Charlene Vella revisits A.C. Sewter’s essay on the Maltese art scene written over 40 years ago and questions whether anything has really changed.
Art historian Albert Charles Sewter (better known as A.C. Sewter, 1912-1983) chose Malta to purchase a second home in the 1960s.
Sewter was an English art critic, curator and lecturer and he was arts assistant at the Leicester Museum and Art Gallery in the 1930s, when he also began to write for Burlington Magazine – a monthly academic journal on the fine arts and decorative arts (since 1903) – briefly serving as editor of this journal aged 27.
Sewter left London because of World War II and was appointed assistant director of the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, then becoming senior lecturer at the University of Manchester and continuing to contribute to the Burlington Magazine until his retirement.
And it is worth pointing out that Sewter himself did his best to promote and buy the work of Maltese artists and offered them support.
I recently came across a perceptive article written by the erudite art historian in 1973, a time when he was well-acquainted with the Maltese art scene. It was especially insightful because this article questioned Malta’s artistic situation and many of these questions remain pertinent even today, 42 years later.
The essay was about Gabriel Caruana’s exhibits and was included in a book – Contemporary art in Malta: drama, sculpture, painting, architecture, music, edited by Richard England – that was published for a collective exhibition held as part of the Malta Arts Festival.
Caruana developed a close friendship with Sewter, who was a great admirer of his work, as well as with the great British abstract artist, Victor Pasmore, who chose Malta as his home in the 1960s.
In this essay, beyond discussing Caruana’s work and its relevance, Sewter proceeded with analysing the contemporary art scene in Malta.
He pointed out the questionable decisions being made with regards to the artistic situation of Malta and the education of the Maltese public in general towards modern art movements.
Although some would find Sewter’s comments too paternalistic, especially because they come from a non-Maltese, his perception of the Maltese artistic scenario was very much correct.
Therefore, while his essay may appear unduly critical, his comments were honest and truthful to the local situation. Studies on the art of 20th-century Malta make that abundantly clear.
His comments should, therefore, be taken as an eye-opener for the promotion of a modern aesthetic in Malta.
Sewter believed that the Maltese were inhibited and unable to understand the basic principles of modern art
Sewter believed that the Maltese were inhibited and unable to understand the basic principles of modern art.
He spoke of “cultural isolation” and “a tendency towards the continuation of existing and established styles which, however, inevitably degenerate and decay with repetition and imitation”.
And he went on to write that “the population at home needs to be given the opportunities for a liberal and contemporary visual education, if artists are to find that response and encouragement from patronage, which is so necessary to continuing achievement and originality”.
He was also very perceptive in stating that: “One has only to look into the popular furnishing shops… to see that the taste of the Maltese majority is still de-pressingly devoted to effects of gaudy opulence...
“How many houses are there in Malta in which the interior decoration is simple, uncluttered and well proportioned, with every shape considered in relation to its surroundings, every accent well-placed?
“Yet, the development of such a taste is the necessary pre-requisite, if Malta’s own contemporary artists are not to be frustrated and inhibited by lack of comprehension and support”.
We often excuse people’s liking for certain things, putting it down to a matter of taste (gosti). But taste needs to be cultivated, as Mario Buhagiar has reiterated to students many a time.
Sewter went on to comment on the limitations of public art collections, stating that: “Until something is done about the situation, it is likely that the tremendous gap which, at present, exists between the work and aims of the best young Maltese paintings, sculptors and architects on the one hand, and the responses of the mass of the people on the other, will remain, if not grow still wider”.
Sewter also discussed the possibility and need for there to be loan exhibitions of works by historically-significant artists that should be held in Malta to better educate the public and inspire young artists.
He also pointed out the dire need for a Museum of Modern Art. Sewter realised that “There is a very great need for the establishment of a Museum of Modern Art, whose collection should provide something of the historical background, and a standard of quality”.
Forty two years have passed and we are still waiting for a Modern Art Museum, which – as I am given to understand – is now, finally, in the pipeline.
Having read Sewter’s essay, I could not help but question: Has the Maltese artistic situation evolved that much from the situation he faced in 1973?