Letter: Royal Academy's malevolent critics

Peter Davies
Wednesday 18 June 1997 18:02 EDT
Comments

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.

Royal Academy's malevolent critics

Sir: David Lister's article (13 June) concerning sculptor Rachel White- read's turning down membership of the "stuffy and stifling" Royal Academy focuses on the growing - and unfair - criticism of our oldest and most venerable art organisation.

The chorus of critical abuse against the broad and healthily eclectic Summer Show forgets the value of an exhibition that does not pretend to be anything other than a mixed bag reflecting a complete range of contemporary styles. Public taste is thereby appeased in a location that is in effect a shop window to the world. As many as two-thirds of exhibits are sold, so the show must be doing something right. What is right is that the meek and mighty, young and old, abstract and representational coexist in a congenial and meritocratic context.

What is also overlooked by our critics - rightly identified as malevolent by RB Kitaj - is that the RA today is probably the art world's most democratic institution. It is, after all, run mostly by artists.

Compared with the Tate Gallery, for example, which is "governed" by a director and an autocratic junta of trustees, the RA has a rotating selection committee to ensure continuity with the past and open-mindedness to the future. The last thing it needs are artists of dubious talent hyped up by the media for newsworthy value.

PETER DAVIES

London W12

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in