mon 22/12/2014

Richard Hamilton, 1922-2011 | Visual arts reviews, news & interviews

Richard Hamilton, 1922-2011

Hamilton's work was too challenging, too difficult to pin down

At 89, Hamilton was still a subversive – perhaps the last of his kind
At 89, Hamilton was still a subversive – perhaps the last of his kind

Hard on the heels of the death of Lucian Freud comes the departure of another British art great, an artist who was Freud’s exact contemporary but who seems to belong in a different aesthetic universe – Richard Hamilton. While he was the more influential of the two, by some distance, Hamilton was never a contender for that nonsensical soubriquet "Britain’s greatest living artist". His work was too challenging, too difficult to pin down and it never told Britain anything it wanted to hear about itself.

HAMILTON 1956_Just_what_is_itBorn into a working-class London family, Hamilton left school without qualifications, becoming an apprentice in an electrical components firm and progressing to art school via evening classes. Despite this unpromising start, his work was characterised by an effortless intellectual cool, a reluctance to repeat himself or make the obvious gesture, that made him one of the most admired of British artists - but never the most loved or the most overtly imitated. His influence was far broader than that. If he was the most significant British Pop artist, effectively inventing the phenomenon with Eduardo Paolozzi in the early 1950s – and his 1956 collage Just What is it That Makes Today's Home So Different, So Appealing? (pictured right) remains one of Pop’s defining images – he had virtually given up on Pop by the time it hit the headlines in the early 1960s.

A spiritual follower of Duchamp, from the early 1950s, and later a friend and collaborator, Hamilton can be seen as the father of British Conceptualism. However, by the time Duchamp’s influence came to be universally acknowledged in the 1980s, Hamilton had been out of the picture for decades. Working with Victor Pasmore, he championed rigorous Constructivist teaching methods which were to have a decisive impact on art education in this country – though his most famous student was rock-iconoclast-turned-country-house-lounge-lizard Bryan Ferry. And while his sometime protégé Peter Blake added to his stock of public affection with his Sgt Pepper's... cover, Hamilton’s inscrutable packaging for the follow-up, The White Album – a gatefold of shiny white card – did nothing to ingratiate itself on the record buyer. His still-lifes with turds were decried as feeble, and while his protest paintings (pictured below: The Citizen [painting of Bobby Sands], 1981-3) on British involvement in Ireland were admired for their integrity, they had little impact politically or aesthetically.

 

The Citizen_HamiltonIf I’m making Hamilton’s career sound like a damp squib – the story of a nearly man who never hit the mark at the right time – nothing could be further from the truth. Richard Hamilton was one of the artists who got us where we are today (and if you don’t like where that is, that’s tough). His nonchalant freedom with media and themes, his repudiation of the idea of a personal visual language, an expressive handwriting by which he could be identified, all feel very much of now. Hamilton’s language lay in his ideas – which dictated the form and appearance of the final object, be it painting, collage, printmaking or computer art, of which he was a pioneer. With his assertion that art should be “sexy, gimmicky, glamorous, and big business", he might have been seen as the godfather of the YBAs if that role hadn’t been taken by Michael Craig-Martin – but then how could Craig-Martin be imagined without Hamilton, a generation earlier?

For all his work’s appearance of ruthless, cerebral modernity, Hamilton was a consummately practical artist in an old-fashioned tradition of the self-taught maker and inventor, who progressed through chance encounters with pivotal texts, such as D’Arcy Wentworth’s 1917 treatise On Growth and Form, which inspired much of his early work. Far from getting others to make his work, as has become the norm among artists, Hamilton relished engaging with technology, from his first experiments with printmaking in 1939, through designing and assembling exhibitions at the ICA in the 1950s, building computers in the 1980s, to computer-manipulated imagery in the 1990s.

As an artist and a human being, Hamilton never fell back on those great standbys of British culture, coziness and gentility. A friendly and generous man, he was never quite a central figure in the art world, by and large refusing the dead hand of the establishment, becoming a Companion of Honour, but never an RA. He preferred to remain on the sidelines, taking potshots where he could, as he did with his 2007 medal portraying Tony Blair as a reckless gunslinger. At 89, Hamilton was still a subversive – perhaps the last of his kind.

Richard Hamilton was one of the artists who got us where we are today (and if you don’t like where that is, that’s tough)

Share this article

Comments

That is an eye-opener. As an anti-war activist I only really became aware of Richard Hamilton through his portrayal of Blair. It's good to learn more about him. If he's a subversive let's have more of them - and I'm sure he's not the last!
An excellent article and a sad loss.
A very well thought out piece. He will be greatly missed. He was always ahead of his time.
Thank you for such a balanced and thoughtful tribute, Mr Hudson. It’s funny how, even within pop art’s narrow parameters, their could be a distinctly British pop art which (predictably perhaps) was more nuanced than its bolder, brasher American counterpart. Also, with Hamilton, there generally seemed to be a more intellectual dimension, an austerity even, to his art which lent it a dignity and timelessness (was Duchamp an influence here, aesthetically as well as intellectually?) Perhaps this is why he never quite scaled the heights or sustained a full-on public career in the way many of his contemporaries did: he simply wasn’t vulgar, gaudy or brazen enough. Pop art as something discrete, measured and even classically proportioned (as ‘Just What Is It That Makes Today's Home So Different, So Appealing?’ now appears to my eyes) simply wasn’t pop art. And, no, before you ask, I'm not that Bob Hughes!

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Use to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Subscribe to theartsdesk.com

Thank you for continuing to read our work on theartsdesk.com. For unlimited access to every article in its entirety, including our archive of more than 10,000 pieces, we're asking for £2.95 per month or £25 per year. We feel it's a very good deal, and hope you do too.

To take an annual subscription now simply click here.

And if you're looking for that extra gift for a friend or family member, why not treat them to a theartsdesk.com gift subscription?

newsletter

Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters