london

Richard Hamilton

Tate Gallery

A great deal has been written about Richard Hamilton in the past 40 years, but of all the things I have read, one comment in particular sticks in my mind for its sheer asinine wrong-headedness: the claim, made by Peter Fuller in 1981, that Hamilton’s work displays a contempt for traditional art and craft practices. Certainly, Hamilton has refused to employ a narrow range of techniques and materials, but far from wishing to reject a tradition, his persistent endeavor has been to enlarge the scope of what we consider “fine art.” Hamilton has always addressed the problem of how, as a fine artist to engage adequately with the pervasive aspects of culture—glamour, sexiness, gimmickry, and transience—that seem inimical to accepted notions of meaning and value.

The retrospective organized by the Tate included works from the ’40s onwards: early paintings, the Pop works, prints and collages

Sign-in to keep reading

Artforum print subscribers have full access to this article. If you are a subscriber, sign in below.

Not registered for artforum.com? Register here.

SUBSCRIBE NOW for only $50 a year—65% off the newsstand price—and get the print magazine plus full online access to this issue and our archive.*

Order the PRINT EDITION of the November 1992 issue for $17 or the ONLINE EDITION for $5.99.

* This rate applies to U.S. domestic subscriptions.