Andrew Lambirth, ‘Michael Stubbs at Lotta Hammer Gallery’, London, UK, What’s On in London, July 24-31, 1996

Why has it become so popular again to paint without brushes?  Is the idea to circumvent the tyranny of the brushstroke?  If the kind of gesture or mark made by the artist with a brush is recognizably theirs, like handwriting, must this be avoided as too subjective, too personal?  There is a contradiction here, for every young artist wants to create a signature style to give an identity to their product.  (Michael Stubbs for instance previously made ‘layer cake’ paintings: upright canvases sandwiched together with paint like icing and filling).  The Op Art machine-like discipline of a Bridget riley is not present in the new crop of brush-less paintings, made by a variety of drippers and pourers from Ian Davenport to Alexis Harding, nor in the new paintings by Michael Stubbs.  Lotta Hammer’s press release assures us however, that here there is “a complex tension between absolute control, spoof infantilism and chance dispersion”.  Spoof infantilism?  I’m afraid so.  Actually we are shown a handful of sexy paintings of rich colour, with lush surfaces.  (The titles add absolutely nothing to the deep fuschia or peony pink-coated MDF boards; not even to the black-and-white or minty ones).  The process is one of pouring white house paint (eggshell or gloss) onto a coloured ground.  If the result doesn’t please the artist, a further ground is laid down and the process begun again.  Thus an archeology of previous attempts is often present in the picture surface as relief.  A  kind of net is aimed at in the white over-pouring: from the chance dissolution of this grid come new solutions, very much to be enjoyed.