May contain spoilers!

So I made the fatal mistake of reading a review of the Richard Hamilton retrospective at Tate Modern prior to seeing it. ‘No big deal’, you say but in the age of twitter and instant access news it’s difficult to read any book,  walk into any film or exhibition without some preconception of what to expect. We’ve lost the element of surprise. You’ve seen most of the film in the trailer, read the book, downloaded the soundtrack often before you’ve even sat down in the theatre. And of course, whilst a certain amount of ‘knowing what you’re in for’ is important in giving you a reason to be there, it’s also kind-of sad that there is less surprise, shock or mystery to so many of these experiences. In terms of art, a little ignorance goes a long way (albeit if it’s met equally with the desire to learn). Anyway, what I’m getting at is the difficulty of forming an individual opinion, thoughts and ideas on an exhibition or to experience it open-mindedly if you’ve already read too much about it elsewhere. And does popularity in the form of reviews lead to a consensus that something is ‘good’? Appropriately for a retrospective centred on a Pop Artist it becomes a debate on quality in relation to popularity. Do our parameters of judgement change if we know the thing we are critiquing is deemed popular?

'Just what is it about today's homes that makes them so  different, so appealing?' -1956 Collage

This of course just my opinion, perhaps I’m too easily influenced by what I read instead of using it as a counterpoint to make my own conclusions but I still cannot help but enjoy seeing an exhibition that I’ve only  been drawn to by the title, knowing nothing of what artists/works to expect. The flip-side to all this, is how the internet, reviews, sharing and ironically, even blogging, opens art up to an even bigger audience that includes people who go to exhibitions all the time and those who may be considering to go perhaps for the first time. Wonderful, and how else are you going to hear about an exhibition other than a review, mailing list or advert/poster that could well be online or on someone’s Facebook page? Still, I’d say every once and a while read a book, see a film, visit an exhibition on as little information you can, find out the bare minimum of something that pries your interest and go for it blindly. It’s really hard to do.

If you’ve read this far already then maybe you’re interested in hearing a bit more about the Hamilton retrospective at the Tate, but I’d suggest that if you’re planning on going to see it anytime soon, then read no further! Those of you who’ve already been or perhaps not interested in going at all (why wouldn’t you be?) then allow me to continue...

'Transition IIII' -1954 Oil on panel.

As I said, I read the review so I already knew that Laura Cumming from the Observer thinks that this retrospective has too much in it and should have been edited down more. Reluctantly, for reasons mentioned above, I am inclined to agree and ponder; does a retrospective have to include absolutely everything to be a retrospective? Should the Tate ever decide to honour my passing with a retrospective of my own work, I’d be horrified to think they’d put everything I’d ever made in, thinking of the hand drawings I did at A-level for example. Not that they were particularly bad or good, but more that they wouldn’t be relevant, I never came back to hands since and it had no influence stylistically on my later work...or so I’d say...The same goes for Hamilton, did I really need to see half a gallery dedicated to his turd drawings against a sunset, when one would have been enough to get the point across? The amount of work shown was incredibly comprehensive, Hamilton was a prolific maker and evidently, from what I just mentioned, with an excellent sense of humour. That humour now comes across as more subtle than I assume the reaction it would have had in the 60’s when some of the more political pieces were more prevalent. From the collage and precursor to Brit Pop, ‘Just what is it that makes today’s homes so different, so appealing’ (pictured) to the reconstructed Duchamp’s Large glass and photorealist styles of ‘The citizen/the subject/the state’, Hamilton’s work spanned several decades of vast changes in technology and the rise of mass-market consumerism which he explored and utilized in his work. In fact, Hamilton’s art career could best be described like a collage, he explored and collected a variety of different components, images, fragments, techniques that all seem slightly different but come together as often reassembled re-edited and reconfigured works commenting with wit and humour on elements of consumerism, politics, fame, design and advertising. Instead of focusing on the breadth of his entire career this post will focus on the particular work that resonated with me and present some usual commentary as to why that is.



'Towards a definitive statement on the coming trends in menswear and accessories (a) "Together let us explore the stars" -1962 Oil and collage on panel.

For me, the stars of the show are the Pop paintings from 1957-1963 where combined images of cars, machines, appliances and people are composed with abstract mark making, signs and symbols. The canvases are left fairly neutral and almost minimal in their whiteness and use of space. Onto these surfaces cars, radios are half-painted/half-sketched so only an outline or trace of the object can be seen. What is revealed is small, stylistically detailed and rendered sections that hint the edge of a car’s bumper, a tap, a shoulder, before disappearing. They’re paintings that explore the way we read representational images in art by offering a ‘dot to dot’ of an object instead of presenting the whole package. This also makes them quite painterly as elements of realism sit alongside gesture, surface and form. Although their flatness remains and ties them into the realms of graphics/advertising, again in-keeping with the era they were created. Interestingly, for me, they all have a limited colour palette, fairly neutral in tone and on a personal level I am curious as to why I am drawn to this in both my own and other’s work (think Jim Dine’s prints for example)? Is it because the beige/off-white background is reminiscent of paper or vellum, which has an association of drawing and primed-ness/workings-out to it that appeals to my love of drawing? It’s interesting and something I need to give further thought to.

'Reaper' - 1949 Drypoint

In one of the opening rooms to Hamilton’s retrospective a series of prints are shown from his days as a student at the Slade, 1949-1951, they’re semi-abstract etchings of reapers and ploughs, titled ‘Variations on the theme of reaper’. Aside from my obvious delight at seeing a tool-related theme, these etchings were an interesting insight into the aforementioned Pop paintings due to their approach of deconstruction and reconstruction. It was apparent in these early prints that Hamilton was interested in figuring-out how things worked and reimagining them particularly within design and form. This same deconstructing can be seen in Hamilton’s obsession with Duchamp, Dada and reconstructing ‘The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, Even’ but also in the Pop paintings under discussion here where aspects of the form/design of the car as object is played upon against the natural curves and design of people’s bodies or faces. In fact in some cases the two almost appear to fuse together perhaps also alluding to or signifying the growing ‘need’ and relationship that was prevalent at the time between people and the objects they possess that ‘become’ and/or form their identity.

'Hommage a Chrysler Corp' -1957 Oil, metal foil and collage on panel.

As a student I longed to see these paintings in real life, having spent many an evening squinting over often small or low resolution images in books as I made desperate attempts to replicate and understand them. Hamilton was a great maker of images, the flat and 2-Dimensional, the static, the one-liner, they are qualities I have been able to relate to in my own working methods. What a delight it was to finally see these paintings in-the-flesh, reaffirming the things that I enjoyed about them whilst showing me a closer view at their surfaces and colours that I was previously unable to see. The rewarding thing about this retrospective as a whole was making connections through seeing how his early work influenced the latter. Its also in some ways quite reassuring as it means I may never escape from tools or A-level hands for that matter as my concerns with those things will develop and lead to the themes of future work. I may be reluctant or unaware to notice it at the time but retrospectively it’s all connected.