Modernists and Mavericks: Bacon, Freud, Hockney and the London Painters

by Martin Gayford

The development of painting in London from the Second World War to the 1970s has never before been told before as a single narrative. R. B. Kitaj’s proposal, made in 1976, that there was a “substantial School of London” was essentially correct but it caused confusion because it implied that there was a movement or stylistic group at work, when in reality no one style could cover the likes of Francis Bacon and also Bridget Riley.

Modernists and Mavericks explores this period based on an exceptionally deep well of firsthand interviews, often unpublished, with such artists as Victor Pasmore, John Craxton, Lucian Freud, Frank Auerbach, Allen Jones, R. B. Kitaj, Euan Uglow, Howard Hodgkin, Terry Frost, Gillian Ayres, Bridget Riley, David Hockney, Frank Bowling, Leon Kossoff, John Hoyland, and Patrick Caulfield. But Martin Gayford also teases out the thread weaving these individual lives together and demonstrates how and why, long after it was officially declared dead, painting lived and thrived in London. Simultaneously aware of the influences of Jackson Pollock, Giacometti, and (through the teaching passed down at the major art school) the traditions of Western art from Piero della Francesca to Picasso and Matisse, the postwar painters were bound by their confidence that this ancient medium could do fresh and marvelous things, and explored in their diverse ways, the possibilities of paint.

Genres: Art, Nonfiction, Art History, Biography, History

340 pages, Hardcover

First published April 17, 2018

About the author

Martin Gayford is an art critic and art historian. He studied philosophy at the University of Cambridge, and art history at the Courtauld Institute of Art at the University of London. Over three decades, he has written prolifically about art and music in a series of major biographies, as well as contributing regularly to newspapers, magazines and exhibition catalogues. In parallel with his career as an art historian, he was art critic of The Spectator magazine and The Sunday Telegraph newspaper before becoming Chief Art Critic for the international television network, Bloomberg News. He has been a regular contributor to the British journal of art criticism, Modern Painters.

His books include a study of Van Gogh and Gauguin in Arles, The Yellow House: Van Gogh, Gauguin, and Nine Turbulent Weeks in Arles (Little Brown, 2006), which was published in Britain and the USA to critical acclaim, and has been translated, to date, into five languages; Constable in Love: Love, Landscape, Money and the Making of a Great Painter (Penguin, 2009), a study of John Constable’s romance with Maria Bicknell and their lives between 1809 and 1816; and A Bigger Message: Conversations with David Hockney (Thames and Hudson, 2011).

Reviews

[Tosh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Martin Gayford, the author of "Modernists and Mavericks," is a terrific writer on the arts, and this book is the obvious and organic meeting of author and its subject - The London artists of the post-war years. For one, Gayford knows David Hockney and Lucian Freud, and he also interviewed all the living artists that are in this book. It's not a book of gossip, but a survey approach to artists who worked in London from the end of World War II to the early 1970s.

I became familiar with some of these artists through the art collection of the late David Bowie. When the family auction off his works, I did go see paintings by Frank Auerbach, David Bomberg, and others of that world. What's interesting is that these artists worked in London, a city that was on the surface, destroyed by the ravages of bombings and the war, yet, it became a visual playground for the great post-war painters. Freud always worked with a model in front of him, in his studio, Auerbach worked in the same format using the same model painting after painting, and Bacon's world was basically Soho London and its citizens. So, the world of the London painter was a small one, but a very intense series of moments, months, and years working on their art. As well as having sex, drinking and socializing within their world.

Gayford captures the London painters in a moment where they did talk about their fields of interest, which was painting, but also I didn't realize that there was a sizable female presence in the painting world as well, regarding Paula Rego, Bridget Riley, and others. Gayford brings up a lot of painters working in that era, who are not as famous as Hockney and company. I have been pretty much drawn to the medium of paint, due to its placement within a frame, and the texture of various colors and brushes. I like the communication between the artist's hand and what appears on their canvas. The importance is not that these artists all lived and worked in London, but their ability to transform their space, time, and presence in such a location that was limited at the time. Across the pond was New York City, and beyond that, for Hockney Los Angeles, still the majority of the London Painters stayed at home and reflected on their world with high intensity and feeling. "Modernists and Mavericks" is a very solid art history book, with some excellent paintings within its pages. I enjoyed Gayford's book immensely.

[Robert Boyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite enjoyable but Gayford tries to cram too much into one book. It doubtless made sense to Gayford to discuss painting in London after WWII as a single phenomenon, but there are too many conflicting visual ideas. Sure one can lump Lucian Freud, Francis Bacon and Frank Auerbach together, but trying to connect them to Gillian Ayers or Patrick Caulfield or Bridget Riley, etc., seems like an unbridgeable stretch. The further along in the 1960s that Gayford goes, the more this feeling of the fundamental unrelatedness of his subjects takes over. It's understandable that he'd want to write about the 60s, though. Swinging London is exciting! But what really stands out in this book is his depiction of the small, grungy social world of painting in London in the 1950s, when everyone knew one another, taught and/or attended the same schools, etc. It was a really definable scene then before the centripetal forces flung it all apart.

[kristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

well written and captivating; i really liked this and learnt a lot. if your knowledge of london painters is anything like mine (limited), you will likely find it hard to follow as there is just an insane amount of names.

[Katy Wheatley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating gallop through British art history in the postwar period. Gayford is always an engaging writer. He strikes the perfect balance between telling you a story, talking about the work and teaching you things you didn't know. I was delighted to find that he had included Gillian Ayres and Pauline Boty in this book alongside the usual pantheon of men. I am also grateful that he gave me a way to think about Francis Bacon that makes him much more accessible to me.

[Mary Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved a lot of this book. I loved the subject matter, the writing, and the analysis. There are great points made in here that I think only someone with Gayford's background could make, like the differences between American pop-art and British pop-art. I don't think it's for someone to whom this would be a first introduction to the period, and here's why:

My primary criticism is the organization of the book. I've noticed on quite a few other reviews that people have found this book had too much going on. Essentially the book dances around the maypoles of Bacon, Freud, and Hockney's careers during the 1940s-1960s. However, it also introduces and then immediately drops biographies of lesser-known artists who brush up next to the "big three" (my words, not his) over the course of their careers. This can be very confusing, especially when an artist is discussed, say, during the period of the 1940s and then dropped again and re-introduced a decade later. It just jumps all over the place and can be hard to follow. While I feel that each of the artists was interesting, I had trouble keeping track of how each of them was supposed to be tying into the big picture.

That's where the problem really stands with me. The "big picture" is very ill-defined.

Gayford makes disclaimers at the front and back of the book that the idea of the "London painters" is difficult because post-war London was a period where artists scattered in dozens of different directions in terms of style, theme, and influences. However, I found this to be a very unsatisfying explanation. I thought that the reader would have benefitted from Gayford making an effort to address why he focused primarily on Bacon, Freud, and Hockney. What made him focus on their work and what about them justifies writing about them in the same book? This would have gone a long way towards helping contextualize the other artists who dip in and out of the story and help to answer the "so what?" that I thought the book lacked. I was missing something to bring it all together and I thought the book suffered from that loss.

[Andrea Engle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This articulate analysis of the London art world spans the decades from the 1940’s to the 1970’s primarily … it focuses on Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, and David Hockney, with such side lights as Frank Auerbach, Bridget Riley, and Gillian Ayers … fascinating, especially in its depth of coverage …

Similar Works:
by Sarah Howgate (no photo)
by Elena Crippa (no photo)

[Vincent Thurgood · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an engaging survey of artists working in London between 1945 and 1970 that uses unpublished interviews as source material. It devotes a lot of space to Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud, not uncritically, as well as many perhaps less familiar names but is best where it talks about general movements of ideas in art at the time and how each one tended to trigger a counter reaction. Because of the number of artists covered in a relatively small space (340 pages) some people get a fleeting mention. Themes touched on are the "School of London" ( R.B. Kitaj's term), The Euston Road School and the reaction against it, David Bomberg and the Borough Polytechnic, The Response to Abstract Expressionism. The focus throughout is on painting (Anthony Caro gets a few pages) and as a historical survey it ends just before the Bricks controversy with Bacon's 1971 Paris show.

[Jeff Howells · Rating 3 out of 5]

There’s no denying that this is an interesting book, covering at it does the proliferation of artists who lived & worked in post war London. A lot of artists are covered - most notably Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon. However I will say that the book is a bit misleading. Taking pride of place on the front of the paperback edition is a picture of David Hockney - however he is an absence rather than a presence. Freud & Bacon, being older, are covered earlier and more in depth. Hockney - when he finally arrives (over 200 pages in) is only then briefly discussed. So don’t read this book if you are primarily a Hockney fan.
However do read it if you like reading about British postwar art, as it’s very informative.

[Moritz Mueller-Freitag · Rating 4 out of 5]

Modernists and Mavericks is a superb group biography of post-war British painters, with emphasis placed on Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud (not so much David Hockney, despite his mention in the subtitle). Gayford, who sat for portraits by Freud and Hockney, draws on extensive interviews with the artists to paint an intimate portrait. He’s a marvelous writer of scholarly, yet jargon-free art books.

[Piper · Rating 5 out of 5]

Knew I was on board with this author as soon as he called Henry Moore boring. Really lovely writing, of the artists in this book I would only have said I was interested in Hockney and Caulfield but the author opened up a lot of new artists for me from a really interesting era (abstract still bad though)

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not much narrative cohesion, but as a series of loosely connected vignettes about art in 60s London, it's a great read.

[Chloe Melton · Rating 5 out of 5]

fantastic and personal review of the art scene in London

[Adam Gill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whilst history isn’t a coherent easy to follow narrative, it’s often easier to digest when presented that way.

Unfortunately the common thread is often so weak between chapters and sub chapters it’s hard to keep track of the complex web of relationships, schools and timelines. Especially when some of the marginal players are introduced with little background or context.

The book is at its best when the artists speak and it contains some fantastic quotes and insights on the art they were creating

[Tim Pendry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Martin Gayford has provided us with an intriguing snap shot of British art from 1945 to the end of the 1960s, making use of many personal testimonies and yet retaining the discipline of a historian. He rightly centres on Francis Bacon, Lucien Freud and David Hockney without neglecting the 'scene'.

This book is not just about those three dominant artists. There is scarcely a significant artist from this era who is not introduced and positioned in his or her milieu by Gayford. His story of these 25 years flows so that you get a sense of a fairly closed world that only sometimes spills out into ours.

The core point here is the sheer variety of artistic endeavours so that at no time can we speak of some dominant school or fashion as we might with, say, Abstract Expressionism in New York. Even such Schools as do emerge (such as Pop Art) prove to be more fluid than we might expect.

The creative attraction of America is important, however. It is arguable that Hockney has always been a Californian as much as an English artist. The pioneering work of the British Pop artists depended on the pull of American popular culture whilst remaining wholly distinctive.

It was also perhaps a culture that was perhaps more tolerant of difference than others. Abstraction never crushed figurative art (unlike in the US). The figurative and abstract could merge creatively as they appeared to do in the work of Bacon and Hockney. Freud never ceased being figurative.

Gayford is also good at letting artists speak for themselves on occasions if only to demonstrate that speaking is not really very helpful when it comes to art. Artists will talk amongst themselves in what becomes a private language that hides as much as it shows. Their bias is towards 'doing' - action.

One is struck by Bridget Riley's comments about her creative process which was highly individualistic and 'unscientific', its fashionable 'zeitgeist' aspect accidental and even irritating in its commercial exploitation without the artist's consent.

Artists simply 'do' Art. Bacon, Freud and Hockney are all extremely different from each other but what they had in common (only Hockney is still alive) was an intense creative obsession to 'act' and then, having acted, to move on and act something else out, to express, to develop.

I found myself by chance in a room full of film directors a few weeks ago and found the same attitude. It was for critics to analyse their work and that was another profession entirely. They were interested in making their peculiar sausages and, once the sausages were made, they were sent off to be eaten.

The educational system, the galleries, commissions, social change, private ambition, networks and Soho (and Camberwell) are all covered but the emphasis is always on the artist and what they actually did - their work - and how relationships between artists affected that work.

These are (mostly) sociable people in their way and yet the act of artistic creation seems to be one of existential isolation, a working out of 'being in the world' using physical materials where language simply has minimal place except sometimes as just another raw material in its own right.

I ended up with the rather uncharitable thought that perhaps 95% of the artistically fascinated middle classes who troop along to retrospectives and blockbusters are likely to emerge no wiser as to the apparent meaning of the work they have just viewed.

This is not to be a snob but a realist. The artist's world is intensely private and belongs to a club of artists where it is not. Little can be communicated when much art actually has no meaning (in linguistic terms) despite the best interpretative efforts of critics.

The famous and apparently Philistine comment that 'I don't know much about art but I know what I like' may, in fact, be as far as most of us can go in practice. Few 'art lovers' can go further. Even the critics (it becomes clear from the book) are likely to be guessing much of the time.

But we could say this about any of the great zones of human thought - Art, Religion, Science, Music, Politics, the list goes on. We bathe in their glow, accept or reject them, pretend to knowledge as opposed to pleasure or aversion, trust in others for our views yet not know their inner secrets.

An excellent book with excellent and appropriate illustrations, it is highly recommended to anyone interested in post war British Art and in the rather unique individualism of a culture that was still able to emphasise learned basic skills like drawing until quite late in the day.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book, which is a fine introduction to a collection of artists who - as Gayford himself says - don't necessarily have much in common as artists but were all working in and around each other in post-war London.

The book's subtitle obviously focuses on the big three: Francis Bacon, Lucien Freud, and David Hockney but covers many other artists: Bridget Riley, Howard Hodgkin, Gillian Ayres, R. B Kitaj, Paula Rego, Robyn Denny, etc. It talks about how they approached art, their influences, and what made the period such an interesting one from an artistic perspective.

I hadn't been to see much art until 2003/4. Despite living in London and surrounded by Museums and Galleries I spent most of my life, between 1993 and 2003, in the pub. Or asleep. But since then I've been to dozens of exhibitions. I've seen the work of some of the artists this book covers, either as part of larger exhibitions - such as the Tate's 'All Too Human' Exhibition in 2019 - or as part of a single artist's retrospectives so it is good to get a greater understanding of what they were trying to do and why.

However, in the end an artist's objective is not necessarily what I will pick up from a painting. Some things you can explain. Some things you can't. And I find there's an intellectual response and an emotional one to art. Sometimes you can admire the craftsmanship (or technique if you prefer) but get no emotional kick out of it. And sometimes it is the other way around. A good case in point is Francis Bacon, an artist who this book talks about a lot and interestingly. I don't like the Bacon paintings I've seen, but they don't bore me. I get a reaction to them, which is visceral and uncomfortable. That might be enough.

But I digress. If you want a good, well-written introduction to a community of artists then this is a fine place to start. Gayford relies on decades of interviews with the artists themselves, which helps make this feel more like a series of conversations than a simple book of art history.

Very enjoyable.

[Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating introduction to a generation of painters, all based in London between the 1950s and 1970s. I had only heard of Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud, and had certainly avoided all paintings by the former. But I had had no idea that these two artists (with their well-documented friendship and later falling-out) had been only a small part of a vibrant art scene that covered a whole range of painting styles and philosophies.

I give the author a lot of credit for describing the work and artistic evolution of so many painters that I had never heard of before, rather than focusing on the most well-known artists. Books about art so often become collections of scurrilous anecdotes about the bohemian lifestyle, and while some of these artists certainly provided gist for the scandal mill, the author really focused on the work, the art. Painters are not always very verbally gifted and don't always know how to explain their work, or even flat-out decline to do so, feeling that the work should speak for itself. Martin Gayford proves to be a very valuable guide here, and the many illustrations in the book helped me to follow what he was describing.

It was really eye-opening to me to follow these different artists on their personal voyage. This is not a book about a "school of painting", but about a group of gifted individuals who followed their own path, while still being influenced by each other, reacting to each other's work, and sometimes resolutely rejecting the mainstream. I was especially pleased to encounter some artists other than while males in the book.

I feel I learned a lot while reading this book, and that is the highest praise I can give a book of non-fiction. Hence five stars.

[matter_is_an_illusion · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book reads like a canvas painted in the spirit of abstract expressionism. Transitions between artists dissolve into one another, with one narrative quietly flowing into the next, which at times makes the reading experience a bit challenging. Clearer divisions between topics and individuals would be welcome, although it is clearly an intentional choice by the author, weaving their lives and ideas into one shared space.

Even so, it remains fascinating and immersive. The wealth of archival interviews is particularly impressive: the living voices of Bacon, Freud, Hockney and other artists add authenticity and depth, creating the sense of being present in their studios and conversations. The author writes more like a companion than an academic, offering an insider’s view of art history.

A great read for anyone interested in post-war British art and eager to hear the voices of those who shaped it.

[Hazel P · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some fun facts I found:

1. Artists are serious about their works.
2. Although living in the same time, they have got different philosophies about their works.
3. American abstraction pursues a graphical flatness and avoids visual illusion.
4. The taboos in avant-grade arts are excluding happiness and love - which, however, are important themes in David Hockney’s works. And he was commented as “camp” when first emerged in London.
5. Dress like artworks? — Riley detests tacky and misunderstandings about her works. And her thoughts may represent some artists’ opinions.
6. Social class - artists are a special group.
7. The grave limitation of figurative art, according to David Hockney, is to be dominated by camera-lens views of things.
8. Britain had/has a “word-oriented”, anti-visual culture.

[Harald · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely brilliant writing about British art from 1945 to about 1970. The book has 77 color illustrations, but the text is still the most important part. Gayford largely lets the painters do the talking about themselves and their colleagues — both about art and life. This makes the presentation exciting and engaging.

Three artists receive particularly thorough presentations: Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud and David Hockney. It is typical that the three painters are figurative and do not belong to the abstract expressionists who otherwise characterized the early post-war period. American painters such as Pollock and Rothko had a great influence in England. Both male and female painters are well covered.

This is very much an art book worth reading. It provides a good overview while also being entertaining.

I recommend also Man with a blue scarf by the same author.

[Molsa Roja(s) · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding, exhaustive research by Mr.Gayford. This is the product of a massive, intense study of all the paintings done from the 1940s up to the 70s... ALL of them. If any flaws might be stated, those would be that many of the artists that appear here will be, sooner than later, forgotten: they're nothing but the product of their time, and the true condition of art is... eternity. Among all the idioms developed and all the shocks and so there are, in the end, only three of them who will be accounted for -and we are lucky enough that one is still alive. David Hockney, Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud are the three artists that the UK has given us for the last century, and one must be thankful to Mr.Gayford that he has dedicated his time to praise & understand them. This book is, anyway, really interesting and holds an important amount of insights on painting.

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an outstandingly well-researched and beautifully written book about an incredibly exciting period on the timeline of British art. I was struck throughout by an underlying irony: that although my understanding of familiar paintings has been significantly enhanced by Gayford's insightful description of the lives of the artists and the period in which they were working, the artists themselves would probably have insisted that their biographies were irrelevant and I should simply allow their work to speak for itself. I can only imagine that Martin Gayford was acutely aware of this paradox as he wrote the book - indeed he may well have discussed it with some of the artists themselves - but I am so glad he went ahead anyway!

[Fredrik · Rating 4 out of 5]

"On his first buying trip to London after the Second World War, Alfred H. Barr, of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, spotted [Freud's] drawing of Kitty behind fig leaves ['Girl with Leaves'] while he was going through the London Gallery’s stock. There was no hesitation; as soon as he saw it, [dealer E.L.T.] Mesens told [his then assistant Geoge] Melly, Barr 'pointed at it and said, Wang, Wang, Wang! (Barr didn’t really say that, Melly explained, that was just the way Mesens always imitated an American accent)."

ooo

“Lucian Freud would quote Picasso’s answer to questions about how his work was going, using the words of a notice in Parisian trams: ‘Don’t talk to the driver.’ Freud would also add, ‘because he doesn’t know what he’s doing.’”

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best art book I have read in ages. In my view Picasso and Bacon are the towering artists of the 20th Century and this story has the latter as its centre of gravity. Around it some of the greatest painters of the century revolve including Auerbach and Hockney. All of the painters included in this survey of the so-called London School - which isn’t really a school - are worthy of re-examination and Gayford’s conclusion that they are a bunch of mavericks largely united by a wonderful city is convincing. He writes clearly and plainly; the illustrations are well presented and selected - a joy end to end.

[Taff Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find all of MG’s writing really accessible, lively, entertaining and informative. This was completely engrossing and I developed what felt like an almost ‘I was there’ sense of the London art scene after the war. I was also fortunate to read it while the New Moderns exhibition was on at Tate Britain which formed a fantastic accompaniment and took the story still further, with some exciting works by current young painters like Cecily Brown. However I still still can’t figure out why Francis Bacon is such a big deal - for me, he presents us with the emperor’s new clothes!

[Todd Hogan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Entertaining and illustrative examination of the London art scene following WWII until 1970 shows how creative, daring, and independent a group of artists has to be. What is the role of an artist? To reproduce what is in the real world, or to give it meaning, or to illustrate the feelings that the artist wants to share? Each artist has his/her own ideas and follows individual instincts. At the same time, there is a sharing of enthusiasm and common experience that makes the artist able to push forward. Lots of wonderful reproductions of the paintings supplement the narrative.

[Peter B Waddell · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well articulated and very readable account of the key developments in the London art scene since WWII. Emphasis is placed on the diversity, how the artists were never a school (or even just two), and on the strength of character and innovation that borrowed from influences and gave back tenfold.

I'd have given five stars but I felt something should have been said about the importance of the political climate and the arts being pushed within the economy to establish YBAs above their long-term status.

[David Kerslake · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why can't I give this 6 Stars? Just one of the very best books I've read. Such an interesting subject - to me anyway. Not too short and not too long and it has pictures. It also has Francis Bacon, Lucien Freud and David Hockney and I've been to major exhibitions of all three.
However, the very best thing about this book is the way in which it is written. Art, the modern variety in particular, scares many people shitless as they feel they don't understand it and will therefore appear thick. This book gets around this problem by just being well written, using simple, comprehensible terms and clear explanations. Potentially complicated ideas are presented with brilliantly realised clarity. Here's an example:

"The objective truth of what we see is elusive: in one sense we all see the same thing, in another we all perceive it differently, filtered through our emotions
and memories."

See, you understood that didn't you? Congratulations, you're not thick after all!
Martin Gayford, take a bow.

[Robert Walkley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybe a bit too much information but here it all is and here they all are. The painters who put London on the 20th mid-century map of the art world. Gayford makes the case that London took over from Paris and New York as the main place to be if you wanted to get in on the action and fun. I learned a lot of new names and many interesting stories. Gayford has written several books about art and artists and knows the terrain well. He is an excellent guide.

[Jeff Carpenter · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was good fun to hang out in this pantheon of art stars, and to discover some new favorites, (especially Richard Smith).
Martin Gayford has dug deep into the record; he has an encyclopedic understanding of the material, and his approach is well balanced, although he may seem to spend a bit too much time on some artists… but it just shows what a kaleidoscope it was, the “School of London,” that he’s got to deal with.

[LRKK · Rating 5 out of 5]

A history of London artists and their work, essentially from 1945-70. It attempts to do two things, and does them well, but the reader is best forewarned. This is a moving portrait of artists at work, as individuals and as part of a group. But it is also a reference book, and as such includes ‘too much’ for those seeking a clean narrative. I encourage you to read it, but keep it close at hand for future reference