Richard Hamilton’s Obituary

British Pop Art pio­neer Richard Hamil­ton dies at 89

The father of pop described by Jonathan Jones as ‘the most influ­en­tial British artist of the 20th century’

Artist Richard Hamil­ton (2010)

In 1956 Richard Hamil­ton, who has died aged 89, attracted atten­tion with his col­laged poster image for the This Is Tomor­row exhi­bi­tion at the Whitechapel gallery in Lon­don. It was quite shock­ing: a naked woman on a sofa and a body­build­ing he-man hold­ing an over­sized lol­lipop labelled “Pop” in a promi­nent posi­tion, lots of domes­tic gad­gets includ­ing a TV, the cover of a comic pre­sented as a framed paint­ing, an all-too-urban scene through the land­scape win­dow, the ceil­ing cov­ered with a space-age photo of Earth.

From then on he was referred to as the father of pop art, but cel­e­brat­ing low­brow cul­ture was never his aim. He did not share pop art’s idol­i­sa­tion of adver­tise­ments and comic strips, nor the teenage dreams much of it referred to. His analy­sis of the meth­ods of com­mer­cial and tech­ni­cal image-making was matched by his study of high art; when he quoted com­mer­cial images in his art they usu­ally came from the top end of the market.

He was a mem­ber of the Inde­pen­dent Group of artists, archi­tects and crit­ics within the Insti­tute of Con­tem­po­rary Arts (ICA), who met to dis­cuss pop­u­lar cul­ture as a then unre­garded but vivid ele­ment in a seam­less world of com­mu­ni­ca­tion from which the fine arts might derive some strength. In 1978, the National Gallery invited him to assem­ble the sec­ond The Artist’s Eye exhi­bi­tion from its col­lec­tion; Anthony Caro had done the first. The result was a pur­pose­ful con­fronting of fine old paint­ings and mod­ern imagery, includ­ing My Mar­i­lyn (1965), his ver­sion of a sheet of con­tact prints marked up by the star, and a work­ing, mute TV set.

Hamil­ton later crit­i­cised the ten­dency of art schools to steer not by museum tra­di­tions but by “the cur­rent fash­ion­able art scene”. I think it was the lack of sheer intel­li­gence going with this pref­er­ence that hor­ri­fied him. His own work ben­e­fited from both. In the 1960s the pop end some­times dom­i­nated, as in the gigan­tic lapel-button he made in 1964 and exhib­ited as Epiphany, with “Slip It to Me” in blue and a finely judged orange ground. In the 1980s, most obvi­ously when he was devel­op­ing his two North­ern Irish dip­tychs, The Cit­i­zen (1981–83) and The Sub­ject (1988–90), he was work­ing like an old mas­ter, using the best meth­ods avail­able. In the 1960s he wrote, “I have always been an old-style artist,” and that remained his view of him­self. He was a craftsman-artist, attend­ing to his wide range of processes, but choos­ing them to rein­force and con­tribute to the mean­ing of his work. There was no room for nos­tal­gia or think­ing, but his ambi­tion was to be up there with the best.

Hamil­ton was born in Pim­lico, Lon­don, the son of Peter, a dri­ver for a car show­room, and his wife, Con­stance. He attended art evening classes from the age of 12. When he was 13, he was advised to apply to the Royal Acad­emy Schools at 16. When he got there, he had already seen Picasso’s Guer­nica, and he admired Cézanne, both anath­ema at the RA. The Schools closed in 1940. Too young for con­scrip­tion, Hamil­ton was sent to learn tool-making and engi­neer­ing draw­ing, and then worked as a draughts­man, mostly for EMI.

In 1945 the Picasso and Matisse show of wartime paint­ings at the V&A thrilled him. In 1946 Hamil­ton was allowed to go back to his stud­ies in the RA Schools, only to be thrown out for not bow­ing to RA pri­or­i­ties. There fol­lowed ser­vice in the Royal Engi­neers, but also a cam­ou­flage course, and time to read and reread James Joyce’s Ulysses. He started mak­ing sub­tle and ele­gant illus­tra­tions to Ulysses, and returned to them through­out his life. The British Museum showed them in Imag­ing James Joyce’s Ulysses (2002).

In 1948 William Cold­stream accepted him to study paint­ing at the Slade, and friend­ships spread­ing from there brought him into the ICA. D’Arcy Thompson’s book On Growth and Form, pub­lished 30 years ear­lier, excited him with its evi­dence of math­e­mat­i­cal growth pat­terns in nature. Hamil­ton devised and designed the Growth and Form exhi­bi­tion shown at the ICA in 1951 and opened by Le Corbusier.

From 1952 until 1966, he taught at the Cen­tral School in Lon­don, along­side Vic­tor Pas­more and oth­ers, and from 1953 on with Lawrence Gow­ing and Pas­more in the fine art depart­ment at King’s Col­lege, New­cas­tle (later part of New­cas­tle Uni­ver­sity). It was Hamil­ton who inspired and organ­ised the sal­va­tion and removal to the Hat­ton gallery at New­cas­tle Uni­ver­sity of Kurt Schwitters’s last great work in progress, the so-called Merzbarn at Elter­wa­ter in the Lake Dis­trict. He was ahead of his time: ear­lier this year, Schwit­ters was the pre­sid­ing spirit at the RA’s exhi­bi­tion of mod­ern British sculp­ture – the barn was built in replica in the court­yard before the entrance of Burling­ton House.

There, Hamil­ton started work­ing on an Eng­lish ver­sion of Mar­cel Duchamp’s The Green Box with the art his­to­rian George Knox. This led to a friend­ship with Duchamp, a visit to Amer­ica and, in 1966, he organ­ised the first major Duchamp ret­ro­spec­tive in Europe, The Almost Com­plete Works of Mar­cel Duchamp, shown by the Arts Coun­cil at the Tate gallery. It included Hamilton’s approved fac­sim­ile of Duchamp’s elab­o­rately crafted The Large Glass of 1915–23, now in the Tate’s collection.

The Duchamp exhi­bi­tion height­ened our inter­est in “anti-art”, stem­ming from the inter­na­tional Dada move­ment of 1916. Coin­cid­ing with the enthrone­ment of min­i­mal­ism in New York as the lat­est in seri­ous avant-gardery, the exhi­bi­tion asso­ci­ated rad­i­cal inno­va­tion with icon­o­clasm and mocked the rhetoric of abstract-expressionist splashed and slashed paints with its elab­o­rate, even schol­arly devel­op­ment of ideas and indi­vid­ual works. Hamil­ton was so much a Duchamp dis­ci­ple that he had to “seek the oppo­site of his solu­tions”. That meant, for instance, mak­ing works that are paint­ings, address­ing eyes con­di­tioned by art as well as the mind. Hamilton’s paint­ings include sev­eral that com­ment on per­cep­tion, and some that are pretty beyond belief until one finds the wrong note in them, and yet oth­ers in which he exploits com­mer­cial hard-sell sym­bol­ism and style in com­bi­na­tion with fine-art devices. His ana­lyt­i­cal intel­li­gence and insis­tence on the idea as a deter­min­ing agent in his choice of tech­niques, as well as image, made him more a fore­run­ner of con­cep­tual than of pop art.

Richard Hamil­ton was cred­ited with coin­ing the name for a move­ment marked by its ironic and iconic use of com­mer­cial and pop cul­ture imagery.

Hamil­ton was pri­mar­ily a painter. His self-portrait Palin­drome (1974) is at once mod­est and demand­ing: he shows him­self reflected in a mir­ror towards which he leans rather as Artemisia Gen­tileschi leans towards her self-portrait can­vas. That is, we see his hand on and in it, dab­bing paint on it, and beyond it his own image; only the mir­ror plane, vis­i­ble thanks to those dabs, is in sharp focus. As we look and move, we realise this is a 3-D pho­to­graph, planned and exe­cuted with care. Its visual com­plex­ity is matched by its impli­ca­tions about art and see­ing, van­ity and mod­esty, life and death.

His ret­ro­spec­tive show at the Tate in 1970 cul­mi­nated in his series of 12 “cos­metic stud­ies” enti­tled Fashion-Plate, pay­ing homage to mag­a­zine cov­ers and the arti­fice behind them, but invit­ing thoughts about all icons. Many jabbed at its appar­ent cel­e­bra­tion of fash­ion and the glib­ness of those glossy unpor­traits. Hamil­ton must have hated the shal­low­ness of that kind of response. He wrote about his own work bet­ter than any­one, not to award it marks but to explain his meth­ods and some of the think­ing behind them. His col­lec­tion of these texts was pub­lished in 1982 as Col­lected Words. Crit­ics tend not to like artists who com­ment on their work that effi­ciently and enter­tain­ingly, but then these are very rare.

His sec­ond Tate ret­ro­spec­tive was in 1992. It included the two trip­tychs about North­ern Ire­land. In 1987 he had appeared on tele­vi­sion using the Quan­tel TV Paint­box to develop The Sub­ject. Six artists were filmed using the Paint­box; he used it inven­tively and with ease. It was this sort of root­ed­ness, as well as pub­lic dis­agree­ments about art edu­ca­tion, that caused the critic Peter Fuller to denounce him as “the whore of art”. The cli­max of the ret­ro­spec­tive was a walk-through instal­la­tion, Treat­ment Room (1983–84), reflect­ing his expe­ri­ence of x-ray the­atres. In it was a table like a mor­tu­ary slab, over which a TV mon­i­tor played a tape of Mar­garet Thatcher giv­ing her final party elec­tion broad­cast in 1983.

British crit­ics responded to the sec­ond ret­ro­spec­tive neg­a­tively or even dis­mis­sively, but its 1993 ver­sion, in the British Pavil­ion at the Venice Bien­nale, won him the paint­ing prize. Many had thought his pre­sen­ta­tion at the Bien­nale long over­due; it would have made a greater impact 10 or 20 years ear­lier. The dif­fi­culty cen­tred on grasp­ing his range: of aes­thetic inquiries; of his indus­trial tools and processes; of his inher­ited tech­niques as painter, draughts­man and print­maker; and of visual expres­sion, from the coolly erotic Hom­mage à Chrysler Corp (1957), a painted and col­laged essay on styling, to the 1990 Polaroid self-portraits, taken through a glass screen touched with paint and with addi­tional paint on the enlarged prints on canvas.

             Epiphany (1964)

Some­times he played with the cliches and the cliche-producing mechan­ics of the con­sumer soci­ety; at other times his atten­tion went to the trans­form­ing power of pho­tog­ra­phy and our con­di­tioned read­ing of pho­tographs, as in Whit­ley Bay (1965) and the series of stud­ies derived from it; at yet oth­ers he used press and TV imagery to protest against var­i­ous forms of oppres­sion, includ­ing the media’s free ways with facts when in pur­suit of a “story”. The Swinge­ing Lon­don 67 series com­mented on the sup­posed per­mis­sive­ness of the 60s and the police’s oblig­a­tion to invade pri­vacy. It was based on a news­pa­per pho­to­graph of Mick Jag­ger and the gallery owner Robert Fraser in a police van being brought to trial for smok­ing cannabis. Kent State (1970) was devel­oped from a TV image of a stu­dent shot on cam­pus by sol­diers. War Games (1991–92) used TV news footage of the Gulf war to remind us that what the media deliv­ered almost as a sport cost thou­sands of lives. Lobby (1984) derives from a post­card of a hotel entrance in Berlin, with its seem­ingly end­less car­pet and stairs and con­found­ing mir­rors. It reminded him of Sartre’s Huis Clos; it also recalls Dante. The hotel is the Europa.

The young anti-Aristotelian, inves­ti­gat­ing rather than arbi­trat­ing, had been turned by life into one “only too prone to make value judg­ments”, he said. His art was always look­ing out­wards; he could admire, but could not be sat­is­fied with, art refer­ring only to itself. He was unusu­ally full of ideas; he was pas­sion­ately respon­sive to his time. But he also main­tained that tech­nol­ogy would never beat paint­ing as a means of mak­ing art that matters.

Very British in many ways, not least his place in the tra­di­tion of Swift and Sterne, Hamil­ton was also seen as the most inter­na­tional of our artists, and in 2003 Museum Lud­wig in Cologne held an Intro­spec­tive work show organ­ised in co-operation with Hamil­ton him­self. He was made a Com­pan­ion of Hon­our in 2000. In 2010 the Ser­pen­tine show Mod­ern Moral Mat­ters brought together his polit­i­cal works includ­ing Shock and Awe (2007–08).

In 1947, he mar­ried Terry O’Reilly, whom he had met at EMI. They had a daugh­ter, Dominy, and a son, Roderic. Terry’s acci­den­tal death in 1962 was a griev­ous blow to him. Sub­se­quently Hamil­ton lived with the painter Rita Don­agh; they worked inde­pen­dently but often side-by-side, and some­times col­lab­o­rated. They mar­ried in 1991. Hamil­ton is sur­vived by Rita and Rod; Dominy pre­de­ceased him.

• Richard Hamil­ton, artist, born 24 Feb­ru­ary 1922; died 13 Sep­tem­ber 2011


Nor­bert Lyn­ton | The Observer
13 Sep­tem­ber 2011