
Since my last post in April, I’ve moved north to Edinburgh and in-between finishing a screenplay and getting it sent out (only a year after the initial invitation…), looking for some sort of book-related job I can devote some time to and getting settled into a new life, I’ve had some time to sneak a peek at some of the cultural events going on around the vibrant capital of Scotland.
It didn’t take long*.
For a country that celebrated ten years of devolution last week (albeit by inviting a foreign monarch** to give a speech in its parliament), there seems to be a surprising lack of ambition here. As a superb example, there is no better place to start than the degree show recently held at Edinburgh College of Art. If you didn’t know it was a degree show, you would believe – political correctness aside – that this was an exhibition of work by people with (very) special needs***.
After seeing every single graduate student’s work, we had counted just four artists who could provide evidence that they could hold a pencil or brush. Surely, a prerequisite for being considered as qualified in any given subject is being able to demonstrate a minimum standard in technical skills. You only need a moderate amount of experience of painting on canvas, for instance, to know that you do not put acrylic over oil paint when creating a ‘mixed medium’ work. It is nothing to do with the correctness or historical basis of technique but simply the limitations of the materials: acrylic is a water-based medium and should not be placed over oil as we saw demonstrated by one particular retard.
This is not being snide or overly-critical: there is a recession engulfing the world’s economies and even those individuals with wealth are not going to part with it to purchase an inferior product.
Of the four artists with technical skill, only two demonstrated an ability to market themselves and their works and with it, a commercial sensitivity to the world around them. Artists locked in garrets suffering for their art do not eat because they do not sell their works: they do not sell their works because the wider world does not come to an appreciation of the artist’s work.
The failure is not that of the students. When I was still at school, I was taken to see my first degree show exhibition. My first visit to Glasgow School of Art has left an indelible impression on me: it appeared to have given their graduating students everything they would need to thrive in a commercially cut-throat world where galleries need to sell a lot of work to not only remain profitable but to continue showcasing art.
‘So?’ you may be asking. Why this comment on a blog about books? Why indeed.
One of the artists with technical skill and commercial awareness is already seeing her illustrations in books for children. If writing for children is much harder than it at first appears then how much more difficult is illustrating a text in a way that allows children to improve their comprehension not only of the narrative in front of them but reading more generally?
Step forward Lucy McCririck. Among Lucy’s display was a little note which spelled out why Lucy was a natural talent for children’s illustration. She explained that children do not see in the same way as adults and are not so concerned with accuracy in representation but in the small details.
If there is any justice in fate, then Lucy should have a great future. If anyone from Puffin, Bloomsbury, Macmillan or Orchard is reading this, I would suggest getting in touch with the artist. Her website is here.
* – by which I mean that there’s so much commercially-oriented toward Tourons that there’s little left for thinking folk like you and me.
** – for those fond of historical accuracy, ‘Queen’ Elizabeth II isn’t even the monarch of England as the descendants of the Plantagenets are alive and well and living in Australia. For those fond of conspiracy theories, when being crowned on Jacob’s Pillow aka The Stone of Destiny, you are supposed to stand on it. At Scone, the former capital of Scotland. Furthermore, there was never any such thing as ‘King of Scotland’. The correct title is ‘King of Scots’, an honorific title which acknowledges the various kingdoms in Scotland. Not that any of that matters now since this.
*** – OK, fair point: what gives me the right to make judgement, especially my promise on an earlier post to never give a negative review of books? See this? I painted that. I didn’t go to art school. I sat down and taught myself to paint and not for commercial gain, simply for something to do when I’m not selling books.




