Right of reply: Robin Gibson, curator of 'The Portrait Now', bites back
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE CRITICISM
'As usual, the National Portrait Gallery cannot decide whether to select portraits for artistic merit or documentary value . . .' James Hall, Guardian
'The evidence of this selection is that so many of those artists who achieved international fame and fortune in this late period are simply not very good . . .' William Packer, Financial Times
'For a show billed as 'the first ever international survey of contemporary portrait work', it is dire . . . This is because paint has been superseded by film . . .' John McEwen, Sunday Telegraph
THE RESPONSE
THE suggestion that the works are simply not very good is far too generalised. I'm realistic enough not to expect a great portraitist to appear every year, they're pretty thin on the ground.
I think Bill Packer actually likes the traditional notion of the portrait with a bit of curtain or a bookcase in the background, which is what I'm trying to expand from. But I've always known I was bound to fall between the current orthodoxy of contemporary art and the traditional, social notion of the portrait.
The rudest review is by John McEwen, who says paint has been succeeded by film, which is something I agree with. I do do shows of photography fairly regularly, but the art critics don't appear because it's not art.
I don't think there's a work in that exhibition that is not of interest in its own right. The thing that is predictable but sad is the cultural xenophobia of most British art critics. They write appreciatively of the School of London but there's really no attempt to come to terms with anyone else's approach.
I still think that as a show of contemporary art it's enjoyable. It's about people; in a way it's about an awful lot of things that contemporary art isn't'
'Portrait Now', The National Portrait Gallery, St Martin's Place, London WC2
(Photograph omitted)
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments