The b-uncut blog

As an eager art history student, I had loved dissecting his seminal 1956 work–from the Pollock-inspired rug on the floor to the hoover laying against the stairwell, overtly taken from a Hoover advert. From the day the work was exhibited in London’s ‘This is Tomorrow’ exhibition, Hamilton questioned pop culture and high art and forced us all to consider the power of image. That work was strong and certain.

His new works are lacking in power and assurance and even worse the paintings are monotonous. The artist uses an image taken from the media, paints it time and time again and in every painting he tweaks it slightly. I understand the aesthetic strategy to use repetition to suspend an image in our minds but I was not left with any images in my mind–this must be a failure of the strategy, no?

I was impressed by Treatment Room (1983), an installation of an eerie hospital room. Over the patient’s bed, there is a TV projecting Margaret Thatcher administering medicine. This engaging installation is certain to leave the viewer questioning our reliance on medicine, our concerns over health care, but most importantly, the potency of the televised image.

I do appreciate that unlike Warhol, who was a product of his time, Hamilton has the ability in his work to be completely removed from the work while at the same time completely immersed in the political culture he is criticising. But I think that is one of the only things to hail Hamilton’s work for–just because an artist can create one masterpiece, if you will, this does not mean his entire oeuvre will be exceptional. In fact, it seems that Richard Hamilton might be a one hit wonder, as I saw no paintings that stood out. Richard Hamilton, the father of pop, will always be, and only be, idolised for one work. So, can we still consider him as the father of the pop movement?