(Not) What I would call art?

‘Reflecting’ on Jeff Koons in the Burlington House courtyard

The Royal Academy Summer Exhibition is traditionally one of the high points of the British cultural calendar and, of recent years, the organisers and RAs seem to be making a concerted effort to appeal to younger and wider audiences. This year is no different with visitors greeted by a large reflective sculpture by Jeff Koons on entering the Burlington House courtyard.

There are several things that I love about the Summer Show. Firstly, I love the more bustling atmosphere that it tends to give to Burlington House, with the indefinable whiff of commercial excitement which the ability to buy the works on show offers. Those little red dots on increasing numbers of the works certainly effect the way that visitors compare works, whether for good or ill. Secondly, I love watching the range of people who visit the show, and how they interact with the work. One conversation that I overheard this year was between a 6 or 7 year-old boy and his father. The boy said to his father that a series of paintings was ‘not what I would call art’ and the father replied that he was ‘surely too young to be so closed minded.’ But, I think this is, surely, what the Summer Show is all about. Its point is to bring together the full spectrum of contemporary art from both RAs and submissions and to get people thinking about how these work together, and what they do and don’t like. The commercial aspect is the most obvious way in which people show their opinions, but I think it should be a space for such discussions.

Thirdly, and relatedly, I love the variety of works on show, and the range of curatorial approaches and hang styles which appear. (Although I was sad to note that film pieces were relegated again to a single, hard-to-view screen in the last gallery, after being given such prominence last year). It is a fairly new departure, I think, to have each room curated by, and credited to, specific RAs but this helps to add a personal touch. This year they seem have been more adventurous with their curation, creating more dense and diverse hangs. I think this works very well, widening the traditionally dense hang in the Small West and Print Rooms which are beloved of so many regulars, including myself. Displays this year have moved more towards the style of the architecture room, which is invariably my favourite, and which always showcases a stimulating mix of models, drawings, collages and photographs of both realistic and fantastical buildings.

Fourthly, I love the absurdly pompous text panels that introduce each gallery. But I love these from the privileged perspective of feeling that I can view and understand the works on show in my own way, and from a satirical angle. Overall I feel that these let the show down badly. While they add a personal touch in introducing the RA behind the room’s curation and giving them a direct voice, this hardly welcomes the visitor when, as in Room V this year, the text says that the room is ‘only for people who are sensitive, intelligent and thoughtful. No one else will enjoy it.’ They certainly won’t when thus patronised. Nor do the majority of the texts elucidate the rooms, but instead discuss the works in an over-abstract manner. One initiative this year, by Michael Craig-Martin, has been to curate the Lecture Room solely of works by new, ‘up and coming’ RAs which is certainly successful in showing a meaty range of work, including some arresting pieces by Anthony Gormley, Cornelia Parker and Anish Kapoor. Yet, the text panel has Craig-Martin commenting that ‘there isn’t a dud work here’ in comparison, it implies, to the other rooms in the show. What message does this give to visitors on either the RAs’ attitude to submitted work or on how they should approach the works during their visit?