method, techniques and eccentricities. In his studio, one
can find piles of paint cans, pastels, crumpled photographs with creases
coloured in and even the paint-stained walls of the room, which he
frequently used instead of palettes.
The most real part of
Bacon, in a sense, then, can be found in Dublin and, while his Tate
exhibition will soon leave for Spain and New York, this studio will remain
in the city and allow us to enjoy the genius of Ireland’s greatest
artist.
On the giants'
causeway
Lucian Freud, Francis
Bacon and the agonies of sitting
Economist,
Oct 11th 2008
LUCIAN
FREUD and Francis Bacon, the two giants of post-war British painting, met
in 1945. Bacon was 36, Mr Freud not even 23. Mr Freud had heard about the
mysterious and distinctive Irish-born artist from Graham Sutherland.
Shortly afterwards, Sutherland invited them both to spend the weekend at
his English country house, and they met at the railway station on the way
there. An intense bond quickly developed. “Once I met him I saw him a
lot,” Mr Freud would recall later.
Close
friends, it was inevitable that sooner or later each would begin to appear
in the other’s paintings. Mr Freud was called to the studio for his
first portrait by Bacon in 1951. This was unusual, as Bacon usually
preferred working from secondary media, such as photographs.
Mr
Freud quickly discovered why. When he returned to the studio after his
first sitting, he found that in his absence the portrait had metamorphosed
into something quite different; it now looked very much like the snapshot
of the Prague-born early 20th-century writer, Franz Kafka, that was to be
found among the debris littering the floor where Bacon worked.
Bacon’s
freewheeling approach to portraiture, so visible in his intimate rendition
of another larger-than-life character, Henrietta Moraes (pictured), was
something that intrigued Freud deeply.
Throughout
his 20s, Mr Freud painted in a meticulous, painstaking way, often using
unusually fine sable-hair brushes. He liked to sit while he painted. But
in 1954, he began to paint standing at his easel, something he still does
today, even at the age of 85. He also began using thicker, hog’s hair
brushes and stopped relying on underdrawing. All of these changes
encouraged a style of painting that was far more spontaneous and direct.
Mr
Freud’s friendship with the ever-moving Bacon was crucial to this. Later
Mr Freud would recall that Bacon talked about “packing a lot of things
into one single brushstroke, which amused and excited me, and I realised
that was a million miles from anything I could ever do.” That did not
stop him trying, though.
Mr
Freud’s two portraits of Francis Bacon emphasise how much the younger
artist was trying to change. The compositions are very similar. But in the
1952 work the influence of drawing has the effect of making the painting
more fixed, less free; as in the curling combed hair, the cleft of the
lips and the lines under the left eye. Mr Freud took three months to paint
that portrait. The two men sat knee to knee, Bacon looking downwards (the
same pose that had appeared a year earlier in a drawing Mr Freud made of
his friend). Bacon, notoriously restless, “grumbled but sat
consistently”.
Four
years later Mr Freud began a second painting (pictured above). Although
incomplete, there is already a remarkable stillness in the features. Again
Bacon is looking down. It could be for a second or even an hour; there is
no way of knowing. He looks a little jaded, made worse by the use of
greens and yellows. Indeed the whole atmosphere of the face is created out
of a rich palette of delicate colour, especially around the eyelids and
eyelashes.
“I
would wish my portraits to be of the people, not like them,” Mr Freud
would say years later. “Not having a look of the sitter, being them. I
didn’t want to get just a likeness like a mimic, but to portray them,
like an actor. As far as I am concerned the paint is the person. I want it
to work for me just as flesh does.”
Mr
Freud’s 1952 portrait of Bacon was bought by the Tate Gallery. In 1988,
while on loan to an exhibition in Berlin, it was stolen. It has never been
recovered. The portrait that Mr Freud began in 1956 remains his only
surviving painting of Bacon. The older artist, ever restless, abandoned
sitting for this work to pursue his lover, Peter Lacy, to Tangier. It was
never finished.
Portrait
of Henrietta Moraes by Francis Bacon will be sold at Christie’s on
October 19th. The estimate is £5.5m-7.5m ($9.5m-13m). Francis Bacon
by Lucian Freud is in the same sale, estimate £5m-7m.
Francis Bacon Meets
New Brutalism at Tate Britain
Zaha Hadid, Patrick
Hodgkinson and others debated art and architecture.
Text By Ned
Beauman | DazedDigital.com|
09 October 2008
Francis Bacon Triptych
- In Memory of George Dyer 1971 Fondation Beyeler, Basel
“Architecture
students,” said my friend as we left this Architecture Foundation talk
at Tate Britain, “are like fashion students, but with brains,” which
is perhaps a bit unfair, but it certainly was a rare treat to see such a
fantastically well-designed bunch of kids listening to a panel on such a
fantastically abstruse subject – that is, the connection between the art
of Francis Bacon and the New Brutalism of the 1960s. On stage were Zaha
Hadid, Patrick Hodgkinson (designer of the Brunswick Centre), Tony Fretton
(designer of the Lisson Gallery), architectural historian Joe Kerr, and
cultural critic Mark Cousins, who gave a short but thought-provoking
keynote.
When we see an expression of sadness on a human face, Cousins said, we
imagine that somehow the sadness goes all the way down. But if that face
has a wound, which reveals nothing but blood and flesh and bone
underneath, then it undermines that apparent depth of representation.
"Of course, we are meat," said Bacon, "we are potential
carcasses", and Cousins argued that meat in Bacon’s paintings is
the collapse of signification. We call it ugly as a sort of Freudian
defence mechanism because we are so unnerved by that collapse, and the
same is true of raw concrete in brutalist architecture. "If, like
Bacon, you can propel the spectator into the midst of meat and find it
essentially human," concluded Cousins, "then you can dispel some
of the defences which disable public taste."
The discussion that followed was fascinating, if diffuse. Hadid, for some
reason, started off by pretending she was going to be an awkward grump,
but then pitched in enthusiastically, while 77-year-old Hodgkinson gave a
memorable account of his development from painter to architect. Asked
about the unpopularity of the original Brunswick Centre, he replied that
words like ‘Brutalism’ refer only to the look of a building, which, to
him, is unimportant compared to the feeling of living inside one.
"Beauty and ugliness are in the eye of a beholder," he said,
confirming an earlier point of Kerr’s: "That public taste is
frequently wrong is an absolute axiom for architects." By the end,
the five had barely touched on Texture, the supposed theme of the
talk, but it didn’t matter. I’ll be back at Tate Britain on October 22
for Back to the City the second panel in the series, where Nigel
Coates, Joseph Rykwert, and Ken Livingstone – three pictures of whom my
housemate has still refused to take down from our fridge, five months
after his election defeat – will talk about Bacon as a "consummate
urbanite".
Photographer Jane
Bown: 'I was rather frightened of Francis Bacon'
Jane Bown took her
first portrait for the Observer in 1949. Here, she talks about what it
was like photographing the artist Francis Bacon in his London studio
The Guardian,
Wednesday October 8 2008
I preferred working
on my own as I was able to do with Francis Bacon. I photographed him in
Reece Mews in a studio he used all his life next to the pub: bad light,
lots of cobwebs, dirt - the light was bad - it was all very murky
dirty and dusty and crammed with, 'em - paintings I suppose. I was
rather frightened of them I think - didn't quite know what to do with
him, there wasn't much I could do except but use that back-drop of his
paint brushes, and mugs and the mirror, which was rounded and I worked
on trying to get his round face against the round mirror, he had an
amazing face; it wasn't easy; I think he was reluctant.
I think I suppose
there was plenty to work on
here but difficult to get itagainst,
I mean almost an Aladin Cave of goodies really but 'em, I don't think I
made the most of it until I got him outside. We went down his stairs
and, 'em he opened a stable door, and 'eh, it was quite amazing cos' the
light came in, his face lit up - it was magic; and that's how I saw him
- I could really see into his eyes, I saw more than I saw the rest of
the morning - I was shy of him in away I did not know for the best
because there's too much to do; it wasn't instant; some of the best jobs
when I go in is instant, I get it right away I didn't know what to
do with him it didn't feel quite right all the time - until we went out
to the stable door.
Francis Bacon
Invisible Histories
Tate Britain
Symposia
Thursday 23 October
2008, 15.00–21.00
Friday 24 October 2008, 10.00–17.30
Tate
Britain Auditorium
£40 (£30 concessions), booking recommended
Includes a private view of the exhibition on Thursday evening.
Since Francis Bacon
died in 1992 his reputation increases in stature and his paintings
continue to break auction house records. But what is the state of Bacon
scholarship and what do we know of Bacon's practice now in the light of
new information revealed in his studio and archive? What new knowledge
of his working process has conservation research revealed? This
conference brings together curators, critics and academics to discuss
Bacon the artist, his working methods and the curatorial approaches that
have emerged around his work.
Keynote
Lecture, Thursday 23 October:
Martin
Harrison, editor of Francis Bacon Catalogue Raisonné
and author of In Camera: Francis Bacon.
to coincide with the
launch of his new book Incunabula.
This will be
celebrated with a wine reception and Private View of the Francis Bacon
Exhibition on this evening.
Other
Speakers Include:
Dawn Ades,
Professor of Art History and Theory, University of Essex
Andrew
Brighton, author of Francis Bacon, Tate Publishing
Richard
Calvocoressi, Director, Henry Moore Foundation
Nicholas
Chare, Leverhulme Research Fellow in History of Art, Reading
University
Matthew
Gale, Head of Displays and Curator of Modern Art, Tate Modern
and co-curator of the Francis Bacon exhibition
Martin
Hammer, reader of History of Art, Edinburgh University, author
of Bacon and Sutherland
Richard
Hornsey, lecturer of Cultural Studies, University of the West
of England and author of Francis Bacon and the Photobooth: Facing
the Homosexual in Post-war Britain
Norma
Johnson, Conservator, Estate of Francis Bacon
Bettina
Kaufman, Curator, Tate Britain
David
Mellor, Professor of History of Art, Sussex University
Simon Ofield,
Dean of Art, Design and Architecture, Kingston University
Chris
Stephens, Head of Displays and Curator of Modern British Art,
Tate Britain, and co-curator of the Francis Bacon exhibition
PROVISIONAL
PROGRAMME
Thursday
23 OctoberSession
1
15.0 Welcome
– Victoria Walsh
15.05
David Mellor - Framing Bacon: Historiographic Structures
15.30
Chris Stephens - Francis Bacon – A Curatorial Perspective
16.00
Richard Calvocoressi - ‘Portraits and Heads’ The exhibition
16.30
Panel Discussion and Questions
17.15
Keynote Lecture: Martin Harrison - Francis Bacon: Rien ne va
plus
18.00
Respondent: Andrew Brighton
18.15
Questions and discussion / Chair: Matthew Gale
18.30-20.30 Private
View / Reception to mark the publication of Martin Harrison’s Francis
Bacon: Incunabula
Friday 24
October 10.00-12.30
Session Two
Introduction –
Victoria Walsh
Andrew Brighton -
Bacon in the 1930s
Rebecca Daniels -
Francis Bacon and Walter Sickert: the very essence of the thing
Nicholas Chare - 'The
reek of human blood smiles out at me': Attending to the Synaesthetic
in Francis Bacon's Paintings
Panel Discussion
and Questions / Chair: Chris Stephens
13.30-15.30
Session Three
Alistair O’Neill
- Francis Bacon: Performing the City
Richard Hornsey - Bacon's
Trial by Photobooth
Margarita Cappock
- Bacon and his Studio
Panel Discussion
and Questions
16.00-17.00
Session Four
Barbara Dawson –
The Bacon Archive Project at the Hugh Lane (tbc)
Bettina Kaufmann
– The Bacon and Sylvester Interviews
Martin Hammer -
Avenues from Bacon and Sutherland
Chair: Gary
Tinterow
Questions
17.00-18.00
Session Five
Martin Harrison
Richard
Calvocoressi
Matthew Gale
Chair: Dawn Ades
18.00-19.30
End and Reception
This
event is related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Architecture and
Design in the Bacon Era
Texture
Mark Cousins, Zaha Hadid, Tony Fretton, Patrick Hodgkinson and Joe Kerr
(Chair)
Tate Britain
Auditorium
£7 (£5 concessions), booking recommended
Members of The Architecture Foundation entitled to concessionary
price.
SOLD OUT
Wednesday 1 October
2008, 19.00–21.00
New Brutalism
championed materiality and a fascination with the harsh, the
substantial and the rough. The discovery of ‘beauty’ in
‘ugliness’ arguably parallels Bacon’s ability to make stark
images seductive, and indeed brutal, as he revelled in the texture of
paint itself. Architects Zaha Hadid and Tony Fretton will be joined
architectural theorist Mark Cousins and Patrick Hodgkinson, architect
of one of London’s key Brutalist structures, the Brunswick Centre,
to explore these ideas.
Organised by The
Architecture Foundation and Tate Britain. Supported by the
Estate of Francis Bacon.
This
event is related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Hugh Davies on
Francis Bacon
Tate Britain
Auditorium
£4, booking recommended
Friday 17 October
2008, 13.00–14.00
Following the
suicide of his lover George Dyer in 1971, Francis Bacon embarked on a
series of paintings known as the 'Black Triptychs'. Hugh
Davies, Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in San
Diego, has described these paintings as the 'frenzied momentum of a
struggle against death' and discusses them in light of his 1973
interview with Bacon.
This
event is related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Architecture
and Design in the Bacon Era
Back to the City
Joseph Rykwert, Ken Livingstone, Nigel Coates and Denise Scott Brown
Tate
Britain Auditorium
£7 (£5 concessions), booking recommended
Price includes drinks afterwards
Members of The Architecture Foundation entitled to concessionary price
Wednesday 22 October
2008, 19.00–21.00
Bacon was a
consummate urban resident, as a Soho drinking club stalwart he
revelled in the violence and structured chaos of urban existence. His
city was a place of conflict between the illicit and the public, whose
versatility he used as a place to hide and a substance to exploit.
With the destruction of World War II as a backdrop, city life
blossomed, beginning a re-discovery of the urban that continues today.
This panel, featuring eminent architectural historian Joseph Rykwert,
experimental architect Nigel Coates and former London Mayor Ken
Livingstone, will look at how urbanity grew to its present condition,
where more than half the world’s population lives in cities.
Organised by The
Architecture Foundation and Tate Britain. Supported by the Estate of
Francis Bacon.
This
event is related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Dead Sexy
Maggi Hambling on Francis Bacon
Tate Britain
Auditorium
£4, booking recommended
Wednesday
29 October 2008, 13.00–14.00
Distinguished
artist Maggi Hambling talks on the life and times of
Francis Bacon and his importance to contemporary art. Henrietta Moraes,
queen of Soho in the 1950s, was both model and muse to Bacon then and to
Hambling later. Hambling has said 'when you look at a Bacon, you are
confronted by life and death simultaneously. That is the power'.
This
event is related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Richard Cork on
Francis Bacon
Tate Britain
Auditorium
£4, booking recommended
Friday 14 November
2008, 13.00–14.00
Join critic and
writer Richard Cork for a personal recollection
of his experience of Francis Bacon, and learn of his astonishment when
he discovered that the man who had created those pictures, with their
violent and obsessive emphasis on screaming or struggling figures, was
in reality so warm, communicative and hospitable.
This event is
related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Michael Peppiatt
The Sacred and the Profane
Tate Britain
Manton Studio
£7 (£5 concessions)
Friday 14 November
2008, 18.30–20.00
Michael Peppiatt,
a renowned Bacon scholar, friend of the artist and author of the
definitive account of his life and work, Francis Bacon: Anatomy of
an Enigma, will be discussing what he believes to be a paradox at
the heart of Bacons work - as an outspoken atheist, why was Bacon
obsessively drawn to the highly charged symbols of the Christian
faith, namely the Crucifixion and the Pope as well as to the great
classical myths?
This event is
related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Bacon's London
Tate
Britain Manton Studio
£20 (£15 concessions), booking required
Price includes refreshments
Thursday
20 November 2008, 14.00–17.30
Bacon began his life
in London as an interior designer but quickly abandoned this career to
pursue painting, immersing himself in the London art scene. A regular at
the colony club and a keen gambler, Bacon was in close contact with a
numerous city characters and artists including Lucien Freud, Frank
Auerbach and John Deakin.
The exhibition's
co-curator, Chris Stephens and Tate archivist Adrian
Glew, examine letters, photographs and other original archive
material to learn more about Bacon and his life in the City.
This event
is related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Folie à Deux:
Bacon and Deleuze
Tate Britain
Manton Studio
£20 (£15 concessions), booking required
Price includes refreshments
Saturday 29 November
2008, 14.00–17.00
Francis Bacon's
isolated figures and distorted faces were analysed by Gilles Deleuze
and from this he developed a series of philosophical concepts that
have produced some of the most creative and challenging approaches to
painting and aesthetics. Dr Simon O'Sullivan, Dr
Darren Ambrose, Margarita Gluzberg and Andrew
Conio discuss how this entanglement has fashioned new ways
of understanding painting and writing, producing ideas that have had
an impact far beyond the domains of aesthetics and philosophy.
Supported by
Wolverhampton University
This event
is related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
As Francis Bacon's
influence and legacy fall under the spotlight with Tate Britain's major
retrospective, this evening discussion asks Maggi Hambling, Jenny
Saville and Nigel Cooke to share their views and relationship to the
painter. They offer an artists perspective into what makes Bacon
"One of the greatest painters of all time".
Francis
Bacon sponsored by Bank of America
This event
is related to the Francis Bacon exhibition
Liver, By Will Self
Talking
about degeneration in a city of bile
Reviewed by Nicholas Royle
The Independent, Friday,
10 October 2008
Is it a novel? Is it a
collection of short stories or a quartet of novellas? It is none of these
things. Liver is a "fictional organ with a surface anatomy of
four lobes". "Foie Humaine" begins on territory familiar to
fans of Self's The Sweet Smell of Psychosis, but the Plantation
Club, hidden up a Soho alley, has more in common with the real Colony Room
than the fictional Sealink Club in the earlier novella. The Plantation's
regulars go by nicknames – the Martian, the Extra, the Cunt, the Poof
– and are a mixed bag of publishers, columnists, actors and general
roués united in their respect only for world-famous painter and
fellow-member Trouget, routinely rude landlord Val Carmichael. For Trouget
(with his "weird young-old face"), read Francis Bacon, while Val
heads up the equivalent of the bar once run by Muriel Belcher and Ian
Board.
The story charts the
devastating effects of alcohol on the liver, specifically in relation to
Hilary, Val's barman. Every time his back is turned, his boss spikes his
lager with vodka. This dissolute version of gavage – what poultry
farmers in the Dordogne do to their geese – is a cruel sport and it's
hard to see what Val's motivation might be. But all becomes clear. Sort
of.
The characters are for
the most part grotesque caricatures, yet somehow living and breathing. For
all the extravagant, cartoonish hideousness of the worlds many of Self's
characters inhabit – from Soho drinking clubs to Kensington crack houses
– life remains something precious. "Prometheus" recycles
Ancient Greek myths, just as the liver recycles old red blood cells. In an
accelerated narrative set against London's adland, Zeus is an entrepreneur
with his finger in many pies – but his Vauxhall penthouse will remind
readers of a certain disgraced Tory peer's. The book closes with "Birdy
Num Num", a vivid cautionary tale about not only the horrors of
addiction to hard drugs, but also the concomitant danger of coming into
contact with deadly viruses, especially HIV.
Self's London has the
qualities of the eponymous vital organ: "a metropolis that had itself
been breaking down cultural toxins and processing rich nutrients for two
millennia, yet could only do so by manufacturing hectolitres of
bile". The best piece, however, is "Leberknödel", in which
Joyce, a former hospital administrator with liver cancer, flies to Zürich
intending to "die with dignity". Confronted by the
"absolute horror of suicide", she changes her mind, and starts
– miraculously, perhaps – to get better. It's the best fictional
writing on Zürich since Kim Stanley Robinson's story named after the
city, but also a bold a take on a relationship between mother and
daughter, with one very, very odd line in it.
Nicholas
Royle's new novella, The Enigma of Departure, is published by PS
Publishing
This
is the fragment of a Francis Bacon painting that has been sold for an
amazing £14,500.
The
31in x 10in scrap of mutilated canvas shows what appears to be part of a
foot against a black background. The Dublin-born artist destroyed the
picture in 1985, seven years before his death at 82.
Auctioneer
Chris Ewbank, who oversaw the sale in Woking, Surrey, said yesterday:
"It seems a lot to pay for only part of a painting but the buyer was
determined to own something by Bacon."
In
May, a Bacon painting sold for £49million in New York, a record for a
contemporary art auction.
Sale
SEP08A Lot 509
Francis Bacon,
1909-1992, oil on canvas, part of one of Bacon's "destroyed"
canvases, circa 1985. The canvas shows what appears to be a "pool of
flesh" spread across a black background with a straight dividing line
on one side marking the defined edge of a small unpainted area. The use of
black as a background was frequently employed by Bacon at this time
particularly as a background for figures, and there are many examples of
"pools" emanating from his subjects. Examples include Portrait
of John Edwards 1988 and Triptych - August 1972 (George Dyer)
both of which also incorporate black backgrounds. 10" x 31.5"
Provenance; The vendor was a young art graduate and artist working at the
time for Chelsea Art Stores. He often served the artist when he came into
the shop between 1984 and 1987. Bacon was well-known for slashing and
mutilating the canvas of pictures he was not satisfied with and would
return some of the destroyed canvases to the shop to be re-stretched. It
was from one of these that, with the artist's knowledge, the vendor saved
this particular section "as a souvenir". It was part of a larger
piece of irregular shaped canvas which, because of slashes and damage, the
vendor cut to size and framed in a rectangular form.
As an art graduate, the young man would talk to Bacon on occasions about
the artist's techniques and materials he employed. On one occasion he
mentioned to Bacon that to paint in oils on to the raw side of the primed
linen as was Bacon's practice, would be damaging to the longevity of his
work. The simple reply was "I couldn't give a ****."!
The lot was submitted to the Estate of Francis Bacon for authentication in
2006 and is sold with a letter confirming its authenticity from the
Francis Bacon Committee.
Estimate £ 10,000-15,000
No damage in good condition
Francis Bacon (1909 -
1992)
Linda
Nochlin, Milan Kundera and others on Francis Bacon
To
coincide with the Bacon retrospective at Tate Britain, we bring together a
mix of writers, museum directors, artists, musicians and film-makers -
some of whom knew him and some who came to his work through art books or
exhibitions - to pay homage.
TATEetc,
Issue 14
/ Autumn 2008
Francis
Bacon's studio with his last painting, possibly the beginnings of a
portrait of George Dyer, on the easel, photographed by Perry Ogden in 1992
“For me, realism
is an attempt to capture the appearance with the cluster of sensations
that the appearance arouses in me. As for my latest triptych and a few
other canvases painted after I re-read Aeschylus, I tried to create images
of the sensations that some of the episodes created inside me.
“I could not
paint Agamemnon, Clytemnestra or Cassandra, as that would have been merely
another kind of historical painting when all is said and done. Therefore,
I tried to create an image of the effect that was produced inside me.
Perhaps realism is always subjective when it is most profoundly expressed.
When I look at grass, sometimes I feel like pulling out a clump and
transplanting it inside a frame, but of course that would not 'work', and
we are rightly forced to invent methods by which reality can force itself
upon our nervous system in a new way, yet without losing sight of the
model’s objectivity.”
— Francis Bacon,
letter to Michel Leiris, 20 November 1981
Middle Panel of Triptych - In Memory of George Dyer 1971 Francis Bacon
Oil on canvas 198x147.5cm
Linda
Nochlin on Triptych – May–June 1973
Francis Bacon created
this ambitious Triptych in May and June of 1973. In the artist’s
terms, as scrupulously articulated in the letter to the French critic
Michel Leiris cited above, it is certainly a realist work, although it
hardly corresponds to less personal definitions of realism. Its
iconography refers to a real event, the death of his lover; its mode of
expression to the visceral profundity – Bacon’s reality – of the
effect produced by this terrible occurrence.
It was in the late
1960s and 1970s that Bacon created his series of triptychs, not all of
them completely successful, but many of them powerful and disturbingly
original. According to the French theorist Gilles Deleuze in his Francis
Bacon: Logique de la sensation (Francis Bacon: the Logic of
Sensation, 1981), the triptych form enabled the artist to engage with
the human figure without being drawn into the conventional storytelling
mode. “It’s not only that the painting is an isolated reality, and not
only that the triptych consists of three isolated panels and the
fundamental rule that they never be united into a single frame: it’s
rather that the Figure itself is isolated in the painting… And Bacon has
often told us why: in order to avoid the figurative, illustrative and
narrative character that the Figure would necessarily assume if it weren’t
in isolation.”
In this work, however,
one of the most memorable of the great triptychs of the 1970s, Bacon is
less set than usual on staving off the demon narrative. Here, contrary to
Deleuze’s assertion that the form serves an isolating function, it seems
to me that the images beg to be read as a story, from left to right. And
the story, at once personal and melodramatic, is riveting: the suicide,
just before the opening of a major retrospective of Bacon’s work in
1971–1972 at the
Grand Palais, of George Dyer at the Hôtel des Saint-Pères in Paris. The
ignoble furniture of daily recuperation – the toilet, the sink, the
starkly singular light bulb – become the instruments of Dyer’s
Passion. To the left, he shits; to the right, he vomits; in the centre, he
hovers against the black background, which is transmuted into a giant
shadow, his shadow. In the opaque darkness, death itself assumes the form,
however inchoate, of a giant bat, a consuming demon, a revenging angel.
Sex, death and the throes of creation are at one here, as Jean-Claude
Lebensztejn pointed out in a brilliant catalogue essay for the 1996 Bacon
retrospective at the Centre Pompidou, an extended analysis of the
recurrent squirt of white paint streaking across the surface of many of
the artist’s most intense canvases of the period. Figured as a kind of
materialised sexual spasm, a jet of sperm, the white spurts up in the
final, right-hand image of the triptych, in which Dyer, who has overdosed,
spews up his soul into the hotel washbasin.
Why this persistent
“fear of narrative”, permeating not only Bacon’s own statements
about his work – “ I could not paint Agamemnon, Clytemnestra or
Cassandra, as that would have been merely another kind of historical
painting when all is said and done” – but most of the critical
analyses of his work, both pro and con? Almost everyone who has discussed
Bacon – most prominently Deleuze, but David Sylvester as well –
hastens to defend the artist from charges of illustrativeness, calling
attention to his anti-narrative strategies, strategies in which the format
of the triptych, the isolation of the human figure and the patent flatness
of the pictorial siting play an important role. Yet if one examines the
formal structure of Triptych – May–June 1973, one cannot help
but be struck by Bacon’s deliberate effort to create connection among
the three images, rather than isolation of the individual elements. The
human protagonist at various stages of his dying is bound to his tragic
fate by the repeated vertical counterpoint of the architectonic
framework of wooden panelling, a motif that plays against the dynamic
curvilinear interjections of the human form and its appurtenances, and is
bracketed at either end by a realistic light switch and wire, such as
might be found in the Hôtel des Saints-Pères and marks the event’s
specific time and place. The story is narrated in terms of this structure,
its sequential agonies staged against the repeated greyish blankness of
the rug at the bottom of each panel. Certainly in terms of Bacon’s
definition of realism, it is a realist work, but, to me, it is a realist
narrative as well.
Anti-narrative
defensiveness is understandable enough in the context of the heady days of
Abstract Expressionism (which Bacon ostensibly hated, but which obviously
exerted a certain seductive power on his formal language), an era when “illustration”,
“decoration” and “narrative” functioned as the signs of artistic
failure. Nobody, however, really explains just why illustration and
narration are such terrible sins, temptations to be avoided at all costs.
After all, British art, from Hogarth to the Pre-Raphaelites and beyond,
has had a considerable positive engagement with narration – and often
narration in the service of morality at that.
Perhaps that is why
Bacon and his supporters have been particularly keen to separate the
artist from this tradition, to make sure that he is seen and judged as a
player in the game of international modernism, as a painter whose formal
inventiveness and up-to-date kinkiness and anguish sever his work
completely from all connection with the fuddy-duddy past of British
pictorial history. But this would be a shame, especially in the case of
the 1973 Triptych and some of the other ambitious works relating
to it, such as Triptych – In Memory of George Dyer (1971), or Triptych
– August 1972, also three-part pictures, recalling, however dimly,
the religious triptychs of Christian art.
Almost from the
beginning, Bacon’s work has been engaged with temporality, making, at
the very least, a flirtation with narration almost unavoidable. Or one
might say, more accurately, that Bacon’s imagery, his considerable
formal gifts and his technical bravura have been harnessed to change –
sexual struggle, the metamorphosis of man into meat, or vice versa; the
disruption or coagulation of the structure of face and body, the blatant
reduction of the dignity of the human form into a trickle or a puddle of
paint; and, at the end, time’s grimmest depredation: the horror,
bestiality and meaninglessness of death itself.
Milan Kundera
For a long time,
Francis Bacon and Samuel Beckett made up a couple in my imaginary gallery
of modern art. Then I read the interview Bacon did with Michel Archimbaud:
“I’ve always been amazed by this pairing of Beckett and me,” Bacon
said. “I’ve always felt that Shakespeare expressed much better and
more precisely and more powerfully what Beckett and Joyce were trying to
say.” And then later: “I wonder if Beckett’s ideas about his art
haven’t wound up killing off his creation. There’s something at once
too systematic and too intelligent in him, that may be what’s always
bothered me.” And again: “In painting, we always leave in too much
that is habit, we never eliminate enough, but in Beckett I’ve often had
the sense that as a result of seeking to eliminate, nothing was left any
more, and that nothingness finally sounded hollow.”
When one artist talks
about another one, he is always talking (indirectly, in a roundabout way)
of himself. In talking about Beckett, what is Bacon telling us about
himself? That he is refusing to be categorised. That he wants to protect
his work against clichés. Next: that he is resisting the dogmatists of
modernism who have erected a barrier between tradition and modern art as
if, in the history of art, the latter represented an isolated period with
its own incomparable values, with its completely autonomous criteria.
Whereas Bacon looks to the history of art in its entirety; the twentieth
century does not cancel our debts to Shakespeare.
And further: he is
refusing to express his ideas on art in too systematic a fashion, fearing
to stifle his creative unconscious; fearing also to allow his art to be
turned into a kind of simplistic message. He knows that the danger is all
the greater because art is now clogged with a noisy, opaque logorrhoea of
theory that prevents a work from coming into direct, media-free contact
with its viewer (its reader, its listener). Wherever he can, Bacon
therefore blurs his tracks to throw off interpreters who try to reduce his
work to an over-facile programme: he bridles at using the word “horror”
with regard to his art; he stresses the role of chance in his painting
(chance turning up in the course of the work – an accidental spot of
paint that abruptly changes the very subject of the picture); he insists
on the word “play” when everyone is making much of the seriousness of
his paintings. People want to talk about his despair? Very well, but, he
specifies immediately, in this case it is a joyous despair.
From the reflection on
Beckett quoted, I pull out this remark: “In painting, we always leave in
too much that is habit, we never eliminate enough…” Too much that is
habit, which is to say: everything in painting that is not the painter’s
own discovery, his fresh contribution, his originality; everything that is
inherited, routine, filler, elaboration considered to be technical
necessity. Almost all great modern artists mean to do away with “filler”,
do away with whatever comes from habit, from technical routine, whatever
keeps them from getting directly and exclusively at the essential (the
essential: the thing the artist himself, and only he, is able to say). So
it is with Bacon: the backgrounds of his paintings are hyper-simple,
flat-colour; but in the foreground, the bodies are treated with a richness
of colours and forms that is all the denser. Now, that (Shakespearian)
richness is what matters to him. For without that richness (richness
contrasting with the flat-colour background), the beauty would be ascetic,
as if “put on a diet”, as if diminished, and for Bacon the issue
always and above all is beauty, the explosion of beauty, because even if
the word seems nowadays to be hackneyed, out of date, it is what links him
to Shakespeare.
Like Bacon, Beckett
had no illusions about the future, either of the world or of art. And at
that moment in the last days of illusions, both men show the same
immensely interesting and significant reaction: wars, revolutions and
their setbacks, massacres, the imposture we call democracy – all these
subjects are absent from their works. In his Rhinoceros (1959),
Ionesco is still interested in the great political questions. Nothing like
that in Beckett. Picasso paints Massacre in Korea (1951). An
inconceivable subject for Bacon. Living through the end of a civilisation
(as Beckett and Bacon were or thought they were), the ultimate brutal
confrontation is not with a society, with a state, with a politics, but
with the physiological materiality of man. That is why even the great
subject of the Crucifixion, which used to concentrate within itself the
whole ethics, the whole religion, indeed the whole history of the West,
becomes in Bacon’s hands a simple physiological scandal. “I’ve
always been very moved by pictures about slaughterhouses and meat, and
to me they belong very much to the whole thing of the Crucifixion. There’ve
been extraordinary photographs which have been done of animals just being
taken up before they were slaughtered; and the smell of death…” To
link Jesus nailed to the cross with slaughterhouses and animals’ fear
might seem sacrilegious. But Bacon is a non-believer, and the notion of
sacrilege has no place in his way of thinking; according to him, “man
now realises that he is an accident, that he is a completely futile being,
that he has to play out the game without reason”.
Triptych –
May–June 1973 is Bacon’s tribute to his friend and lover George
Dyer. I saw this painting in his studio over a number of weeks as it was
being painted. At the time I was doing my doctoral dissertation on Bacon’s
work, so I got to meet and talk with him many times during the course of
1973. The studio was small, so he could do only one panel at a time, and
would lean the others against the wall.
This is more or less
his record of what happened. In 1971 Dyer committed suicide on the eve of
Bacon’s retrospective at the Grand Palais in the Paris hotel in which
they were staying. Dyer overdosed from pills and alcohol and, from the
evidence in the bathroom, he vomited in the sink. He was found slumped on
the toilet. They had two bedrooms with an adjoining bathroom, so Bacon
then painted the panels from different perspectives. One is from Dyer’s
side and the other is from Bacon's. He was very influenced by film as we
know, and using the triptych format was a way of capturing time, but he
wanted to avoid the obvious linear narrative, which is why he changed the
order of events in the picture so you can’t read it from left to right.
Dyer vomits in the right panel, and is dying, or dead, in a foetal
position in the first panel.
When I was first
writing about the work, Bacon was still alive, so we tended not to write
about the fact that Dyer had committed suicide. People who have written
subsequently have criticised me for making a literal interpretation of
events, as they believed the artist was painting a metaphorical depiction
of death. However, the reality is, I believe, that this painting is the
most graphic narrative engagement he ever made. When I spoke to Bacon at
the time, I might have expected him to be dispassionate about the event,
and to talk about the painting in formal terms, but it was clear that he
was deeply affected by it. The painting was, for him, a form of catharsis.
He had said how extraordinarily unfortunate and sad the incident was, but
not in terms of “oh, I wish I’d come back to the room a few hours
earlier”. I felt that he thought there was a sort of inevitability about
Dyer’s death.
Bacon painted two
earlier triptychs that also deal with the subject, which to me are works
that lead up to Triptych – May–June 1973. The first is Triptych
– In Memory of George Dyer (1971), which is like an honest
diaristic memory of him. In the centre panel you see Dyer turning a key in
the door – a reference to T S Eliot’s “I’ve heard the key turn in
the lock”. But, for me, it’s Bacon envisaging George returning to the
hotel room. In the second, Triptych – August 1972, he has
painted a grey section roughly in the centre of each of the three
canvases. It resembles a wrestling ring, a platform or a theatre stage.
The figures sit on the “stage”, projecting out to the viewer, their
forms highlighted by the black background. However, in Triptych –
May–June 1973 the figures have crossed the threshold and into the
darkness, which I think was a very conscious decision on his part to
represent Dyer’s passage into death. As for the two arrows that he
painted in the bottom section of both the left and right panels, he said
that these additions gave the figures a specificity and formality that he
likened to police photographs. He wanted to make the paintings seem more
clinically distanced. He also told me that the source of these arrows –
aside from police photographs – were sports books, and in particular a
golfing book by Jack Nicklaus. The illustrations of Jack playing out of
various predicaments were embellished with blocky red arrows indicating
the direction of the club and intended ball flight.
In a similar fashion,
Bacon used the arrows in Triptych – May–June 1973 in an
attempt to bring a form of professional objectivity to the painful process
of both recording and coming to terms with the death of his partner. I
think he managed to depict that loss with great honesty and empathy. It’s
a singularly powerful, contemporary and cathartic depiction of the death
of a loved one.
John Maybury
on Love
is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon (1998)
I used to live in a
squat in Queen’s Gate, Kensington, and on my way to art school I would
often see Francis Bacon pottering about, as his studio was nearby. When I
was researching the making of my film Love is the Devil, I would
revisit his work. Actually, it didn’t require that much revisiting
because he had been my hero since my student days. If you like Bacon, you
tend to obsess about him. He was, and is, a part of my language, and I
continue to use his work as a reference.
His paintings dictated
the palette of Love is the Devil, the key colours being those of
bone, blood and flesh. We couldn’t include either the actual paintings
or direct quotes from Bacon in the film, which turned out to be an
advantage, as it forced me to use the mechanics of film-making in a
Baconesque way. Distorting mirrors – well, mirrors in general – which
are such a central part of his work, leant themselves beautifully as a
device within the film. It was also exciting that Bacon had such a
cinematic approach to his own paintings – from being influenced by
Eadweard Muybridge’s photographs of humans and animals in motion to the
triptych format which made me think of Cinemascope. I wanted to get across
a sense of that fragmentation that would relate both to him and his work.
I made a very
deliberate decision to focus on George Dyer, Bacon’s lover, partly
because the Dyer paintings were always my favourites and partly because
his suicide played into the theme of Bacon as this dark painter. However,
despite the darkness, I have always found an incredible beauty and
affection in his work – words, I suspect, that he would have hated. Even
in something as visceral as the figure of Dyer vomiting in the sink, Bacon
manages to put across a poetry that is amazingly moving. In the film I
gave one of the characters a line about the sensitivity of the
brushstrokes in the Dyer paintings being like the caress of a lover. I do
believe there is tenderness towards his friends and lovers in his
paintings.
One of the things that
came out of all the interviews and conversations that I did at the time
was that very few people could tell me anything about Dyer. Few people
liked him. They resented him and his closeness to Bacon. I think the same
thing translated into John Edwards’s relationship too. So I deliberately
portrayed Dyer as a character who was completely outside the whole Colony
Room scene. He was an outsider in Bacon’s world on every level, but
there was an intimacy between the two of them which nobody could
penetrate. I think that’s what Bacon loved about him, and loved about
John Edwards. They weren’t intellectuals or people who had much interest
in his work.
When I made the film I
can’t really say I got to know Bacon (I had met him at the Colony Room
in 1980 when I was a young little punk, and found him terrifying). There
were still enough of his friends alive to talk about him to give a degree
of insight, but he was almost sphinx-like in his ability to mislead and
misinform, and he hated people talking about his work. So the mythology
around him is thick and dense. There was a kind of dark, sarcastic
witticism at large with all those people, and Bacon in particular.
I think he was very
much of his time, in that up until 1967 he was carrying out illegal
practices and actually making very public statements about it in his
painting. For example, the beautiful picture of two men on a mattress, Two
Figures (1953), is clearly a homosexual image. But beyond that, he’s
certainly not a gay artist. That point was very much top of my agenda in Love is the Devil.
I got a lot of criticism from the gay community about this – but I was
insistent that this isn’t and wasn’t a gay film, because there was no
such thing as “gay” in that sense, and “homosexual” was
something else, even, at that time.
Study
after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X 1953
Francis
Bacon Oil on canvas 153x118 cm
Mark-Anthony
Turnage
I knew about Bacon’s
work from a young age. I voraciously read everything about him, in
particular the interviews that he did with David Sylvester. I’ve never
marked up a book in the margins as much as that one. I agreed with the
ideas about process that Sylvester and Bacon discussed, and it correlated
with what I was thinking about in my music at that time.
In 1985 I went to see
the Bacon retrospective at Tate and was so knocked out by it that I went
back several times. I became obsessed with his paintings. I’m not sure
why; it was a strange combination of feelings. Despite the gruesome
imagery, I thought his work was beautiful and visceral, and that really
stimulated me. As well as the classic triptych Three Studies for
Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (c.1944), I liked the series of
paintings of the screaming popes based on Velázquez’s Portrait of
Pope Innocent X. In the exhibition they showed three in a row, so
they also looked like a triptych. The open screaming mouth in some of them
implies something vocal – but, of course, we don’t hear anything. I
found that very powerful. I knew that Bacon was obsessed by mouths – he
sourced images of diseases of the mouth from medical books, but he had
also been influenced by the image of the screaming nurse in Eisenstein’s
Battleship Potemkin (1925).
I stored up the title
of “screaming popes” in my head, but it would be three years before my
thoughts and ideas would turn it into music. I had originally contemplated
doing a requiem, and then I thought about writing a piece which distorted
a set of Spanish dances, in the same way that Bacon had distorted
Velázquez, but in the process of writing it, the dances – a bit like
the first layers of paint being put on canvas – became so submerged in
the other textures of the music that only a faint trace is visible. I
ended up doing something more spontaneous. What I hope that comes across
is the coloured intensity and emotional immediacy of his paintings.
Blood on Pavement 1988
Francis Bacon
Oil on canvas 198 x 147.5 cm
I met Bacon twice in
1987, both times with my teacher Hans Werner Henze, who had commissioned
me to do an opera for the Munich Biennale festival – Greek,
based on Steven Berkoff’s East End reworking of the Oedipus myth. I was
meant to ask Bacon to design the set for Greek, but I just knew
he wouldn’t say yes. Instead, we got drunk. I was terrified, and
completely in awe of him. Several years after that, another one of his
works – a late painting from 1988 called Blood on the Pavement
– was the influence for a movement in my piece Blood on the Floor.
His works have stayed with me.
Portrait of
Isable Rawsthorne Standing in a Street in Soho 1967
Francis Bacon Oil on canvas 198 x 147.5cm
Chantal Joffe
The first Bacon
picture I saw was Study of a Dog (1952) at what is now Tate
Britain as a seventeen-year-old teenager. I tried to paint a version of
it, thinking it would be easy, but of course it wasn’t. The composition
reminded me of the view out of the bay window in our house. I liked it
because he was painting everyday things. Several years later, when I went
to art school, I wanted to be Bacon, to be closer to him in some
way. He always painted on the unprimed backs of canvases, so as a student
I would paint on canvas that had only been sized with rabbit skin glue. It
made the paint seem fresher, and I liked the touch of it on the canvas, as
you got seepage into the surface that you don’t get with acrylic paints,
for example. I also liked the directness of his method. I learned that in
the middle of doing one painting, Figure in a Landscape (1945),
he picked up dust and fluff from the floor and pressed it into the canvas.
I think Bacon used
colour to great effect: black, purple, cobalt blue, egg-yolk yellow. In Lying
Figure with Hypodermic Syringe (1963) the figure has been flattened
out with pink and yellow colours. When you see one of these paintings from
a distance, there is a seductiveness, a creamy beauty about the colours
– especially those beautiful tangerines. But then when you see it close
up, everything seems more destructive.
Bacon managed to
balance his art well. As well as the seemingly spontaneous approach to his
painting, he depicted scenes that gave a sense of control – figures in
cages and enclosed spaces. I think he reinvented space for an artist. He
was able to conjure a specific place or time without using a kind of
realistic linear language, placing the viewer above, so it’s almost like
looking down into a floodlit operating theatre. Often the spaces appear
circular, rather than ones that you might read from left to right. A good
example is Portrait of Isabel Rawsthorne Standing in a Street in Soho
(1967). Even though it’s based on a real place, he has re-imagined it.
When you look at other artists at that time, their sense of space was much
more turgid. In one sense, Bacon is a figurative painter without being a
realist, but his spaces feel incredibly real. He never strays into the
territory of whimsy or mannerism.
Rudolf Stingel
I don’t remember
when I first saw Bacon’s work, and honestly, I never really thought that
much about it. Obviously, I knew about it, had seen it and respected it.
It was only recently, as I started doing my own self-portraits, that I
began to run into Bacon, or he began to run into me. It was as if I had
found myself in a place similar to where he was. His work became something
that I had to deal with somehow; to navigate around or take on. So I
decided to take him head-on; to do Bacon as I would do Bacon, to remake
him as I would make him, only to amplify and isolate further the same
thing in my own language, in the same way musicians do a cover song, to
play it air guitar. I don’t really know how to explain the decision I
made in remaking his work; I bought all the Bacon books I could find, and
found the image that resonated the most. And then I distorted it until it
was my own image, until it was no longer in my way. The cliché is to kill
the Buddha when you meet him on the road, so I suppose this is just the
corpse of that Buddha.
Untitled 2007 Rudolf Stingel Acrylic on
canvas 336x827cm
Nigel Cooke on
Study
for a Portrait of Van Gogh VI (1957) and Van
Gogh in a Landscape (1957)
These two paintings
are from a larger group of “assaults” on Van Gogh produced in 1957.
Bacon works the Dutchman over thoroughly in the riveting series,
throwing up a vividness of colour and handling rarely seen elsewhere in
his output. There is a magnetic ambivalence to these works that sees Bacon
squeezing out his own twisted homage from the contrary need to bury
Vincent’s ghost in paint. The man himself is scarcely a shadow, a
comical little black spider in a web of expression, which is the trace of
Bacon’s drive to compress the space and make it his own. Although we get
to see him up close, he is featureless; carbonised under the glare of the
sun (Vincent’s own personal obsession), this charred multi-legged thing
with his textbook straw hat and wretched easel has been supplanted by the
language he himself set in motion 70 years earlier, on his daily
pilgrimage to paint out in the fields and streets surrounding his little
yellow house.
Pillaging for his own
ends, Bacon’s “portrait” despatches Van Gogh to an elsewhere of
painterly rivalry, mad brushwork and screaming colour. Picasso went after
Velázquez’s Las Meninas (1656) in his way too, squaring up to
Velázquez at ground level like a boxer; Bacon is more pitiless, an
assassin – we see the painter from an aerial distance as though through
a telescopic sight. Bacon’s vulnerable quarry is loaded up with painting
gear and dwarfed by a vigorously painted grassy arena. The speed of the
painting is all here – in the grass.
Bacon’s journey
through painting is a story of manual thought, a narrative at the
intersection of action and image. The grassland that threatens to engulf
Van Gogh is the paint speaking on its own terms, scrubbing up an
amalgamation of both natural space and human energy. This is the
forerunner to Bacon’s “clear and precise” abstraction, as David
Sylvester called it, the formally defined zone of action that exerted such
strange pressures on his bodies in later years. Yet the trapezes and
arenas are present in the Van Gogh series in a surprising way. Bacon has
imported his London-made, circus-like arena into Van Gogh’s Arles.
A reproduction of the
painting Vincent made of himself on the road with painting kit and straw
hat in 1888 is the starting point for Bacon’s picture, yet the highway
has been warped into a bowl-like mini-stadium. The road to Tarascon, a
linear dirt track that took Van Gogh to many of his favourite painting
sites from the house he shared for nine weeks with Gauguin, has been bent
into an inescapable ring, the flatness of which recalls the interest in
oriental art shared by both Van Gogh and Bacon. We get the sense of a
Beckett-like habitual routine being ground out, a clockwork daily round on
a provincial scale. Bacon has created a feedback loop of this dirt road
that amplifies the agony Vincent faced when tackling the impossible
project of recording his sensations on canvas. In this florid and critical
painting series, the daily slog of Vincent’s painting routine is
parodied in an infinite return to the site of disappointment. In this way,
Bacon’s Van Gogh paintings represent one of twentieth-century art
history’s most passionate, if slightly sadistic, back-handed
compliments.
Jet of Water 1988 Francis Bacon
Oil on canvas 198x147.5cm
Barnaby Furnas
I went to an arts high
school. My painting teacher would bring books of his favourite artists for
us to look at for inspiration. Bacon was an instant hit – he is probably
the first contemporary artist I felt I could understand. His combination
of visceral subject matter and magic painting style – a style so slick
as to make accidents appear perfect. For a teenager who has pulled the
wings off flies and poked at road kill, Bacon’s horrifying beauty fitted
perfectly into my primal scream phase – his screaming popes echoed my
screaming hormones. The paintings should be corny – maximum subject
matter delivered with maximum skill. The wonder of them, I think, lies
in their perfection – they look found, they are so perfect. There is a
seeming absence of intentionality in their making, which is why I think
they are so hard to copy and why the images startle, as if glimpsed out of
the corner of the eye.
In graduate school,
while casting about for a way to begin painting again, I came across Jet
of Water (1988). The jet of water is not painted in a conventional
sense, rather it’s splattered à la Jackson Pollock – it
must have been done flat (no?) – which is analogous to the way real
water would behave. This suggested to me the possibility of a kind of
material realism, found in the employment of paint itself. Making paint a
voodoo substance in its own right, devoid of the need to capture an image,
which, as Bacon has said, was photography’s job anyway. This is why I
think his paintings resonate so terribly, and, of course, we are
fascinated by what scares us. This is why pictures of something so
horrible can become so ravishing and is a big part of how a spectacle
(capital S) works. A spectacle offers a safe glimpse of death, a safe
perch. It’s also what a photograph does. Bacon talks a lot about loving
photography, but it seems telling to me that he would treat them so
harshly in his studio. It is as if he had to kill them to get his
paintings to exist.
Peter Doig
I first saw Bacon’s
work in reproduction – I was painting and decorating a home in late
1970s Cabbagetown, Toronto, and I leafed through a coffee-table book. I
was surprised, shocked and excited by what I saw. There was an immediacy
and aggression to the work that was appealing to my adolescent self;
paintings that included sinks and toilets, hypodermic syringes, swastikas,
blood and flesh. There seemed a cockiness and swagger in his relation to
his subjects, and his photographic source material was alarming and daring
and sometimes disturbing. Seeing this as a young artist (seventeen years
old), he appeared to be looking in very unlikely places for painting
material.
The immediacy of his
work is partly because he has such a strong sense of design. Not just in
the way he frames and glazes his works, but especially in the settings he
creates within his paintings – these rooms and spaces where the activity
takes place. Bertolucci picked up on this and used this room idea in Last
Tango in Paris. The background setting is often very precise and
designed, whereas the figures are where all the action and painting takes
place. I don’t think Bacon could really draw, but he could really paint,
and although there is control, he also seems able to do this by any means
necessary when it comes to his figures. Having said this, I think he also
has the ability to find the appropriate way to describe whatever he needs
to in paint; be it grass or an umbrella, he makes it work without killing
it. His painting technique seems wholly evolved out of his own acts of
trying; even when he famously makes reference to other artists’ works,
his language remains his own – one that he has invented.
Up until the Van Gogh
paintings, Bacon seemed to be a tonal painter. In this series he starts
really to work with colour. These are some of my favourite works of
twentieth-century painting. After this, his colour palette appears to
become more distinctive and considered. He is certainly the best ever
painter to use orange – although when I first saw the cricket paintings,
I found them repulsive. The stumpiness of them. In the end, I think the
colour is electrifying, and he uses it in a way to draw you into the
picture so that you almost no longer are aware of it being a colour.
‘Francis Bacon’,
sponsored by Bank of America and curated by Matthew Gale, head of
displays, Tate Modern, and Chris Stephens, head of displays, Tate Britain,
Tate Britain, 11 September – 4 January.Toursto Museo
Nacional del Prado,Madrid, 3 February – 19 April, and theMetropolitan Museumof Art,New York, 18 May – 16
August. Francis Bacon, with essays by the curators, Martin
Harrison, David Alan Mellor, Simon Ofield, Gary Tinterow and Victoria
Walsh, is published by Tate Publishing.
Linda Nochlinis a professor at the New York University Institute of Fine Arts. She
specialises in the art of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and also
writes contemporary criticism.
Hugh Marlais
Davies is the David C Copley director of the Museum of Contemporary Art,
San Diego, and serves on the Francis Bacon authentication committee. His
Francis Bacon: The Papal Portraits of 1953 was published in 2001.
John Maybury is a
film-maker. He is currently working on a feature film version of Emily
Brontë’s WutheringHeights.
Mark-Anthony
Turnage is a composer.
ChantalJoffeis a painter who lives and works inLondon.
Rudolf Stingel is
an artist based in New York and Bolzano,Italy.
Nigel Cooke is an
artist who lives and works inLondonandKent.
Barnaby Furnasis an artist based inNew York.
Peter Doig is an
artist who lives and works inTrinidad.
Master
of forbidden, malevolent territory
No
smiles in sight at this exhibition of the works of Francis Bacon, the
greatest painter of the 20th century, writes Gerald Isaaman
Camden
New Journal, 2nd October, 2008
WE live in tough, corrupt, coruscating times.
So perhaps the last place you might want to be is Tate Britain where,
appropriately, the bottom galleries are devoted to Francis Bacon. And
those touring the rooms look as grim as his distorted, tortured subjects
hanging – and that too is appropriate – on the walls.
There’s no smile in sight, just silent sadness, even sickness as
Bacon’s big, soulless portraits devour you like animal fodder, leaving
you devastated, both by their brutal impact and their ability to expose
his victims’ vulnerability.
Indeed, the Irish painter, who died in Madrid in 1992, aged 82, and whose
works now command millions, once declared: “When I’m dead, put me in a
plastic bag and throw me in the gutter.” And he told a journalist: “I
would paint your vulnerability.”
This exhibition reviews his gutter life chronologically – much in his
beloved Soho, with some 70 major paintings – and shows how photographic
images, of the body and of conflict in particular, played an essential
role in how he looked on life.
His portraits are undoubtedly not as instantaneous as he often suggested,
but deeply structured and thought out examples of how he virtually trapped
his subject in cage-like frames where they could be torn apart.
Simple lines like prison bars and steel shutters pervade so much of his
work, making his subjects powerless in some forbidden, malevolent
territory, their passion and beliefs engulfed by Bacon’s own insistence
that, without God, humans are subject to the same urges of violence, lust
and screaming fear as any other animal.
Worse still, his work is unrelenting – he was, after all, an atheist –
as he tackles now well-known subjects like Pope Innocent X, the
Crucifixion and paintings inspired by Velazquez and Van Gogh. Even his
memorial portraits of his dead lover George Dyer, often his model, fail to
show a glimmer of either affection or hope.
Insecurity rules the day. No doubt it did in Bacon’s own life. His wit
could be devastating; his insistence on drinking only the best champagne
and vintage wine the result of his belief that the finest never created a
hangover; and his desire for sex dominating his utterly scornful,
devil-may-care attitude to everything around him.
While his studio was in West Kensington, Soho was his haunt and
playground, the Colony Room and French House the background for his
mischief, which so mesmerised his circle. “When I first knew Soho,” he
said, “the prostitutes were all over the streets. The streets were more
fun, more amusing. The prostitutes gave a living sense to the streets.”
And he was fatalistic to the end, making his final trip to Madrid in
search of “the Spanish boy” despite medical advice not to do so. “We
are born and we die and there’s nothing else,” he insisted when
interviewed by Melvyn Bragg. “We’re just part of animal life.”
Not true, of course, in the sense that we can control our animal urges and
use our talents to reflect life in art, in all its magical beauty, as well
as the terrible turbulence Bacon depicts.
That is true difference, Bacon undoubtedly shattering civilised life and
reducing us to dread and, maybe, truthful tears.
Certainly Bacon can be considered vulgar, cynical, theatrical too. He had,
as well, a touch of the flamboyant showman who wishes to tease and
tantalise. So did Turner, who would turn up at the Royal Academy on
varnishing day to add an unexpected dash of red paint to a landscape,
which his mean critics crushed as rubbish but which endured and ended up
an admired masterpiece.
Bacon is considered today’s Turner, our greatest painter of the 20th
century, drastically confined in content though he was compared to Turner.
Do go and judge for yourself before meltdown overtakes us.
•
Francis Bacon, Tate Britain, SW1, until January 4.
Liver: A Fictional
Organ With A Surface Anatomy Of Four Lobes,
By Will Self
You'll
need a strong stomach for Self's stories
Reviewed by Christopher Fowler
Independent
on Sunday, 5 October 2008
As the literary
equivalent of Francis Bacon, Will Self continually challenges readers with
biological overload. In Liver he has found an appropriate method of
anatomy, via four pieces connected by the body's largest internal organ.
Stepping into Self's world is like opening one of the Wellcome Institute's
cabinets of medical curiosities. We start with the portraiture of pickled
specimens in "Foie Humain": the inhabitants of a Soho dive
called the Plantation Club. The real-life Colony Room on Dean Street is
hitting 60 and heading for closure, a watered-down version of its past
persona now mainly famous for outliving its competitors, and
self-conscious enough to host a trendy website, so it's appropriate that
Self should restore some of its lustre with this stagger up its filthy
Soho stairs. The characters who populate his drinking den are so closely
drawn over their originals that I imagine the only reason they won't sue
is that they're either dead or unwell. The Bacon comparison is openly
invited; drinkers are described as having "their fleshy convolutions
trapped in the gelatinous atmosphere like whelks in aspic".
The story captures
this necrotic miniature universe exactly, autopsying the alkies as they
submit to the gavage which leads to engorged livers, gin-blossomed
features and a blurry reduction of thought that no longer differentiates
between male and female, sin and redemption, or even life and death. It
covers the demise of the club's Frankenstein-like owner Ian Board, after
which the place could never be the same again – but it had collapsed
long before, with the loss of the original patrons, so that we watch the
decline of something already dead. As Board's nose pales in death and the
reluctant mourners are forced into natural light by the funeral, we gaze
upon the denizens "who, even in the brilliance of a summer's day,
have the dazed-grey look of ghetto-dwellers about to be relieved of their
remaining teeth by Nazis with pliers". To coat these ghastly
apparitions with a patina of nostalgia that actually makes their company
desirable is a feat which deserves some kind of recognition, although the
ending is harder to swallow than Ian's gin. A typescript of the story
should perhaps be wedged on the shelf behind the Colony Room's bar, to
yellow beside the shoddy accretions of the decades.
The remaining material
is tangentially linked. There's a trip to Switzerland for a terminal
liver-cancer patient seeking absolution, and a media-life-is-hell tale
that doesn't ring true, featuring a copywriter in a Promethean trap. The
last story, "Birdy Num Num", roars back to full strength as a
gathering of users and abusers in a crepuscular London basement is
conflated and contrasted with the antiseptic world inside an old Peter
Sellers film, The Party.
What counts most
throughout is Self's enthralling, muscular and sometimes even joyous use
of language. His writing propels one of the greatest arguments for freedom
of speech that I can think of; you may not like his subject matter but his
obsidian brilliance is incontrovertible, shocking and humane.
Scraps
of Bacon
Radio
4, 11.30am
Chris
Campling, Radio Choice, The Times, October 2, 2008
He wasn’t the
first and he won’t be the last, but Francis Bacon was one of the
greatest artists to give away his work to settle outstanding debts, mostly
of an alcoholic nature, while his income was “resting“. Among those
interviewed by the novelist and documentary-maker James Maw are the owners
of the defunct Wheeler’s Oyster Bar, where Bacon amassed such huge debts
that he painted rare special commissions in lieu of payment.A r
A
remarkable number of other Soho denizens must be kicking themselves that
they didn’t hang on to his offerings when greatness stared them in the
face and asked to be put on the tab.
Scraps
of Bacon
Producer/Laurence
Grissell
BBC
Radio 4, 02 Oct 200811:30
Scraps
Of Bacon investigates the rumours suggesting that artist Francis Bacon
gave away works of art to settle outstanding debts.
Novelist
James Maw turns investigator to uncover the truth about Bacon – a
"bon viveur", gambler and inveterate drinker who ran up enormous
bills in the drinking dens of Soho. Maw, who met Bacon in Soho in 1983,
tries to track down some of Bacon's works of art and unravel the stories
behind them.
Among
those he hears from are the owners of the now defunct Wheeler's Oyster
Bar, where Bacon amassed such huge debts that he painted rare special
commissions in lieu of payment. Bacon's electrician was another lucky
beneficiary of the artist's largesse.
Padding
the streets of Soho, Maw searches for the waiters, drinkers and tradesmen
to whom the great painter was drawn. The programme also uncovers sides of
Bacon which, until now, have rarely been glimpsed.
Christie's
Post
War & Contemporary Evening
Sale
7617, King
Street, London 19 October 2008
Portrait of HenriettaMoraes 1969
Lot
Description
Francis Bacon
(1909-1992)
Portrait of Henrietta Moraes
titled and dated 'Henrietta Moraes 1969'; inscribed by Henrietta Moraes
'For the first time A vision of me by my friend Francis Bacon with Gareth
at Luggula I love y 2 good heavens Henrietta Moraes' (on the reverse)
oil on canvas
14 x 12in. (35.5 x 30.5cm.)
Painted in 1969
No VAT will be charged
on the hammer price, but VAT at 17.5% will be added to the buyer's premium
which is invoiced on a VAT inclusive basis.
On occasion, Christie's has a direct financial interest in lots consigned
for sale which may include guaranteeing a minimum price or making an
advance to the consignor that is secured solely by consigned property.
This is such a lot. This indicates both in cases where Christie's holds
the financial interest on its own, and in cases where Christie's has
financed all or a part of such interest through a third party. Such third
parties generally benefit financially if a guaranteed lot is sold
successfully and may incur a loss if the sale is not successful.
Provenance
Marlborough Fine Art
Ltd., London.
Acquired from the above by The Hon. Garech Browne in 1970.
Literature
M. Leiris, Francis
Bacon: Full Face and in Profile, New York 1983, no. 63 (illustrated in
colour, unpaged).
M. Kundera & F. Borel, Portraits and Self-Portraits
(illustrated in colour, p. 108).
Exhibited
Dublin, Hugh Lane
Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, Francis Bacon in Dublin,
June-August 2000, no. 36 (illustrated in colour, p. 96).
Edinburgh, Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, Francis Bacon:
Portraits and Heads, June-September 2005, no. 42 (illustrated in
colour, p. 75). This exhibition later travelled to Hamburg, Kunsthalle,
October 2005-January 2006.
Lot
Notes
Painted in 1969, the
intimate Portrait of Henrietta Moraes is an insight into Francis
Bacon's world and the larger-than-life characters who surrounded him, as
well as being a searing vision of life, of human existence as seen from
his unique perspective. In his small portraits of the 1960s, Bacon
deliberately used the constraint of the fourteen by twelve inch canvas to
concentrate his painterly powers in a deliberately focussed arena. There
is no room for extraneous detail; jutting into the monochrome field of the
background is a contrasting swirl of paints, an organic maelstrom of
movement and colour applied with brushes, smeared and manipulated,
resulting in a frenzy of activity for the eyes thrown into relief by the
uniformity of the background.
Henrietta Moraes was one of the characters who made the Soho of the 1950s
and 1960s so legendary. She was a great friend and drinking partner of
artists, writers, musicians, poets and wasters alike, frequenting the
French House, the Coach and Horses, the Colony Room, Wheelers and the
Gargoyle where Bacon so frequently held court. On her arrival in London in
the early 1950s, even before he had gained critical recognition, Moraes
had sought out Bacon's friendship. In Henrietta, her autobiography, when
discussing her friends at the time, she recalled:
"Two other people that I was determined to make friends with because
I felt so drawn to them were Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon. They were
both young, not particularly well-known painters, but Lucian's hypnotic
eyes and Francis' ebullience and charming habit of buying bottles of
champagne proved irresistible" (H. Moraes, Henrietta,
Harmondsworth 1995, p. 30).
She embarked upon a short relationship with Freud and a long friendship
with Bacon. Garech Browne, in whose keeping Portrait of Henrietta
Moraes has been and to whom the picture was inscribed personally by
the artist and model alike, is a member of the Guinness dynasty and was
also a friend of both Bacon and Moraes, having begun to involve himself in
this rowdy Bohemian scene at a tender age. Browne, who later set up
Claddagh Records and oversaw the founding of the Irish band The Chieftans,
was himself the subject of portraits by Freud, whom he had at first come
to know through the painter's wife, Lady Caroline Blackwood, another
member of the Guinness family.
Until the 1960s, Bacon's pictures had often focussed on Popes, Cardinals,
Furies, Van Gogh, figures from magazines and newspaper cuttings and so
forth, interspersed with portraits. However, it was in the 1960s that he
began to focus on creating portraits of the people around him. "One
afternoon I was having a drink in the French Pub with Francis Bacon and
Deakin and others," Moraes recalled. "Francis said, 'I'm
thinking of painting some of my friends and I'd like to do you but I can
really only work from photographs, so, if it's OK, Deakin will come round
to your house and take them. I'll tell him what I want. You are beautiful,
darling, and you always will be, you mustn't worry about that" (Moraes,
ibid., p. 70). Bacon commissioned his friend John Deakin to
photograph various characters in his circle and used the photographs as
source and reference material; Henrietta was the first person to be
photographed in this way.
Deakin had already created a portrait photograph of her years earlier,
which had been blown up to monumental scale and was used to decorate David
Archer's poetry bookshop in Greek Street, where she worked; on this
occasion, though, Deakin had been asked to take photographs of her naked.
Accordingly, he arrived at her house at 9 Apollo Place, in Chelsea - a
house that she had inherited from her great friend, the artist John
Minton, and in which Bacon himself had briefly lived - and took a range of
graphic photographs of her, despite her concern that they did not seem
like the sort of image that either Bacon or Deakin would find interesting.
Sure enough, on bumping into Bacon soon afterwards, he complained that
Deakin had taken pictures essentially the wrong way up... He was
accordingly dispatched to re-take the photographs, and the resulting
images became crucial sources for Bacon over the coming years for his
portraits of Moraes. Meanwhile, she stumbled across Deakin selling the
original photographs to sailors in a pub, for which, after demanding that
he buy her some drinks, she forgave him.
It is unsurprising that Bacon sought to capture Henrietta Moraes in his
paintings. She was a volatile and entertaining character, much like him.
Striking in terms of looks, she had already been painted by Freud during
the 1950s and would become a recurrent model for Maggi Hambling towards
the end of her life. She was likewise an inspiration to the then young
Indian poet, Dom Moraes, whom she married. Her eventful life involved a
vast range of friends; she spent time as a hippy, a cat burglar (and then,
perhaps inevitably, a prison inmate), a drunk, a drug addict and a
dog-lover. Sometimes foul-mouthed, sometimes charming, never dull, she was
the perfect model for Bacon's inspections of the anguished scream that he
considered to lie at the heart of humanity and existence.
From the 1960s onwards, many of these paintings shared the same format and
resulted in some of his most successful works, as evidenced by John
Russell's comment that, "The single head, fourteen inches by twelve,
was from 1961 onwards the scene of some of Bacon's most ferocious
investigations" (J. Russell, Francis Bacon, London 1985, p.
99). Henrietta Moraes first featured in one of his paintings, taken from
Deakin's photographs, in 1963, and featured in a range of works over the
following years, both in large, sprawling nudes and on the intimate scale
of Portrait of Henrietta Moraes. Discussing the simplicity of
composition of some of his pictures a few years after this work was
painted, Bacon discussed his search for an greater visual potency:
"Well, I've increasingly wanted to make the images simpler and more
complicated. And for this to work, it can work more starkly if the
background is very united and clear. I think that probably is why I have
used a very clear background against which the image can articulate
itself... I would like the intimacy of the image against a very stark
background. I want to isolate the image and take it away from the interior
and the home" (Bacon, 1974, quoted in D. Sylvester, The Brutality
of Fact: Interviews with Francis Bacon, New York 1990, p. 120).
Adhering to this notion, Henrietta Moraes' features appear to spread into
the space of the canvas in this picture. There is a vivid and striking
contrast between the monochrome background and the accretion of
flesh-tones and other colours that make up this profile portrait. Through
this contrast, the deliberate flatness of the background lends the face a
three-dimensional quality, a sort of ectoplasmic, pulpy appearance that at
once recalls the subject's features and is at the same time a clear
distortion, involving as it does the spread, smudged and smeared oils.
This balance between appearance and reality lies at the heart of Bacon's
work, as he explained to David Sylvester: "I can quite easily sit
down and make what is called a literal portrait of you. So what I'm
disrupting all the time is this literalness, because I find it
uninteresting" (Bacon, 1974, quoted in ibid., p. 121).
Discussing this process of distortion a few years before Portrait of
Henrietta Moraes was painted, Bacon explained both the effect that he
sought and its effect, in turn, on his sitters:
"What I want is to distort the thing far beyond the appearance, but
in the distortion to bring it back to a recording of the appearance... I
think that the methods by which this is done are so artificial that the
model before you, in my case, inhibits the artificiality by which this
thing can be bought back... They [sitting models] inhibit me. They inhibit
me because, if I like them, I don't want to practise before them the
injury that I do to them in my work. I would rather practise the injury in
private by which I think I can record the fact of them more clearly...
people believe - simple people at least - that the distortions of them are
an injury to them - no matter how much they feel for or how much they like
you" (Bacon, 1966, quoted in ibid., pp. 38-41).
It was for this reason that he used photographs as a source image. That
way, he had the appearance of the person before him, and could compound
this with his own memories of the person being depicted. He could add
dimensions of emotion, of psychology, and could also let hazard play its
part. For to Bacon, it was often the little accidents, the chance
movements of paint, that would disrupt and distort his image and thereby
lead him to a more profound understanding of the effect that he had in
fact sought. Bacon described this process in a letter to his friend the
writer Michel Leiris as, "An attempt to capture the appearance
together with the cluster of sensations that the appearance arouses in
me" (Bacon, quoted in M. Leiris, Francis Bacon: Full Face and in
Profile, Oxford 1983, p. 32). He would later expand upon this idea in
conversation with Sylvester, explaining that,
"There is the appearance and there is the energy within the
appearance. And that is an extremely difficult thing to trap. Of course, a
person's appearance is closely linked with their energy. So that, when you
are in the street and in the distance you see somebody you know, you can
tell who they are just by the way they walk and by the way they move. But
I don't know whether it would be possible to do a portrait of somebody
just by making a gesture of them. So far it seems that if you are doing a
portrait you have to record the face. But with their face you have to try
and trap the energy that emanates from them" (Bacon, 1982-84, quoted
in Sylvester, op. cit., 1990, p. 175).
In Portrait of Henrietta Moraes, Bacon has done this: he has
trapped the energy, which appears to create a pulpy aura emanating from
his model's head, resulting in a vivid image that recalls the old
photographs of séances that had so fascinated the artist while remaining
utterly recognisable as a portrait. What Bacon sought to capture in his
paintings was to convey, through an almost electrical jolt to the viewer's
system, an idea of the person, of their spirit, their essence, their
being, as well as of the vulnerability of their flesh. He felt that art
should be visceral, should pass "from the eye to the stomach without
going through the brain" (Bacon, quoted in F. Giacobetti, Exclusive
Interview with Francis Bacon: I painted to be loved, in The Art
Newspaper, June 2003). So, in manipulating the paint in Portrait of
Henrietta Moraes, he has tapped into his own existential angst, his
own concerns with death and the fragility of life, creating an image that
is at once a profoundly personal portrait of one of his friends and a
searing, universal exploration of the human condition, of the constant
battle that is life itself.
Portrait of Henrietta Moraes 1969 Francis Bacon
Christie's
Post
War & Contemporary Evening
Sale
7617, King
Street, London 19 October 2008
Francis Bacon 1956 Lucian Freud
Lot
Description
Lucian Freud (b. 1922)
Francis Bacon
oil and charcoal on canvas
14 x 14in. (35.5 x 35.5cm.)
Painted in 1956-57
No VAT will be charged
on the hammer price, but VAT at 17.5% will be added to the buyer's premium
which is invoiced on a VAT inclusive basis.
Artist's Resale Right ("droit de Suite"). If the Artist's Resale
Right Regulations 2006 apply to this lot, the buyer also agrees to pay us
an amount equal to the resale royalty provided for in those Regulations,
and we undertake to the buyer to pay such amount to the artist's
collection agent.
Pre-Lot
Text
PROPERTY FROM A FAMILY
COLLECTION
Provenance
Anthony d'Offay
Gallery, London.
Acquired from the above by the present owner in 1972.
Literature
W. Feaver, Lucian
Freud, New York 2007, no. 92 (illustrated in colour, unpaged).
Exhibited
Wolsfburg, Kunstmuseum,
Blast to Freeze, British Art in the 20th Century, September
2002-January 2003 (incorrectly dated 'c. 1970'). This exhibition later
travelled to Toulouse, Les Abattoirs, February-May 2003.
Venice, Museo Correr, Lucian Freud, June-October 2005, no. 6
(illustrated in colour, p. 52).
Lot
Notes
Painted in 1956-57, Francis
Bacon is an incredibly rare portrait of the celebrated artist by his
friend and fellow painter, Lucian Freud. This picture dates from the
height of their friendship with each other, and is a tribute to the
importance that these two giants of twentieth-century British painting had
upon each other. While Freud appear in many of Bacon's oils, the present
portrait is the only surviving oil portrait that Freud painted of Bacon.
The raw canvas of Francis Bacon throws an extra emphasis on the
brushwork with which the face has been rendered, making this picture a
rare insight both into Freud's working practices and into one of his most
important friendships.
Freud had first met Bacon in 1945. He had heard about this mysterious and
distinctive artist from Graham Sutherland. Within a short time, Sutherland
had arranged for both artists to join him for a weekend at his home in the
country, and they met at the station on the way there. "Once I met
him I saw him a lot," Freud recalled (Freud, quoted in W. Feaver,
"Lucian Freud: Life into Art" pp. 12-50, in W. Feaver (ed.), Lucian
Freud, exh. cat., London, 2002, p. 26). They soon enjoyed an intense
and productive friendship, seeing each other on a daily basis, be it in
studios or in the various haunts of Soho that they frequented. It was only
natural that these two painters, in each other's company so much, would
begin to feature in each other's pictures, Freud appearing in Bacon's oils
for the first time in 1951 and Bacon appearing in three drawings by Freud
executed in 1951, two paintings of 1952 and 1956-57 and a later drawing
from 1970.
Freud actually sat for Bacon in the studio for his first portrait by his
friend, executed in 1951. This was a rare occurrence as Bacon usually
preferred to work from secondary media such as photographs. On his return
to the studio after this first sitting, Freud recognised that, in his
absence, the work had completely changed-somehow it had evolved, and now
closely resembled a snapshot of Kafka that was amongst the various bits of
media flotsam and ephemera that littered Bacon's studio. Bacon sat for
Freud in 1952, resulting in the famous oil portrait of Bacon that was in
the collection of the Tate until it was stolen in 1988 from an exhibition
in Berlin and whose whereabouts remain unknown. It is a telling indication
of the differences in working techniques between the two artists that
Freud took three months to paint that portrait-- the notoriously restless
Bacon apparently, and even surprisingly, "grumbled but sat
consistently" (Freud, quoted in ibid., p. 26). They sat knee
to knee, Bacon looking downwards, his head filling the small copper plate.
Intriguingly, this downward gaze is prefigured in Freud's 1951 drawing,
implying that this contemplative pose was a continuous feature in the
artist. The present portrait, Francis Bacon, which was left
unfinished on account of its sitter suddenly leaving probably to pursue
his lover Peter Lacy in Tangier, is now, in addition to the four drawings,
the only remaining portrait of Bacon. A number of other portraits of Bacon
were, at one time or another, attempted but although started, apart from
Francis Bacon, they dissatisfied the perfectionist Freud, who accordingly
destroyed them. Freud himself, on the other hand, was often the subject of
Bacon's works throughout the years, appearing in a number of guises in his
oils.
During the 1950s, when this picture was painted, period Bacon and Freud
saw each other on a daily basis, having dinner almost every night. It was
the heyday of Bohemian life in Soho, a now-legendary era in the Post-War
era when intellectuals, artists, playwrights, poets and plain old drinkers
frequented some of the landmark establishments day after day, night after
night. Caroline Blackwood described the carnivalesque atmosphere of this
strange, inebriated and intoxicating world, into which she herself was
plunged during her marriage to Freud: it was "a whole kind of Soho
life. Going out to Wheeler's, and then the Colony and the Gargoyle, was
the thing with that crowd - Francis Bacon, James Pope-Hennessey, John
Minton, Cyril Connolly" (C. Blackwood quoted in M. Filler, "The
Naked and the Id", in Vanity Fair, vol. 56, no. 11, 1993, p.
198). This small roll-call of prominent figures from the era is an
indication of the cultural importance of some of the people inhabiting
that decadent world; and of course, the list went on. At that time, Freud
was living in Dean Street, but also kept a studio in Delamere Terrace in
Paddington; it was there that Francis Bacon was painted. During
this period, Bacon lived and had a studio in Battersea; however, the pair
still managed to see each other all the time.
As well as a physical closeness, there was a closeness in the way in which
Bacon and Freud were painting during this period. For they were both
determinedly figurative artists, working at a moment when the Abstract
Expressionism of their American contemporaries was so much in the
ascendant and appeared to be dominating so much of the avant garde. In
London, a different avant garde, which did not feel the pressing need to
break free from the influences either of the figurative world or of the
examples of their artistic predecessors, emerged. While many of the
artists loosely grouped under the umbrella of the so-called 'School of
London' would resent the label, it nonetheless highlights the fact that
many prominent artists of the period were working in a figurative idiom.
Alongside Freud and Bacon were artists such as Michael Andrews, Frank
Auerbach and John Minton, all of whom were part of the same circle;
indeed, many of these artistic and personal alliances were immortalised in
photographs from the time, not least the famous image of Bacon holding
court in his favourite London restaurant, Wheeler's.
Timothy
Behrens, Lucien
Freud, Francis Bacon, Frank Auerbach, Michael Andrews at Wheeler's 1962
During this frenzied highpoint of their friendship, both Bacon and Freud
shared a love of gambling. Freud would bet on the horses, while Bacon
preferred casinos. In a sense, though, this love of hazard, of chance, was
a crucial influence on Freud's painting. For until 1954, Freud had
meticulously and painstakingly painted, often using incredibly fine
sable-hair brushes in order to create his pictures. It had, up to this
point, been his practise to paint while sitting down; however, in 1954, he
began to paint standing behind his easel, a technique that he has
continued to use to this day. This allowed him to work in a far more
expansive way, adding a great gestural quality to his brushwork that was
emphasised by his use of newly-adopted coarse, thicker hog's-hair brushes
which amplified his touch and made the paint freer. He also ceased to rely
on underdrawing, allowing him to work with a far greater spontaneity and
directness. Bacon, and his love of chance, played an instrumental role in
these changes in Freud's working practise. Bacon lived life on the brink,
he courted risk, and he was producing works that were violent explosive
and fuelled by hazard; and yet they worked. Freud would later recall that
Bacon talked about, "packing a lot of things into one single
brushstroke, which amused and excited me, and I realised that I was
million miles from anything I could ever do." Freud, losing patience
with his older methods, pushed himself accordingly, adding more emphasis
to each brushstroke. This is clearly evident in the materiality and sense
of movement that fill Francis Bacon, clearly showing the influence
of the sitter on the technique of the portraitist who was painting him.
Freud has disregarded lines in favour of planes and volumes, liberating
the paint, creating a more worked complexion, more seasoned and full of
life.
A
Profoundly Personal Portrait by Francis Bacon Highlights Christie's
October Auction
Art
Daily, Sunday, September 28, 2008
Drinking
outside 58 Dean Street Records, directly opposite The French
House, in Soho,
London.
From left to right: Stan
Gebler Davies, Gloria MacGowran, Francis Bacon and the Hon. Garech
Browne.
LONDON.-
Christie’s will offer Francis Bacon’s Portrait of Henrietta
Moraes at the Post-War and Contemporary Art Evening Sale on 19
October 2008 in London. An intimate painting which offers a
fascinating insight into the characters who shaped the thriving
bohemian scene of Soho in the 1960s, the work is expected to realise
£5,500,000 to £7,500,000. The painting was acquired by the Hon.
Garech Browne in 1970; he was a close, personal friend of Francis
Bacon, as well as many of the other leading figures of the time
including Lucian Freud, the poet Dom Moraes and the sitter,
Henrietta Moraes. Garech Browne’s romantic home in the Wicklow
mountains, Luggala, has been a creative centre of Irish culture for
the last 50 years, and was described recently by U2’s Bono as ‘our
epicentre’ and ‘our inspiration.’
Pilar Ordovas, Head of Post-War and Contemporary Art, Christie’s
London: ‘This portrait of Henrietta Moraes is a wonderful painting
which offers a fascinating insight into life and the characters of
1960s Soho. The painting was bought by Garech Browne in 1970,
shortly after it was painted, and has remained in his care since.
Garech Browne’s influence on British and Irish culture in the last
50 years, combined with both the artist and the sitter of this work
being close friends of his, makes it a wonderfully appealing
painting which is sure to attract the interest of international
collectors and institutions.’
The Hon. Garech Browne: ‘I remember well my years in Soho even
sometimes with my younger brother Tara, who inspired the Beatles
song ‘A Day in the Life’. We often went to the Gaston Berlemont’s
French pub officially called the York Minster and had lunch with
Francis, my first cousin Caroline Blackwood (then Caroline Freud)
and Lucian in Wheelers restaurant with my mother. We would then
proceed to the Colony Club where the proprietress Muriel Belcher,
one of the three known women Bacon ever painted, told me I was the
only “member” ever allowed in under the age of 12. Later, Lucian
would take me to the Gargoyle Club where Johnny Minton, Francis
Bacon and Stephen Spender were often to be found. I would not be
allowed in by the bouncers so Lucian would put me under his long
overcoat and I walked on his feet to gain entry. It was only the
doorman and not the proprietors who felt that I should not be
allowed in to meet such “disreputable people” at such a young
age. Many of the inmates were to be painted by both Francis and
Lucian.’
Henrietta Moraes was an integral character in Soho in the 1950s and
1960s, and she played a major part in making the scene so legendary.
She was a great friend and drinking partner of artists, writers,
musicians and poets, and she befriended Francis Bacon in the early
1950s before he had found fame. In the 1960s, Bacon turned to
painting portraits of the people around him. He would ask John
Deakin to take photographs of his proposed subjects, and then paint
from the photographs themselves, ensuring that the presence of the
sitter could not merge their appearance with the character and
emotions which the artist wished to portray in them. The present
work was painted in 1969; it is a profoundly personal portrait of
one of the artist’s greatest friends, and a searing, universal
exploration of the human condition, and of the battle that is life
itself.
The portrait was acquired by the Hon. Garech Browne in 1970 in
London, and inscribed by the sitter on the reverse of the canvas.
The inscription reads: 'For the first time A vision of me by my
friend Francis Bacon with Gareth [sic] at Luggala 30-6-76&7 I
love y 2 good heavens Henrietta Moraes'. It has been exhibited at
the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery of Modern Art in Dublin in
conjunction with the opening of the Bacon studio in its new
permanent home; The Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art in
Edinburgh; and the Kunsthalle in Hamburg. It will be on public view
in London for the first time from 15 to 19 October at Christie’s
South Kensington.
Garech Browne was born into the Guinness dynasty, his mother being
Oonagh Guinness, the youngest of the three ‘Golden Guinness Girls’.
In 1937, Ernest Guinness gave his daughter Oonagh the Luggala Estate
as a wedding present and it fast became the gathering place for the
Irish intelligentsia, as well as for artists and musicians from
around the world. Garech Browne was first introduced to Lucian Freud
at the age of 12 and he soon built friendships with many of the
artists, musicians and poets of both London and Ireland, as Luggala
continued to thrive as a creative centre for Irish culture. Garech
Browne founded Claddagh Records and oversaw the founding
of Irish group The Chieftains. He recorded traditional Irish
music, as well as the works of Seamus Heaney, Ted Hughes and Robert
Graves. Lucian Freud has painted his portraits, John Boorman chose
Luggala as the setting for the film Excalibur and the house
has hosted a diverse range of artistic guests including Mick Jagger,
John Hurt, Patrick Kavanagh and Lucian Freud. In an article in Vogue
in 2005, U2’s Bono stated that Luggala had ‘become our epicentre’
and was ‘our inspiration’.
Christie’s will present a series of exhibitions and auctions
dedicated to Post-War and Contemporary art and 20th century Italian
art from 15 to 21 October 2008, during a week when the international
art world will gather in London for a showcase of contemporary art
exhibitions and events including The Frieze Art Fair. A leading
highlight is one of only two oil portraits of Francis Bacon
(1909-1992) ever painted by Lucian Freud (b. 1922). The last known
remaining oil portrait (the other was stolen from an exhibition in
Berlin in 1988), the rarely-seen painting offers a tangible and
intimate glimpse into the inspirational friendship of two of the
greatest British artists of the 20th century. It will be exhibited
to the public for the first time in London from 15 to 19 October at
Christie’s, 85 Old Brompton Road, and is expected to realize £5
million to £7 million.
The auctions
will take place at the newly refurbished salerooms at Christie’s,
8 King Street, St James’s, and are scheduled as follows:
Sunday 19 October at 4pm: Post-War and Contemporary Art Evening Sale
Monday 20 October at 7pm: The Italian Sale
Tuesday 21 October at 10am and 2pm: Post-War and Contemporary Art
The public exhibitions for the sales will take place as follows:
Post-War and Contemporary Art: 15 to 19 October 2008 at Christie’s,
85 Old Brompton Road
The Italian Sale:15 to 20 October 2008 at Christie’s, 8 King
Street
Francis Bacon:
Tragic Genius
By Richard Lacayo, Time, Thursday, September 25, 2008
Three
Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion presented
by Eric Hall, 1953
Francis
Bacon did for despair what Michelangelo did for faith. He made it
majestic. The Bacon retrospective that just opened at Tate Britain in
London is one of the most powerful shows I've seen in more than 40 years
of museum-going. This is Bacon's fifth retrospective, and by now his
screaming Popes, wrestling lovers and tread-marked faces are so famous
it's impossible to make them new. But the Tate show, which runs until Jan.
4, does something better. It brings almost five decades of Bacons together
into a kind of collective cry, one that makes you realize how rare it is
to see contemporary art that attempts, much less achieves, a genuine
tragic dimension. Irony you can find in any gallery these days, also low
comedy, puerile cool and enigma. But in a time that has its share of
tragedy, where is the art that tries to strike an equivalent note? What we
have no language for anymore, at least not in art, is acute pain. Except
in room after room at the Tate, in a show that moves later to Madrid and
New York City.
After
the butchery of World War II, Bacon was one of the artists, along with
Alberto Giacometti, Jean Dubuffet and a few others, who found a way to
make the painted human figure plausible again by subjecting it to extreme
pressure. The soft tissue of Bacon's boiling men and women is wrenched,
smeared and vaporized by their own drives and desires, and by whatever it
is they do to one another. Their heads are fissured, their torsos are
invertebrate; their limbs, stretched and exploded, truly deserve to be
called extremities — because with Bacon the body is always in extremis.
For
Bacon none of this was a statement about his particular life and times,
though his life played a part in it, and so did his times. What Bacon was
after was something deeper. He wanted to make the body the visible sign of
the eternal devils of human nature, the dog beneath the skin that bares
its fangs in war and in bed.
To
do that he took whatever he needed from art history. From Poussin came the
mouth of a screaming mother in The Massacre of the Innocents and
from Degas the arched back of a woman bathing herself in a tub. He also
drew on sources from far outside art, things like an illustrated medical
text about illnesses of the mouth. He worked from reproductions, and from
photographs of all kinds pinned to walls and scattered on the floor of his
studios in a muck of paper, rags, used brushes and broken furniture that
he dived back into for ideas.
But
Picasso was the first source. In the central panel of one of Bacon's great
works from the 1970s, Triptych — In Memory of George Dyer, a
shadowy man stands near the landing of a darkened stairwell, turning a
tiny key in a lock. That key is surely borrowed from an odd creature doing
the same in several of Picasso's seaside pictures from the late 1920s,
when he was flirting with Surrealism. Those elastic Picassos, with their
biomorphic figures that are part human, part dirigible, part swollen
breast or phallus, turned a key in Bacon. They showed him the way to the
nightmare distortions of anatomy that he arrived at by the end of World
War II, a time when living flesh had been twisted every which way.
One
of the first of those images he set loose in public was Three Studies
for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, a triptych he exhibited in
1945, when he was 35 years old. On three panels of bright reddish orange
scuffed with grey, a trio of mutant figures grimace, snarl and bark. In
two of them, the most expressive feature is the gaping mouth. What the
eyes represent for most painters, the mouth was for Bacon, the locus of
human identity. The mouth is what bites, suckles and howls at the moon. By
contrast, the eyes in any face painted by him are likely to be missing
entirely or smeared shut or obscured by a milky scrim. In Bacon's
pictures, the windows of the soul — not that he believed in the soul —
always have the curtains drawn.
By
the mid-1940s Bacon had been making art for almost two decades, but he had
exhibited very little before the Three Studies. Until the postwar
years, he was largely unknown except perhaps to the older men who
supported him, his multitude of male pick-ups on the side and whatever
clients he attracted for a time as an interior designer in London. Decades
later, stripped of any associations with fashion or taste, the ghostly
outlines of his Bauhaus-flavored interiors and steel-tube furnishings
found their way into the stark spaces and barred enclosures of his
paintings. You detect them for the first time in the series of paintings
he made from the great Velázquez portrait of Pope Innocent X, in which
Bacon's flickering white perimeters form a cage for the Pontiff's impotent
fury.
Why
a Pope? With Bacon there's never one answer. His great gift was for
conflation, visual and psychological, for compressing multiple
possibilities into a single sliding form. From a 19th century photograph
by Eadweard Muybridge he could take the squatting silhouette of a man and
dissolve it within the outlines of a crouching boy attributed to
Michelangelo. He could borrow the eyeglasses from a famous shot of a
screaming nurse in Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin and
perch them on a Pope's nose. In the same way, the meaning of his screaming
Pontiff in Head VI fluctuates. Trapped in a kind of isolation
booth, where a thunderstorm of granular black strokes rains down on him,
this Pope suggests the baying, baboon madness of authority. (Indeed, one
source for the painting was a photo of Joseph Goebbels in full harangue.)
Yet at the same time, he's the face of the powerlessness sometimes even of
absolute power.
And
the same picture of the Holy Father could also bear traces of Bacon's
anguished dealings with his own father, a truculent English army officer
turned horse trainer who moved the family to Ireland, where Bacon was born
in 1909. "Eddie" Bacon eventually rejected his girlish son and,
if Bacon's not always reliable stories can be trusted, even had him
whipped by stableboys to make a man of him.
But
it's always a mistake to understand Bacon's work too quickly by way of his
life. That's true even of the ferocious triptychs he made after the
suicide of his lover George Dyer, a onetime London hood who killed himself
in their hotel room on the eve of Bacon's 1971 Paris retrospective. With a
picture like Triptych — August 1972 Bacon didn't simply
unload his grief. He used it to find his way to an even starker
abbreviation of a pitiless world. All through the '70s Bacon would flatten
and simplify the spaces within which he put his liquid people. That made
those places even colder and more clinical, and set off more sharply the
wide passages of black he used as the threshold of mortality.
Not
every Bacon is a triumph, however. As early as the mid-1950s, inspired by
Van Gogh and by the keen sunlight of Tangiers, where he was spending much
of his time in a miserable love affair, he attempted to work in brighter
colors and with looser brushwork. The result was a few congested,
conventionally expressionist canvases. But the movement to a high-key
palette also opened the way to the orange, lilac and pale beige
backgrounds that make his work of the '60s and '70s so unnerving,
precisely because the agonized figures struggle in such bright spaces.
And
by his last decade — he was 82 when he died in 1992 — Bacon was almost
too fluent in his own idioms of despair. There are cluttered,
over-determined pictures in the last galleries, where you watch him trying
to find a way to make it new. But there are also great ones, like the 1991
Triptych. In all three panels, a large black square is placed
like a window within a flat, beige background. In the center, a figure
barely recognizable as human flows over the lower edge of the black
square. On each side panel, Bacon appears as a painted photograph of his
own head pinned to the space above a pair of disembodied legs. Each of
these has one foot stepping into the blackness. It's a portrait of the
artist bowing out, dying as fearlessly as he lived. And without a trace of
sentiment, making death majestic.
Francis
Bacon à corps et à cri
BEAUX-ARTS.
Le peintre aurait eu cent ans en 2009. Triptyques écorchés, corps en
lutte et portraits font l'objet d'une belle rétrospective à la Tate
Britain.
Florence Gaillard,
Londres
Le Temps, Switzerland, Samedi 27 Septembre 2008
Le centenaire de la
naissance de Francis Bacon est tout proche, la dernière rétrospective
qui lui ait été consacrée en Grande-Bretagne datait de 1985, soit
sept ans avant sa mort en 1992. L'exposition de cette rentrée,
susceptible de déplacer les foules et de vendre une masse de produits dérivés,
présente plus de 60 toiles couvrant toute la carrière du peintre. Elle
découpe en dix salles la chronologie et utilise les tumultes
biographiques de Bacon comme fil explicatif de sa production, dans un
souci didactique qui pourra agacer le public spécialisé mais
contribuera à installer encore davantage Bacon dans le rôle du plus
grand peintre du XXe siècle britannique.
Il faut revoir ces noirs, favoris du peintre dans ses œuvres les plus
anciennes, durant les années quarante et cinquante. Bacon va chercher
leur épaisseur dans sa nuit à lui, mais aussi chez Zurbarán ou
Vélasquez. De ce dernier peintre espagnol, Bacon, l'Anglais de Dublin,
reprend maintes fois le Portrait du Pape Innocent X, et le plonge dans
son siècle. Le XXe, celui du psychisme hurlant, des univers
concentrationnaires, des rings de boxe. Sous le noir, l'or, le violet,
toute une noblesse d'apparat crie, attachée à son siège, derrière
des coulées de pigments.
Il faut voir aussi l'émergence progressive de la distorsion chez Bacon,
dès les années cinquante. Sur les visages et dans des corps qui
semblent littéralement fondre sur place, qui saignent, copulent ou
s'entre-tuent. Voire s'autodétruisent, comme dans le triptyque In
Memory of George Dyer (1972), du nom de l'amant, modèle et
compagnon qui s'est suicidé dans le décor sordide d'un hôtel,
laissant à Bacon la culpabilité et une désolation à expulser, de sa
propre chair, vers des surfaces aux dimensions croissantes.
L'homme de Bacon est un homme sans Dieu, un animal parmi d'autres
animaux, répondant comme tel à la peur, aux nécessités physiques.
Mais, contrairement à l'animal, cet homme aspire à un sens qu'il
n'atteint pas. Donc il souffre. Sa chair le torture, il crie, personne
n'est là qui puisse davantage pour lui. Dieu n'est pas là, mais le
christianisme est omniprésent dans ses toiles: que ce soit à travers
les portraits de papes de sa première époque ou dans ses séries de
crucifixions, qui ne sont chez Bacon que des formes sophistiquées de
boucherie, l'iconographie chrétienne suinte, voire éclate, dans ses
aspects sacrificiels mais aussi érotiques. Le choix du triptyque comme
support privilégié, à la fin de sa longue vie, va dans le même sens.
Voila pour la métaphysique désespérée. La biographie, telle que
présentée à la Tate, relate la haine du père, l'homosexualité non
dissimulée mais néanmoins vécue par le peintre «comme une
malédiction», et insiste un peu lourdement sur des relations
amoureuses violentes. Tout n'est pas totalement noir, pourtant: il y a
eu la bohème des années folles de Soho, les voyages en France ou dans
la douce Italie, l'exotisme de Tanger, où Bacon a peint des paysages et
mis entre parenthèses son leitmotiv de désintégration floutée.
La Tate présente aussi une belle collection de documents et d'archives
personnelles de Bacon. Des entretiens filmés révèlent un homme
affable et courtois (torturé, certes, mais britannique!). C'est
l'occasion de voir des sources explicites. Outre des textes, par exemple
de Dylan Thomas, qui lui ont inspiré des œuvres dès la fin des
années soixante, la photographie a été un matériel essentiel,
quotidien. Portraits de ses proches que l'on retrouve ensuite sur la
toile, photos tirées de films expressionnistes - Eisenstein en
particulier - ou encore ces extraordinaires images d'Eadweard Muybridge
qui, à la fin du XIXe siècle, livrait les détails du mouvement en
photographiant des galops de chevaux, des sportifs en train de sauter,
des lutteurs au combat. Bacon a largement puisé dans ce répertoire à
la frontière de l'art et de la documentation scientifique.
Bacon, peintre de l'esprit et du corps torturés, n'a pu qu'être
inspiré par l'imagerie médicale. Dessins d'anatomie, détails de
pathologies, chairs humaines ou animales que les os ne soutiennent plus.
Boucheries, imagerie chrétienne, laboratoire médical, voilà qui fait
écho à une actualité londonienne toute fraîche: les œuvres que
Damien Hirst a vendues aux enchères pour des sommes record. Filiation
explicite, souhaitée de la part de Hirst, dont la seule idole connue -
à part son récent Veau d'or à 20 millions de francs - s'appelle
Francis Bacon.
Tate Britain de Londres, jusqu'au 4 Janvier 2009. Exposition présentée
ensuite au Prado de Madrid, du 3 Février au 19 Avril, puis au
Metropolitan Museum de New York, du 18 Mai au 16 Août.
Bringing
Home Francis Bacon:
The
Tate Britain Retrospective and The Colony Room
John Doran, The Quietus, September 24th, 2008
"If
you see someone lying on the pavement in the sunlight, with the blood
streaming from him, that is in itself - the colour of the blood against
the pavement - is very invigorating . . . exhilarating."
It is perhaps
fitting that the most important retrospective of the work of Francis
Bacon – the greatest British painter of the 20th Century – opened in
the same week as his old watering hole, The Colony Room called last
orders for the final time. You probably didn't have to strain too hard
to hear the spectral voice of Muriel Belcher snapping waspishly:
"Don't let the door hit you on the way out, cunty", as the
last of the disparate crew of drinkers dispersed into Soho for the last
time; descending its creaking wooden stairs past the sign that announced
sternly: "This Is Not A Brothel".
The first time I
ascended those stairs I nearly got knocked back down again by John Hurt
who was being helped on his way by alcohol, gravity and a gentle push
from some burly chaps, who shouted after him: "Fuck off!" I
was signed in by a journalist friend; even then the membership was on
the wrong side of £500 per year. It was a lot of money just to have
access to a bar ("Don't call it a club – they'll tear your eyes
out") not much bigger than the bathroom of your average
Wetherspoons dive. The dingy green paint work ("Emerald? EMERALD?!
That's bloody peacock green!") contained a motley bunch of
characters; professional ponces, the almost destitute aristocracy,
resting poets and actors, artists – all of them entertaining; all of
them thirsty. While waiting for a drink I noticed a slightly nicotine
enhanced Damien Hirst spot painting propped up behind the optics,
gathering ash and other detritus, money knocked off its six figure value
with every shot of whisky poured no doubt. (The urbane manager Michael
Wojas told me that if the insurance on the art contained in the little
space got any more expensive then he'd have to shut up shop for sure -
perhaps this is what happened? One thirsty punter Michael Andrews had
his slate cleaned in return for painting a mural for the bar known as
Muriel's. It is estimated this piece will fetch around £30,000 when
auctioned this month.) It was, they said, the anti-Cheers. A bar where
everyone knew your name but called you cunt all the same.
Study for
Nude 1951
Collection
of Samuel and Ronnie Heyman
A good looking woman
of indeterminate age spied me and announced: "Darling, there's
something wrong with my tits. Would you give them a squeeze for me
please?"
I stuttered for a
second before she grabbed my hands and placed them on her chest.
"Go on!" she yelled. "Give them a good squeeze." I
obliged and she demanded: "Well?"
"They're
fine."
"FINE?!"
"They're
fabulous, I mean."
She brightened,
released my hands and said: "Excellent. EXCELLENT! You'd better buy
me a gin and tonic then!"
I reeled from punter
to punter who in turn reeled me in. I stood at the bar ordering a
G&T while some clattered posh guy told me about the ideal shoes to
wear for fighting. ("For God's sake don't wear sandals or
Wellington boots.") What a bunch of freaks. I felt immediately at
home.
Later on that
evening, the atmosphere of the room changed immediately when the loud
and rambunctious crowd became respectful and parted for Francis Bacon's
brother, who had come to visit patrons of the bar.
"In
all the motor accidents I've seen, people strewn across the road, the
first thing you think of is the strange beauty - the vision of it,
before you think of trying to do anything. It's to do with the
unusualness of it. I once saw a bad car accident on a large road, and
the bodies were strewn about with broken glass from the car, and the
blood and various possessions, and it was in fact very beautiful. I
think the beauty in it is terribly elusive, but it just happened to be
in the disposition of the bodies, the way they lay and the blood, and
perhaps it was also because it was not a thing one was used to seeing .
. . It was midday, when the sun was very strong and on a white
road."
Study for a Portrait 1953Hess
Art Collection, Berne.
Francis Bacon was
The Colony Room's first ever regular. It opened its doors in 1949 and he
had just had his first one man show and painted Head VI the
iconic painting of a screaming bishop in a clear box that the Tate have
used on their posters for the retrospective. However he was far from
established - he also became a tout for Muriel's that year. He was paid
£10 a week and given free drinks, just to hang around in the bar. He at
once attracted and repelled the right and wrong sort of people
respectively to the afternoon drinking den. The focal point of the
painting is the gaping mouth screaming in fear, with the rest of the
face obscured by thick, vertical lines of black paint, leaving masses of
inverted canvass still bare. It was as if he had taken sandpaper to the
vision of the surrealists and the American abstract impressionists who
had captured the imagination before the war, scrubbing away at the
cinematic visions leaving just bloody and raw reality in place. A
religious figure experiencing nihilistic terror predicted a bleak second
half of the 20th Century. The paint on the earliest surviving Bacon
pieces (exhibited here) was still drying when the Potsdam Agreement was
being finalized at the end of World War II but there was no VE Day for
the painter. He proceeded immediately from WWII to the cold war as he'd
proceeded directly from a strict, middle class Irish Catholic upbringing
to a life of brutal masochism in the flesh pots of Soho and Tangiers.
From enforced and hypocritical civility to bestial aggression.
The strips of bare
canvas acted as a reminder of the reality of what you were looking at.
He stripped away at the layers between viewer and painting in other ways
as well. Early works showed a fascination with the bared teeth of the
baboon, which would scream from the outline of a human bust (Head I
1947). Man's brutalizing nature had been exposed permanently by the war;
it was impossible to disguise the fact any more. This theme would always
be with him. His unsettling picture of Peter Lacy (Study For A
Portrait 1953), mocks us by thrusting our own mortality in our
faces; his rictus, skeleton grin, pokes through the flesh of his face.
We were animals, there was no pretending any otherwise.
Study after Pope
Innocent X by Velazquez
1951
Aberdeen Art Gallery & Museums Collections
"Nietzsche
forecast our future for us - he was the Cassandra of the nineteenth
century - he told us all it's all so meaningless we might as well be
extraordinary."
To Bacon, the body
was a cage and he showed it captured and capturing; his subjects were
pinned to the canvas as if by a lepidopterist. Arrows, pins, Nazi arm
bands, hyperdermic syringes held the wriggling carcasses in place. In
the 40s and 50s he favoured implacable vertical stripes of paint that
looked like prison bars (it's widely held that Jonathan Demme based
Hannibal Lecter's perspex cage in Silence Of The Lambs on a
Bacon painting). He expanded this further when started portraying
subjects inside a 'space frame', thin white lines suggesting a
translucent cage restricting movement within the painting itself.
Through his screaming bishops (such as Study After Velazquez's
Portrait of Pope Innocent X 1953) he put religion itself on trial as
if it were Adolf Eichman 'the architect of the Holocaust' on trial in
Israel.
His detractors saw
his paintings as an expression of the nihilism and self-loathing of a
masochistic and alcoholic homosexual - and such is the power of his
vision, some still see him like this. Bacon saw beauty in the horror of
our condition though. The sublime pleasure of the here and now replacing
supernatural belief and arbitrary morality. While it was true he had a
drink problem, he probably wasn't an alcoholic but rather he liked their
company. He spent a lot of his time in places like The Colony it is true
but his modus operandi was to buy others drinks, constantly topping up
everyone else's glass and slopping the rest on the floor. He certainly
drank less than his lovers, and especially less than George Dyer who was
the muse for so many of Bacon's masterpieces, including the stunning Triptych
May - June 1973 painted after the suicide of the subject in Paris.
The panels show him shitting, vomiting and dying, no longer trapped by
life. And even here Bacon finds a moving beauty in the indignities of
life that very few other painters have ever dealt in let alone
captured.
Study for a Portrait of Van Gogh VI 1957
Arts Council Collection, Southbank Centre, London
Francis Bacon Tate Britain11
September 2008 – 4 January 2009Sponsored
by Bank of America
Old School Bad
Boy’s Messy World
By Michael Kimmelman
The
New York TimesSeptember 24,
2008
Figure Study I, a work in the Francis Bacon retrospective through
Jan. 4 at Tate Britain in London.
LONDON
— That the Francis Bacon retrospective here at Tate Britain has been
mobbed since opening several days ago should surprise nobody. The show is
a landmark, a knockout, and its timing turns out to be nearly perfect.
Sixteen
years have passed since the Irish-born Bacon died, at 82, during which the
art world has radically changed, and the generation of Americans weaned on
postwar abstraction and congenitally skeptical of Bacon is being gradually
displaced. The other day there were dozens of young art students, not a
few of them sketching, in front of the pictures. I suspect the same will
happen when the show, judiciously organized by Matthew Gale and Chris
Stephens, lands in Madrid, then New York. Bacon suddenly looks fresh.
How
so? Late in life, it’s true, he became, contrary to his sensational art,
a sort of old-school gentleman, chivalrous and immensely kind when he
wished to be, reticent otherwise, a monument of postwar Britain who, for a
curious guest, would rehearse the old lines and visit old haunts like the
Colony Room, the run-down drinking club where he paid for bottles of
Champagne from a thick wad of cash he kept rolled up, à la Al Capone, in
a pocket of his suit. (The ill-fitting suits, long after he could afford
Savile Row, came from a neighbourhood tailor to whom, typical of Bacon, he
remained loyal.)
In
those days he was painting works like a second version of the triptych Three
Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, the original of
which in the mid-1940s had confronted a battered, convalescent nation with
what’s commonly called the shock of recognition. Now he was remaking the
work, as his friend the painter Lawrence Gowing put it about late Bacon
generally, to look more “classically serene.”
“I’m
an optimist, but about nothing,” Bacon kept repeating, while lamenting
his old age as “a disease, a desert, because all one’s friends die.”
He loved to quote Yeats and Proust and T.S. Eliot and remained enmeshed in
what Michael Leja, an American art historian, has in a different context
called “Modern Man discourse” — a serious hand-me-down passel of
existentialism and other philosophy from the 1940s and ’50s, popularized,
as David Alan Mellor writes in an essay in the show’s excellent
catalogue, by the claustrophobic spaces of film noir. This netherworld of
dingy hallways and shuttered rooms had long been the arena of Bacon’s
art.
So
in various respects, by his late 70s, Bacon had come to seem something of
a throwback; it was widely said his best work was behind him. But since
then historians have mined the sources from which he cribbed images and
opened up the crucial subject of gay sexuality in his work, which was long
repressed, and this, along with his bad-boy reputation, which never goes
out of fashion, has made him a source of steady fascination, never mind
the lurid films and biographies and the admiration of art-world
celebrities like Damien Hirst. Most important, with the breathing space of
a little time, it’s become obvious how pure a painter he was, not just
early on.
His
repertory — “brand” would be the word Mr. Hirst might use — of
bloody carcasses and monsters; the mutilated, decomposing heads with
immaculate teeth; the mangy dogs and screaming popes and salary men,
silent and watchful, caged like zoo animals, then enclosed behind the gold
frames and reflective glass, in which we too appear like ghosts: it’s
all already there in his work by the mid-1950s.
So
is the touch. In Figure Study I or Head II, from the ’40s,
the surfaces are busy and dense like stucco or tweed, or thick as an
elephant’s hide, but with exquisite veils on top — a mix of roughness
and fragility, aggression and sensuality that would define the work across
the career. Bacon also swiped thin washes of purple, black and white over
what looks like raw canvas to paint his first pope, fussing the gaping
mouth, creepily. Spectral hints of gold brocade, refined like Chinese
calligraphy, glimmer in the ether.
Elsewhere
beefy men wrestle and dive into pools of blue-black nothingness. Against
high-key fields of red and orange, half-animal, half-human blobs recline
like patients on an operating table or they melt and evaporate. Bacon
traveled during the late ’50s to Tangier, absorbing local color,
allowing his technique to loosen, producing Study for a Portrait of van
Gogh VI, a clangorous mass of red and green, improbably successful,
and he painted a few messes too, like Figure in a Mountain.
Out
of all of that came, by the ’70s and ’80s, we can see in the Tate
show, yet more complex architecture, a widened palette, and a calculated
willingness to risk failure. Within the narrow terrain he mapped at the
start, with its melancholy and blend of private with literary iconography,
Bacon didn’t just repeat himself.
Several
triptychs and portraits, reflecting on the suicide of his companion George
Dyer in 1971, mark a clear experiment in conflicted sentiment; they’re
heartbreaking but simultaneously clinical. As a friend of Bacon’s, the
editor Nikos Stangos, once put it, Bacon “never expressed moral
indignation about anything.” That in a nutshell explains the work’s
ruthless elegance.
Some
really appalling late pictures, like a large triptych from 1976, which
some squillionaire recently paid a fortune to buy, look horribly
overstuffed with ugly heads and tired gimmicks, as if Bacon, worried he
had exhausted the empty stretches of color he so often painted, didn’t
know when to stop filling the canvas up. Whether, during these last
decades, he came merely to parody himself, painting too slickly, is the
only real subject of debate the exhibition has aroused. The answer is,
yes, sometimes he did.
All
the same, he made, out of the blue, Jet of Water, a great
ejaculation of splashed white pigment, which looks stunning. Despite his
blindness to pure abstraction — which, having a tendency toward
decorativeness, he feared led only to empty gesture — he devised a
Rothko-like picture, sinister and wry, called Blood on Pavement.
Even the second version of that early triptych of figures at the base of a
crucifixion turns out to have its own eloquence, almost daring a viewer to
find it too beautiful.
Cunning
and self-conscious, glad to outrage, with the delicacy of those blurry but
somehow distinct faces and electric palette, conjuring up Carnaby Street,
his work translates quite easily to a new century. So does the sweaty sex
and violence, luxuriant but couched in aloofness and girded, always, by
grand allusions to old masters and learned texts.
Karl
Georg Büchner, the 19th-century German playwright, speaking of which,
once asked a question that Bacon must have come across. “How,”
Büchner inquired, “can you not hear the terrible screams all around
that we call silence?”
Through
the popes and Willy Lomans and so much else that Bacon painted, they make
this exhibition sing.
Bacon
Portrait of Model May Fetch 7.5 Million Pounds in London
By Scott Reyburn,
Bloomberg, September 24, 2008
Portrait
of Henrietta Moraes 1969 Francis Bacon
Sept. 24 (Bloomberg)
– A Francis Bacon painting of his friend Henrietta Morase, one of the
few women the artist painted, is expected to fetch as much as 7.5 million
pounds ($13.9 million) when it comes up for auction in London.
The 14-inch-high
(36-centimeter) head-and-shoulders portrait, showing the sitter turning to
her left against a plain yellow background, will be included in Christie’s
International’s Oct. 19 sale of contemporary art, the auction house said
in an e- mailed statement. The sale takes place on the concluding Sunday
of the Frieze Art Fair.
Moraes, a model, was a
close friend of Bacon's during the 1950s and 1960s, spending evenings
drinking with him, Lucien Freud and other Soho bohemians at the Colony
Room Club. Bacon included Moraes in a number of his paintings using photos
taken of her by John Deakin.
Dating from 1969, Portrait
of Henrietta Moraes has been put up for sale by fellow Colony Room
regular Garech Browne, a member of the Guinness family, who bought the
work in 1970. The painting is inscribed by Moraes on the back of the
canvas.
"I remember well
my years in Soho,'' Browne said in the e-mailed release. He met Freud at
the age of 12. "Lucian would take me to the Gargoyle Club where
Johnny Minton, Francis Bacon and Stephen Spender were often to be found. I
would not be allowed in by the bouncers so Lucian would put me under his
long overcoat and I walked on his feet to gain entry.''
Browne went on to
found Claddagh Records and oversee the formation of the Irish folk group
the Chieftains, said Christie’s.
In July at Sotheby’s,
in London a similar-sized 1967 Study for Head of George
Dyer by Bacon sold for 13.8 million pounds with fees, said the
saleroom result tracker Artnet.
Bacon is the subject
of a retrospective exhibition at Tate Britain that runs through Jan. 4,
2009.
Moraes battled drink
and drug addictions, had many lovers, once shared a flat with singer
Marieanne Faithful and was sent to prison after an unsuccessful attempt to
become a cat burglar.
Bacon and Rothko in
London
By
Valerie Gladstone, New York Sun | September 24, 2008
LONDON
— Art lovers will soon be able to take a picturesque boat ride on the
Thames River between two of the most important museum exhibitions of the
year. Tate Britain is celebrating the centenary of Francis Bacon, widely
regarded as Britain's greatest painter, by bringing together 70 works
never before shown in one exhibition and representing every period of
his life. Later this month, the museum's provocative young sibling, the
Tate Modern, will feature the first major exhibition dedicated to the
late works of Mark Rothko (1903-70), the American painter who created a
new and impassioned form of abstract painting. The show includes more
than 50 paintings and works on paper from between 1958 and 1970. For the
first time, 15 of Rothko's monumental Seagram murals will be shown
alongside more than 30 other landmark paintings. Coincidentally, sales
of Bacon's and Rothko's paintings broke records for sales of postwar art
at Sotheby's last May, a work by Bacon fetching $52.7 million and one by
Rothko, $72.8 million.
Study
of a Dog (1952) Francis Bacon
"What's
particularly interesting about this Bacon show," a Tate Modern
curator, Matthew Gale, said, "is that it looks back on his career
in light of new research that emerged with the opening up of his studio
and its contents since his death. Altogether new aspects of the man have
been revealed that shed enormous light on his visual lexicon."
Bacon
was born in Dublin to English parents. His studio was recently
dismantled and then reconstructed within the Dublin City Gallery. As a
result, scholars have been able to evaluate more than 7,500 objects
related to the artist. These include illustrated publications,
photographs, press cuttings, notes, drawings, medical textbooks, books
on psychic phenomena, artists' materials — among them several pairs of
corduroy trousers used to apply paint — and slashed canvases. Through
them, scholars now better understand Bacon's working methods and sources
of inspiration. Some objects will be exhibited in an archival room
adjacent to the paintings' galleries. Mr. Gale co-curated the exhibition
with Chris Stephens, head of displays at Tate Britain.
"We
learned that he took far longer to paint his works than he admitted
to," Mr. Gale said. "And that he extensively used photographs
and other illustrative material. He drew inspiration from things as
disparate as the works of Michelangelo and Eliot's 'The Wasteland.' We
now better understand the incredible processing that he went through to
make his art."
To
demonstrate the relevance of Bacon's sources, such as clinical
representations of animals and emotional landscapes, these objects will
be displayed next to his representations of the body. In Three
Studies for Figures at the Base of Crucifixion (1945), which
features writhing half-human, half-animal forms, he overthrew artistic
conventions by using the triptych format of Renaissance altarpieces to
show the evils of man, rather than the virtues of Christ. While this
work has long been at the Tate, in this exhibition it will be shown for
the first time with other related, celebrated paintings and triptychs
including Study after Velazquez's Portrait of the Pope Innocent X (1953),
Crucifixion (1965), and In Memory of George Dyer (1971).
"What
I find amazing," Mr. Gale said, "is that even after all the
preparation for this exhibition, looking at Bacon's paintings still
makes my spine tingle. I never stop being overwhelmed."
The
curator of Modern and Contemporary art at Tate Modern, Achim Borchardt-Hume,
who organized the Rothko exhibition, is equally passionate about his
subject. "The key to this period," he said, "is the 30
monumental Seagram murals that Rothko made between 1958 and 1959 for the
Four Seasons Restaurant [within New York's Seagram building]. He never
gave them to the restaurant because he eventually felt they wouldn't be
appropriate there, and toward the end of his life donated nine of them
to the Tate because of his love of our Turners."
Rothko
wanted the works to be shown together, and so the museum created the
Rothko Room. Other important Rothko murals were borrowed from Japan's
Kawamura Memorial Museum and Washington's National Gallery for this
exhibit. "It is a huge coup for the Tate to have the loan from the
Kawamura, which never lent works to an international exhibition
before," Mr. Borchardt-Hume said. Shown with Rothko's Black-Form
and Black on Gray paintings and his Brown on Gray works on
paper, the result is a very different impression of the artist.
Maintaining
his focus on formal elements, such as colour, shape, balance, depth,
composition, and scale, Rothko began to darken his palette dramatically
during this period, turning from bright, intense colours to deep red,
maroon, brown, and black. He also turned from closed forms to open ones
that look like a threshold or entrance. "I believe he would have
wanted viewers to see these together," Mr. Borchardt-Hume said.
"Like his chapel in Houston, they create a meditative experience.
They need time to be appreciated. Only as you look carefully do your
eyes begin to adjust. It's a curious dynamic, almost like listening to
music."
After
London, the Bacon exhibition will travel to the Prado Museum in Madrid
from February 3 to April 19, and then to the Metropolitan Museum of Art
from May 18 to August 16. The Rothko show will travel to the Kawamura
Memorial Museum of Art in spring 2009.
Francis
Bacon, until January 4 at the Tate Britain, tate.org.uk/britain.
Mark
Rothko, September 26 to February 1 at the Tate Modern, tate.org/ukmodern.
Painting that packs
a punch
He may be the newly
crowned darling of the auction world, but Francis Bacon's work can still
raise the hairs on your neck
Elizabeth
Renzetti, Globe & Mail, September 23, 2008
A
visitor views Three Studies for a Crucifixion, 1962, part of Tate
Britain’s retrospective of Francis Bacon.
LONDON
— News arrived recently that it will soon be last call at the Colony
Room, that dank thimble of iniquity above the streets of Soho. During
the 1950s and 1960s, the club's proprietor, Muriel Belcher, presided
like a foul-mouthed mother hen, referring to male patrons as
"she" (and worse) and railing against the actions of
"that nasty Mrs. Hitler." Dylan Thomas once graced the floor
with his evening's alcohol intake. Artists and tradesmen were
indistinguishable under cover of booze and profanity.
On most days,
Francis Bacon could be found at the bar. At last orders, he would be
bounced out with the other patrons, celebrated or not - the Colony did
not discriminate - to begin a nocturnal adventure than might include
gambling, rough sex and almost certainly more drinking. Whatever the
evening had brought, the morning would find him at his Chelsea studio,
painting.
As Tate Britain
launches its new Bacon retrospective (a highlight, along with the Mark
Rothko exhibition at Tate Modern, of London's gallery season), it's odd
to think how the life of the painter, who was so secretive and so
resistant to biographical interpretations of his work, has come to the
forefront of the public imagination. "I have had the most
extraordinary life," he told his friend and biographer Michael
Peppiatt. "The life is more extraordinary than the
paintings."The paintings, however, will long outlive Bacon, who
died at the age of 82 in 1992. What a strange journey it has been: The
man whose life was so outré, whose art was once so shocking that it was
the subject of obscenity complaints, who viewed human flesh as meat
(meat to be beautifully rendered on canvas, but still), is now the
darling of the corporate world and the auction house. Bank of America is
sponsoring the show, which is the Tate's third Bacon retrospective; this
year, he became the world's bestselling artist, with his work fetching
$190-million in one year alone. (One painting, Triptych, 1976,
sold for $89-million in New York this spring.)
In the 6½ decades
since Bacon's first major shows, we have had pickled sharks and sacred
religious figures modelled in excreta, so what are the chances of a
neck-prickling experience with mere painting, especially ones so
familiar from reproductions?
But Head VI, in
the first room of the eight rooms of the exhibition, is still as jarring
as a shriek in a quiet room. Painted in 1949, it's the first of the
"screaming pope" pictures (responding to Velazquez's Portrait
of Pope Innocent X), the figure's gaping mouth intended by Bacon to be
"like a Monet sunset."
As a young man living
in London - he had been expelled from the family home in Ireland at the
age of 16, possibly for wearing his mother's underpants - Bacon would
visit the food hall at Harrods to study slabs of raw meat. He was deeply
influenced by Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin, and the film's
screaming nurse was a likely source for the gaping mouth-wounds that recur
in his work.
"Is the snarling
mouth aggression or pain? It's not clear," says the exhibition's
co-curator, Chris Stephens, standing in front of the Man in Blue series
from the mid-1950s. Anyone who doubts Bacon's relevance to the
contemporary world should check out these paintings, which could be titled
Mad Men, This is Your Life. In each, the figure is dressed in a sharp suit
and narrow tie, spectral face obscured but for the grimacing mouth,
shoulders hunched and hands clenched, hemmed in by a claustrophobic blue
background. If the point isn't clear enough, Bacon's painting of a
shrieking baboon hangs in the same room: The only thing that separates us
from the monkeys is that we learned to weave cloth and lie.
Stephens and his
co-curator, Matthew Gale, have gathered 65 of the major works, with a
couple of aims in mind: The first, says Stephens, to demonstrate Bacon's
"passionate embrace of a Nietzschean atheism, that man exists in a
godless state." One room has been set aside for Bacon's three major
crucifixion triptychs, with their howling, tormented figures set against
livid orange backgrounds.
The first, 1944's
Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, brought Bacon
shuddering into the public consciousness, as it was shown in the same
month that the Allies liberated the death camps. In the other
crucifixions, painted 20 years later, each panel is filled with senseless
meat where in previous centuries the viewer would have found the glowing
symbolism of afterworldly reward. Indeed, the curators have done such a
good job in these eight relentless rooms that they perhaps should have set
aside a stall at the end of the show for the distribution of Valium and
nooses.
Maybe Bacon couldn't
escape a brutal world view, given his early life - though he would surely
have hurled abuse at such easy psychobiography. Born in 1909 to English
parents in Ireland, Bacon was weedy and asthmatic and a constant
disappointment to his overbearing father, who had the boy whipped by the
family grooms for any transgressions (this, according to the Bacon myth,
is what gave him his taste for sadomasochism.) He was chucked out at 16,
and wandered through the decadence of Berlin and the richness of Paris
before settling in London. He taught himself to paint, but he was a bitter
self-critic and after early ambivalence from the art world gave up for 10
years, and destroyed most of what he painted in the 1930s and early 1940s.
A giant photograph of
Bacon's studio dominates one of the rooms in the exhibition, although it
looks less like a studio than a paint shop ransacked by a pack of
Tasmanian devils. The floor is ankle deep in paper; hundreds of brushes
are jammed into pots; stacks of books teeter in every corner (with a giant
volume about Velazquez on top). Bacon was a compulsive collector of images
- from medical books, newspapers, films, anywhere. A radiology textbook
was as valuable as a newspaper clipping of a dying matador. His celebrated
male nudes - it's unclear whether they're scrapping or loving, or possibly
both at the same time - were inspired by Eadweard Muybridge's photos of
Victorian wrestlers.
This is the other
thread the curators drew upon - Bacon as the link between painting and
photography, the artist most forcefully concerned with how to truthfully
express the human figure in the age of the photograph.
"He could only
paint people he knew," Stephens says, "and only in their
absence." To that end, Bacon got his friend John Deakin to take
pictures of the people central to his life: Muriel Belcher and artist
Isabel Rawsthorne, his lovers Peter Lacy and George Dyer. The original
photos are here, crumpled and torn and paint-spattered, a reminder of the
roughness Bacon often showed to the people who loved him.
Dyer killed himself in
a Paris hotel room the day before Bacon's major retrospective opened at
the Grand Palais in 1971. He had already been a subject of several
portraits, many of them at the Tate, in which he often looks ill at ease,
his body twisted as he looks in a mirror or awkwardly rides a bicycle.
Immediately after his death, Bacon began work a new triptych to
memorialize his former lover; in it, he's fleshy, muscular, even a touch
heroic.
For Stephens, the
portraits of this period are "some of the great achievements of
postwar painting." The subject matter may, unfairly, overshadow the
technique, and so viewers are encouraged to get up close to the canvases,
to see how Bacon layered and endlessly worked the paint - often using
trousers or old shirts he had lying around the studio.
If Bacon resisted
attributing any kind of meaning or narrative to his paintings, equally he
was looking for that spark, the alchemy that happens when image and paint,
foreground and background come together to deliver the equivalent of a
roundhouse punch. How uncanny that someone often considered the greatest
postwar painter, whose works are the centrepieces of auctions around the
world, taught himself to paint.
Francis Bacon
runs at Tate Britain in London to Jan. 4.
Saving the Bacon
By
Emiliya Mychasuk and Emiko Terazono
The
Financial Times, September 20 2008
The
hedge fund managers being
demonised by regulators can't be all bad - some of them are making a
contribution as patrons of the arts, judging by the works shown at the
Francis Bacon exhibition sponsored by Bank of America at the Tate. Among
the artworks featured are those owned by J Tomilson Hill , the one-time
head of investment banking at Lehman Brothers, now at Blackstone as the
chief executive of the fund of hedge funds.
Hedge
fund legend Samuel Heyman and his wife Ronnie have loaned the gorilla-like
Study for Nude, painted in 1951. A 1980s corporate raider using
debt provided by Drexel Burnham Lambert, he was prominent last year in the
LSE/Nasdaq battle.
Another
hedge fund titan with a Bacon at the Tate is the founder of SAC Capital
Advisors, Steven Cohen and wife Alexandra . They own the surreal Study
after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X, in the "screaming
popes" series.
Study after Velázquez's
Portrait of Pope Innocent X
Francis Bacon: Anatomy
of an enigma
Revised
and updated edition
The
Times, Monday 22 September 2008
Published in 1996, Francis
Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma was the first in-depth study of the
artist's life. It has not been superseded. In this substantially revised,
updated edition - to coincide with the artist's centenary, which will be
celebrated from autumn 2008 through summer 2009 - Peppiatt will
incorporate confidential material Bacon gave him, which he did not include
in the first edition. This valuable, first-hand information comes from the
hundreds of conversations Bacon had with Peppiatt, often late into the
night, over thirty years, particularly during the periods Bacon spent
living and working in Paris. It includes insights into Bacon's intimate
relationships, his artistic convictions and his general view of life, as
well as his acerbic comments on his contemporaries.
Peppiatt will draw on
some of the fascinating information that has become available in the
fifteen years since the artist died.Once jealously guarded by the artist
himself, the contents of Bacon's studio can now be freely consulted;
Peppiatt has had privileged access to these archives, and he will show how
a number of recent discoveries - including wholly unexpected source
material - have radically changed the way we look at Bacon's
work.Similarly, his recent research into the artist's background - his
tortured affair with the sadistic Peter Lacy in Tangier, for instance, and
the baffling circumstances of his death in Madrid - will shed light on
unexplored areas of Bacon's life and work. Peppiatt will also unveil new
information from several people who knew Bacon intimately and who have
never gone on record previously.
Francis Bacon
Alex Larman,
Review, The Observer, Sunday September 21 2008
Republished to
coincide with the Tate's major retrospective of Bacon's art, Michael
Peppiatt's biography has long been viewed by Bacon scholars as the
definitive life of a fascinatingly flawed figure. The 'revised and
updated' label is less exciting than it might appear, mainly consisting of
extra gossip about people who have died since the book was first published
in 1996, but there is no denying the often disturbing cumulative force
with which Bacon - the man, the artist and, towards the end of his life,
the commercial wonder - is presented. As an examination of his life and
art, Anatomy of an Enigma is superb, but arguably it's even better as a
portrait of the Soho demimonde in which Bacon thrived, vividly capturing
the grubby ennui of postwar Britain that suited his grim sensibilities so
well.
Francis Bacon:
Old Master
By Richard Lacayo, Time, Thursday, September 19, 2008
Triptych, 1991, Bacon, Museum of Modern Art
I've been making
repeat visits to the phenomenal Francis Bacon retrospective at Tate
Britain. To get right to the point, it's one of the most powerful shows
I've seen in more than 40 years of museum going. This is Bacon's fifth
retrospective, and no show can hope to make his work new. His screaming
popes and wrestling lovers and smeared portrait heads are too familiar for
that. But this show, which was beautifully curated by Matthew Gale of Tate
Modern and Chris Stephens of Tate Britain, organizes the work
intelligently — by useful and roughly chronological themes, like Animal,
Crucifixion and Memorial — chooses well, introduces the galleries with
intelligent texts and then just stands back and lets this majestic work
hit you.
The only important
canvas that didn't make it to London is Painting 1946, which
belongs to the Museum of Modern Art in New York because Alfred Barr,
MoMA's first director, was prescient enough to buy it when he saw it two
years later. (Will MoMA lend it to the Metropolitan Museum when the show
travels to New York next spring after passing through the Prado? I'll
ask.)
I'll have a lot to say
about this show on and off in days to come, but here's one impression I
came away with repeatedly. To see this many Bacons gathered together
reminded me again how rare it is to see new art that attempts, much less
achieves, a genuine tragic dimension. Irony you can find in any gallery
these days, also low comedy, puerile cool and industrial strength enigma.
But in a time that has its share of tragedy — have you noticed? —
where is the art that even tries to strike an equivalent note? What we
have almost no language for anymore, at least not in art, is acute pain.
Yes, I can think of
exceptions. Some older artists like Magdalena Abakanovich, Christian
Boltanski and of course Anselm Kiefer. (And let me add that little video I
saw at the Venice Biennale last year that Sophie Calle made of her
mother's last moments.) And there's a lot of great work by
photojournalists — James Nachtwey is the obvious example but there
are many, many more — that in a way has taken up where art has left off.
But grief without irony, anguish without a punchline? It's hard to do. And
it's hard to find.
A dark prophet
The impact of Francis Bacon's disturbing paintings has not diminished one
jot
Sue Hubbard, Arts & Culture, New Statesman, 18 September 2008
With his
pimento-shaped face, reminiscent of an overstuffed hamster, Francis Bacon
appears in photos taken by his contemporaries and in a famous portrait by
his friend Lucian Freud - stolen in 1988 never to be seen again - as one
of the most recognisable artists of the 20th century. Doyen of Soho
drinking clubs, he led a reprobate life that has been well documented,
from an Anglo-Irish childhood, with a repressive father who threw him out
for showing an overdeveloped penchant for stable grooms and for his
mother's underwear, to his sadomasochistic love affairs with numerous men
of the demi-monde.
The new Bacon
retrospective at Tate Britain, the first since 1985, allows for a
reassessment of his work in an age when shock and violence are common
fare, in the art world and in daily life. An avowed nihilist and atheist,
he was fraught with contradictions. "You can," he claimed,
"be optimistic and totally without hope . . . I think of life as
meaningless; [but] we create attitudes that give it meaning while we
exist." Painting, alcohol and sex were the ways he sought that
meaning.
Bacon, widely regarded
as Britain's greatest painter of the figure, aimed to inherit a place in
the pantheon beside Michelangelo, Velázquez and Rembrandt. He insisted
that his pictures "were to deserve either the National Gallery or the
dustbin, with nothing in between" - and undoubtedly won that gamble.
Yet despite his extraordinary innovation and recasting of the human form,
he cannot be seen as a true modernist. He was, for most of his career,
sidelined by the American critics, who saw him as too figurative, too
narrative, and too concerned with European art history and Christian
iconography. Neither did he share their boundless optimism nor care much
for the abstract expressionism promoted by the American critic Clement
Greenberg. As he said: "I do not believe in abstract art because you
must have a starting point in reality."
Today, as one looks
back, more than a decade after his death in 1992, Bacon's sensibility
seems supremely European. His postwar angst springs from the same ground
as that of Giacometti and Jean Dubuffet, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus
and Jean Cocteau, whose bleak dictum "If you see your whole life in a
mirror, you will see death at work" Bacon admired. His 1955 painting
based on the life mask of William Blake, that great outsider of British
literature, nails his colours to the mast of iconoclasm and individuality.
He lived by his own rules, both in his art and in his relish for the
bohemian lowlife (homosexuality was still illegal) of Soho and the Colony
Room. T S Eliot was a huge influence. The poet juggled with religious
imagery for a secular age, whilst Bacon was a committed atheist, but both
caught something of the existential isolation and abjection that defined
postwar Europe.
Yet Bacon strongly
denied a narrative message. He wanted his paintings to address the
viewer's "nervous system directly" and to "unlock the
valves of feeling" with his distorted forms, derived through chance,
accident and appropriation. His paintings, he claimed, were a form of
"exhilarated despair", and mankind "nothing but meat".
He rejected the idea that his screaming popes, based on Velázquez's Portrait
of Innocent X, shut in their claustrophobic glass cases, had anything
to do with the image of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, standing in
a glass witness box during his trial in Jerusalem, or that his mauled,
contorted bodies were born out of the horrors of the Second World War. Yet
the famed detritus of his studio, posthumously saved by his heir John
Edwards, reveals not only Bacon's passion for photography and film, but
that his paintings were informed by images as diverse as illustrations
from medical textbooks on diseases of the mouth, or the nanny's
blood-spattered face from Battleship Potemkin. They were not, in
other words, totally intuitive. It has long been acknowledged that
Eadweard Muybridge's early photographs of movement were fundamental to
Bacon's work.
So where should we
place him now? To stand in front of his Three Studies for Figures at
the Base of a Crucifixion, painted in the 1940s, is still a deeply
visceral and gut-wrenching experience. Bacon had come to know Aeschylus's Oresteia
through Eliot's 1939 play The Family Reunion. The artist's three
writhing Eumenides are barely recognisable as human figures. They have no
eyes, only silently screaming mouths, bespeaking the fascination of that
first generation of post-Freudians with the id and "the hidden
presence of animal trends in the unconscious". Bacon's screaming
baboons, sniffing dogs and bulls all blur the line between culture and
abject nature.
There is also
something prescient about both the popes and Bacon's men in suits. Study
for Figure II (1953-55) shows a solitary man with blank eyes and
gaping mouth, in a jaundice- yellow suit, isolated on some sort of
platform against an empty, black space. This figure, which bears an
uncanny resemblance to George W Bush, is one of Eliot's hollow men, heads
stuffed with straw, whose "dried voices, when/We whisper together/Are
quiet and meaningless". There is nothing, Bacon seems to be saying,
so isolating and dehumanising as power. His impact has not diminished one
jot.
Francis Bacon is
at Tate Britain, London SW1, until 4 January 2009.
An object lesson in
bringing home the Bacon
The life of the
painter Francis Bacon was laid before us with exemplary clarity and some
great stories
Chris Campling, The Times, September
16, 2008
Louisa Buck's Sunday Feature, Broken Images (Radio 4)
accomplished a little miracle - it explained to the ignorant listener
what it was that made up Francis Bacon, both the man and the painter, in
45 minutes of intelligent, informed and above all clear narrative and
interviews. The discussion of modern visual art is notorious for
encouraging, even relying on, waffle, buzzwords and opaque jargon -
Buck's programme was an object lesson in how to do it right.
Of course, Bacon
could be one of those artists whose character and influences spread
themselves in front of the idly curious like an A-Z. But if not, and
Bacon's worth can be obscured just as easily by the skilled arty
show-off as any conceptualist, then Buck's achievement is all the
greater, for not taking the easy route.
It
helped that Bacon's life was fascinating. He spent the first 16 years of
his life as the misfit son of a wealthy English Protestant family in an
Ireland going through a revolution. His family were avid hunters and he,
an asthmatic, couldn't go near horses or dogs. He was gay, was sexually
attracted to his father and was banished from home when he was caught
wearing his mother's knickers. He could have turned out a serial killer.
Thank God he could draw.
He
was a product of his background and his time. He was a child during one
world war and a man during the other. He was influenced by film, by
literature, by poetry, by sex, by everything. He embraced the chaos of
the 20th century and participated in it as much as he reflected it.
There
were some great stories told, too. Here's one - he was painting a
picture of a gorilla in a cornfield. It wasn't working. So he did what
he usually did and added a few more strokes to see what happened. Could
it be a bird? More paint - and it became a painting of an eviscerated
crucified man, with a figure in front of him holding an umbrella.
Wonderful. They should stick this programme on the tape guide to the
Bacon retrospective at the Tate. But they won't.
Best of Bacon
Isabel Andrews,Apollo Magazine, Tuesday, 16th
September 2008
Study for a Portrait 1952 Francis Bacon
The press view at Tate Britain for its latest retrospective of FrancisBacon (the first was in 1960, the second
in 1985) buzzed with a level of anticipation I’ve not often
encountered. A self-taught painter, Bacon
mutilated most of the work he produced between 1933-45 at the time, but
once his work became known his popularity was quickly established,
lasting throughout his life, and is, it seems, growing by the day.
Tate’s current retrospective is very much a ‘best of Bacon’,
taking a chronological approach through a selection of 71 works, broken
only by two thematic rooms that group his Crucifixion works (a theme the
artist drew on throughout his career) and selected archival material
taken from Bacon’s studio that, after
his death, was painstakingly uplifted and moved in its entirety to
public display in his birthplace of Dublin.
I was more than slightly interested to see this show, principally
because I’ve never really been able to make up my mind about FrancisBacon’s work. I first came across Bacon’s
name as a teenager under the spell of Lucian Freud’s drawings – in
particular Freud’s 1951 portrait of Bacon
– but never quite felt the impact that Bacon
intended in his works so that the ‘paint comes across directly onto
the nervous system’ – but I wanted to. Granted, the colour, scale
(from the 1960s onwards Bacon rarely
deviated from the 2-metre high by 1.5 metre wide format; three for the
triptychs) and compositions are both arresting and impressive. But the
paintings’ essence of human vulnerability, of man existing as just
another animal or mound of flesh in a godless void (Bacon
in a butcher’s shop apparently wondered why he himself wasn’t one of
the carcasses), didn’t for me deliver the haunting psychological
darkness and brutal isolation evident in the harrowed lines and
down-turned eyes of some of Freud’s etched sitters. And walking
through the Tate galleries, it still doesn’t. Put simply, it’s a big
idea, boldly done, to the same effect each time. But it’s also an idea
that’s been given more depth of treatment elsewhere, for my money in
words more than paint. It’s not for nothing that Bacon
references the poetry of T.S. Eliot and Aeschylus in his paintings from
1967-84. I wonder what he made of Beckett.
It may be that some of the impact of Bacon’s
paintings has diminished with familiarity and time. The same is not true
of the artist’s persona. Only recently did I discover Freud’s
opinion that his portrait of Bacon,
stolen in 1988 while on show at Berlin’s Neue Nationalgalerie, was
probably lifted by a fan of Bacon rather
than one of his own. Bacon’s reputation
for mutilating paintings, frequenting Soho drinking dens, having intense
and abusive relationships in a time when homosexuality was illegal,
and as the figurehead of London bohemians in a period now revered for
its creativity, has secured his iconic status.
And the sort of material emerging from the detritus of his studio
will do nothing to harm this image. It includes photography by John
Deakin of Bacon’s close friends only
(Isabel Rawsthorne, Freud, his lover George Dyer) commissioned by the
artist who then painted them in isolation, using the image as reference.
In addition, scraps of magazine and newspaper cuttings with photography
of sportsmen and wrestlers or drawings by Michelangelo have been
resurrected from the litter of Bacon’s
studio and smartly framed and hung on the wall. I can’t help feelings
it’s slightly voyeuristic to riffle so fastidiously through this
material – particularly when these sources were often and openly
acknowledged by Bacon during his
lifetime. Tate curators have brought to our attention the lists of
potential subjects they have found in the studio – lists Bacon
denied making, instead asserting the spontaneity of his approach.
There’s also a wall of so-called drawings – another process that Bacon
denied – but these are simple outlines of position rather than the
finished drawings being produced by Bacon’s
contemporaries. No doubt interesting
discoveries will be made about Bacon’s
process and technique, but the real essence of Bacon
is, ultimately, in his scream alone.
Francis Bacon
is at Tate Britain until 4 January.
A wayward genius
and his chambers of horror
The
visceral punch of a Francis Bacon painting is beyond dispute. But at
Tate Britain's world-class exhibition - which brings together 100 of his
works and reconstructs the photo-plastered walls of this London studio -
we come face to face with the existential agony at the heart of his
anarchic vision
Laura
Cumming, The Observer, Sunday September 14 2008
Francis
Bacon
Tate Britain, London SW1, until 4 Jan
There are
exhibitions - rare, superbly curated - that redefine an artist for a
generation. The presentation of 100 works by Francis Bacon at Tate
Britain until January, then at the Prado and the Metropolitan Museum in
New York, is just such a world-class event. Everyone knows what a Bacon
looks like, and since his death in 1992 there have been other shows to
remind us, but none has revealed quite as clearly as this one just how
mysterious and anarchic his art remains.
Take the content of
the paintings. What exactly is going on here? Clearly there are the
simple auction-house categories: screaming popes and writhing figures,
suicides and crucifixions, grand triptychs of agony and violence bought
for record sums by Russian oligarchs. And perhaps it seems that violence
must therefore be Bacon's theme: bodies splayed and disembowelled, heads
twisted and split as in some motorway pile-up. The naked bulb dangles
over an amputee (or so it seems). Tobacco bursts from the stubbed fag
like the innards of a corpse and the suicide retches his last breath.
Even the beds on which lovers grapple are more like mortuary slabs.
It is certainly true
that Bacon did not paint flowers - although there is in fact an
amazingly eerie image of hydrangeas in the opening room - and that his
popes and martyrs are consummate horror shows. Ectoplasm, gore, mucus,
all sorts of nameless substances are evoked and even imitated by the
paint itself, and his stated ambition was to make the pictures look 'as
if a human being had passed between them, leaving a trail of the human
presence as a snail leaves its slime'.
But Bacon was a
gregarious Soho bohemian. His people are almost always portraits of
lovers and friends. What might look like botched surgery - and like is
the operative word since one is always searching for analogies to make
sense of his art - is performed on images of drinking companions. Nor
could anyone fail to notice just how gorgeous and balletic his pictures
are, with their jewel-rich colours and precise choreography; or that his
draughtsmanship is so buoyant and deft, even cartoon-like.
John Berger long ago
compared Bacon to Walt Disney and, before reeling at the supposed
heresy, ask yourself whether these paintings don't have a similar sort
of fiendish exuberance in their leaping lines and curves. Tom the cat
runs smack into the frying pan, his face flattens, but he bounces back.
What is shocking is that Bacon's figures stay stuck in their extreme
distortions.
The truth is that
time passes and Bacon no longer comes across as the master of the bloody
chamber, of images of torture and degradation the like of which had
never before been seen in British art. This is partly because he is
practically an old master by now, sanctified in museums the world over,
his newness erased by familiarity, his revelations superseded by the
pictures of real-life horror that flood into our living rooms. But it is
also because what he made of his subject matter now seems so much more
important - and this is the true action of the paintings: Bacon's
obsessive reinvention and restatement of those isolated figures in their
cages and cells.
A very early work
from 1945, for instance, shows a howling woman bent over naked, a man's
overcoat slung across her hindquarters. It is a subject fit for any
number of 20th-century artists. But what makes it so devastating here is
some sort of nerve-wracking tension between the ravishing orange
backdrop and the disembodied mouth with its animal teeth, between the
beautifully described tweed of the coat and the outlandish body forms,
anticipating David Lynch's Eraserhead by 30 years. And all capped
by a funereal umbrella: once seen, never forgotten.
It is a tremendous
piece of image-coining and there are so many others in this show, the
screaming popes immured in their thrones, the stripped child lolloping
on all fours, the dog straining at its chain in the drowning darkness.
And put like this, the irresistible comparison ought to be Goya. But the
stylishness, the sheer operatic charge of these works has nothing to do
with the Spaniard, no matter that Bacon studied the old masters from
first to last, harking back to them in his heavy gold frames.
Often, Bacon's
showmanship is deliberately apparent. The way he uses the rough reverse
of the canvas, the colour seeping into the hessian like blood - burnt
orange, royal purple, midnight blue, crimson - or congealing stickily on
the surface. The way he keeps every flailing figure in check with a
precise geometry of glass boxes, elliptical arenas, the vertical
striations of those dividing curtains at the back that suggest that this
is just the ante-chamber to something worse.
Look at a
particularly camp pope in a monocle - one revelation here is of Bacon's
humour - wedged to the waist in his chair like Winnie in Happy Days
(Bacon, incidentally, precedes Beckett) and you see that what appears to
be an accidental black spatter has been primped up with red so that it
looks as if the painting itself spurts blood.
But it is what Bacon
does to the figures themselves that resists analysis. The curators of
this show have reconstructed the photo-plastered walls of his London
studio, about which so much nonsense has been written as if Bacon simply
transcribed Eisenstein, Eadweard Muybridge, photos of Nuremberg,
textbook shots of mouth diseases or patients positioned for X-rays. This
proves crucial. It shows that Bacon never paints an exact moment of
violence, nor its aftermath, nor anything captured in a photograph; he
invents some split-second transition - his characteristic stop-start
mutation.
And where do those
wildly aberrant faces come from? They might recall Henry Tonks's studies
of First World War soldiers, but Bacon is not recording actual injuries;
and this is not just some new variant of modernism either. The eyes want
to straighten them out, these heads, put them back together. But the
mind cannot.
One of the greatest
works here is also the smallest, a portrait of Bacon's lover George
Dyer. A nearby photograph shows the same handsome profile, the curved
nose echoed by the gleaming black quiff. But the painting, with its
swerves and swipes, despite being instantly recognisable, is another
thing altogether. Photo-real yet caricatural, molten but graphic,
muscular and yet diaphanous, it moves seamlessly through its
transitions. Whatever Dyer once was before his suicide, he has become a
force-field of deathless matter.
No stories, only
images: that was Bacon's claim for his art and even though the late
works seem to imply a narrative with their props and locations - the
hotel, the telephone, a door flung open, a man hunched over a mirror -
they never resolve into simple conclusions. His images are indelible,
irrational and beyond summary, and his modest ambition for them - that
they should be as vividly realised as possible - has surely turned out
to be true.
Francis Bacon
Until Jan 4
2009 Tate Britain
By Ossian Ward, Time Out, September 15, 2008
Portrait of Isabel Rawsthorne 1966 Francis Bacon
Despite
the post-war gloom into which Francis Bacon’s early hunchback
characters shambled, the world wasn’t, and thankfully still isn’t,
anywhere near as dark as he made out. At art school they teach you that
there’s no such thing as total black, that even the darkest anthracite
coal or most pitch-matte surface still reflects neighbouring colours.
But Bacon never went to art college. Indeed, walking around Tate’s
magnificently murky retrospective of the Irish-born Londoner, one might
think he arrived fully formed as a fearsome talent in 1945, without ever
having picked up a brush before. This is part of the myth of Bacon as
self-taught, closeted Nietzschean genius who wore his mother’s dresses
and advertised his escort services as ‘Francis Lightfoot’ to make
ends meet.
Personally, I can’t stand the seedy biographical emphasis put upon
Bacon, and while he’d be delighted that it wasn’t still illegal, he’d
surely hate the constant harping on about his homosexuality. Get all
that out of your head, ignore the tittle-tattle about his racy lifestyle
and the show’s pointless ‘Archive’ room of source materials and
Soho-scenester photos, and look closely at his pictures – especially
at their blackness. Bacon seemed intent on being the greatest painter of
black and white since his idol Velázquez, by concealing overcoated or
besuited men and mangy monkeys in seas of inky infinity and by only
flicking on the lights when absolutely necessary, either to hint at a
wretched form or to provide outright shock.
Organised by theme, this exhibition whisks you through the ‘Crucifixion’,
‘Crisis’ and ‘Apprehension’ in his work but then downshifts into
disappointing sections on ‘Portrait’, ‘Memorial’ and ‘Late’
periods. Even the first gallery, dedicated to depictions of the ‘Animal’,
suffers by not including the dogs, chimps and bulls that crop up in
subsequent rooms. The topics could have been much gorier, too: screaming
heads, gnashing Popes, discombobulated torsos and ugly sex are just some
of the treats in store for the kids.
Oh, and there’s lots of meat – as in Rembrandt, Hogarth or Soutine
– there are limbs here that are nothing more than joints of beef,
chests that are racks of ribs, as well as bloody loins, hocks and
shanks. Bacon the Butcher has a better ring to it than that of his
chosen profession, Bacon the Interior Decorator. The gruesome reaches
camp crescendo in the cawing ravens and overflowing cups of blood in
later, more melodramatic pictures, but you can’t help but admire his
continuing lust for paint.
Like in life, so too in art, Bacon was better when not prevaricating,
because his constant overworking could turn paintings into brass
rubbings, whereas the thin washes on unprimed surfaces (or as ‘legend’
has it, on the rough backs of canvases) disappear deliciously into the
backgrounds. These backdrops are almost the most fascinating elements in
Bacon – odd spaces that are part boxing ring, part zoo enclosure and
which eerily prefigure the see-through boxes that would imprison Nazi
war criminal Adolf Eichmann and also Anthony Hopkins’s Hannibal Lecter
in Silence of the Lambs.
Pummelled and melting faces suggest that he struggled with portraiture,
but there’s no disputing Bacon’s mastery over the body. Most of the
paintings here (thankfully not the usual suspects from easily accessible
collections) are well over six-foot tall, meaning that we are both
physically challenged by his figures and psychologically confronted by
his malformed vision of humanity – that much discussed existential
dimension of his work. The preponderance of triptychs also makes this
display a must-see, with each panel like an increasingly contorted
snapshot of a tri-partite metamorphosis – typically going from a
standing, then splayed and disembowelled torso, perhaps on a chaise
longue, to the final, upended hanging carcass.
The hype that puts him above all other painters of the twentieth century
isn’t justified, but what he lacked in beauty and sensitivity he made
up for in originality and honesty. What new do we learn of Bacon? That
he worked on a bigger scale than generally imagined, that he could use
colour if the subject demanded it and that, alas, the cult of
personality will never let him rest in peace. He may even be happier
merrily turning in his grave.
Francis Bacon - Mutilated pope up for sale
All
Buy Art, 15th September 2008
Nearly
30 years ago, a porter called Ron Thomas worked at the Marlborough
Gallery, London, and for Francis Bacon. He and Bacon became good
friends, and Ron often did odd jobs for him around his house. During
this time Ron was given a mutilated canvas by Bacon, from his famous
Pope Innocent X series. Ron later sold (Untitled) Study for a Pope,
(mutilated canvas, c.1959) to raise funds after he retired. In 2007 an
anonymous collector bought it at auction.
Martin
Harrison, in his book In Camera, p214, refers to an interview with
Bacon in which he talks about his habit of destroying works: 'Bacon
said he destroyed “all the better paintings” in attempting “to
take them further”. When they “lose all their qualities, the
canvas becomes completely clogged, and one just can't go on”.'
Matthew
Gale, curator at Tate Britain, wrote to the collector recently to let
him know that Bacon often used cut his canvases, and therefore these
'in-complete' paintings should be viewed as an important component of
Bacon's output. Bacon's practice of cutting his canvases is also
recorded in interviews with the art critic David Sylvestor.
Rather
than view the painting as defective, the collector says : “To be
able own a part of an original painting by Francis Bacon is better
than not owning anything at all. My aim in loaning it to James Hyman
Gallery was to make people aware of Bacon's working methods,
particularly his habit of cutting and re-laying his canvases.”
He
goes on to say: "Perhaps it is unusual to own a Francis Bacon
painting that the artist worked on to such an extent that he became
dissatisfied with it, and ultimately destroyed it. There is no
absolutely no doubt when you look at this painting, whose canvas has
been slashed and ripped away, that, at his heart, Francis Bacon was a
deeply self-critical artist. He took his work to extremes, and it is
this aspect that I find so fascinating when I look at this particular
painting. The work hangs at home, and it does attract a lot of
attention from guests, but what else would you expect from a work of
art created (and destroyed) by one of greatest painters of the
twentieth century"
James
Hyman from the James Hyman Gallery says: “We are delighted to be
able to present Bacon's mutilated Pope for the first time. The
discovery of this abandoned and slashed canvas confirms Bacon's
violent self-criticism and gives a particular insight into his work
and attitudes.”
James Hyman is available
for interview. James Hyman was previously Professor of Art History at
the Courtauld Institute, London, and is an expert on Francis Bacon and
British Figurative Art. His prize-nominated book The Battle for
Realism: Figurative Art in Britain During the Cold War 1945-60 was
published in 2001.
Study for a Pope c. 1959 Francis Bacon
Violence
and Sensation
Francis
Bacon and the Remaking of Appearance
Michael
Andrews, Frank Auerbach, Francis Bacon, Tony Bevan, Michael Clark,
David Hockney, R.B.Kitaj, Hughie O’Donoghue
James Hyman Gallery, 5 Savile Row London W1S 3PD
5
September - 4 October 2008
To coincide with Tate Britain’s major Francis Bacon retrospective,
James Hyman Gallery presents an exhibition of Francis Bacon and some
of the most powerful figurative artists of our time to explore the
impact of the greatest British painter of the twentieth century.
James Hyman says: “As this exhibition demonstrates, Bacon’s legacy
was not stylistic so much as conceptual: an encouragement to take
risks, an art of extremes, a heightened sense of mortality.”
James Hyman Gallery will also be presenting a series of rarely seen
prints by Francis Bacon.
As with Bacon, all the artists in this exhibition combine an awareness
of the vulnerability of the body with the suggestion of actions upon
it. Hockney and Kitaj's early paintings, made at the beginning of the
1960s, make obvious Bacon's impact on young painters, even those more
usually associated with Pop art, who were engaged in radical ways with
the possibilities of figure painting. This impact continues in the
paintings and drawings by which Tony Bevan and Hughie O'Donoghue
established their reputations.
The exhibition includes works on loan and for sale. It is the third in
a series on British Figurative Painting staged by James Hyman Gallery,
following on from Auerbach, Bacon, Freud, Kossoff (2000) and From
Life. Radical Figurative Painting from Sickert to Bevan (2003).
James Hyman specialises in British Figurative Art, and is an
acknowledged expert and author on Francis Bacon. His book The
Battle for Realism: Figurative Art in Britain During the Cold War
(1945-60) was nominated for a prize and is published by Yale
University Press. He is the author of the Francis Bacon biography for
the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
James Hyman explains the ideas behind the show:
In a conversation with Michael Clark, Francis Bacon spoke of the way
that ‘violence can unlock all kinds of areas of feeling and
possibility’. For Bacon violence and deformation of the human form
were ways of making the presence of the subject more immediate, a
means of providing a jolting sense of reality, an attempt to rouse the
viewer from complacency. Our new exhibition, Violence and Sensation,
follows this lead in exploring the varied legacy of Francis Bacon both
as a risk-taking painter and as an example of extreme commitment to
the reformulation and representation of the human predicament in the
contemporary world.
Bacon was a beacon of light for radical figurative artists working
under the shadow of American Abstract Expressionism. Just as no artist
engaged with the representation of appearance can work without
addressing the way that photography has forged our view of the world,
so no artist concerned with reinventing the human form can do so
without responding to the achievements of Francis Bacon. As Bacon,
himself, explained: ‘To me, the mystery of painting today is how can
appearance be made. I know it can be illustrated, I know it can be
photographed. But how can this thing be made so that you can catch the
mystery of appearance within the mystery of the making.... I’m
always trying through chance or accident to find a way by which
appearance can be there but remade out of other shapes.’
For the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, in his 1981 book,
Francis Bacon - The Logic of Sensation, the key was Bacon’s
combination of chance and control to create a heightened reality that
addressed the violence of life. Francis Bacon spoke of ‘the
brutality of fact’ and Deleuze associated Bacon’s violence with
‘colour and line, a static or potential violence, a violence of
reaction and expression.’ This is a theme explored in the exhibition
Violence and Sensation.
Bacon’s day was long and began early and, despite the spontaneity,
his routine was one of discipline. Similarly his painting is a lesson
in control and chance, structure and improvisation. As Bacon, himself,
commented: “Great art is deeply ordered. Even if within the order
there may be enormously instinctive and accidental things,
nevertheless they come out of a desire for ordering and for returning
fact onto the nervous system in a more violent way.”
An exhausting morning of work in his small studio gave way to the
release of life in Soho and the conviviality of the Colony Room, the
celebrated private members drinking club. Colony Room regulars
included a circle of Bacon’s artist friends, among them Michael
Andrews, Frank Auerbach, Lucian Freud and, later, Michael Clark. The
club even became the subject of one of Michael Andrews’s most famous
paintings, The Colony Room I (1962), now in the collection of Pallant
House Gallery in Chichester, and the exhibition includes a rare
drawing by Andrews of its interior.
Francis
Bacon was a regular at the Colony Room from its opening in 1949 and
its proprietor, Muriel Belcher, later became one of Bacon’s
subjects. In our exhibition it is appropriate that one of Bacon’s
Colony Room confidants, the artist, Michael Clark should depict not
only Bacon, himself, but also Muriel Belcher. In remarkable drawings
and paintings, Clark captures the tender introspection that lay behind
the subjects extrovert public personas. An intimate small painting
captures Francis Bacon, whilst a bigger painting movingly bestows
grandeur on Muriel Belcher ill in bed.
Bacon’s reputation also owes much to the emotional impact of his
work and his desire to connect directly ‘with the nervous system’
rather than appeal to the intellect. He wanted, he explained, to show
the effect, but not its cause, for example preferring to paint the
anguished figures at the base of the crucifixion rather than the
crucifixion itself. This allusiveness allowed Bacon to gain praise for
facilitating the metaphoric potential of the artwork as a revelation
of the human condition.
Bacon’s sphere of influence was large and pervasive, especially
among art school students in the 1950s and 1960s. At one point Bacon
even had a studio at the Royal College of Art and his impact is clear
in the work of alumni such as David Hockney and R.B Kitaj. Both these
artists may be more commonly associated with Pop art but Bacon’s
impact on their early paintings is, at times, overt. Hockney’s
paintings of the early 1960s with their male protagonists and fleshy,
dusty surfaces such as Little Head (1961), included in our
exhibition, clearly reveal Bacon’s legacy even if their mood is
highly idiosyncratic. Meanwhile Kitaj’s major early painting, The
Bells of Hell (1961), which is also in our show, suggests an
American artist coming to terms with post-war Europe through a
response to Bacon’s reformulation of the figure. The left-hand side
of the picture shows an American cowboy, robust and intact, with the
cockiness of a comic-strip hero, in marked contrast to the right-hand
side that was clearly influenced by Bacon in its grimacing heads and
broken bodies. In other ways, Michael Andrews and Frank Auerbach, in
the ambition and radicalism of their painting, also suggest Bacon’s
impact as a source of provocation as well as stimulus. As Michael
Andrews once commented to the photographer, Bruce Bernard, another
Colony Room habitué: “Francis really appreciates the magnificent
scale of the artist’s problem to express a world view... the
necessity for ruthless extravagance in his rejection of everything
that is not entirely to the point.”
This impact continues in the paintings and drawings by which Tony
Bevan and Hughie O'Donoghue established their reputations in the 1980s
and early 1990s. As with Bacon, for both of them the male figure is at
the centre of their world view and female protagonists are the
exception. The artist’s awareness of his own body is a crucial
dimension and a strong male physicality is married to a sense of
vulnerability. Bacon’s presence is palpable in the poses of Tony
Bevan’s insecure figures, often set against black or crimson
backgrounds; in Bevan’s emphasis on the weakest points of the body
such as the neck and wrist, and in the contrast between the softness
of flesh and the hardness of the architectural setting or furniture to
which it relates. Meanwhile, Hughie O’Donoghue’s large charcoal
drawings build from the art of the National Gallery and at times have
a dramatic vertical fall of light that achieves a veiling effect
reminiscent of Bacon’s black realism of men emerging from behind
curtains.
Ultimately such paintings demonstrate that Bacon’s legacy was not so
much stylistic as conceptual: a focus on the body, usually male; a
heightened sense of mortality; an encouragement to take risks; an art
of extremes and, above all, an art of incredible individuality.
The paradox of
Francis Bacon
The artist was
both cruel and incredibly kind says his biographer
Michael
Peppiatt
The
Sunday Times, September
14, 2008
How
marvellous he’s taking you everywhere and telling you everything,”
John Deakin, Soho wit and Francis Bacon’s favourite photographer,
said to me in 1963. I had come to London some weeks before in the hope
of interviewing Bacon for a student magazine, and Deakin had
introduced me to him with muttered misgivings at the bar of the French
House. Deakin was visibly delighted we’d hit it off. “Now make
sure you get it all down, my dear,” he admonished in high camp
tones. “It could be very important one day!”
I
did get it down, one way or the other. While weaving my way woozily
back to a friend’s sofa late at night, or to my digs in Cambridge, I
copied out all kinds of half-understood phrases — “shorthand of
despair” and “unlocking the valves of sensation” and “homosexual
love is both more tragic and more banal”. But I hardly needed to.
Having been absorbed with vast quantities of champagne, Bacon’s
definitions continued to bubble up in my mind, and I could reel them
off, staggering round the room with exaggerated imitations of the
Bacon voice and the Bacon gestures. “Well, that’s all there is,”
I would repeat with a glistening smile to alarmed friends. “We are
born and we die, and in the interval we attempt to give life a meaning
through our drives.”
I
didn’t realise it at the time, but I was not merely grappling with
Bacon’s pronouncements on art, love and death, I was attempting,
above all, to get a measure of the man. It’s rare to meet a genius
at any point in one’s life. But to meet one when you’re 20 and
know nobody even remotely comparable — in brilliance, compassion and
devilry — marks you for ever. I’ve been lucky enough to meet a few
remarkable people since, but I am still coming to terms with that
initial resounding impact on my life, which began in the bars and
clubs of Soho, then continued to crescendo, in London, Tangiers and
Paris, for some 30 years until Bacon’s death.
What
was Bacon really like — behind the myth that grows almost daily
about him? I’ve often tried to put it into a nutshell, only to
realise that whatever formula I come up with is at best half true. “Whenever
he came into a room, any room,” one of my quick answers runs, “you
could feel the temperature go up. Suddenly there’d be a new
vitality, with people outdoing themselves in talk and laughter and
drink and general carrying on.” Bacon put you, and anybody else
drawn to him, on their mettle. When you were with him, you were subtly
but inexorably obliged to think more penetratingly and express
yourself more clearly. You became unusually self-aware, often
painfully and disturbingly so. “You’ve ruined my life by making me
think about myself!” Bacon’s lover Peter Lacy once shouted,
suddenly rounding on him and no doubt meting out the violent
punishment Bacon craved.
In
the end, Lacy could not take that heightened self-awareness, and he
drank himself deliberately to death — his end coinciding, as we now
know so well, with the opening of Bacon’s first retrospective at the
Tate in 1962. Similarly, poor George Dyer, more vulnerable by far and
the other great love of Bacon’s life, killed himself with drink and
drugs on the eve of the artist’s great triumph as the Grand Palais
retrospective of his work opened in Paris in 1971.
What
Bacon was like really was a man strung perpetually between the
extremes of his temperament. He could, literally, be one thing and its
opposite. Thus, the painter of doom and gloom would regularly emerge
from a drunken gambling spree with thugs in Soho to take tea with
upright and uptight collectors, charming them into buying another of
his terrifying (and already terrifyingly expensive) pictures. Or he
would demolish another painter’s reputation with a few waspish
asides, then worry that his guests hadn’t had enough caviar and
Louis Roederer Cristal, and hurriedly order more. Or, again, he might
abandon himself to the further reaches of a sadomasochistic orgy
before hurrying to the bedside of a sick friend with the most delicate
and thoughtful of gifts.
During
our long, involved friendship, I was rarely the recipient of his
nastiness. Once, emboldened by a mindless quantity of fine bordeaux, I
challenged his interminable put-downs of David Hockney’s work, and
he rounded on me like an animal at bay, the hair bristling at the back
of his neck. On another occasion, during a dinner with some young
artists at La Coupole, in Paris, I dared to differ from one of his
repetitive diktats on Van Gogh and received the rough edge of his
tongue for my pains. More interestingly, and for me at least
incomprehensibly (since he had accepted my marriage without demur),
Bacon grew white with fury when I told him, during a dinner at
Bibendum, in London, not long before his death, that my first child
was about to be born.
On
the other hand, I was constantly the recipient of his attentiveness
and generosity. It was not merely a question of being invited to
countless banquets at the best restaurants and grandest hotels — or,
on a few memorable occasions, being backed (with sums I myself could
not possibly have afforded) to try my luck at roulette and, when I
won, being commanded sternly to keep the winnings. Bacon’s largesse
permeated our relationship in much more subtle and telling ways. When
a close friend of mine had a bad fall and broke her back, the first
person to call, offering advice and funds, was Bacon. Having taken on
an art magazine that I was trying to relaunch from Paris with little
money and less business sense, I was considerably helped by Bacon’s
enthusiasm and practical support, which included introducing me to
potential backers for the project.
Bacon
could also be a tower of strength when things went wrong in very
personal areas of one’s life. After my father died in the mid-1980s,
my whole existence in Paris fell apart. Bacon picked up instinctively
on the crisis I was going through and, when we next met, took me on a
trip through London that I will never forget. After dinner in the
art-deco splendour of Claridge’s, we went gambling and I — as
happy in gaming as I’d recently been unhappy in love — had a
considerable win. We then swung round to Annabel’s for more
champagne and a midnight supper, accompanied by sublime claret. At
this point, buoyed up by Bacon’s wit and vitality, my spirits began
to revive. But Bacon, who had staged all this to pull me through my
despair (as he might have described it), did not stop there. “There
are all these girls — why don’t you ask them to dance?” he kept
saying to me, until I overcame my shyness and pranced about dementedly
on the spangled floor until dawn. No therapy could have worked better.
The next day, I woke up giggling (for the first time in months) at the
extravagances of the night.
However
satanic Bacon might look, trussed up in his Nazi-style black leather
greatcoat, however venomous his drunken tirades waxed, this
instinctive compassion never left him. It was one of his many
paradoxes, just as he seemed at times the most feminine of men,
intuitive and yielding, and at others the toughest, most daring and
dominantly masculine. Similarly, he would interrupt a mammoth drinking
bout taking him from pub to club across London to consult his doctor,
or top up on some bizarre health food (he took garlic pills
addictively) after having consumed the richest dishes on every fancy
menu in town.
The
man who thundered against God and the universe would allow himself to
be taken meekly in hand by Valerie, his diminutive minder and nanny
figure (“Valerie at the gallery,” as Bacon called her), who told
him which appointments he needed to keep — from art-world bigwigs to
the electrician. The high roller who squandered fortunes on roulette
could also be found going home on the Tube.
These
contradictions stretched Bacon’s sensibility and kept him in a state
of tension that was as palpable in the man as it is in his pictures,
radiating waves of intensity. But the greatest paradox he kept to the
last. Whoever could have imagined that Bacon — the virulent,
lifelong atheist, the painter of screaming popes and bestial couplings
— would choose to be cared for by an order of nuns when he became
ill? He had gone on record in an interview saying he could conceive of
nothing worse than dying among nuns. Yet on his last trip to Madrid,
when he knew he was at death’s door, he returned to the Servants of
Mary, dying under a crucifix and being cremated to the sounds of
Gregorian chants. Of all the enigmas that hover over Bacon’s
tumultuous life, this is surely the most hauntingly mysterious.
A
revised and updated version of Michael Peppiatt’s Francis Bacon:
Anatomy of an Enigma is published by Constable at £12.99
Francis Bacon
Anatomy of an Enigma
Michael Peppiatt
The
definitive biography of Francis Bacon, re-issued with substantial new
material to co-incide with a major retrospective exhibition at Tate
Britain.
Published
in 1996, Francis
Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigmawas
the first in-depth study of the artist’s life. It has not been
superseded. In
this substantially revised, updated edition – to coincide with the
artist’s centenary, which will be celebrated from autumn 2008
through summer 2009 – Peppiatt will incorporate confidential
material Bacon gave him, which he did not include in the first
edition.
This valuable, first-hand information
comes from the hundreds of conversations Bacon had with Peppiatt,
often late into the night, over thirty years, particularly during the
periods Bacon spent living and working in Paris. It includes insights
into Bacon’s intimate relationships, his artistic convictions and
his general view of life, as well as his acerbic comments on his
contemporaries.
Peppiatt will draw on some of the
fascinating information that has become available in the fifteen years
since the artist died. Once jealously guarded by the artist himself,
the contents of Bacon’s studio can now be freely consulted; Peppiatt
has had privileged access to these archives, and he will show how a
number of recent discoveries – including wholly unexpected source
material – have radically changed the way we look at Bacon’s work.
Similarly, his recent research into the
artist’s background – his tortured affair with the sadistic Peter
Lacy in Tangier, for instance, and the baffling circumstances of his
death in Madrid – will shed light on unexplored areas of Bacon’s
life and work. Peppiatt will also unveil new information from several
people who knew Bacon intimately and who have never gone on record
previously.
If
David Hockney believed that Francis Bacon
was a friend and admirer of his, it appears he was mistaken.
In
his updated biography of the late artist to coincide with the new
exhibition at Tate Britain, Michael Peppiatt retails
an entertaining vignette that casts new light on the relationship
between the two.
"The
two painters greeted each other cordially whenever they met, but Bacon
always remained on his guard," writes Peppiatt.
"At
one meeting Hockney kissed Bacon on the cheek. As soon as he was out
of earshot, Bacon said: 'I wonder why he did that? I suppose he must
have some ghastly disease.'"
Francis Bacon at
the Tate Britain
The Tate's
blockbuster show reveals Francis Bacon's fierce genius - and limited
range, says Waldemar Januszczak
The Sunday Times,
September 14, 2008
A singular talent: Bacon’s Three Studies for a Crucifixion,
1962
It is the perfect
time for a Francis Bacon retrospective. History has had a good tinker
with the circumstances and arranged for everything to be just so. In
May, the auction record for a post-war artist was smashed like an
empty vodka glass by Roman Abramovich, who paid £43m for a Bacon
triptych, pushing him into art’s super-duper-league, alongside
Picasso and Van Gogh. Among scholars, meanwhile, the opening of Bacon’s
re-created studio in Dublin has triggered a frenzied exploration of
his sources and meanings. And to cap it all, next year is the
centenary of his birth. It all adds up to one of those stellar moments
when the planets are in exactly the right alignment for a really good
reassessment.
The Bacon
retrospective that has opened at Tate Britain is actually the third
such show. The first was in 1962 and the second in 1985.
I was too young
for the 1960s exhibition, but I remember the next one. It was
disappointing. Bacon was still alive — he died in 1992 — and his
wilful tinkering with the trajectory of the display ensured that it
offered no revelations at the beginning, then dragged on at the end,
with too many late paintings. In particular, his superficial interest
in cricket resulted in a long and flippant finale devoted to images of
Ian Botham in action. Whither the dark angel of the 20th century?
So, although this
is technically the third such retrospective, it actually counts as the
first objective assessment mounted without the controlling presence of
the artist. One thing I was certainly expecting from it was fresh
insight into his origins as a painter. Bacon was notoriously coy about
his beginnings. A mixture of fierce determination to control his image
and what appears to have been some unnecessary shame about his late
development resulted in a remarkable lack of information about his
early art.
We know he was
self-taught and that, according to his own version of his story, he
found his true voice only in 1944, when he painted the three screaming
blobs that direct so much noisy anxiety at us in the Tate’s savage
masterpiece Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion.
By 1944, however, Bacon was already 35. What on earth had he been up
to before that?
Alas,
this is not the show that tells us. Either they could not get hold of
the material or it simply isn’t out there any more. Bacon was a
habitual destroyer of his own art, and when it came to his early work,
he succeeded in getting rid of enough of it to preserve the illusion
that he was a mighty artist from the off. The show’s first
paintings, dating from 1945 and after, are already dark, twisted,
overwrought. But the spiteful monkeys that snarl at you as you enter
are only fully convincing in the few square inches occupied by their
mouths, which Bacon has turned into a terrifying portcullis of twisted
fangs, barring the way to a bottomless abyss. The rest of the
paintwork is an unconvincing blur of pessimistic generalisations.
Thank
heavens these early pictures appear to represent so vividly the
seepage of wartime terrors and angsts into the post-war era, because
without that excuse their ugliness might be inexcusable. At least the
angry monkeys make obvious the most important ambition in Bacon’s
early art, which is to insist, in picture after picture, on the
interchangeability of animals and humans. Neither of us has been put
on earth for a decent reason.
The
popes who fill the show’s superb second room are as nihilistic as
the monkeys, but much more compelling. Based on Velazquez’s great
portrait of Innocent X, of which Bacon was to produce no fewer than 50
versions, they are usually understood as some sort of complicated
reaction to authority. Bacon’s father was a domineering presence,
and the popes are seen as stand-ins for him. On this evidence,
however, I favour a less sophisticated reading: the popes are as
hopelessly trapped as the apes. The bars and cages that inevitably
surround them make it explicit. Their life is no more sacred or
meaningful than the life of an earthworm or a baboon. There is no
hope. There is no God. There is no plan. Not even for a pope.
Although
the show is basically chronological, it pauses in a couple of
interesting places for a thematic sidestep. The first presents us with
a clutch of gory crucifixions, including the Tate’s aforementioned
screaming blobs from 1944. Although Bacon’s art is often accused of
depicting oodles of violence, it does not. The crucifixions are almost
the only displays of blood and gore on offer here. A proselytising
atheist, brought up in papist Ireland, Bacon is using every Catholic
trick in the book to point out that Christ, too, is just a sack of
meat.
The
1950s, with the isolated black figures and pared-down colour schemes,
is presented here as Bacon’s greatest decade. But I would argue
otherwise. The show really sparks into life in the 1960s. A marvellous
transitional room sees Bacon trying out various styles and manners as
he seeks to move on from the gloomy single figures in a cage that have
dominated his art until now
His
discovery of colour leads to the show’s most significant
gear-change. The startling brightness of Bacon’s version of a Van
Gogh painting showing Vincent traipsing through the fields outside
Arles arrives out of nowhere and seems to be the result of a
deliberate change of tack. It’s as dramatic as television’s
switchover from black-and-white to colour — the entire show changes
key.
The
best rooms are the ones that follow, and particularly the second of
the thematic sidesteps, dedicated to Bacon’s pictures of his
tormented lover, George Dyer, who committed suicide in a hotel room in
Paris in 1971, the night before Bacon was due to open yet another
retrospective at the Grand Palais. Dyer’s timing could not have been
more hurtful or more desperate. A set of memorial triptychs produced
after the suicide, in which Bacon’s love is darkly entangled with
his guilt, provide the show with its finest moments. In the most
dramatic of the triptychs, Bacon’s burly lover is shown seated on
the lavatory in one panel and vomiting into a sink in the other. In
the centre, where the crucifixion usually goes, Dyer lurks in a
doorway, haunted by his own bat-shaped shadow. In the absence of any
gods, even a life as sordid as this is worthy of a lover’s worship.
Much
of the recent interest in Bacon has been prompted by discoveries made
in the mess of photographs and books that were found in his studio
after his death, and a small documentary section deals with some of
these pictorial sources and issues with merciful brevity. The show is
also excellently concise in its treatment of the late work. Bacon
became a slick pedlar of elegant angst in his last decade, and it is
sensible to hurry through his repetitions. How astute, for instance,
to include only one of the cricket pictures.
So,
what does it all add up to? How great was Bacon? Not as great as we
currently make him out to be, would be my answer. The show is
impeccably paced and makes excellent decisions about where to dwell
and where to rush. Yet Bacon himself lacked the range that we might
fairly expect of a £43m painter. His beginnings were clunky. His
thinking was deceptively basic. For a couple of decades, between 1955
and 1975, he was absolutely at the top of his game, a fierce and
exciting taker of big pictorial risks. But then he petered out and
even grew ghastly. Did he alter the course of global aesthetics, as
Picasso and Van Gogh did? Does he really deserve to share a price
bracket with them? I don’t think so.
Francis
Bacon, Tate Britain, SW1, until Jan 4, 2009
Not
to be missed
Three
Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944) Bacon’s
first acknowledged masterpiece shudders with unbearable despair.
Study
After Velazquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X (1953) The greatest of
the “screaming popes” is a remarkably delicate bit of painting.
Triptych,
May-June 1973 Bacon at his best, remembering George Dyer, his dead
lover.
Francis Bacon,
Tate Britain, London
It
takes a show on this scale to make a fitting acknowledgement of the
centenary of Francis Bacon's birth
By
Charles Darwent
The Independent on Sunday, 14
September 2008
Big
shows are strange things, big shows of big painters stranger still. By
and large, we come to an artist's work in dribs and drabs, a couple of
pictures in this museum, half a dozen in that. To see 70-odd of one
artist's paintings in one place at one time is a different experience
altogether. When that artist is Francis Bacon, a man given to working
on a grand scale – typically, triptychs each of whose three panels
may measure 6ft by 5ft – the risk of overkill is high. Add to this
the fact that every one of those panels has the gravitational pull of
a dying star, and you might reasonably ask whether a big monograph
exhibition is really the best way for the Tate to celebrate Bacon's
100th birthday.
To
which question the answer is an unqualified "yes". One thing
we all know about Bacon – one of the many things – is that he was
a ferocious self-editor, given to destroying his work in fits of
drunken self-loathing. When, nearing 50, he moved to the Marlborough
Gallery, its infamous owner, Frank Lloyd, curbed these bouts of
canvas-slashing by having his chauffeur pick up works from Bacon's
Reece Mews studio before their paint was dry. As a result, for good
and ill, there are many more late Bacons than there might have been,
and their quality is commensurately patchy. The Tate's curators have
done the artist a great favour in radically trimming his oeuvre,
although 70 is an awful lot of Bacon even so.
The
question, really, is what we learn about the artist from seeing him in
this way that we wouldn't have learnt from a smaller, more focused
show. The answer, unexpectedly, is his painterliness.
With
the exception of Andy Warhol, Bacon comes bogged down with more
anecdotage than any modern artist I can think of. There are more
soi-disant Friends of Francis than there are fragments of the True
Cross. Stories about him abound and (their subject having been a
gleeful mythomane) are often untrue. The beatings, buggery,
boot-blacked hair, the Colony Room witticisms – "Champagne for
my real friends! Real pain for my sham friends!" – all
encourage us to see his pictures as artefacts rather than as art. As a
result, it's easy to forget Bacon the master painter.
Accordingly,
Tate Britain's curators have hung their show in rough chronology and
by occasional theme, but with little in the way of biographical
prompts. The resulting blur of popes, Soho denizens, dead boyfriends
and sides of beef allows us to look past the what of Bacon's work to
the how – to the brilliance of a man whose feel for the brush was
uncanny, whose understanding of colour liturgical. You are left to
find your way around this show less by thought than by feel – a
useful approach to the art of a man who saw human life as essentially
instinctive.
Bacon's
own feel for texture is astonishing: not for nothing was he mesmerised
by that great master of cloth, Goya. The tweed jacket of Figure Study
II in the show's first room may pay homage to Magritte's bowler-hatted
men, but its hairiness is animal rather than human. The grey drapery
folds of Study after Velazquez (1950) have both the solidity
of corrugated metal and the flimsiness of chiffon. They conjure up a
space – one of Bacon's famous boxes – only to deny it, reading at
once as background and foreground and as neither. To see this painting
of a pope merely as a response to the Vatican's collusion with fascism
in the Second World War is to belittle it. Bacon's interest in evil is
generic rather than local. The spatial ambiguities of his works are
there to shift their meaning from the specific to the general.
What
is particularly striking about the Tate's instinctive and sensuous
approach to Bacon is the way it allows us to follow a small number of
great preoccupations through his career. Man with Dog
(1953), on loan from Buffalo, organises space into three, Rothko-ish
fields of colour. Three rooms and 20 years later, Triptych, May-June 1973 seems
altogether different in its technique, scale and subject; and yet it,
too, works in increments of three – a trio of panels, and of colours
(black, buff, oxblood) within those panels. Both works also show
three-dimensional spaces pre-flattened out into two dimensions. (Bacon
worked from photographs, some of them in this show. His canvases are
pictures of pictures.) In 1991 as in 1947, Bacon's battles of
brutality are fought in an arena uniquely his own, in an unknowable
world between worlds.
Francis
Bacon died in 1992; unbelievably, the last major retrospective of his
work in the UK was held in 1985. His place as the greatest British
painter of the 20th century seems secure, and yet the truth is that
stories don't age well. In the centenary of his birth, it is worth
recalling him as something more than the central character in Love
Is the Devil – more than a maker of gay art or absurdist art
or existential art, more than a 20th-century phenomenon. I can't think
of a better 100th birthday present than this, a show whose scale
allows us to see the scale of its subject; a man whose theme and whose
genius lay in instinct.
Tate
Britain, London SW1 (020-7887 8888), to 4 Jan 2009
Need
To Know
Francis Bacon's life was, as he said, lived "between the gutter
and the Ritz". The son of horse-rearing Anglo-Irish gentry, his
taste for sadomasochistic gay sex was legendary: the two great loves
of his life were George Dyer (who Bacon claimed to have met when Dyer
was burgling his flat in 1964) and John Edwards, the illiterate East
End tough who inherited his £11m estate. In these sweepings from
London's social floor, Bacon found confirmation of a belief that
coloured his art: that life was as brutal as it seemed, but that
brutality had a beauty of its own.
Formal
splendour, ugly panic
By
Jackie Wullschlager,
The Financial Times, September 13 2008
“No artist knows
in his own lifetime whether what he does will be the slightest good,
because I think it takes at least 75 to 100 years before the thing
begins to sort itself out from the theories that have formed about
it.”
Thus said Francis
Bacon in 1966, at the height of his powers and ambition, to his
amanuensis, the distinguished critic David Sylvester. Aged 57, Bacon
had recently completed the pair of triptychs which marked the
emergence of his mature, electrifying, shocking style: the
Guggenheim’s bloody-orange-black Three Studies for a Crucifixion
of 1962 (pictured above), with its mutilated seeping body on a bed,
fringed by a fleeing young man and a howling slit-open figure twined
upside down round a plinth, and Munich’s 1965 Crucifixion,
where the central crucified form is trussed up/pinned down by a
butcher’s frilled rosettes like an animal carcass, and a murderer
sports a swastika.
Why did Bacon, a
militant atheist who, as Sylvester recalled, “always seemed to be
looking for pretexts to issue a reminder that God was dead and to bang
a few nails into his coffin”, make his great breakthroughs by
depicting the Crucifixion? These two important loans at Tate
Britain’s sombre, persuasive centennial retrospective look back to
the revolutionary canvas which Bacon considered the start of his
career, Tate’s own 1944 Three Studies for Figures at the Base of
a Crucifixion, and even to a ghostly small Crucifixion of
1933, painted on the young artist’s return from a visit to a Berlin
of rent boys and Nazi officers. Juxtaposing them all, Tate dramatises
the procession of Bacon’s imagery from Picasso-like, writhing
biomorphic forms to his own pictorial language of savage lone or
coupling figures, distorted by the blur which recalled their
photographic sources, dissolving in pools of liquid paint as if
identity, existence, were collapsing into nothing.
Bacon gambled: he
wanted his pictures to end up in “either the National Gallery or the
dustbin, with nothing in between”. He knew that, post-photography,
post-Holocaust, the stakes for an art of human figuration were high;
while other artists fled to abstraction or mimicked photography in pop
styles, he subsumed the blur and all-over texture of photography and
film into his own work while painting like an Old Master. His yelling
caged popes – he did 45 altogether – have the silk-and-velvet
grandeur of their inspiration, Velazquez’s Pope Innocent X,
combined with the instant, rushing horror of a modern urban nightmare
as expressed in their other source, the shrieking nurse in
Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin. Several Popes, including
one privately owned masterpiece of condensed white and flesh-coloured
strokes against a luxurious vermilion from 1965, are here; so is
Frankfurt’s grimly expressive Study for the Nurse from Battleship
Potemkin, setting the naked curled figure in a sumptuous deep
green ground whose painterliness rivals the purple and gold harmonies
of the pontiffs.
In each case,
formal splendour lends weight to the ugly panic which makes Bacon,
with Giacometti, the arch visual exponent of existentialism. What is a
man? One of the strengths of this exhibition is the inclusion of
almost a zoo – MoMA’s Study of a Baboon, Stuttgart’s Chimpanzee,
Buffalo’s Man with Dog, all from the 1950s – whose
screaming, squatting beasts underline the infantile desperation and
animal violence of Bacon’s businessmen (Man in Blue), lovers
(Two Figures in the Grass, derived from Victorian photographer
Eadweard Muybridge’s Wrestlers) and crouching quasi-embryonic
nudes.
Similarly, it is
as a symbol of humanity’s reversion to barbarism that the
Crucifixion served Bacon’s purposes – along with the long
art-historical tradition that made it “a magnificent armature on
which you can hang all types of feeling and sensation”. The 1962 and
1965 triptychs paraphrase the sinuous body in Cimabue’s Crucifixion,
which reminded Bacon of a worm crawling down the cross, as well as
referencing Soutine and Rembrandt in the bravura impasto passages
depicting dying flesh as meat.
Bacon’s
crucifixions are, of course, without redemption – the more so
because their horror is charged, as Michael Peppiatt suggests in a
superb new volume, Francis Bacon, Studies for a Portrait (Yale
£18.99), with autobiographical impulse. “It’s nearer to a
self-portrait,” Bacon admitted. In this reading of Three Studies,
the young man clothed almost entirely in a black stocking is the
16-year-old Bacon traumatically expelled from the parental home for
surreptitiously donning his mother’s underwear, the jowly, harsh,
older figure behind him is his violent horse-dealer father and the
bleeding body on a bed his own sexualised crucifixion; Bacon told
Peppiatt that his homosexuality was “a defect – like being born
with a limp”.
Bacon
loathed narrative, but, like Picasso in the half century before, he
became the greatest artist of his generation by transforming the
events of his life into modern mythic images through paint. Those
events have a legendary quality anyway – the expulsion from home;
the death of his aggressive alcoholic lover Peter Lacy in Tangier just
as the first Tate retrospective opened in 1962, commemorated in a
little-known, ferociously painted Landscape near Malabata, Tangier,
with a black shadow rising up through ochre-sunflower tones; the
suicide of his equally cruel/pathetic successor, George Dyer, in a
Paris hotel on the eve of Bacon’s Grand Palais opening nine years
later.
On the showing
here, these triptychs mark Bacon’s last great period. Although this
exhibition dutifully continues through the next 20 years, much of what
follows is self-pastiche, with broad flat areas often dully painted,
sometimes in fast-drying acrylic. Like T. S. Eliot, the modernist
writer Bacon most admired and whose brilliant early distillation of
nihilism into a rhythmic formal language he echoed – the
Smithsonian’s 1967 Triptych – Inspired by T. S. Eliot’s Poem
‘Sweeney Agonistes’ is another highlight here – he was
perhaps too bleakly reductive an artist to develop a great late style.
Among repetitive portraits, Blood on Pavement and Jet of
Water, both 1988, stand out as paintings of absence, set against
pared-down industrialised backgrounds, human life swept offstage. Like
the best work here, they seem inevitable yet astonishing, concluding a
show which, although it carries no revelations, steers clear of theory
and gives us “the thing itself” – Bacon as the most raw,
physical, urgently affecting and intellectually convincing painter of
the second half of the 20th century.
Francis Bacon,
Tate Britain, London SW1, to January 4, tel: +44 (0)20 787 8000. Then
Prado, Madrid, February 3-April 19; Metropolitan Museum, New York, May
18-August 16. Sponsored by Bank of America
The
art market: Bacon, Freud and a tragic legacy
By Georgina Adams, The Financial Times, September 13 2008
With
the opening of Tate’s major Bacon retrospective, two London
galleries are also showing his work. Faggionato Fine Art
unveiled a small show, Francis Bacon’s Women, last week, with
portraits of Henrietta Moraes, Isabelle Rawsthorne and Muriel Belcher.
Prices range from £250,000 for a rare oil on paper, Lying Figure
(1957-61), to about £9m for a 1961 Crouching Woman. The art
critic David Sylvester once said that every portrait Bacon painted was
a self-portrait – “including the women” – and this is a show
to verify his assertion. More affordable prints are on view at James
Hyman Fine Art, which is showing 12 lithographs, priced between
£5,000 and £35,000.
Francis
Bacon often painted his friend and drinking mate Lucian Freud but
Freud only painted Bacon twice, once in 1952 and the other in 1956-57.The
first work, a tiny portrait on copper, was stolen from a Berlin
gallery in 1988; Freud designed a “Wanted” poster which was
plastered around Berlin, but the picture is still missing. The other,
painted by Freud “knee to knee” with his sitter, remained
unfinished: Bacon suddenly decamped, probably to follow his lover
Peter Lacy to Morocco. Christie’s is selling this portrait on
October 19 with an estimate of £5m-£7m.
Crouching Woman 1961 Francis Bacon
Raw Bacon
The Tate's
retrospective of Britain's greatest painter in a century is a triumph
The
Times, September 12, 2008
Shocking,
disturbing, brutal, his paintings have been seen as a savage summary
of the postwar bleakness that followed the liberation of Belsen. There
is nothing comforting in Francis Bacon. Raw depictions of pain and
alienation reflect the terrible knowledge of man's bestiality that the
West could not escape after 1945. His paintings flout convention,
espousing a philosophy of futility that lay at the heart of his own
fervent hedonism. But their compelling power has made Bacon the single
greatest painter that Britain has produced for the past century. His
idiosyncratic style fathered no new language of art in this country.
But his vision and influence are global.
The retrospective
that opened at Tate Britain yesterday is the third that the gallery
has staged. In his lifetime, Bacon also enjoyed two other similar
triumphs: in New York in 1985 and in Paris in 1971 - the latter being
the very moment when his lover committed suicide, thus giving birth to
a terrible new beauty in Bacon's haunting memorial triptych. The
current exhibition is set to draw record crowds. There is something
about Bacon that inspires a frisson as chilling as those screaming
popes, and it is in this quality that a man wholly indifferent to the
Establishment accidentally hit on the elixir of commercial success.
Accident was
central to Bacon's “gilded gutter life” in Soho. His lusts,
despairs, cruelties and loves have become the stuff of Bohemian
legend. All were tossed by accident, like a medieval turn of fortune's
wheel. But from this chaos Bacon, ruthlessly and with discriminating
acumen, salvaged only the best, the art that survived his frequent
culls. The Tate has triumphed in showing us this distorting mirror of
our times.
Bacon's
Darkness in a New Light
Paul
Levy, The Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2008
London
art
Tate
Britain's big Francis Bacon exhibition goes on to the Prado, in
Madrid, the city where he died in 1992, and then moves to the
Metropolitan Museum in New York, the city where this great painter of
the human body had commensurate commercial success. However, the most
appealing thing about this splendidly installed show is that you can
walk around its ten rooms without once thinking about the cash value
of the objects on the walls, though it is in the hundreds of millions
of dollars.
In
their joint foreword to the weighty catalogue, Tate's and the Met's
directors, Nicholas Serota and Philippe de Montebello, point out that
this show is the first major one not to have been influenced by Bacon
himself, or by his greatest critic and friend, David Sylvester (who
died in 2001). The present curators, Matthew Gale, Chris Stephens and
Gary Tinterow, have no need to think about shielding Bacon from what
the foreword calls 50 years of "a negative critical response to
the horrors of the paintings" - Bacon's visceral "images of
straining bodies" that, in his own words, leave "a trail of
the human presence." Oddly enough, these 65 paintings, including
no fewer than 13 large triptychs, plus a roomful of drawings,
photographs and memorabilia from his studio, are the opposite of
dispiriting.
What
emerges from the show is the brave, noble face of Bacon's militant
atheism, his credo that we live a fleeting existence in a world
without God, with no reason for being here, and with no prospect of an
afterlife. The bleakness of this view is constantly and totally
mitigated by the beauty of the paintings. In the magnificently
presented room 4 - the red of the three crucifixion triptychs
contrasting with the gray walls - you are suddenly aware that the
depiction of butchery, of viscera, blood and bones, while frightening,
is not disgusting. It's beautiful, because what you are aware of
seeing is not a simulacrum of organs, but gorgeously applied paint.
Real
Bacon aficionados will want not only to see the exhibition at Tate
Britain, but also at the Prado where the paintings will be hung in the
company of the Velázquez portraits and other pictures that so
influenced him. The show must be seen in person - it's a revelation of
Bacon's handling of colour, which is not apparent, for example, even
in the reproductions in the excellent catalogue.
Bacon's
merciless slices of life
A
beautifully presented show at Tate Britain casts intriguing new light
on Francis Bacon's visceral visions of humanity, says Richard Dorment
The Daily Telegraph
11/09/2008
Curiously modern: one of the Three Studies for a Crucifixion (1962)
Francis
Bacon is something of an artistic chimera, a
now-you-see-it-now-you-don't mixture of British insularity and
modernist sophistication.
Born
in Ireland in 1909, he belonged to a generation of British artists and
draughtsmen loosely identified as the Neo-Romantics. No one denies
that he was the most naturally gifted painter to emerge in this
country after the war, but from the perspective of international
modernism that dominated art during the 20th century his paintings
never transcended the time and place in which they were made.
But
step back and look again and suddenly you see another Francis Bacon,
this one the heir not to any British painter but to Cézanne and to
Picasso.
In
the nocturnal Study for Nude (1951), the shadowy form in front
of the black curtain is just as likely to be a gorilla as a person.
Typically, Bacon has taken an idea that is only implied in Picasso's
Demoiselles d'Avignon - that women are creatures of the jungle -
to its logical conclusion: whether you paint an animal or a human
being, it's pretty much the same thing. Here, the broad facets of pink
and black paint Bacon uses to create volume are lifted directly from Cézanne,
who also shared Bacon's obsession with eternal movement and constant
change.
The
Bacon retrospective that opens today at Tate Britain is the third to
be held at Millbank, but the first since the artist's death in 1992.
It is also the first major show in years not to be selected and
installed by his formidable champion and interpreter, the late David
Sylvester.
As
an exhibition organiser, Sylvester was a magician who made any work of
art he touched somehow look better than you'd ever seen it look
before. Yet even he never convinced me of Bacon's artistic stature, so
I was curious to see whether the Tate show would be the beginning of a
major critical re-evaluation downwards.
That
that has not happened is a tribute to the organisers, Matthew Gale and
Chris Stephens. Rigorously chosen for the quality of the pictures, the
show is also beautifully displayed to take us through Bacon's career
chronologically and thematically. What it does that is new is to focus
our attention on the specificity of Bacon's art by making us see how
much of it is rooted in visual (as opposed to emotional) experience.
In
part this is possible because a vast archive of Bacon's photographs,
ephemera and drawings has become available to scholars in recent
years. A whole gallery has been given over to showing a fraction of
this material, and in some ways it is the armature around which the
whole show has been built.
In
a 1952 painting showing a mad dog running in circles, for example,
Bacon captures in paint the panic and frenzy of the abandoned animal
in a way I've never seen done in art before. Panting from thirst, the
possibly rabid creature is a moving blur that yet seems to pause for
an instant to look directly out of the picture at us, a living
embodiment of the futility of existence. But, for all its metaphysical
content, before it is anything else the picture is the expression of
Bacon's pity and horror for the plight of a specific animal abandoned
near a highway in a hot country.
Likewise,
the snarling dog that bares its teeth in Man with Dog becomes,
in Bacon's hands, an embodiment of evil, a Cerberus who guards the
entrance to an underworld represented by the sewer in the street. Once
again, however, it is the visceral immediacy of the image that
captures and holds our attention, not its symbolic content. The dog is
so vividly rendered in silvery blacks and blues that your first
thought in front of the picture is that it would bite your arm off if
it weren't restrained by its chain.
Later,
in a section of Bacon's portraiture, you have the same sense that, far
from painting vague evocations of friends and lovers, each person in
these pictures is an instantly recognisable personality. Bacon was
working from the specific to the general, never losing a connection
with his source of inspiration, even if, as was usually the case, that
source was a photograph.
Where
I lose patience with Bacon is in pictures such as the famous Three
Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944), where
three armless and legless torsos howl with rage and despair. His
attempt to symbolise the human condition might appeal to an adolescent
or a fan of science fiction, but for me the picture fails because I
can find no equivalent to its histrionics in my own experience.
Bacon
returned to the subject twice. In the version of 1965, he included the
figures of two comic-book mobsters standing at a bar to watch the
show, and adding utterly unnecessary details such as the Nazi armband
worn by the eviscerated and mutilated carcass at the far right.
I
just hate art that makes me feel manipulated. What other possible
response could we have to these images of blood-smeared Nazi amputees
beaten to a pulp than blank revulsion? I'm not saying these things
don't happen or that artists shouldn't paint them, but that it is all
too easy to get a response by depicting them.
After
a sustained period living in the South of France and North Africa, in
the Sixties, Bacon begins to drench his pictures in lush, saturated
colours. But, for all his chromatic extravagance and technical
virtuosity, at precisely this period he also starts to work on a scale
that is just too big. Whether it is the female nude on the bed in Lying
Figure (1969) or the Triptych - In Memory of George Dyer (1971),
wonderful passages of bravura painting are set against large areas of
pure colour that read not as space or light but as dead background.
American painters from Pollock to Johns were concerned at this date
with precisely this problem of how to sustain visual interest over
every inch of the canvas surface. Bacon doesn't seem to recognise the
problem exists.
Whether
this is a good thing depends on your point of view. When I first
started to look at Bacon's work in the Sixties, it puzzled me that he
couldn't have cared less about the integrity of the picture plane.
From the very first pictures, Bacon created the illusion of
three-dimensional space by encasing his figures in linear cubes that
look like glass vitrines. Symbolically, their function was to render
the powerful figures inside them powerless. But formally the device
makes the pictures look as old-fashioned as anything by Bouguereau.
But
in art nothing ever stands still. Looking at these works in 2008, the
way Bacon separates his central images from the flat areas of colour
surrounding them feels curiously modern - simply a device he uses to
foreground the picture's subject rather than draw attention to its
formal properties. Bacon had no interest in contributing to the
history of art or its advancement. I faulted him for this, but now
that lack of interest looks like the most avant garde thing about his
work.
I'll
never be completely sold on Bacon, but that's my loss and certainly
won't stop the crowds from pouring into Tate Britain.
Until January 4. Sponsored by the Bank of
America
Reviews roundup:
Francis Bacon at Tate Britain
Critics
agree that this centenary retrospective is a sizzler – but could
there be too many masterpieces on display?
Oginia
O’Dell, The Guardian, Wednesday September 10 2008
Bringing
home the Bacon ... A visitor at Tate Britain's exhibition.
Amid economic
meltdown and on the eve of being sucked into a black hole, it was
perhaps unusual to see a London exhibition opening featuring on the
BBC's News at Ten. Then again, Tate Britain's centenary retrospective
of Francis Bacon, which opens to the public tomorrow, has been widely
anticipated as a major art highlight of the year.
Irish-born
artist Bacon, widely regarded as one of the greatest painters of the
20th century, is known for his giant canvasses spilling out
nightmarish visions and contorted bodies in their raw and fleshy
glory. The Tate retrospective, arranged broadly chronologically,
brings together approximately 70 of the most important paintings from
the artist's turbulent life, including his portraits of Pope Innocent
X and celebrated triptychs such as Three Studies for a Crucifixion.
The exhibition will travel to the Prado in Madrid and the Metropolitan
Museum in New York next year.
For
Rachel Campbell-Johnston, writing in the Times, Bacon is
"quite simply the most extraordinary, powerful and compelling of
painters … His images short-circuit our appreciative processes. They
arrive straight through the nervous system and hijack the soul."
Campbell's high point of the five-star show is the "gallery
dedicated to images of crucifixions, including three triptychs … In Three
Studies for a Crucifixion, 1962, man is butchered like an animal
on the cross of his life. The raw brutality of pain is
overpowering."
She
is less impressed, however, with a room devoted to archive material
found in Bacon's studio. This collection of source material -
including preparatory sketches, photographs of close friends, film
stills and images of violence, animals, athletes and medical
examinations - was revealed posthumously when Bacon's studio was
painstakingly dismantled and relocated piece by piece to a Dublin
gallery. It now sheds light on some of his working methods and
dramatically dispels Bacon's self-mythologies about the spontaneous
nature of his own work.
For
Campbell-Johnston, it is "better to ignore those irritating wall
texts and pass over the tatty memorabilia as a mere sideshow. Let the
paintings do their work."
She
also highlights a theme that troubles nearly all the critics: Bacon's
monumental legacy and fame. There are almost "too many great
paintings" on show, she writes. Overfamiliarity is also the
subject of Fisun Güner’s
five-star review in Metro. The retrospective is
"excellent" but Güner immediately highlights the
"jaw-dropping" incongruity of Bacon's Van Gogh series of
paintings made in north Africa in the late 1950s. Notably, Study
for a Portrait of Van Gogh VI - a "riot of neon-bright
streaks" - is used by the Tate on some of the exhibition
memorabilia: "Perhaps they want to entice us with something less
familiar, amid so much that is almost too intimately known,"
writes Güner. The Independent’s Tom Lubbock agrees:
"[Bacon] now looks simply like an icon of general British
culture. He's a familiar. You talk about Bacon as you talk about The
Beatles or Monty Python."
Lubbock's
review goes on to focus on the artist's shameless, showbiz approach to
his art, calling him a "vulgar entertainer" whose art was
rooted in shape-shifting theatricality: "The art of Bacon is a
variety bill. It's a hall of mirrors, a crooked house, a peep show, a
ghost train, a circus, a limbo dance, a stand-up act, a piece of
conjuring … Bacon is a magician, a quick-change artist."
The
Guardian's art critic, Adrian Searle, admits to being an adolescent
fan ("the grisly aspects of Bacon's art appeal to the teenage
mind") but after looking at the artist for 40 years, he is still
troubled by the "myth, rumour and anecdote about his life [that]
have come to dominate discussion of his art".
Searle
writes: "Bacon fakes his boneless anatomies, and has the
ingenuity to make us believe them, too. I vacillate between admiration
and dismissal ... Bacon was a pasticheur, a mimic. He ended up
imitating himself. This retrospective … is as uneven and
overstretched as the artist himself was". He concludes: "I
still ask myself if he was the real deal."
Francis
Bacon loathed Matiesse's work, recordings reveal
Dalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent,
The Times, September 10, 2008
Matisse has been
damned from the grave by Francis Bacon in a previously-unknown
interview which is to be made public for the first time. The French
master is revered worldwide as a giant of modern art, but Bacon could
not have been more dismissive of him in recordings revealed to The
Times.
In the recordings,
which will be published next month, Bacon was talking privately to
Michael Peppiatt, his official biographer and friend, in 1987 when he
said of Matisse: “I’ve never liked his things very much, except
the very, very early things... I loathe them. I can never see what
there is to it, with all those squalid little forms. I can’t bear
the drawings either - I absolutely hate his line. I find his line
sickly.”
Nor was he
impressed by Matisse’s sculptures.
Dr Peppiatt had
refrained from publishing the comments at the time because he thought
Bacon might object. Wary of using an off-the-record conversation, he
recalled: “Bacon wouldn’t have wanted to be seen as slagging off
another artist.”
He was astonished to rediscover the material in returning to the tapes
for a new biography for Yale University Press.
“I
thought I’d better listen to them again,” he said. “I was
surprised to find quite a few things that 25 or 30 years ago didn’t
seem so important. Now we regard Bacon with such fascination that even
the odd asides become significant.”
Commenting
on why Bacon would have disliked Matisse so vehemently, he singled out
works such as the images of odalisques.
He
said: “The odalisques were everything Bacon isn’t. They are very
fluent, fluid, easy, graceful, harmonious - and Bacon is the opposite
of all that.”
Dr
Peppiatt will now include the interviews in Francis Bacon: Studies
for a Portrait, whose publication coincides with a major Bacon
retrospective at Tate Britain and as the artist continues to break
records in the salerooms.
The
Russian tycoon Roman Abramovich is among his most fervent collectors,
paying a staggering $86.3 million (£44.4 million) for the 1976 Triptych
at Sotheby’s New York. The purchase set a new auction record for a
post-war work of art. Yet, in the 1940s, an art charity in Britain
struggled to persuade any public collection to accept another major
Bacon painting as a gift. Not one of the museums and galleries
approached was remotely interested then in his angst-ridden pictures.
Bacon,
whose paintings express the isolation, brutality and pain of human
existence, is best-known for images such as his screaming popes in
which Velazquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X was converted
into a nightmarish depiction of hysterical terror.
This
month, the James Hyman Gallery in London will also be exhibiting a
previously-unseen mutilated Bacon canvas, an untitled Study for a
Pope, which dates from around 1959. Bacon slashed and gouged out
the central section, leaving only the top of the head and shoulders.
It
was acquired by a collector last year from Ron Thomas, a porter at
Marlborough Gallery, Bacon’s dealer. Mr Thomas used to deliver and
collect paintings for Bacon, and do odd jobs around the house. Over
the years, they became great friends, so much so that Bacon would give
him and his family cheques at Christmas.
Its
owner, who wishes to remain anonymous, told The Times: “I
could never afford to pay £10 million or £15 million for a complete
large canvas. To me, this was the next best thing. I have part of an
original Bacon.”
Bacon,
a self-taught and deeply self-critical artist, was famous for
destroying works, taking a knife to even his finest pictures. He once
said that he destroyed “all the better paintings” in attempting
“to take them further”.
James
Hyman, a Bacon expert, said: “We are delighted to be able to present
his mutilated Pope for the first time. The discovery of this abandoned
and slashed canvas... provides an insight into somebody who was very
ruthless and self-critical. Putting a knife through your own picture
is a very self-destructive thing to do.”
My encounter with
Francis Bacon
Peter Bradshaw,
The Guardian, Wednesday September 10, 2008
A
gallery visitor has a closer look at Francis Bacon's Three Studies
for a Portrait of George Dyer, 1963, part of Tate Britain's Bacon
retrospective. Photo: Andy Rain/EPA
Visiting the big
new Francis Bacon exhibition at London's Tate Britain this week, I was
assailed by what I can only describe as a repressed memory - a memory
which is bizarre in the extreme, and entirely shaming and unedifying.
I was in Room 6 of
the exhibition, which the curators have entitled "Archive",
because it attempts to excavate Bacon's working practices, and shows
the way he uses found images and pictures ripped from magazines:
photographs and stills from movies. Famously, Bacon was inspired by
Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin, particularly the nurse with
the broken spectacles, which he transformed into his
characteristically disquieting 1957 painting Study For Nurse From
Battleship Potemkin.
The exhibition
displays Bacon's copy of Film, a 1946 Pelican publication by movie
historian Roger Manwell, which shows stills from the famous Odessa
Steps Sequence, including of course the nurse, which so transfixed
Bacon. Intriguingly, the exhibition juxtaposes Bacon's copy of this
battered paperback with his copy of a book called Phenomena of
Materialism: A Contribution to the Investigation of Mediumistic
Teleplastics, by Baron Von Shrenk Notzing. This contains blurry images
of what appear to be strange contorted apparitions - again, grist to
Bacon's mill.
Looking at this, I
pondered Bacon's perception that still movie images detached from a
motion picture sequence have an uncanny, deathly quality: undead,
zombie forms deprived of the "life" that the moving picture
gave them, yet not entirely dead - and also ghostly. I duly made note
of all this, before suddenly being assailed by an extraordinary
memory. I remembered that I can claim something that very few
non-specialists can claim, and perhaps very few art historians.
I had once spoken
to Francis Bacon on the telephone.
It was in 1990,
and I was in my first job after leaving university: doing shifts on
the Londoner's Diary of the London Evening Standard. In those
days, the Diary was edited by a notorious figure, Rory Knight Bruce,
reputedly the model for the character "Rory Plantagenet"
from Martin Amis's novel The Information. Rory was an eccentric
figure, to say the very least; passionately dedicated to hunting and
with a fiery temper, he was the master of foxhounds of the United Pack
in Shropshire and hunted about two or three days a week, coming to
London for the rest of the time to edit the column.
On what would have
been my first week there, he peremptorily informed me of my assignment
of the morning: I was to write a full-blooded attack on the Turner
prize - or rather, I was to persuade some public figure to attack the
Turner prize on the column's behalf, and this would constitute our
"story" of the day.
"Is it really
acceptable ... " Rory declaimed, "... that a collection of
loathsome art-crowd inverts should use the name of Turner to lend
substance to this appalling and valueless charade? Peter, I want you
to telephone Francis Bacon and put that to him. Get him to attack the
Turner prize! Attack it, attack, attack!"
Blandly, I
prepared to telephone Francis Bacon's agent, or his dealer, and leave
this message, and resign myself to naturally never being called back.
But Rory had something up his sleeve.
"Here is
Francis Bacon's private telephone number!" he hissed, scribbling
it on my pad. "Dial it, and destroy it immediately. Do not put it
in your contacts book!"
But of course I
did, and I dug this book up today, 18 years after the event, and here
is the number: 071-584 2925. Francis Bacon's home telephone number,
the number at his legendary chaotic studio in South Kensington, the
studio that has since been dismantled and reverently reconstructed in
the Hugh Lane Gallery in Dublin. How on earth had Rory Knight Bruce
got Francis Bacon's home number? Well, Rory had a certain epicene
handsomeness in his youth, and was rumoured to frequent the Colony
Club in Soho, a haunt of Bacon's ...
At any rate, I was
now expected to telephone the world's greatest living artist, then 81
years old, actually to interrupt him in the middle of his work, with
the most extraordinarily fatuous and offensive question surely ever
posed by a journalist.
"Phone him!
Phone him! Phone him! Phone him now!" hissed Rory, and he gripped
my upper arm. "And remember to say 'loathsome art-crowd
inverts'."
Utter silence fell
on the desk as all the other reporters realised what it was I was
supposed to do. Pleadingly, I glanced over at Rory's deputy, Marcus
Scriven, who had relatively recently joined the column after having
been a captain in the Welsh Guards. He grinned at me cheerfully:
"Public service journalism, old boy!"
I could feel
myself going wobbly and pale, a sweating, traumatised carcass, like
one of Bacon's own figures. With fingers like chippolatas, I stabbed
out the number: 071-584 2925. There was a brief silence, while I
prayed for an "engaged" or "unobtainable" signal.
Then it rang - for a long time. Then someone picked up, and said:
"Yes?" on a quavering, rising tone.
"Is that Mr
Francis Bacon?" I squeaked.
"Yes,"
he replied, in the same rising tone.
"Erm, this is
Peter Bradshaw from the Londoner's Diary page in the Evening
Standard."
Again:
"Yes?"
I looked over at
Rory who was fixing me with his Ancient Mariner's gaze. There was no
backing out.
"Could you
tell me, Mr Bacon - do you think it objectionable that a crowd of
loathsome art-crowd inverts should abuse the name of 'Turner' for
their prize?" I gabbled, feeling quite sure that my place in hell
was now utterly assured.
There was silence,
and then, thankfully Bacon began to laugh. "I'm awfully sorry, Mr
Bradshaw, but I'm afraid I cannot help you!" And he replaced the
receiver.
I went over and
told Rory what Francis Bacon had said to me.
"Oh Christ,
that's no fucking good!" he spluttered. "No fucking good at
all. Fuck me. Look, I'm going to lunch. If the editor comes in, tell
him I'm out on a story. Fuck!" He left. It was 11:45am.
In Room 10 of the
Tate exhibition (entitled "Late") one can see Francis
Bacon's last triptych from 1991, the painting that he may well have
been working on when I telephoned. The catalogue observes of this
piece: "He faced death with a defiant concentration on the
exquisiteness of the lived moment." How remarkable to think that
his concentration on this moment was interrupted by a grotesque person
from Porlock.
But there it is:
his number. If I update it to 020-7584 2925, and call it - well,
perhaps a ghostly phone will ring in that studio, reconstructed in
Dublin, and a polite elderly voice will answer, lose patience, and
tell me to bugger off.
Melvyn
Bragg celebrates The South Bank Show
As
television's most venerated arts programme celebrates its 30th anniversary,
its host Melvyn Bragg reveals the bacchanalian adventures of The South Bank
Show, and the story of the star who literally bared all
Damian
Whitworth, The Times, September 10, 2008
With few exceptions, the
towering figures of the arts world over the past three decades have one
thing in common: they have all been interviewed by Melvyn Bragg, the
Cumbrian culture vulture who is celebrating the 30th birthday of The
South Bank Show, the programme that has brought actors, writers,
musicians, dancers, directors and artists into often remarkably candid
close-up.
George Michael marked
the occasion by lighting up an enormous spliff. Laurence Olivier, John
Osborne, Francis Bacon and Philip Larkin all got very drunk. Rudolf Nureyev
flew into a rage, smashed the place up, stripped off and went skinny
dipping.
Take Bacon. Bragg had
known him for years when he eventually persuaded him that he needed to do an
interview because he had not seriously discussed his work on camera. The
painter let him into his cramped studio, showing the world for the first
time where he produced paintings that are now among the most coveted in the
world. In a charming moment he demonstrates his determination not to fluff
his message by pulling out a scrap of paper and reading out an explanation
of his work that he has jotted down. He shows photographs that he has
clipped from newspapers of wrestlers and boxers being hit that he calls “my
models”.
In the astonishing Bacon
interview, footage from which features in a new, six-part series,
Celebrating...The South Bank Show, he and Bragg go out for lunch and proceed
to get “completely plastered” on filthy red wine. Bacon staggers to his
feet, declares “Cheerio” and fills their glasses again. Bragg asks: “Why
do you want to do that, Francis?” The artist replies: “Because I like
doing it. I happen to be a painter, that's all.” He then goes on to talk
eloquently, if slurringly, about his work. “Francis drunk was a very
important part of Francis,” says Bragg. “And when he was drunk he talked
about his life to the highest level.”
A
bad dream come true with Francis Bacon
by
Fisun Güner, Metro, Tuesday, September 9, 2008
There is
a painting in this excellent Tate retrospective that is so uncharacteristic
of anything you may be familiar with in the work of Francis Bacon, that
encountering it is a jaw-dropping moment.
Study
For A Portrait Of Van Gogh VI, 1957 is a Fauvist riot of neon-bright
streaks depicting a landscape through which a shadowy black figure roams.
Oddly, Tate has used it on much of its exhibition memorabilia. Perhaps they
want to entice us with something less familiar, amid so much that is almost
too intimately known.
When
he painted the piece, Bacon had already achieved some of his greatest
works: his famous post-war Crucifixion series and his 1953 Study After
Velázquez's Portrait Of Pope Innocent X, a magnificently dissolving
and screaming visage suggesting both terror and unspeakable rage. Greater
paintings were still to come, though at the expense of Bacon's private
life.
Upon
the suicide of lover George Dyer in 1971, Bacon embarked upon a series of
extraordinarily powerful triptychs showing Dyer's final, desperate
moments. A whole room is devoted to them here, and it is the best room by
far. But the few seemingly out-of-place – and, especially in later
years, duff – paintings are shown here to be worth considering, too:
they offer insight into Bacon's constant artistic struggle.
Rather
than varnishing his paintings, Bacon preferred to cover them in glass, so
that in their darkly reflective surfaces our own image is imprisoned in
Bacon's hellish vision of humanity: we are forever forced to be mere
helpless witnesses to others' pain.
And
just as you find your own image reflected in the paintings, so Bacon's own
haunted and fleshily dissolute features are reflected squarely in the
centre of one of the glass doors as you turn to leave. This is rather
neat. The image is of the small self-portrait situated at the far right
corner of one of Bacon's late triptychs.
Whether
this ghostly encounter is the result of pure chance or an act of genius
placement by the curator, I have no idea. Yet, just as we are haunted by
Bacon's nihilistic vision, it seems entirely apt that we should find his
painted ghost confronting us on our exit.
Sept
11 until Jan 4, Tate Britain, Millbank SW1, daily 10am to 5.50pm (Fri to
9pm), £12.50, £10.50 to £11.50 concs. Tel: 020 7887 8888. Tube: Pimlico
All hail a vulgar
entertainer: Francis Bacon retrospective
As Tate Britain's
Francis Bacon retrospective opens, Tom Lubbock applauds a shocking
genius
Tom
Lubbock, The Independent, Wednesday, 10 September 2008
It used to look
like death. Now it looks like life in abundance. And it certainly
doesn't look like going away. Francis Bacon's art has survived to his
birth centenary, or I guess it will, since that falls next year. So
this retrospective at Tate Britain, which opens tomorrow and just
squeaks into January, is a centenary show.
But survival
itself didn't need proving. Since its appearance on the London art
scene in the 1940s, attention has never drifted from Bacon's work.
What does need marking is how our view of that work has altered. And
it seems to me that its whole place has changed. Bacon no longer
stands as an artist among artists, not even a very special artist. He
won't be grouped with the School of London, say (Freud, Auerbach,
Kitaj), or under Post-war European Figuration (Giacometti, Balthus).
No, he now looks simply like an icon of general British culture. He's
a familiar. You talk about Bacon as you talk about The Beatles or
Monty Python.
When the composer
Mark-Anthony Turnage entitled a piece of music Three Screaming
Popes – referring to Bacon's well-known series of images by a
nickname – you could see what was going on. A "refined"
art was drawing strength and vitality from a more popular art. He
might as well have called the piece Three Dead Parrots. And if
an unaccustomed levity seems to have entered the discussion, that's no
mistake either. Bacon has a very British mix of violence, comedy and
bloody-minded big-heartedness. And perhaps you hadn't noticed how fond
of animals he is.
Bacon's art is not
a tunnel vision of horror, expressing the futility of the human
condition or the special nightmare of the 20th century. And going to
this retrospective, you shouldn't expect to be inching forward in
agony through frescoes of the skull (to use a Beckettian phrase). You
should expect your money's worth – and you'll get it. The art of
Bacon is a variety bill. It's a hall of mirrors, a crooked house, a
peep show, a ghost train, a circus, a limbo dance, a stand-up act, a
piece of conjuring.
Its theatricality
is obvious. Bacon's paintings are scenes, made of distinct stage
areas, backdrops, doorways and assorted props and actors. His people
are presented full on, usually centre-frame. I don't deny that those
people are sometimes in a terrible mess. Everyone, on their first
encounter with Bacon's art, gets an impression of car crash, bomb
damage, burns, meltdown, slaughterhouse. The red paint and the open
mouths, of course, encourage this response. But they shouldn't
distract you from the amazing performance that's going on before your
very eyes. Bacon is a magician, a quick-change artist. He brings off
the most sudden disappearing and reappearing acts, fusions and
transformations. The flesh slips, slurps, smears, flares, blurs,
fades, evaporates, abruptly dematerialises. Legerdemain: you just
can't see how it's done, how it moves from solid to film to spook to
gleam to void and back.
All this
"damage" is in fact animating. There isn't a corpse anywhere
in Bacon's work. His savage treatment is an extension, an
exaggeration, of the body's own movements, sensations, expressions.
And though his use of oil paint gives him a more liquid language, it
wouldn't be wrong to see him in the line of English graphic
caricature, and the way it uses distortion, not only to play with
likeness, but to inject energy and rub the nerves raw.
Yet, strangely,
Bacon's bodies are both sensational and invulnerable. They're in an
awful state – and nothing can harm them. Whatever catastrophe
befalls their flesh, they're saved by their firm, curvy, bouncy
outlines. They seem held within a mould. Often they look like
inflatables. Or rather, they seem invulnerable because they are both
flexible shape-shifters and sturdy thick-skinned creatures, who can
always bounce back. They carry a double fantasy of survival, familiar
from animation: total plasticity, total resistance. Another name for
this is slapstick.
And so we watch
them, on their stages, in action: shouting, racing around, on the loo,
sitting chatting, buggering, blowing smoke, throwing up, shaving,
turning a street corner, writhing on beds, lolling. Their human shapes
are joined by others, and dance with them, elliptical forms that might
be areas of spotlight, amoeboid blobs that could be shadows or pools
of spilt drink, except the colours and tones are all wrong: they're
more like thought bubbles, or ectoplasm.
Sometimes, Bacon
sticks in an overt artificial device, a geometrical circle, a
road-sign arrow, a lopsided cubical structure framing the action.
These perform a focusing, pointing, intensifying function – look at
that, feel that. They show how far Bacon is from purism. If the act
needs one of these extra winks, nudges or double-takes, he throws it
in. If not, not. He never plays with the language of painting for its
own sake.
It's a
surprisingly large and embracing art. Bacon's one of the few modern
artists to do cars – see them racing across in the background like
little Monopoly pieces. And there's his menagerie of animals,
real and fantastical, from the monster critters in Three Studies
for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, to monkeys, dogs, owls
and bulls.
And somehow one
leaves to this late point the primary fact that Bacon is a sumptuous,
delicious colourist. I wouldn't call him a real explorer in colour,
but he is a great decorator, a great maker of tastes, and the point
is: the tastes are rich and sweet, the harmonies are major key. Again,
it's a shamelessness, it's showbiz. He can do it and he does it. He
doesn't have any puritan qualms about being gorgeous. He's a vulgar
entertainer.
Francis Bacon,
Tate Britain, London SW1 (020-7887 8888), tomorrow to 4 January.
Martin Harrison's Francis Bacon: Incunabula is published by Thames
& Hudson (£39.95)
FRANCIS
BACON - A MAJOR RETROSPECTIVE AT TATE BRITAIN
By
Richard Moss, 24 Hour Museum, September 11, 2008
Exhibition
Review – Richard Moss just can’t resist a screaming Pope at Tate Britain’s
Francis Bacon – showing until January 4 2009.
As befits a man
who was the major figure in British art of the 20th century, Tate’s
third major retrospective of Francis Bacon offers an impressive
collection of paintings ranging across ten rooms reflecting the full
range of Bacon’s career.
Going for the
major works of each period the curators have chosen many familiar
pieces from a canon which is pretty well established. The result is an
impressively coherent show full of key works that people will
recognise.
Apart from a room
concentrating on Bacon’s series of crucifixion triptychs and an
atmospheric archive space that pulls out items from his famously
chaotic studio, Tate’s Francis Bacon takes you on a clear and linear
journey that will have you reaching for the familiar - visceral,
physical and animal - Bacon adjectives.
The canvasses –
many of them huge two metre monsters full of his trademark abstraction
and raw physicality – succeed in hammering home the artist’s
stated aim of painting being a means of carrying out the emotions –
through the canvass and into our nervous systems.
Everywhere are
powerful artworks with figures contorted like mangled pieces of
abattoir flesh, curled in agony before some abyss or left screaming in
the void as they dissolve into oblivion. Seeing them together is a
potent experience.
There is also an
underlying philosophy, which is constant throughout; A Nietzchian
atheism which he stuck to right until the end, together with the more
practical idea that photography can change what painting is
fundamentally about.
Visitors
unfamiliar with the minutia of Bacon’s practice may be surprised to
learn the extent to which he studied and worked from photographs. But
it’s a fact hammered home by the picture captions and the archive
section which is full of his notebooks, raw preliminary sketches,
lists of ideas, photographic books and the creased and paint spattered
photos that were the raw material for many of the portraits in the
exhibition.
It’s interesting
to trace a direct line from these photographs of muses, models and
lovers to the great canvasses that line the walls.
But perhaps more
striking is the all pervading sense of danger, madness and horror.
Right from the off there is a feeling of menace and violence as the
exhibition opens with the terrifying world into which the world had
emerged in 1945. A world made all the more shocking by the paintings
of the young Francis Bacon.
Room 1 features a
series of startling portraits from the 1940s that show the animalistic
side of the human being – many of them superimposed with the
snarling mouths of apes.
The first painting
is a figure in a landscape, shown in a group exhibition when Bacon was
an unknown, next to the likes of Graham Sutherland and Henry Moore.
Supposedly based
on a photograph of his friend Eric Hall sitting on a chair in Hyde
Park, it is full of the strange malevolence that became key to nearly
all of Bacon’s work. It must have made an impact in 1945 – and
marked the young artist out as an important painter of the post war
period.
This period also
saw the appearance of a series of head studies. Displayed together
here they offer a tantalizing glimpse of his fledgling artistic vision
and establish some of the early ground rules (violent abstraction, man
as an animal) that informed his practice right up until his death in
1992.
There is also an
early appearance of Pope Innocent X, who as the exhibition makes
clear, became something of an obsession. An early version from 1949 is
just as impactful as many of the later works on display here and casts
the Pope as a horrifying figure, screaming for air as his head
dissolves into the overlaid brushstrokes of vertical paint.
For Bacon “Velázquez
found the perfect balance between the ideal illustration which he was
required to produce, and the overwhelming emotion he aroused in the
spectator.” Of course, Bacon took the business of arousing the
emotions of the spectator to new levels.
Beyond the
recurring subject matter, this early Pope painting also points to an
emerging way of working that fused Bacon’s visceral approach to
portraiture with the complexities of pictorial space.
Paintings of the
early 1950s show figures boxed into cage-like structures, ‘space
frames’ and hexagonal ground planes. Poor old Pope Pius is
accordingly subjected to various states of torture and imprisonment.
Seeing them together here allows them to unfold like stills from a
horror film.
Elsewhere male
figures are shown as isolated shapes dissolving in hotel rooms and
darkened interiors – there are also animals, mainly stray dogs and
snarling apes, and then a room full of crucifixion triptychs.
Again it’s
fascinating to see them together and study how Bacon, the godless
artist, approached this most holy of themes. What begins as an
ambiguous set of issues soon resolves itself as a grisly act of
slaughterhouse violence.
Further on are
responses to the abstraction of the 1950s and the embracing of the
bold use of colour - and the portraits of George Dyer. Upon the
suicide of his lover in 1971, Bacon embarked upon a series of powerful
triptychs showing Dyer's final, desperate moments. In a show packed
with powerful images they are among the most compelling paintings on
display.
To a great extent,
this exhibition shows how Bacon hammered away at the same themes. The
canvasses from the late 1940s and 1950s have the same jaw dropping
intensity of those from the 1960s and 1970s. Perhaps it is this that
made Bacon great – that he hammered away, always finessing the same
themes, plunging ever further into his own hellish vision of
humanity.
London retrospective of Francis Bacon's paintings
By
Jill Lawless, The San Francisco
Chronicle,
September 9, 2008
LONDON
— No artist captured the horror of the 20th century quite the way
Francis Bacon did.
Bacon
spent a lifetime painting the human body in a world ripped apart by
the slaughter of two world wars and the Holocaust. More than 15 years
after his death, a major new retrospective bound for London, Madrid
and New York shows that his twisted forms, mottled flesh and screaming
mouths have lost none of their power to shock.
The
show's co-curator, Chris Stephens, says Bacon's subject was "the
tenderness and absurdity and fear and lustfulness of being
alive."
"He
was passionately atheist and saw that as the key thing about living in
the 20th century," Stephens said Tuesday. "He set out to
express what it is to be alive when God does not exist - (when) man is
just an animal."
The
show opens Thursday at London's Tate Britain gallery.
Irish-born
of Protestant English stock, Bacon was for decades a fixture in the
drinking dens of Soho, London's red-light district. But he was also a
prolific artist, working relentlessly in his tiny, chaotic studio.
Stephens said the Tate exhibition includes "only the very
greatest paintings from each period." Still, it is a big show,
with 65 works arranged over 10 rooms.
Bacon,
who died in 1992 at the age of 82, destroyed most of his early work,
so there is little from his youthful stints in Paris and Berlin or
from the years he spent in London in the 1930s. The show opens with
1940s paintings brimming with horror and absurdity. There are bestial
human figures, contorted bodies and screaming mouths displaying jagged
teeth.
Stephens
said works such as Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a
Crucifixion - a triptych of writhing tubular figures on a flaming
orange background, first displayed in 1945 - "became intimately
connected to the opening of the concentration camps in Europe and the
aftermath of the Second World War." Bacon became the poster boy
of wartime horror and postwar anxiety.
Among
the best-known early works in the show is Head VI, the
first of dozens of paintings inspired by 17th-century artist Diego
Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.
"It's
a picture I have always been haunted by," Bacon once said, though
he never saw it in person, only reproduced in books.
In
Bacon's hands, the papal figure appears to be in agony, his purple
robes topped by a distorted head and screaming mouth.
Bacon
painted more than 40 of these screaming popes, which are among his
most recognizable works.
Stephens
said that in Bacon's hands, the papal figure becomes "an
expression of fear and pain, and also aggression - and a kind of
tenderness."
"The
paintings invite the viewer to empathize," he said. "You
feel their pain or fear. They're not romantic, but they have a
tenderness as well as a brutal frankness."
Those
mixed signals are typical of Bacon, a stout nonbeliever who was drawn
repeatedly to religious icons and themes.
The
most striking room in the exhibition displays three monumental
triptychs depicting crucifixions. They are among his most disturbing
work and include Three Studies for a Crucifixion, which shows
figures hacked open like joints of beef.
Other
rooms display portraits and muscular nudes - many modeled by his lover
George Dyer and other friends - that are flayed and twisted almost
beyond recognition. In one room, brooding portraits of black-suited
politicians and salesmen are displayed alongside paintings of
chimpanzees and baboons.
Bacon
influenced many younger artists, including Lucien Freud, who shares a
penchant for painting bruised and battered flesh, and Damien Hirst,
whose pickled sharks and rotting cows' heads display a similar
fascination with corporeal decay.
On
the eve of his centenary, Bacon's reputation has never been higher,
nor his works more valuable. In May, his Triptych, 1976 sold
for $86 million in New York, a record for a postwar artwork.
Hirst,
who reportedly spent US$33 million last year on a Bacon self-portrait,
said the older man was "a hero" when he was starting out as
an artist.
"I
was painting myself and I just made bad copies of Bacons," Hirst
said Monday. "When I came to London, he was around and I saw him:
It was the first sort of connection with a living artist that was a
person; it wasn't this mythical figure in some way that was
unattainable."
While
artistic fashions change - and the global art market wobbles amid the
global credit crunch - Bacon's reputation seems secure.
"What
he does is look at the big questions of life," Stephens said.
"So it's kind of timeless."
The
exhibition runs at London's Tate Britain through Jan. 4, 2009. It goes
to Madrid's Prado from Feb. 3 to April 19, 2009 and then to New York's
Metropolitan Museum of Art, May 18-Aug. 16, 2009.
Painted screams
A
major new retrospective of Francis Bacon's work explores the darker
reaches of humanity. What a shame he became a parody of himself, says
Adrian Searle
Adrian
Searle, The Guardian, Tuesday September 9 2008
Animal carnality ... Francis Bacon's Three Studies for a
Crucifixion, 1962
None of which
would count for very much if the artist, almost entirely self-taught,
didn't have such a good nose for paint. His paintings look like real
art with a capital A, and they have the gold frames to prove it. They
have the touch and manner of great, painterly painting, fetishised,
and all the more tantalising and unworldly, for being always shown, at
the artist's insistence, under glass.
Bacon learned by
getting up close to paintings and observing their surfaces. He looked
at how paint behaved both as a substance and as a visual surrogate for
all the textures there are in the world: for cloth, grass, fur,
porcelain, skin. And in Bacon's case, one might say: for chrome,
mattress ticking, vomit, meat.
Bacon not only
borrowed from, but added to, the vocabulary of painting. He also
tainted it, and made certain ways of approaching painting untouchable.
Knowing this would, I think, have pleased him. He developed all sorts
of interesting shorthand ways of describing things. He had a good
sense from the first of what paintings should feel as well as look
like, what the variety and drama of their substance and textures
should be. So we find congealed masses of dried opaque colour next to
the thinnest stains, whose edges are as controlled as a Barnett
Newman. We find graphic outlines and contours filled-in with compound,
and often contradictory gestures that somehow manage to pull
themselves into a figure, even if it is a figure that is pulling
itself apart. This sort of dichotomy makes Bacon exciting.
Bacon fakes his
boneless anatomies, and has the ingenuity to make us believe them,
too. I vacillate between admiration and dismissal. Bacon invariably
fell back on something like illustration, for all that he disdained
it. He overtly references Velázquez, Van Gogh and Ingres, and steals
backgrounds from Mark Rothko and British colour-field paintings of the
1960s, about which he was always dismissive. He was a card. Maybe he
thought no one would notice.
Bacon also depicts
a modern world - modern furniture, men in suits, dangling lightbulbs,
plumbing, fitted carpets and floor-to-ceiling curtains. His early
career as an interior decorator informed his art. He had a keen feel
for the psychology of a space. All this gave his art a sense of the
timely, and lent it a kind of spooky realism. At the same time, Bacon
was an almost entirely mannered and theatrical painter. Sometimes I
think this is all that's left for painting now anyway. But all his
affectations seem at one with Bacon's personality: his stylistic and
technical tics are at one with brushing his teeth with Vim and dyeing
his hair with shoe polish.
The cast of sexy
low-life gangster boyfriends, louche dissolutes, Colony Room renegades
and hard-drinking, hard-smoking Soho gorgons who people Bacon's art
also keep the paintings alive and vivid for us. These feature animals,
captains of industry, dead politicians, Renaissance popes, Mick Jagger
and Ian Botham, though the last two have wisely been left out of Tate
Britain's retrospective.
Bacon's art also
contains an entire repertoire of bruises, wounds, amputations done up
with soiled bandages, Nazi armbands and other paraphernalia verging on
cliché. There is much blood, and a great deal of alizarin crimson.
Unconvincing jets of water struggle to clean all the muck away, though
the flying spunk clings on like ectoplasm, unless it's just a spatter
of white paint that has fallen off a passing Miró. While we are at
it, Bacon is very good at male feet and footwear, at sneakers and Hush
Puppies. It is often the details - a doorknob or a wristwatch, teeth
or toiletware - that make his paintings plausible and seductive.
The horrors of the
20th century echo through Bacon's sparse interiors. A man swerves in
his chair. There is death or a lover at the door. There, I'm at it
now. Next I'll be going on about Bacon's Grand Guignol dramas, the
encroaching blackness and intimations of mortality, the horror that
lurks beneath the skin. Everyone else does. The catalogue to this
retrospective has a screaming pope on the cover, unless it's a pope at
the dentist or a yawning pope, with Bacon's name picked out in gold.
Protestant
Irish-born 99 years ago, Bacon grew to be the most famous British
painter of the latter half of the 20th century. Myth, rumour and
anecdote about his life have come to dominate discussion of his art,
in the same way that his art fed on the litter of medical
illustrations, books of nature photography, cricket annuals, newspaper
clippings and gay body-building comics that he tramped underfoot in
his midden of a studio, now rebuilt in Dublin. All those published
conversations with David Sylvester, the hilarious drunken TV interview
with Melvyn Bragg, John Maybury's biopic with Derek Jacobi, and the
appearance of Bacon paintings in the credits to Bertolucci's Last
Tango in Paris - all these things add to the intensity of Bacon's
painted scream. Aaaaarghhhh.
But it is a hollow
cry. Francis Bacon was a pasticheur, a mimic. He ended up imitating
himself. It was a kind of method acting. His career took off in the
1940s and with a few exceptions his best work was behind him by the
mid-1960s. Walk through this show and feel the disengagement - yours
as well as his - setting in. This latest retrospective, which will
travel, among other places, to the Prado in Madrid, is as uneven and
overstretched as the artist himself was. Bacon died suddenly in Madrid
in 1992. Velázquez will kill him there again, when the show comes to
town - but then Velázquez kills everyone.
Devoting almost an
entire room of Tate Britain to Bacon's 1950s businessmen, with their
Giacometti-derived faces looming from the Prussian blue darkness of
their shadowy lairs, works very well. They evince the power of
well-bred English mafiosi, with the right sort of animal carnality
beneath their suits. This room is titled Apprehension. Others are
called Zone, Animal, Crisis, and so on.
One room contains
nothing but crucifixions, including Bacon's terrific 1933 Crucifixion,
a white and grey Picassoid figure, now in Damien Hirst's Murderme
collection. The contrast between the Tate's 1944 Three Studies for
Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion and a second version of this
triptych, painted in 1988 and installed in the vestibule outside the
exhibition proper, could not be more painful. The 1988 painting, like
almost all late Bacon, is a tired and unnecessary display of hackish
technical virtuosity.
But there are
paintings I miss here, especially the Museum of Modern Art in New
York's Painting, 1946, and the painting Two Figures,
1953, a frank depiction of two men fucking on a bed, often described
as "wrestling"; these two works seem to me essential. Much
else is not.
I have been
looking at Bacon for 40 years now, after being an adolescent fan - the
grisly aspects of his art appeal to the teenage mind - and I still ask
myself if he was the real deal. When asked about the proliferation of
fakes of his work, Picasso said that he sometimes faked Picassos, too.
Bacon, an authentic fake, whose debt to Picasso was enormous, spent
over half his career producing Bacons rather than paintings.
"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham
friends," he said - more than once.
Francis Bacon:
touching the void
Tate
Britain's marvellous retrospective gives us a haunting vision of life
stripped to the bone, a sense of macabre desolation
Rachel Campbell
Johnston, The Times, September 9, 2008
He is the single
greatest artist that Britain has produced in the hundred years that
have passed since his birth in 1909. There is no great secret to his
success. Francis Bacon is quite simply the most extraordinary,
powerful and compelling of painters. And you don't need to study the
intricacies of art history or peruse complex philosophies to see why.
You just have to look at those shocking, disturbing and sumptuous
canvases. This was the man who (to steal a line from Paul Valéry)
aimed to evoke sensation without the boredom of its conveyance. His
images short-circuit our appreciative processes. They arrive straight
through the nervous system and hijack the soul.
Tate Britain's
Francis Bacon is a classic show. It moves chronologically - except in
a few cases where works have been reshuffled to thematic galleries -
through the artist's career, examining its principle phases through a
succession of mostly superlative paintings. From the first thickly
encrusted canvases of a maverick who, coming late to painting after an
abortive career as an interior designer (you can still spot its legacy
in the strange tubular steel furniture) at the age of 35, it moves
through all the most famous images - the popes screaming in their
gilded prisons, the howling baboons, the wrestling copulators, the
haunting triptychs, the Furies, the handgrenade faces - to the late
but still unflinching meditations on the futility of life.
This
is a show that invites us to consider Bacon's place in the postwar
pantheon. It coincides with two other shows that offer an illuminating
context: Mark Rothko at Tate Modern represents all that Bacon
struggled against as, stubbornly resisting the forces of abstraction
that were flourishing in America, he sought a place for the figurative
in a disillusioned postwar world. Damien Hirst, whose glitzy
spectacular is now at Sotheby's, is Bacon's closest successor. At his
most powerful he translates it into 3-D.
But
15 years after Bacon's sudden death in Madrid, neither the artist nor
the critic David Sylvester, that impassioned purveyor of his
reputation to the public, is there to put the works in their usual
biographical context. Does the legacy need the legend? Or can it stand
alone?
Straightforward
correlations between life and art are reductive, but Bacon's work,
more than that of any other artist of his generation, has been
illuminated by his infamous life story. It was, after all, through his
upbringing as the rebellious son of a racehorse trainer in Ireland,
the decadence of Paris and Berlin, the drinking and gambling and
sadomasochist homosexuality of his “gilded gutter life” in Soho
that he discovered his subjects.
The
man whom his former friend (their paths later diverged) Lucian Freud
described as the wildest and wisest person he had never known wilfully
flouted convention, working to make himself as unnatural as he
possibly could, espousing a philosophy of futility with an almost
religious fervour. “We are born and we die,” he said. “But in
between we give this purposeless existence a meaning by our drives.”
These were the drives - the lusts, the despairs, the cruelties and the
loves - that lent frenzied life to the carcass of a creature that was
fundamentally no more than meat.
This
was the philosophy that, passed down by Sylvester like an article of
faith, became the single most powerful shaping force on our perception
of his work.
But
now we are asked to reconsider. A few years ago, great bundles of
overpainted newspaper clippings and sketches were discovered in
Bacon's studio. And yet this was the artist who supposedly (remember
that ludicrous biopic) hurled fistfuls of paint, swiped handfuls of
rags and pitched buckets of turpentine at his canvases, allowing his
creations to grow, or destroy themselves with complete spontaneity. He
had always said that he didn't draw; that he didn't want the brain to
interfere with “the inevitability of an image”, that accident was
essentially at the heart of his vision, that he wanted to trap its
vitality with “the foam of the unconscious locked around it”.
As
the tattered studio relics are given a focal place in this show,
curators ask us to think about the processes of making. Wall texts
pick over the paintings in technical detail like beetles pick over the
skeletal mechanics of a corpse.
They
can't spoil the show. These paintings are too powerful. You only have
to look at the portraits that attack and brutalise the human
appearance, mashing and twisting it into bruised hues that show us not
how repulsive but how beautiful violence can be. You only have to
stare into those bright uninflected arenas against which human life
struggles like some half-squashed insect. You only have to listen to
the primal scream of those popes. A gallery dedicated to images of
crucifixions, including three triptychs, is the high point of this
show. In Three Studies for a Crucifixion, 1962, man is butchered like
an animal on the cross of his life. The raw brutality of pain is
overpowering.
Another
key gallery, themed around Bacon's late lover George Dyer, is equally
evocative. A haunting triptych from 1973 unfurls across the walls
telling the story of how, on the night of Bacon's first great triumph
(a Parisian retrospective) his lover stayed up in the hotel bedroom
and took an overdose. Vomiting into the basin, hunched over the
lavatory, he died alone under the stark electric light. With all its
macabre desolation it is one of the most haunting images of our era.
This
show offers front-row seats in an arena in which atrocities as complex
and cruel, as flamboyant and painful, as the bullfights that inspired
Bacon take place. Maybe, ironically, there are too many great
paintings. Visitors should certainly head for the “crisis”
gallery, which presents Bacon in the late Fifties fumbling clumsily
amid thick pigments and garish colours for a fresh way forward. Here
are some disasters. And you need them. Bacon does not always pull off
his impetuous canvases. He destroyed countless works. But surviving
mistakes remind us how much of a gambler he was, of how close to the
ridiculous, the melodramatic, the downright ludicrous his vision could
be.
“I
am greedy for...what chance can give me far behind anything I can
calculate logically,” he once said. As a young man staying in Monte
Carlo, Bacon ended up one night winning the (in those days vast)
amount of £1,600 in a casino. He used the money to rent a villa which
he stocked with food and wine for friends and ten days later he hadn't
the cash to buy his ticket home.
This
is the sort of gamble that every Bacon painting takes. Curators will
not establish his place in posterity through technical analysis. The
works are not illuminated by logic. Photographic images, from pictures
of mouth diseases through Muybridge's motion studies, to a golf manual
(the arrows with which he peppers his later works supposedly come from
it), may, undeniably, have inspired him, but they are not the key to
his paintings for at the heart of his work lies an essential mystery.
You can't just fill in the blanks.
So
far better to ignore those irritating wall texts and pass over the
tatty memorabilia as a mere sideshow. Let the paintings do their work.
These
are not canonised masterpieces they are desperate gambles. Each time
we look at them the dice are rolled again. Maybe for another
generation they won't work. But for now watch your reflection glide
across the glazed darkness of his surfaces. The blackness has a
bottomless depth in the gallery's stark brightness. The colours glow
lurid and vivid. As you step across those images of crushed flesh and
gristle, of mankind crouched, knotted and crawling, broken and
yowling, you are stepping into an arena where human flesh wrestles
with its terrible fate.
Bacon
paints the frenzied reality that lies beneath the veneer of
civilisation. His vision is as powerful as that of the great
Renaissance Masters except that he reveals savage mystery where others
sought redeeming grace.
Francis
Bacon is at Tate Britain from Thursday to Jan 4 (www.tate.org.uk
020-7887 8888)
A
‘purposeless existence': Bacon's life of rebellion
1909
He is born in Dublin to an English family, the son of a steel heiress
and a race-horse trainer
1926
His father throws him out for wearing his mother's clothes. Goes to
London with a weekly allowance of £3
1927
Travels to Berlin and sees Picasso exhibition, and begins to draw and
paint
1934
First solo exhibition of paintings is poorly recieved and he destroys
the works
1939
Exempted from military service because of asthma
1954
He shares British Pavilion of Venice Biennale with Ben Nicholson and
Lucian Freud
1962
Major retrospective of his work at the Tate
1963
Show at the Guggenheim in New York confirms his reputation
1971
His lover George Dyer commits suicide in Paris
1974
Forms a relationship with John Edwards, who also becomes his model
1992 On a visit to Madrid Bacon dies of pneumonia exacerbated by
asthma
Louise
Cohen
Bacon
Show Has $6 Billion Art, Horror, Corpses
Review by Martin Gayford, Bloomberg,
September 9, 2008
The show, which
opens on Sept. 11, is a serious and thorough survey containing most -
if not quite all - of the painter's major works. Deservedly, this will
be popular, offering another generation an opportunity to look at
Bacon's output.
Triptych
(1976) was purchased at auction in May at Sotheby’s in New York for
$86.3 million (by Roman Abramovich, said the Art Newspaper). At that
rate, the 71 paintings in the exhibition are worth - wait while I get
my pocket calculator out - somewhere more than $6 billion.
Many would say
that such enormous prices are a vulgar distraction from art itself.
Still, alterations in value may mirror shifts in the tectonic plates
of art history itself.
Bacon's work was
included in important U.S. collections during his lifetime. He never
quite conquered New York where the dominant styles were first the
abstraction of Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko then the cool of Pop
and Minimalism.
His work, in
contrast, was messily, sometimes squalidly, figurative. It was about
subjects such as mortality, sex, and fear. New York critics often
found it nasty and corny.
They had half a
point. Bacon's work is a complex mixture. One of his aims was to make
what he painted more real than any photograph could - or as he put it
in an interview with art critic David Sylvester, "to bring the
figurative thing up onto the nervous system more violently and more
poignantly.''
Feral, Dangerous
Bacon could be
brilliantly successful in doing just that, for example in Study for
a Portrait (1953). It's a picture of a man in a blue suit, sitting
on a bed, laughing - a description that doesn't begin to evoke the
experience of looking at Bacon's image. When you do, you seem to be
confronted with something feral, alive, and dangerous.
Bacon was able to
convey that feeling better than a camera, and also better than just
about any painter who ever lived. A masochist in his sexual tastes,
what Bacon most enjoyed - his friend Lucien Freud once told me - was
"an atmosphere of menace.'' And that's exactly what he projected
in some of his best pictures. The animal in Man With a Dog (1953),
for example, is no cute pet but a threatening blur, ready to spring.
Slumped, Naked
He presents
another range of emotion - suffering, despair - in Triptych,
May-June 1973. This was painted after the death of his lover,
George Dyer, from an overdose on the eve of the opening of Bacon's
triumphant Paris exhibition in 1972. The left panel shows Dyer,
slumped, naked, on a lavatory. This is not a nice image. It is
powerful and harrowing.
There was,
however, another side to Bacon's art in which he was not so much a
realist, as the heir to the Surrealists. As he told Sylvester, images
- fantastic and or repulsive - would drop into his mind "like
slides.'' Some of these, such as the early Painting of 1946
with its bizarre conflation of a side of beef, an umbrella and a
seated man in a suit, are as memorable as a hellscape by Hieronymus
Bosch.
That kind of
dreamlike imagery is always in danger of toppling over into staginess
or absurdity. Later in his life, Bacon didn't always escape those
perils. Despite its huge price tag, Triptych (1976) with its
monstrous heads looks more contrived than terrifying, and some of the
works from the 80s, featuring nude figures wearing cricket pads, are
downright ridiculous.
Bacon gambled for
high stakes in his career, as well as in casinos. For him, it was Old
Master status or nothing. Some of the time at least, as this show
makes clear, he won.
The Francis
Bacon show runs from Sept. 11 through Jan. 4, 2009. It is
sponsored by the Bank of America.
Drink has done
for the bar where I met Bacon
Will Self,
Evening Standard, 09.09.08
Muriel “cunty” Belcher
I
have mixed feelings about the threatened closure of the Colony Room
Club in Soho, which comes in the same week that a major exhibition of
its most famous member — Francis Bacon — opens at Tate Britain.
As a naïve
18-year-old, I was inducted by my late friend Ben Trainin — one of
the barmen — into the Colony's atmosphere of Forties acerbity. My
liberal and suburban sensibilities were at once appalled and
enthralled by the Colony. It seemed a grubby little room to have been
the cockpit of a social revolution — and yet this was undoubtedly
the case.
Even then, in the
late Seventies, you could still hear vestiges of Polari — the
theatrical and latterly gay argot — spoken by its habitués. The
prevailing ambience was one of extreme and camp decadence, verging on
amorality.
The personal
pronoun employed for everyone, regardless of sex, was “she”, and
the preferred word was “cunt” in nounal, adjectival and even
adverbial forms.
The likes of Dan
Farson, John Deakin and Tom Baker were regulars, but the real lustre
was given to the Colony's gloomy interior by the presence of Bacon. I
was roundly insulted by its then proprietor, Ian Board.
However, I got to
drink champagne with Bacon, and to go with him to “celebrate” the
opening of Janus, the S&M porn shop on Old Compton Street that is
still trading to this day.
I heard ideas and
opinions expressed in the Colony that quickened the pulse of my own
iconoclasm: there were no prisoners taken at the Colony — for a
start, there was no room to keep them.
With the benefit
of hindsight, the truth is that the Colony Room was in decline long
before I started drinking there. It existed, under its original owner,
the self-styled “Queen of Soho”, Muriel Belcher, as an avant garde
of the sexual liberation and social promiscuity that was to come.
Here, all orientations, ages and classes mixed. Almost the only
criterion for membership was that you weren't boring.
So intense was the
impression made on me by the Colony that 30 years later I've written a
novella set in the club, Foie Humain, which is part of my new book Liver.
The overall title gives the lie, for while some may say the Colony
represents the old Soho that is being killed off by smoking bans and
other sanitising measures, the truth is that there was another
criterion for membership: the hardcore members were first and foremost
raging alcoholics.
Ian Board died of
cirrhosis; I suspect Muriel Belcher did too. What has done for the
Colony as much as anything else is 24-hour drinking. To begin with it
was an afternoon club, where a select group could indulge in the
naughtiness of drinking after-hours. Now anyone can get a drink from
an offie and stand in Old Compton Street swigging it.
It may not be
pretty, it may be a bit boring, but for old Colony Room stagers they
must accept that it's a victory — of sorts.
John Walsh: Tales of
the City
'Spleen,
bile, attitude and foul language were always the stock in trade at the
Colony Room Club'
The
Independent, Tuesday, 9 September 2008
Soho's smallest,
smokiest and sourest drinking den, the Colony Room Club, is facing closure.
Just as it celebrates 60 years of bad-tempered existence, its owner has
revealed that it can't afford the rent any longer. The smoking ban hasn't
helped, and neither has a wrangle over the licence. You can learn about the
club's crisis by checking its website, where you'll be greeted with the
words, "What the fuck is going on?"
But then, spleen, bile,
attitude and foul language were always as much the club's stock-in-trade as
gin and art. I visited once in the late 1970s, brought along after lunch by
my first editor, George Bull. As we rang the entry bell and toiled up the
stairs to the tiny, green-painted, painting-strewn, phone-booth-sized
bar-room, George shared his droll memories of Muriel Belcher, the club's
terrifying, money-grabbing, lesbian founder, who played hostess to Francis
Bacon and Lucian Freud, and addressed politicians and artists alike as:
"Hello, cunty." George could never explain why one might want to
spend more than a few seconds in her company.
Muriel had died by the
time I visited, but her successor behind the bar was another Soho
"character," Ian Board. He glared at me – a wet-behind-the-ears
25-year-old in a three-piece heather suit – and grated "Who the fuck
is this?" in welcome, his opaque sunglasses perched on an enormous
mulberry nose. As George became engrossed with Daniel Farson, the art
critic, I tried chatting up a young woman by the piano. She was fabulously
sloshed, and punctuated our conversation by thumping the piano, demanding,
"Can't somebody play this thing?" I told her about my fascinating
interview with a business guru. I explained about my imminent fact-finding
trip to Sri Lanka. To all my tales she replied, slurrily, "So,
basically, it's a big PR stunt then?"
Since I had the boss
with me I was insured against professional disapproval, so I admit a few
gins and tonics found their way into my hand (everyone there drank spirits
or champagne – no beer, precious little wine). By 4pm, I was wondering:
has nobody any work to do? Do these people drink in here every afternoon?
And, crucially: how can I get out of here? For the conversations weren't
sparkling excursions of arty repartee, they were cross and bitter, the
laughter was mirthless and sour, and the club members seemed locked in a
game of mutual piss-taking about their talent or grasp of aesthetics, that
was bound to end in tears, fists or flying pigment.
I later discovered a
perfect image for the place, from a TV review by Julian Barnes. Clocking the
Colony throng behaving with typical hostility in a TV documentary, Barnes
mused about Bacon's "screaming pope" paintings. Can it be, he
asked, that Bacon was inspired, not by a religious vision of Hell, but by
the sight of his cronies calling for double brandies at four in the
afternoon?
Perhaps I'd have warmed
to the place more if I'd met its most famous member, Francis Bacon. A
hundred stories about the Colony revolve around Bacon and his friends. One
day in the late 1960s, he arrived with a little bald Frenchman, who took a
seat in the corner of the club while Bacon greeted the regulars with his
customary exuberance. "Would you care for a drink?" he asked.
"I'll have a cup of tea," the man replied, at which the club
erupted in laughter. (Tea in the Colony Room?). "Francis, who is the
old git in the corner?" asked Belcher. "This is Henri
Cartier-Bresson," said Bacon. "He takes a good snap."
Bacon painted Ms Belcher
several times, and one of his portraits of her was bought by a titled
gentleman, whose male secretary rang the club. He was, he said, looking for
some "background" about the painting's subject: who Muriel was,
what she'd done with her life. Muriel said she would co-operate in return
for two first-class tickets (for herself and her girlfriend, Carmela) to New
York via the Caribbean. "Sorry," said the secretary, "I don't
think that's going to be possible." There was an awkward pause.
"Where's the picture now?" asked Muriel. "In the
dining-room," said the man. "Well, tell his lordship from
me," said Muriel, "every time he eats his dinner and looks at the
painting, I hope he fucking chokes."
No bigger fan of the
Colony Room exists than Michael Clark, the portraitist turned conceptual
artist, who was taken up by Bacon in the 1980s, and drew some brilliant
pencil portraits of Bacon and Belcher. He remembers being rung up, after his
work appeared in the Independent Magazine, and asked by an anonymous woman
if he did commissions. She wouldn't say whom she represented. They arranged
to meet at the Colony. She came up the stairs and said, "I'm a big fan
of yours, as are David and Iman, who I think are just arriving."
Outside in Dean Street, the Bowies were indeed stepping from a taxi...
An amazing place, the
Colony Room, for mingling art and squalor, fame and degradation, talent and
decadence. And I discovered that it's the height of folly to try to be
condescending towards it. Once, when I was writing about the club for a
London paper, Clark and I took Board out for lunch at Sheekey's, to download
some stories from the old days. We twittered for an hour – that is, I
twittered about the Soho village, Michael made intelligent remarks about the
arty clientele, and Board growled unenthusiastically – then Board got up.
He had to go. "You not well, Ian?" asked Michael. "Feeling a
bit tired?"
"Nah,"
grated Board, "I just can't stand any more of this crap chat."
Francis Bacon triptych at the Tate
Louise Jury, Chief Arts Correspondent, The Evening Standard, 09.09.08
Centenary
show: Francis Bacon's £43 million triptych, inspired by Greek
mythology, is one of 70 masterpieces in a retrospective that opens at
Tate Britain on Thursday
You
might not be able to pay £43 million to own a Francis Bacon triptych.
But for the next
four months, you can visit Tate Britain and see the three-part work
that set a world record for Bacon at auction in New York in May.
The private owner
is lending the paintings, inspired by Greek mythology, to the first
British retrospective for 23 years.
Although the
exhibition will go on to the Prado in Madrid and the Metropolitan
Museum in New York, London is the only city where the triptych can be
seen.
The loan is one of
many from private hands for the exhibition of around 70 masterpieces
that marks the centenary of Bacon's birth.
Works depicting
the crucifixion from key stages in Bacon's career - including his
first published work and the first masterpiece of his maturity - are
being shown together for the first time.
The exhibition
also includes the three different triptychs of his lover George Dyer,
including the one produced in the outpouring of grief that immediately
followed Dyer's suicide in 1971.
Another highlight
is the first fulllength painting of a pope - one of five in the show -
which was thought to have been destroyed by the artist but was found
rolled up after his death.
All are being
exhibited with the first display in Britain of archive material found
in his studio that shed new light on his working methods. It includes
crumpled photographs of his friends and lovers including Dyer and
Peter Lacy, many splashed with paint.
Chris Stephens,
the co-curator, said he hoped the exhibition would show Bacon, who
died in 1992, was the father of British Pop in depicting everyday
subjects and using photography and the key figure of the immediate
post-War.
He was not as
violent as people imagined, Dr Stephens said. "His underlying
philosophy as an atheist was we have a limited time, we're simply the
same as other animals with uncontrollable urges, fears and lust. But
he wasn't that nihilistic. He was optimistic and a very warm person.
There's something very different about seeing his greatest works in
the flesh."
The exhibition is
at the heart of a Bacon bonanza this autumn. The Andipa Gallery is
showing Bacon graphics, Christie's is selling a portrait-of Bacon by
Lucian Freud for an estimated £5 million to £7 million, and Thames
and Hudson is publishing Incunabula by Martin Harrison, documenting
Bacon's working methods.