Abstraction and the Amateur: De-disciplining T. E. Hulme

Abstract

In 1913 and 1914, T. E. Hulme wrote a series of reviews of abstract art gallery shows for A. R. Orage's The New Age journal. Reading them, however, will not give you a feel for the artworks that hung in the Chenil Gallery or the Alpine Club. Hulme's reviews dwell instead on the reviewing game itself. An article about one man's pictures is not a thing should ever do naturally, Hulme protests in a review of David Bomberg's abstract draw- ings and paintings in July of 1914, Only the expert art critic can prolong the gesture of admiration artificially by cliche—that, of course, is his metier. wish could do it myself. 1 In a review of work by the Grafton Group in January of 1914, Hulme writes, I find it more interesting to escape from this show for a minute to consider instead how certain Post-Impressionist or Cubist appearances have acquired cachet among other reviewers (Hulme, 124). A review of Jacob Epstein's sculpture from De- cember 1913 begins with an apology for responding to Epstein's critics rather than discussing the work itself: All through this article write about Mr Epstein's work in a way which recognize to be wrong (Hulme, 114). Hulme's fellow critics at the The New Age, like his readers, regarded his meta-reviews as laughable. Parodies soon appeared. Written by staff writers and readers alike, these suggest that Hulme talks about reviewing because he lacks the discernment, style, and focus to write an actual review. One reads, Dear me! have nearly finished my appreciation, and am nowhere near five and a quarter columns. cannot do it sir! 2 Another implies that Hulme is reduced to tracing the outlines of the reviewing world because like all philistines he substitutes quantification for