1

At the end of 1913, a loose amalgama3on of ar3sts who would soon come to call themselves the London Group organized an exhibi3on at the Brighton City Arts Centre. The catalogue described this exhibi3on as a place where "all modern methods may nd a home, Cubism meets Impressionism, Futurism and Sicker3sm join hands and are not ashamed." Ive included self-portraits of some of the ar3sts who exhibited here. And while it might look like a diverse group of styles and claim to be an inclusive exhibi3on, the list alludes to a schism that had formed amongst Bri3sh avant-garde painters during the years immediately preceding the First World War. Most notably, it excluded ar3sts of the Bloomsbury Group, who were undeniably producing some of the most avant-garde work in Britain during this 3me period. It also did not include any works associated with the Rhythm Group. And soon even the group of exhibi3ng ar3sts would break into fac3ons. Ginner, Gilman, and Bevan, all Camden Town Group members, were weeks away from declaring themselves Neo-Realists. Meanwhile, Lewis, Etchells, Wadsworth, and others were several months away from launching a new style called Vor3cism that embraced bold, abstracted, mechanical forms. By 1914, the face of the Bri3sh avant-garde was uWerly and irrevocably fragmented. Pictured (le% to right, top row rst): Charles Ginner, Charles Ginner, 1940;

This growing division was some3mes the result of personal feuds, but at the core, it reected a deep division in aesthe3c theory. Though these ideological dierences were o_en subtle and some3mes did not even impact the style of the art being produced, the debate was heated and public. There was a sense that the fundamental nature of art, and the role that it should play in society, was changing, and ar3sts wanted to ensure that their ideas had an impact in shaping this. S3ll, at the highest level, most of the avant-garde agreed that: - The biggest innova3on was no longer seeing illusionism as the goal of visual arts. If it were, people would have stopped pain3ng when photography was invented. There was also a consensus that illusionism, which ourished in Greco-Roman an3quity and was revived in the Renaissance, culminated with Impressionism. Although Impressionist pain3ngs did not copy visual reality, they were preoccupied with the mechanisms of percep3on and therefore are in some ways hyper-real. - Prior awareness of a myth or historical event or symbol should not be prerequisite for understanding and apprecia3ng a work of art. Art should be autotelic and communicate purely through visual elements; the viewer should not be responsible for imposing his or her own meaning onto the piece. - Beauty and morality were highly subjec3ve ideals that were generally not appropriate subjects for art that aimed to have a universal, las3ng value. - The rapid pace of social and technological change signalled that a new age was dawning, and the art of the past (or at least most Western art of the past) was no longer sa3sfactory. - Art reveals an eternal, universal truth that we cannot see in visual, ra3onal world. Many believed that this truth was obscured by the trappings of modern civilisa3on and so the art of children, so-called primi3ves, the mentally ill, and other people working outside of these trappings was seen as aesthe3cally superior to the art produced within it. - Cezanne was the most supreme genius of our 3me. Thats not to say that he was not some3mes cri3cized (including by you guessed it Wyndham Lewis), but even his detractors are on record acknowledging his incredible contribu3on to Modern art). A major caveat to this list is that it includes many things with which the Neo-Realists would NOT agree. We will discuss them and their stance in more detail later, but in general, the various avant-garde fac3ons did agree of many important things. In fact, there was so much to agree upon that it is a surprising that everyone didnt just move to Bloomsbury and engage in torrid love aairs with each other.

Its also a bit surprising that there was so much fragmenta3on by 1914 because in 1910, the avant-garde was somewhat united in the face of a cri3cal, reac3onary public a_er the rst Post-Impressionist exhibi3on. This gave ar3sts a commonality and solidarity in the face of a common enemy. But by the Second Post-Impressionist Exhibi3on in 1912, the nega3ve cri3cal reac3on was much more muted. Clive Bell even wrote in the catalogue that Happily, there is no need to be defensive. The baWle is won. There are many complicated reasons for this change of heart, but one is the development of appropriate language for viewing, analysing, and cri3quing the works of art. J.B. Bullen writes: The acceptability of any new art form is in3mately dependent upon the wriWen word and during the period 1910-14 art cri3cism changed substan3ally; broadly speaking it evolved in the direc3on of formalism where concepts such as rhythm, movement, decora3ve power, or expressive colour were used to translate visual experience into verbal experience.

Roger Fry and his collaborators were directly responsible for developing much of this new language. As many as 20,000 catalogues for the Second Post-Impressionist Exhibi3on were sold compare this to several hundred copies of Blast or Rhythm, most of which were sold within avant-garde circles and not to the general public. The Bloomsbury Group secured even more public inuence when Clive Bell published the eminently readable Art in 1914. Between the mainstream success of Art and Frys role in organizing the two Post-Impressionist exhibi3ons, Fry became the high priest of Post-Impressionism and formalism and many of the ar3sts working outside of the Bloomsbury Group deeply resented this.

This current of resentment was undoubtedly underlying Wyndham Lewis public break with Fry over the Ideal Home Rumpus. The end result of this conict was to eec3vely split the Bri3sh avant-garde into two general, heterogeneous groups. On one side was the Bloomsbury Group. On the other side was preWy much everyone else, who eventually gave themselves the appropriately generic name the London Group. And it was the London Group that organized the English Post- Impressionists, Cubists, and Others exhibi3on that we were discussing earlier. Of course, the London Group had too many conic3ng interests and strong personali3es to remain peaceful for long, and before long various fac3ons spun out. Meanwhile, outside of the fray was the Rhythm Group, which had been working rather autonomously since 1911. So by the beginning of the First World War, there were at least ve dis<nct avant-garde ar3st groups in London. Against this historical backdrop, I want to discuss each group and its art and its theories in greater detail. But before doing that, I want to say that this is a complex topic and I am very aware of how dicult it is to make blanket statements about such a diverse group of people. Some of these people were more vocal and/or ar3culate about their theories than others and we therefore understand them beWer and can talk about them more. It also complicates things further that ar3sts, like most people, tend to experiment and evolve throughout their life. So whatever I say about

As we discussed, Bloomsbury had come to prominence via Frys important role in organizing the two Post-Impressionist exhibits and then Clive Bells book Art in 1914. The book had signicant logical aws and was cri3cized even by Fry, who was hugely inuen3al on Bells thinking, but it s3ll sold well and was much more eec3ve in educa3ng the public on the Groups aesthe3c theories than were the avant-garde journals and manifestos published by other ar3s3c fac3ons. Art was a landmark text in the conceptualiza3on of aesthe3c formalism and introduced the general public to concepts like aesthe3c emo3on and signicant form. Both were slightly more rigid, dogma3c versions of Frys ideas, but signicant form is visual s3mulus that provokes a purely aesthe3c emo3on in people. This aesthe3c emo3on is completely dierent from normal, day-to-day emo3on and free of intellectual, and psychological overtones; it borrows nothing from life. Bell called signicant form the bridge between the physical and spiritual worlds and it is behind signicant form that we can catch a glimpse of ul3mate reality, which is consistent across 3me and cultures. Pictured (le% to right): Duncan Grant, Self Portrait, 1920; Duncan Grant, Vanessa Bell, 1915; Roger Fry, Self Portrait, 1928.

Under this theory, the representa3ve element in art was irrelevant at best and distrac3ng at worst. Although Fry challenged this and Bell later admiWed that his theories were too heavy handed, the art of Bloomsbury in 1910 to 1914 or so evidences experimenta3on with the formal quali3es of art. Clive Bell wrote, to ensure his design, the ar3st makes it his rst care to simplify and if you look at Vanessa Bells Studland Beach from 1912 and the two studies that preceded it, it is very obvious that a conscious dis3lla3on of form and removal of detail is taking place. The end result is not total abstrac3on, but certainly not naturalism either.

The end result is not total abstrac3on, but certainly not naturalism either.

10

Meanwhile, looking at Duncan Grants work from this 3me period in chronological order is almost to take a journey backwards through art history. His 1909 portrait of LyWon Strachey is a conven3onal, neo-Impressionist work

11

 while Dancers seems to harken back to the early Renaissance.

12

Queen of Sheba is posi3vely Byzan3ne (and many Modern painters greatly admired the Byzan3ne mosaics of Ravenna)

13

 and nally we come to The Tub and Head of Eve in 1913. These two works are undeniably primi3ve. This primi3vizing is appropriate given the Groups theories, as they were not calling for a revolu3on in art, but rather the rediscovery of the principles of structural design and harmony. This can help to explain the ideological appeal of Frys and Bells theories to the general public. Im borrowing this idea from Bullen, but for a na3on poised on the brink of WWI, it must have been very reassuring to hear that the quali3es of great art were permanent and enduring. There were other supercial aspects of the Bloomsbury Group that added to the appearance of ideological stagna3on. First, the Group o_en painted conven3onal subjects, like landscapes and portraits. Although a strong argument could be made that by choosing neutral subject maWer, an ar3st could focus on the aesthe3c quali3es of a work, this appeared to some to be a hearkening back to 3red English ar3s3c tradi3ons. Frys anity for the decora3ve and the Omega Workshops also appeared on the surface to be uncomfortably similar to the Arts and Cra_s Movement and Aesthe3cism (although deeper inves3ga3on reveals of course that the underlying concepts were very dierent). Fry was substan3ally older than many of his contemporaries and was therefore o_en accused of harbouring a roman3c aWachment to these outmoded Victorian tradi3ons. 14

At the risk of denigra3ng Lewis huge contribu3on to Bri3sh art and culture, much of what he did prior to the First World War can be understood as a direct reac3on against the Bloomsbury Group and that is going to be a consistent theme in this discussion of him. The other part of his thinking can be explained by the inuence of T.E. Hulme, who was in turn profoundly inuenced by Wilhelm Worringers book, Abstrac<on and Empathy. Under the Worringer/Hulme construct, ar3sts are driven to depict their material reality when they feel at peace with their place in the universe. This explains why naturalis3c styles ourished during Greco-Roman an3quity and the last 600 years of Western culture. However, in 3mes where humankind is at the mercy of indierent forces nature, gods, war, disease, industrializa3on ar3sts nd solace in depic3ng abstract forms precisely because they have no rela3on to the unpleasant, uncertain physical reality. The emergence of Modern art, therefore, could be explained as a shi_ back to abstrac3on a_er a long period of humanism and its associated naturalis3c art.

15

This theory was not wholly removed from Bloomsbury formalism. Both placed so- called primi3ve art as well as the new abstract modern art on equal foo3ng with the art of the Classical tradi3on in the Western world. Both acknowledged an aesthe3c experience that is independent from the constructs of the ra3onal mind and almost quasi-religious in its intensity. Both agreed that art especially simplied, abstracted art held the key to objec3ve, universal truths. But a major fault line formed between the Bloomsbury Groups call for a return to rst principles and Hulme and Lewis concep3on of Modernism as something new. While Hulme posited that geometric abstrac3on was inevitable for an anxious, fearful culture, the precise stylis3c expression of this was unique to an individual culture. In his lecture Modern Art and Its Philosophes in 1914, Hulme indicated that the recent experimenta3on with analy3cal Cubism was a harbinger of the advent of the new style, which he predicted would somehow incorporate the aesthe3cs of machinery. We wont have 3me to discuss all of these contrasts in detail today, but another key dierence between Hulme (and, by extension, Lewis) and the Bloomsbury formalists was the asser3on that ar3s3c style is determined by a collec3ve social consciousness and not an individual ar3st.

16

 This an3-humanism perspec3ve resonated with Lewis, who generally portrayed people as mechanical automatons at the mercy of indierent external forces outside of themselves and The Crowd makes much more sense in view of Hulmes theories. Even though Lewis and Hulme had their dierences (Hulme is reported to have literally hung Lewis by his bootstraps a_er a quarrel over a lady), Lewis said that had Hulme not died prematurely, he would have wanted to be to Hulme what Turner was to Ruskin, which is a huge compliment coming from someone as antagonis3c as Lewis.

17

This style is evident in David Bombergs Mud Bath as well. While never ocially joining the Vor3cists, Bombergs art perfectly encapsulated a geometric style reminiscent of machines. Mud Bath derives no forms from nature; it is completely abstract form and harsh geometric lines.

18

The sculptor Jacob Epstein was also greatly admired by Hulme, Lewis and the poet Ezra Pound. Reminiscent of primi3ve monumental sculpture, Pound declared it to express all the tragedy and enigma of the germinal universe: she also is permanent, unescaping. Hulme was also enthusias3c about Epsteins sculptures, which he could easily t into his own aesthe3c theory.

19

As a quick aside, Ive added in two sculptures of Jacob Epstein that I thought might be of interest to the group. The rst is a cast of one of 18 sculptures that Epstein carved for the Bri3sh Medical Associa3on building, which is located just down the street from us and is now the Zimbabwe Embassy. I am showing a cast because the originals, while s3ll visible on the visible, are badly damaged. Anyway, when these were unveiled in 1908, early in Epsteins career, there was an uproar about their grotesque treatment of the human gure (and to be fair, they are fairly disturbing its dicult to see them as a celebra3on of modern medicine). But do look for them the next 3me youre walking to Charing Cross. Its also interes3ng that Oscar Wildes former friend and lover, Robbie Ross, commissioned a tomb for Wilde (nine years a_er Wilde died) because Wilde was the representa3ve of aesthe3cism/lart pour lart exactly what the Vor3cists and their associates were railing against. But Epstein did design the tomb in a decidedly non- Aesthe3c Movement style. Today it is covered in liWle gra3 and lips3ck marks, as there is a tradi3on to kiss the tomb. (Side note: a glass wall to prevent this prac3ce was added in November 2011. Boo.)

20

We o_en take for granted that Modern ar3sts were avant-garde. O_en3mes, they were; in the early days of Modernism, dis3nguishing ones art from the ocial and academic mainstream and then defending it was absolutely necessary. But not all Modern Bri3sh painters felt compelled to stay at the forefront of the aesthe3c and ideological debates of their peers and many of those painters were part of the Camden Town Group. To discuss the Group purely in stylist terms, their work is probably more accurately dubbed neo-Impressionism than Post-Impressionism (although, to be fair, the same claim can apply to many Bloomsbury works). The Camden Town Group members were also more comfortable with mainstream success. Several of them became teachers at pres3gious art schools. Others became war painters and Walter Sickert joined the Royal Academy in 1924. Generally speaking, the core members of the Camden Town Group did not feel the pressure to pave the future of the art and, since many of their contemporaries so passionately did, they quietly fell by the wayside in the heated aesthe3c debates. Pictured: Walter Sickert, Ennui, 1914.

21

This sums up the Group generally, but at 3mes they were vocally reac3onary. J.B. Manson, the Groups secretary and one of its more unsuccessful painters (who later became a very, very unsuccessful director of the Tate), was one of the few to write a hos3le review of the Second Post-Impressionist Exhibi3on. In it, he blamed Fry personally for the chao3c state of modern art in England. Three weeks later, he praised a Camden Town Group exhibi3on at the Carfax Gallery, saying that it represents the logical development of Impressionism in this country. Sickert also did not totally embrace the experimenta3on of his peers, per the quote above.

22

And if we need any more proof that Sickert resented the overwhelming inuence of Roger Fry, heres a caricature from the Courtaulds own drawing collec3on, which portrays Roger Fry as a googly-eyed high priest of Post-Impressionism. In spite of this, Sickert at one point considered merging his Fitzroy Street Group with the Bloomsbury Groups Friday Club in an eort to consolidate power. This fell apart a_er the Ideal Home Rumpus, but if it had not, it is very dicult to imagine such an alliance ever forming.

23

Reac3onary sen3ment culminated in the Camden Town Group not with Sickert, but with Charles Ginner, Harold Gilman, and Robert Bevan issued a manifesto en3tled New Realism in 1914. In it, the following proclama3on was made: Each age has its landscape, its atmosphere, its ci3es, its people. Realism, loving life, loving its age, interprets its speech by extrac3ng from it the very essence of all it contains of great or weak, of beau3ful or sordid. Realism is thus not only a present in3mate revela3on of its own 3me, but becomes a document for future ages. Neo-Realism did not have much of a presence a_er its debut, in part because Gilman died of Spanish u in 1919. But with its defense of visual representa3on and art as a historical record, it is hard to imagine Neo-Realism gaining foo3ng amongst the other members of the Bri3sh avant-garde.

24

If the Camden Town Group was most closely connected to Impressionism, then the Rhythm Group was most in sync with the French Post-Impressionists. So strong was their iden3ca3on with their Parisian counterparts, par3cularly Ma3sse and his follows, that an ar3cle by Michael Sadleir in Rhythm magazine suggested that Post- Impressionists should be called instead the Fauves. This anity is reected in the strong, bold lines and bright colours used by the Rhythm Group painters. However, their work tended to have more harmonious colouring and more organised composi3ons. They also tended to unify the backgrounds and foregrounds of their pain3ngs. Pictured: J.D. Fergusson, Le Voile Persan, 1909.

25

Conceptually, the emphasis was on capturing the rhythm of life. Here, the Rhythm Group looked across the channel again for inuence, drawing heavily on the theories of Henri Bergson in France and adop3ng intui3on (i.e. percep3on stripped of ra3onal constructs and worldly concerns) as the means to unveiling the fundamental essence of life. For Bergson and for the Rhythm Group members, intui3on was the path toward seeing things as they really are. It is actually easier to discuss the Groups aesthe3c and conceptual theories than it is their rela3onship with the rest of the Bri3sh avant-garde and this is a func3on of their rela3ve insularity. Because the Group had its own publica3on and a Paris- centred philosophy and market, they were not as visibly involved in the struggle for dominance in the Bri3sh avant-garde. Its also worth no3ng that none of the Groups members were truly English. J.D. Fergusson lived in London for over 20 years, but eventually returned to Scotland and is today chiey remembered as a Scorsh Colourist. Meanwhile, Anne Estelle Rice was American, although she eventually married an Englishman and seWled in London. S3ll, perhaps because neither of its chief proponents were Bri3sh, the Rhythm Group did not have a strong drive or strong credibility to redene Bri3sh art. Even s3ll, the Group resented the dominance of Fry and at 3mes aWacked him in its journal Rhythm. I hope that this has helped to illuminate the aesthe3c and ideological dierences

26

27

28

29