Dear Arthur,

When John Willets came to interview you in mid 60s for his book Art in a City (1967), he noted that you  approved of John Berger's TV programmes.

In 'Permanent Red ( 1960) Berger's introduction states that when we look at a piece of artwork we take away with us the artist's way of looking at the world.  He continues - ' a way of looking at the world implies a certain relationship with the world and every relationship implies action. It increase your awareness of your own potentialities. It promises an increase, an improvement. It doesn't even have to look optimistic in order to do that.
Berger asks how a work of art could help  its viewer to 'know and claim their social rights'. Well it depends who is looking at it and when, he says, ie viewers who come to the work at various times might see in it a hope or encouragement for a better social situation in their own time, ie beyond the artist's original intentions.

Peter Fuller, once a follower of Berger , came to break with him over Berger's privileging of ideology in artworks,  and his rejection of any content related to the universal human condition, and his lack of interest in artistic expression.  (This reminded me of Peter Kennard's comment about Damien Hirst's work being about Death ' Yeah we all die , we know that. But what's more interesting is why some people get to die sooner and others later.')

They argued in late 70's, and I am not clear who came out the better.
Berger professed to be an independent Marxist, and Fuller a socialist. I started off a bit skeptical about Fuller because Julian Stallabrass was critical of him and because Fuller was critical of Kennard)
At first I thought your work suited the Berger approach, but what with the expressionist surfaces and the birth death and family life content... well should Fuller have a role??


bob