Renowned art critic John Berger's sharp analysis of a 1952 spring exhibition organized by the Hampstead Artists Council reveals a persistent struggle in the art world: painters who aspire to professional status but lack the time and resources to fully commit to their craft. Originally published in Art News and Review on April 19, 1952, Berger's critique examines what he terms the plight of "professional amateurs" - artists trapped between genuine artistic ambition and practical limitations.
The exhibition Berger reviewed contained eighty-three paintings that followed predictable patterns common to countless similar shows of the era. Forty-five works were landscapes, primarily depicting either local or continental scenes, while fourteen featured still lifes, many focusing on flower arrangements. Notably absent was human engagement: only eight pictures dealt with people, and merely four of these addressed specific human situations. Three nudes and five portraits rounded out the figurative work, while one abstract piece stood alone among otherwise representational works.
Berger identified clear artistic influences throughout the exhibition, noting traces of Van Gogh, Walter Sickert, Pierre Bonnard, the Fauves, and the Euston Road School. The paintings averaged 20 inches by 16 inches in size, suggesting the constraints under which these artists worked. Despite examining dozens of works, Berger found only six interesting paintings and deemed just one truly successful - a still life by E. Swinglehurst.
The critic's harsh assessment focused on fundamental weaknesses in execution and vision. Most paintings suffered from poor draftsmanship and lacked consistent artistic purpose, appearing unfinished and conceptually scattered. Berger observed that individual passages within single works would shift focus arbitrarily - from color-pattern emphasis in one section to straight representation in another, then to purely tonal contrasts elsewhere. This inconsistency left the paintings feeling like "possible ideas for paintings" rather than completed works.
Berger attributed these shortcomings to the artists' impossible position between amateur and professional status. Most painters in the exhibition aspired to professional careers but faced economic or personal constraints that severely limited their working time. When they managed to secure a free afternoon or weekend, they felt compelled to complete an entire painting, regardless of preparation or planning. This rushed approach inevitably produced haphazard results.
The critic identified several crucial artistic processes that these time-constrained painters were forced to omit. They lacked opportunities for persistent development of a definite artistic attitude, frequent reconsideration of half-finished works, experimentation with alternative approaches, and the disciplined practice of drawing for its own sake. These intermediary steps, Berger argued, were essential for developing mature artistic vision and technical competence.
Beyond technical limitations, Berger noted that the artists' precarious position created a broader estrangement reflected in their subject matter choices. Because their artistic practice had to be compartmentalized and defended against the demands of ordinary life, their paintings similarly reflected disconnection from human experience and contemporary reality.
While acknowledging that the problem was easier to describe than solve, Berger proposed a stark choice for these struggling artists. They must abandon their uncomfortable middle ground and commit fully to one path or the other. Either they should accept amateur status and exchange their frustration for the unhurried assurance of a hobby, or they must fight with more ruthless determination to achieve true professional standing. The intermediary state, which Berger characterized as "Bohemia," offered neither the satisfaction of genuine amateurism nor the rewards of professional success, leaving artists perpetually unfulfilled and their work consistently compromised.
