C O N T E X T 1 1 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 1 11 principles of Alison and Peter Smithson, perhaps two names not normally considered to be at the forefront of the canon of conservation literature. One of the key figures in generating, and indeed regenerating that literature (in the sense of republishing important conservation books long out of print) is Jill Pearce of Donhead Books. Cornerstone has an in-depth profile of her. She also publishes the Journal of Architectural Conservation (above). Also of note, TheVictorian (No 36, March 2011) takes the opportunity of the 2011 census to celebrate the value of the Victorian censuses to historians for what Ian Dungavell succinctly summarises as an immensely rich source of demographic, economic and social information. He reminds us that if we consider architectural history as broader than the design of individual buildings, the census offers much to those who know how to use it, and for what it can tell architectural biographers now that computers have made it possible to search records by name. In his article on Victorian housing, Colin Thom points out that detailed census information allows consideration of the social character of an area which might be different from the hierarchies implied by its architectural form. This might change our thinking about an area. Thom cites Neil Jackson’s 2009 book on Saltaire as one example, while pointing out that as long ago as 1977 Gillian Tindall had demonstrated in her book on Kentish Town The Fields Beneath that patterns of occupancy were quite different from what we might expect. Another aspect of conservation area character appraisals to consider – where suitable resources can be found. One further interesting aspect of census taking, especially in our increasingly secularised society (where the last census showed many of us ‘spiritually’ to be ‘Jedi’) was the 1851 census, which was the only occasion when it was determined that a religious census should be held in addition to one to evaluate the general population. The record of church attendance showed that only about half the population over 10 years of age went to services. That was not repeated. Dungavell states that if one were conducted today, among the questions the society would like to ask are about the arrivals and departures of vicars and particular changes to church seating. Might a ‘bonfire of the pews’ be expected to emerge? Finally, as I customarily report from time to time, the Newsletter of the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art (Issue 31, December 2010) lists recent research awards that may lead to publications of interest to conservation professionals. Publication grants were awarded to author Amanda Reeser Lawrence for Revisionary Modernism: architecture of James Stirling 1955–1984, and to the following publishers: Boydell and Brewer for John Cannon and Beth Williams (editors), The Mediaeval Art and Architecture of Bristol Cathedral; the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, Edward Morris and Emma Roberts, Public Sculpture of Cheshire and Merseyside (except Liverpool); and to the Victorian SocietyWestYorkshire Group and ChristopherWebster, Building a GreatVictorian City: Leeds architects and architecture 1800–1914. Bob Kindred MBE On his famous lecture tour of 1882 Oscar Wilde told Americanaudiencesabouta ‘greatEnglishRenaissanceof Art’,which had begunwith thePre-RaphaeliteBrotherhood andwas flourishing in theworkof their successors. ‘Icall itourEnglishRenaissance’,heexplained, ‘because it is indeed a new birth of the spirit ofman, like the great ItalianRenaissanceof the fifteenthcentury’. Victorian artists have often been castigated for their dependence on prototypes and precedents from theOld Masters.ThislectureseriestakesitscueinsteadfromWilde, whosawno inconsistencybetweenthe ideaofa ‘newbirth’ and the inspiration of the past. With the formation of the National Gallery in 1824, and the subsequent proliferation of exhibitions, reproductions, and scholarshipon theOldMasters, theartof thepastbecame visibleandaccessibleasneverbefore.Yetthehistoryofart didnotcomeready-madetotheVictorians.Suchartistsas van Eyck, Bellini, Botticelli, Piero della Francesca, and Velázquez came to theNationalGallerywith the forceof novelty. They were interpreted by the great Victorian critics, curators, and scholars – and importantly, as these lectures will argue, by such artists as Rossetti, BurneJones,Whistler,Millais, andLeighton.The lectureswill explorehow the artof thepast and the artof thepresent came to illuminateoneanother in theVictorianperiod. LectureProgramme 17January:TheVictoriansand theMasters 24January:ArtistandMirror:Pre-RaphaelitesandOthers 31January: ‘Buried fire’:Finding theEarlyRenaissance 7February:ATasteofSpain 14February:Postscript:OnBeautyandAestheticPainting Ticketsavailable from1July2010are£5(£3concessions): onlineatwww.nationalgallery.org.uk/whats-on by post with cheques made payable to the National Gallery and sent toAdvanceTicketsSales,TheNational Gallery,TrafalgarSquare,LondonWC2N5DN in person from the Advance Tickets and Audio Guide desks,Level2,GettyEntrance on the day, any remaining ticketswill be on sale half an hour before the start of each event. Payment by cash or chequeonly. For informationonly,please telephone02077472888. The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art NEWSLETTER Yale University December 2010 Issue 31 THE PAUL MELLON LECTURES 2011 The National Gallery and the English Renaissance of Art ElizabethPrettejohn ProfessorofHistoryofArtat theUniversityofBristol Mondays,17 January–14February2011,6.30–7.30pm SainsburyWingTheatre,TheNationalGallery,London SirWilliamOrpen, TheMirror, 1900.Tate,London 2010 ThePaulMellonCentre Staff Director of Studies: Brian Allen AssistantDirector forAcademicActivities: Martin Postle AssistantDirector forAdministration: Kasha Jenkinson Librarian: Emma Floyd Archivist: Emma Lauze ProjectArchivist: Victoria Lane IT/Website/Picture Research: Maisoon Rehani AdministrativeAssistant: Ella Fleming Yale-in-London Coordinator: Viv Redhead Grants Administrator: Mary Peskett Smith Editor Special Projects: Guilland Sutherland Senior Research Fellows, Special Projects: Hugh Belsey, Elizabeth Einberg, John Ingamells, Alex Kidson, Eric Shanes, Paul Spencer-Longhurst AdvisoryCouncil: Caroline Arscott, Paul Binski, Penelope Curtis, Philippa Glanville,MarkHallett,Nigel Llewellyn, AndrewMoore, SandyNairne,Marcia Pointon, Elizabeth Prettejohn,Gavin Stamp, Christine Stevenson CompanyRegistered in England 983028 RegisteredCharity 313838 16 Bedford Square,LondonWC1B 3JA Tel:020 7580 0311 Fax:020 7636 6730 www.paul-mellon-centre.ac.uk From A Broken Wave by Lionel Esher (1981) The Architectural Review, the property of the Hastings family, had turned from Georgian-Swedish to DIA [Design and Industries Association] influences on the arrival of Christian Barman in 1933, but its great days started in 1935 when H de C Hastings became its editor and JM Richards succeeded John Betjeman as deputy. Unique among architectural magazines in its visual catholicity, the Review also had the literary intelligence to engage Osbert Sitwell and Ozenfant, Clive Bell and Cyril Connolly, Wyndham Lewis and DH Lawrence. Two particular strokes of editorial genius were the appointment of the unknown and brilliant Morton Shand (the father-in-law of James Stirling) to cover engineering technology and continental developments, and the lifeline thrown to Nikolaus Pevsner when he landed in 1935. Hastings and Richards set themselves to enlarge the consciousness of designers, to cultivate ‘the exploring eye’ and to enrich England’s impoverished visual culture. But they denied the modernists the gift they needed most – criticism. This was deliberate: there were too many enemies for it to be safe to attack one’s friends. So it was, in this sense, a conspiracy: like all embattled progressive movements, this one saw enemies on every side. And again as in all such situations, it was not so much the straight Right that preoccupied it – the old neo-Georgians and the pseudo-Swedes – as the heretics of the Left. It was mortifying and maddening that some laymen could not see the differences between modern and modernistic, the word progressives used for all the cubist-jazz-streamline derivatives of Art Deco, the Pop Art of the day. They little imagined that 40 years later it would be this, and not their hard-won architecture, for which the period would be affectionately remembered.’
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=