Amongst the rivalry and disputes between individuals and groups later to be known loosely as the Modern Movement, the ever-present hostility of the majority of the upper and middle-classes meant that co-operation was essential in broader terms: practically and also for the exchange of ideas between leading individuals and groups in their varied geographical locations and events. National temperament was always evident even in the international milieu of Paris.

In such conditions of insecurity peer judgement would have been intense and even obsessive. In trying to create something of sufficient strength the focus has to be on the emergence of original talent and the effort to eliminate weakening factors. Original talent speaks for itself and is energizing to all but the weak parts in work and thinking give endless opportunity for argument and analysis. In which the artist greatly develops his own self-judgement. This is something which I have been exposed to, from student days through to hearing the private quality of negative views from those with big reputations. No-one ever seems tired of trying, yet again, to define the weaknesses in the person or the system, because it is part of an on-going process of learning.

The imposition, from goodness knows where, of the dingy politically correct interpretation of creativity in school and academia (via the US) that value-judgements are bad, simply opens the door for the self-serving mediocrity to control the able and refuse to listen to peer judgement ; during my years in the US I almost never had a decent peer-judgement conversation.

Now I know this came from the post-war attempt to harness creativity as some kind of commercial asset and the result was the opposite to that desired. By this time no one was listening to Europeans in the arts and I was no exception ; (unless specially vetted by some Hidden Hand nod). We’re talking about those “in play”.

Academic controls were following one type of policy re. culture which was separate from the NYC jungle (by the 80’s). Although they were two sides of the same coin - another example of the schizophrenic attempt to espouse the button-holing original with sponsoring power-group (answering to wider forces). It need hardly be said that in those institutions almost none of the pioneers would have got the necessary character reference as suitable “team player” - i.e. no real challenge to the system, and no reforms without permission; at CAVS, MIT (Center for Advanced Visual Studies) Kepes slipped through with a serious effort but it floundered. The quality of people was no longer being produced so the concept no longer had meaning. He was replaced by a person who presided over its closure. And the basic funding which might have made it effective was denied increasingly.