Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-03-03


exhibition briefly at the
Washington Gallery Of Mod
ern Art is automatically of
the high mediocrity. It is not
easy to be outstandingly me-
diocre and 1t may be worth
the time to drop in at the
gallery and see how Lyric
ism Abstract Art" does the
trick.
The basic mediocrity Is
established, as 1t pretty well
has to be, by the paintings
themselves. There are 81 Of
them, but the varieties are
much more limited than
those Of Mr.. Heinz. At the
outside, there are five varie-
ties from q total Of 16 paint
ers. The variety accounting
for about four fifths Of the
work is old slap-dash abb
stract expressionism left over
from the last decade. The
paint Is laid on thickly or
thinly and utterly without
care. It has no bounce, no
resonance, no echo, no sug-
gestiveness. Conceivably the
application of the paint was
an exciting thing to the
painter-or at least it may
have been the first hundred
times he did it = but all
excitement has vanished
now. In this general category
of tired freshness fall such
well known names as Giorgio
Cavalon. Pat Adams, James
Brooks, Jack Tworkov, Mich
olas Carone and George Nc
Neil.
Magic Ingredient
This. however. Is not
enough. After all. in the last
decade and q half there have
been thousands Of such
exhibitions and most Of them
have been Of merely medic
ere mediocrity.
The magic Ingredient at
the Gallery Of Modern Art is
pretension. It Is present in
vast quantities. It is album
dainty present In both ele-
ments Of the title. The name
Abstract Art" to start with,
does not mean here what it
means elsewhere. 1t means
only abstract expressionism.
the more tired the better.
There are no hard edges in
the show, no geometrics, no
precisionism, yet all these
and others are as entitled
as action painting to the adj
jective abstract"
Pretension mounts higher
with "Lyricism." The show
was selected by Dore Ashton,
q New York art writer and
wife to Ada Yunkers, who
has four paintings In the
group, and Is being circulated
by the American Federation
Of Arts. Miss Ashton begins
her Introductory remarks
with the pretty conceit that
the lyrical cannot be defined,
or In other words not only
does he not know what she's
talking about but this Is
somehow virtuous.
Practicing this virtue in
ever increasing amounts,
Miss Ashton notes that her
chosen painters have In
common only their desire to
bring their emotions to the
canvas as directly as posi-
BILE. as purely as possible"
and finally brings herself to
assert that "the essential
characteristic Of the lyrical
is its need TO bring 10 the
visual threshold q deeply felt
emotion with as little theo-
retical interference as posi-
ble."
Expressing Emotion
This. Of course. is nom
sense. The deeply felt emo
ton Of disappointed love.
for example, Is expressed "as
directly, as purely as posi-
BILE" by groans and the roll
ing Of eyeballs. Only by
employing the considerable
theoretical interference Of
the sonnet form did Shake
speare, and many others,
make OF that emotion the
loveliest lyrics in our
language.
The difference Is that be-
tween a child lying on the
floor kicking It's feet and an
artist. Miss Ashton favors
floor kicking and her selec-
ton shows 1t. Perhaps not ir-
relevant here is the fact that
several Of the paintings have
an astonishing degree Of
warp In the stretchers and
waves In the canvas. The un-
feeling observer would tick
this off as sheer ignorance
OF the mechanics Of paint
ing. but II Is possible that
the artists grabbed their
work and bent II as direct
and pure expression.
The pinnacle o. pretension,
and therefore Of the Higher
Mediocrity. Is Miss Ashton's
engaging thought that the
work she presents Is executed
In the assumption that
there Is no audience" Clear
ly. II Is ones duty to abide
by the assumption and the
Rravest disservice 10 these
II