Thursday, 30 July 2026

Veni, Vidi, Imbibi: An Incomplete and Personal History of British Music Festivals (1): The Twentieth Century

 In January 2020 I attended a music festival. On the face of it, this is not a remarkable statement - it is estimated that in 2019 over a quarter of the UK adult population visited a music festival of one kind or another. But 2020 has been the year without festivals, with virtually no live music happening since March. I was lucky to be able to spend a long weekend in Glasgow at the beginning of the year and to catch three gigs from the twenty-day Celtic Connections festival that takes over the city’s music venues for the month. While we were there, ominous news stories circulated about a new virus from the Far East, and we regarded the city’s Chinese tourists warily.

 

They were three fine gigs (Fatoumata Diawara; Salsa Celtica and Kokoroko) and allow me to have some happy musical memories from this benighted year. But since then there has been only silence, and in two articles I will try to fill the void by drawing on my recollections of nearly fifty years of festival-going to offer, as the title says, an incomplete and personal history of British music festivals. In this article I will cover the origins of music festivals, and will take the story up to the end of the twentieth century. In a subsequent article I will look at the huge explosion of festivals that has happened since 2000.

 

What is a music festival? A simple definition could be, any musical event promoted as such. In 2019, over one thousand music events were listed by efestivals.com. They embraced a multitude of musical genres (from classical to heavy rock); timescales (from one day to several months); locations (from farmland to inner-city concert halls) and ticket costs (from free to several hundred pounds). The classic “greenfield” pop festival, of which Glastonbury is the leading example, made up only a small number of the total. To acknowledge the complexity of the term, and to provide some structure to my tale, I will use my own definition:

A number of live music performances, promoted together, that take place over a particular period of time and in a defined geographical area.

Best I can do. But it does allow me to include my experience of such diverse offerings as Glastonbury, Celtic Connections, the BBC Proms, and a host of other outdoor and indoor events.

 

Inevitably, however, my experience of music festivals is partial, and there are large areas that I have never experienced. Some may feel that this disqualifies me from writing about this topic, but it won’t stop me, I’m afraid. Here are the main things that are outside my personal experience.

The Early Years: The formative years of pop and rock festivals were the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, which was rather before my time – I was eleven at the time of the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967; thirteen in 1969 when Woodstock set the standard for all future festivals, and while I was at least in the right continent when the Isle of Wight festivals of 1968-70 brought festivalling to Britain, I was still no older than fourteen. However, as we will see later, my first experience was pretty early on, in 1972.

Free Festivals: While some of the festivals I have attended have had free admission, I never attended any of the free festivals of the 1970s and 1980s that were associated with the New Age Traveller movement. As we will see, my association with that movement was very peripheral, being confined to a brief encounter with members of the “Peace Convoy” at Glastonbury 1986. I also never attended any of the illegal raves that replaced the free festivals in the early 1990s. And this brings me to another rather fundamental omission…

Drugs: Contrary to typecasting, I am no fan of drugs (alcohol is quite a different matter). None of my festival experiences have been accompanied by drugs, and I do not feel I have missed anything by not indulging. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, drugs could be completely absent from Britain’s music festivals. I have never been offered drugs, no one has attempted to sell me drugs, I’ve never been stopped and searched for drugs, never been inconvenienced by others’ drug taking and never seen anyone made ill by drugs. It seems I’m not the only one; the medical services report from Glastonbury 1986, which was attended by 60,000 people, revealed that the main medical issue treated was…hay fever. Only 22 drug-related medical matters were addressed, and the doctor reported that “our figures suggest a negligible drug problem if its effect on our workload is taken as the sole criterion of its severity”.

Children: Early festivals were not, of course, child friendly, for the simple reason that they were aimed at young people who were barely out of childhood themselves. As time went on, those early attendees grew up and had families, and festivals began to provide facilities for children. Today, many festivals promote themselves on their family-friendliness. However, I never took my children to a festival. This was partly because my wife and I are very wary campers and have always shied away from camping with our children, and partly because, for us, festivals are about the music, and we would not have been able to appreciate the music with children in tow. Hopefully we did not scar our children for life by not taking them to festivals when they were young. They have all been to festivals with their friends in more recent years, and we went to Glastonbury 2013 as a family, with their partners as well.

 

The Pyramid Stage at Glastonbury 1983, awaiting the arrival of headliners UB40

 

The Origins of Music Festivals

The earliest music festivals can be traced back to the eighteenth century, and some contemporary classical music festivals have a very long history. The annual Three Choirs festival that takes place in Worcester, Gloucester and Hereford cathedrals claims to be the oldest music festival in the world, tracing its origins back over three hundred years to 1715. The BBC Proms, which bills itself as “the world’s greatest classical music festival”, is a relative newcomer, dating from 1895. Folk and jazz festivals started to be held in the 1950s. The Newport Jazz festival, held annually in Rhode Island, USA since 1954, claims to have set the mould for subsequent popular music festivals, and Bert Stern’s film of the 1958 festival, Jazz on a Summer’s Day, set the style for future iconic festival films. In Britain, the first Sidmouth folk festival was held in 1955 and the first Beaulieu jazz festival in 1956. Beaulieu provided an early focus for youth culture, and the 1960 event included the first example of festival violence, when a mass fight broke out during a set by those rogueish rabble-rousers Acker Bilk and his Paramount Jazz band.

 

The first significant pop music festival was the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival, held at an agricultural fair ground in California during the “Summer of Love”. It was an early expression of 1960s counter-culture and featured leading artists such as Simon and Garfunkel, Jimi Hendrix, the Who, the Grateful Dead and many others. It was filmed by director D.A. Pennebaker (Monterey Pop), and was a benchmark for Woodstock, which took place two years later. The film shows hippiedom in its infancy; the audience is seated in neat rows of chairs in the circular arena, dressed casually but soberly, with hair that still had a few inches to grow. Beneath the surface, however, the counter-culture was coming to the fore, with a particular brand of LSD, Monterey Purple, circulating widely.

 

Woodstock was the first major “greenfield” festival, taking place not in Woodstock itself, but on land owned by dairy farmer Max Yasgur near Bethel, New York State, in August 1969. It was conceived as a commercial enterprise and aimed to attract 100,000 music fans, however events quickly ran away from the organisers. An estimated 400,000 people turned up, forcing them to allow those without tickets to attend for free. There was insufficient provision for bad weather, and rain caused major delays to the schedule – Sunday headliner Jimi Hendrix did not get on stage until Monday morning. Woodstock’s iconic status as the apotheosis of 1960s ‘Peace and Love’ derives from the fact that, by some miracle, there was minimal trouble or violence among the crowd, despite the delays, disorder and lack of facilities. Another iconic film (Woodstock, directed by Michael Wadleigh) secured its mythical status. In fact, not all was peace and love; concession stands were burnt down, equipment was stolen, land was defiled and the organisers lost money. Farmer Yasgur turned down requests to hold a follow-up festival in 1970. Attempts by the festival’s founders to revive the spirit of Woodstock in its anniversary years of 1994, 1999 and 2019 were all, in different ways, unsuccessful.

 

Pop festivals were up and running in Britain by the end of the 1960s. Reading festival claims to be the oldest British popular music festival still in existence, having begun as a successor to the Beaulieu Jazz festival in the early 1960s, before gradually moving towards pop and rock. The Isle of Wight festival was first held in 1968, and the 1969 event, a few weeks after Woodstock and headlined by Bob Dylan, attracted 150,000 people. Despite setbacks such as the violence-marred event at Altamont Speedway in December 1969, headlined by the Rolling Stones, festivals were here to stay on both sides of the Atlantic. Chris Anderton suggests that contemporary music festivals:

“should be regarded as a leisure pursuit and a lifestyle choice; as an opportunity to forge, experience or renew friendships; to express musical preferences and fandom in a public forum; to enjoy the spectacle and excitement of live performances; and to spend a weekend in the company of like-minded people”.

Each festival-goer will have their own specific priorities within this broad menu. The appeal of festivals is such that they have grown into a multi-million pound business that serves a significant portion of the music-loving public.  For the rest of this article, and its follow-up, we will focus on music festivals in Britain, and my experiences as a festival-goer of nearly fifty years standing.

 

The 1970s

By the mid-1970s I was an avid gig attendee, but my experience of music festivals during that decade was limited. Festival-going was still a minority activity; there were a limited number of festivals, and many were outside the mainstream. Large scale festivals were few and far between. The 1970 Isle of Wight festival achieved notoriety when hundreds of thousands of people tore down the fence surrounding the site, forcing the organisers, Woodstock-style, to declare it a free event, and prompting the local council to pass an edict that effectively banned the festival until 2002. A large event in Weeley, Essex, apparently organised by the local Round Table as a fundraiser, was peaceful but poorly organised. Reading festival was effectively the only major greenfield festival to run through the decade.

 

The first Glastonbury festival was held as a low-key event in 1970, organised by another dairy farmer, Michael Eavis, who hoped the profits would pay off his mortgage. The headliners were Tyrannosaurus Rex, led by Marc Bolan and 2,000 people attended, but the event lost money. In 1971, Eavis was persuaded to lend his land to a small free festival organised by upper-class hippies Andrew Kerr and Arabella Churchill (grand-daughter of Sir Winston), and headlined by Traffic. This event was filmed by Nicholas Roeg as Glastonbury Fayre, which became an archetypal depiction of the counter-cultural hippy movement, concentrating as much on the antics of the audience (including much nudity) and the idealistic views of the organisers as on the music. That idealism was summarised by Andrew Kerr in his vision for the festival:

"It will be a fair in the medieval tradition, embodying the legends of the area, with music, dance, poetry, theatre lights and the opportunities for spontaneous entertainments. There will be no monetary profit - it will be free...The aims are...the conservation of our natural resources; a respect of nature and life; and a spiritual awakening".

12,000 people attended, but the event lost money. The next proper Glastonbury festival did not take place until 1979, and it was the 1980s before it began to grow into today’s behemoth.

 

The 1970s saw the development of an alternative free festival culture, spurred on by the advent of the ‘New Age Traveller’ movement. Small, free festivals were more numerous than the larger, commercially orientated events. New Age Travellers in the early years were often middle-class and university-educated people who had chosen to adopt an alternative way of life, and made a living by moving around the free festival circuit, working behind the scenes or selling food or home-made goods to attendees. The free festivals were overall tolerated by the authorities during the decade, to the extent that in 1975 the Labour government supplied a site at a disused airfield at Watchfield, Oxfordshire, to enable a festival to take place that in previous years had been held in Windsor Great Park. Free festivals continued throughout the decade and into the 1980s. A fairly small group of sympathetic bands were regular headliners, often performing for free, including Hawkwind, Gong, Here and Now and Ozric Tentacles, with local amateur bands making up the rest of the line-ups. As we will see, the Thatcher government of the 1980s was much more hostile towards the Traveller movement and the free festivals were eventually suppressed.

 

May own experience of music festivals in the 1970s was much less exotic. I attended two events during the decade that fall under my own definition of a festival. The first was in September 1972, when at the age of 16 I shelled out £1.25 for a ticket to the one-day Melody Maker Poll Winner’s event at the Oval Cricket Ground. It was only the second gig of any nature that I’d been to, and was consequently an unfamiliar experience, made more disorientating by the fact that I had previously been to the Oval on several occasions to watch cricket (including the fifth Test between England and Australia just a few weeks before). I was reassured by the plummy loudspeaker announcements made by Surrey County Cricket Club’s secretary during the day, urging people to keep off the ‘square’. It was the great days of Prog Rock, and Prog bands dominated the line-up, which included Focus, Genesis (with Peter Gabriel in his fox suit), Wishbone Ash and Emerson, Lake and Palmer. In time-honoured fashion, small-scale violence broke out during the set by the only non-Prog band, Argent, who were greeted by a hail of beer cans. For some reason, Wishbone Ash came on after the headliners ELP, and I missed much of their set as I had to get the train home.

 

My other 1970s festival experience was even more low-key, being a half-day at Stainsby Folk Festival, while on holiday in Derbyshire in 1978. Folk festivals had been quietly growing during the decade, and Stainsby still takes place every year, not much bigger than it was then. I recall the event taking place in a largish marquee in a rural setting. I think there was a ceilidh in the afternoon, and then a set by the headliners, The Tannahill Weavers. Despite being a fan of folk music I have rarely attended a ‘pure’ folk festival since then, preferring more ‘hybrid’ events that include folk artists among more rock-orientated acts.

 

The 1980s

Commercial festivals slowly became established during the ‘80s. Glastonbury became a (more or less) annual event, growing from 18,000 attendance in 1981 to 50,000 in 1989. Long-running ‘specialist’ festivals such as WOMAD and Monsters of Rock (now Download festival) began in the 1980s. At the same time, greenfield festivals were still few and far between and sometimes struggled to attract sufficient customers. A 1986 report by theFestival Welfare Services organisation listed a total of 110 events in the UK during that year, ranging from the 2nd Annual Magic Mushroom Picnic in Bedfordshre to stadium gigs by the likes of Wham and Queen. Just 35 events of more than one day duration were listed, not all of which were greenfield festivals.

 

The free festival movement was troubled throughout the decade by government and police persecution, and by the introduction of unsavoury elements into the traveller community, but there were a number of ‘legitimate’ free events put on by local councils and other bodies. I can, with some validity, tell the story of the 1980s from my own experience, and that is what I shall attempt to do.

 

I went to Glastonbury three times during the decade, in 1983, 1984 and 1986, and witnessed the beginning of its stratospheric expansion. 1983 was the year that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was introduced. This required the festival to be licensed by the local council, and tensions over the licence dominated the decade for Michal Eavis and his team. The license limited attendance (in 1983 to 30,000 people) and brought in a long list of requirements for access roads, water supply and hygiene. Despite this, there was still a rough and ready feel to the event. In 1983 and 1984 I travelled down by car, and both years, despite the provision of parking, was forced to abandon the car by the side of a road and walk with my gear to the site. Provision of food and drink was rudimentary compared to today, and I had to bring both with me. Luckily, the weather was good both years (in 1983 I carelessly got severe sunburn), so I did not have to experience the joys of Glastonbury mud. But memories of Glastonbury’s infamous ‘long drop’ toilets will stay with me for ever. At the time, the pits were dug out each year, and were liable to collapse around the edges. One did so in 1984 and I saw a jeep drive up with two large, bearded middle-aged men in wellies (this was before the days of professional stewards and maintenance staff), who proceeded to climb into the pit and dig the walls out with spades. One looked very much like Michael Eavis, but I doubt that his involvement with the running of the festival stretched quite that far! There was a block of wood-fired showers that was both unisex and open plan.

 



Moving Hearts on stage, Glastonbury 1983

1983 was a sunny year at Glastonbury


In the early ‘80s, the number of stages was limited and the music was edgy, even on the main Pyramid stage. In both 1983 and 1984, the Sunday night headliners were artists from Nigeria (King Sunny Ade in 1983 and Fela Kuti in 1984), though the Saturday headliners were popular British ‘new wave’ artists (UB40 and Elvis Costello), both accompanied by the then state-of-the-art laser display.  In both years I saw a number of folk artists on the Pyramid stage, including the Chieftains, Moving Hearts, Tom Paxton, Fairport Convention and John Martyn. A marquee stage and a small outdoor acoustic stage were the only alternatives and I did not bother with the non-music activities in the Theatre or Green Field areas. I also don’t remember much about the various political speakers that dotted the programme on the Pyramid stage.

 

In the 1980s, the alternative stages at Glastonbury were small and low-key. This is the Marquee stage in 1983, with Poly Styrene, formerly of punk band X-Ray Spex (second from the left, not including the Buddha), during her Hari Krishna phase

A classic (but uncommon) festival scene


By 1986, the music had become more mainstream, and consequently less to my taste (there was a classical stage – but you don’t go to Glastonbury for classical music and it did not become a long-term fixture). The festival was bigger and probably had better facilities, but seemed to have less soul and I was not inclined to return, and did not do so until 2013.

 

The Smiths onstage at Glastonbury 1984, in a set curtailed by a stage invasion

Fairport Convention at Glastonbury 1984 (they had also appeared in 1971), warming up for their own Cropredy festival a few weeks later


1986 was the year that the ‘Peace Convoy’ of New Age Travellers paid an unexpected visit to Glastonbury. The advent of the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher overturned the broadly tolerant official attitude to travellers and their free festivals, and the 1980s saw increasingly prohibitive laws and regulations, spurred on by scare stories in the right-wing press and enforced by sometimes intimidatory police tactics. A particular focus was Stonehenge, which had become the site of an annual free festival around the time of the summer solstice. In 1984, this was attended by around 30,000 people. In 1985, the government banned the Stonehenge festival, but a convoy of Travellers’ vans and buses, dubbed the ‘Peace Convoy’ attempted to reach the site. The convoy was ambushed by police in a field about seven miles from Stonehenge, its vehicles were trashed, 16 travellers were hospitalised and 537 were arrested. The event was shown graphically on prime time TV news programmes and became known as the Battle of the Beanfield.

 

In June 1986, the Peace Convoy was again confronted by the police at Stoney Cross, Hampshire. There was less violence, but many of the travellers’ vehicles were impounded. The group managed to reach Glastonbury, arriving just before the festival. Michael Eavis allowed them to stay and set up their own informal event on fields behind the festival site. I can recall seeing some of the lurid vehicles that had escaped impounding and travellers canvassing donations from festival-goers to pay the fines to retrieve those that had been confiscated.

 

Opinions about the travellers and their presence at Glastonbury and other festivals inevitably varied. Some saw the travellers as fundamentally decent individuals who happened to want to live in an alternative way, and who had become vilified by the Tory government and the right-wing press to divert attention from more pressing social and economic problems. The opposing (mainstream) view was that they were anti-social vagabonds, living off benefits and interested only in drink and drugs. The reality, of course, was between the two extremes. While the original 1970s travellers were in the main resourceful and idealistic (and essentially law-abiding), by the mid-1980s they had been joined by economic ‘refugees’ from Thatcherism, and by some, known by other travellers as ‘Crusties’ or ‘Brewheads’, who lived up to the right-wing stereotype. As the decade wore on, Glastonbury continued to provide a home for travellers, but by the end of the decade the movement was becoming overtaken by anti-social elements and hard drugs and further legislation eventually stifled both the traveller lifestyle and the free festival culture that accompanied it.

 

The other side of the Free Festival coin was the occasional one-off free events put on during the ‘80s by local authorities and other bodies. I attended a few such events organised by the Greater London Council (GLC) in the first half of the decade. At the time, the leader of the Council was Ken Livingstone, a left-winger and accomplished populist. In June 1981 the GLC held a free one-day event titled “It’s only Rock and Royal” in Crystal Palace Park, on the same afternoon as the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, and I went there following working an early shift – the slightly curious choice of headliner was the veteran American band, Spirit. In 1983, the GLC held three events to mark its self-proclaimed ‘Peace Year’ and I went to one in Brockwell Park, Lambeth, held in support of CND, with Madness topping the bill. In 1984, the GLC’s theme was “Jobs for a Change” and I went to an event in the precincts of County Hall itself, and had the thrill of seeing the Smiths for free (I also saw them that year at Glastonbury, in a notoriously curtailed set). I can recall going to a couple of other free events in South London parks around the same time, before leaving London for the North West in 1985. I must admit that, while sympathetic to the political messages underpinning these festivals, watching live music for free was a greater incentive to attend. In 1986, the programme of festivals was brought to a halt by the abolition of the GLC by the Tory government.

 

Appreciative audience members watch the Smiths at County Hall, London, in May 1984, a  few weeks before their appearance at Glastonbury. The underpants did not stay on

A one-day free festival at Clapham Common bandstand in 1984, starring African Connection, fronted by Sierra Leone's Abdul Tee-Jay, demonstrating that festivals can be small as well as big


A very different type of festival that I attended during those years was the Henry Wood Promenade Concerts (now the BBC Proms) held each summer in the Royal Albert Hall. On several occasions I joined the queue for the traditional first-come-first-served standing tickets, priced at a democratic £5 each and saw some fine performances by leading orchestras and soloists.

 

Finally, my longest-lasting relationship with a music festival began in 1987, when I first attended Fairport Convention’s annual Cropredy festival. Fairport had been my favourite band of the 1970s. They officially disbanded in 1979, but began a series of annual reunions in the Oxfordshire village of Cropredy, where some of the band were living at the time. By the mid-1980s, the band had reformed and the reunions had become a two-day festival – and both continued until put on hold by the 2020 virus. Following my first visit in 1987, I have been to part or all of the festival most years, and would have attended in 2020 if it had taken place. The festival’s 1987 slogan, “Veni, Vidi, Imbibi”, is enshrined in the title of this article.

 

A person who had attended Cropredy (the festival has had several official titles, but will always be known to regulars as simply ‘Cropredy’) in 1987, and then had not returned until 2019, would find that remarkably little had changed. It has occupied the same site adjacent to the village, and has remained the same size (around 20.000 capacity). Unusually for a festival of this size, it has always had a single stage, and the main arena is set out in the same way each year, with stalls on either side, toilets at the top of the field and a small children’s area looking down on the crowd and the stage. The long bar, open to the elements, is always on the left-hand side as you look at the stage, and there is famously no backstage bar, to encourage artists to mingle with the audience (I saw one day, wobbling arm in arm cheerfully but unsteadily from the bar area, two somewhat addled forty-something ladies – Maddy Prior of Steeleye Span and Jacqui McShee of Pentangle). The festival has always had a symbiotic relationship with the village – many villagers offer their services to the festival, or make some extra money from it. My regular morning routine for at least the past twenty years has been to buy a newspaper from the village store, have a shower in the Cricket Club’s changing room, and then breakfast at the Canoe Club’s headquarters by the canal. The cricket club’s facilities are practically of minor county standard, and the festival must have made a significant contribution to its finances over the years.

 

Changes from the early years have been incremental. In 2000 the festival expanded to three days – again bucking the trend of other festivals by taking place Thursday – Saturday rather than Friday – Sunday. An informal ‘fringe festival’ has developed in the village, with stalls and local bands playing in the pubs. Most noticeably, the audience, which is still predominantly made up of fans of Fairport Convention, has aged with the band, leading to row upon row of camping chairs where once people would have stood or sat on the grass.

 

This was a phenomenon that was not anticipated in the 1980s, when festivals were largely the province of the young. The Festival Welfare Services report could state in 1986 that “Festivals are a microcosm of society (with the exception of elderly people)”. Today, older people are avid festival-goers and an issue for festivals such as Cropredy is the extent that they continue to cater for their traditional audience (which, like several former members of the band, are not now all on the right side of the turf), or whether they seek to renew themselves by trying to attract new attendees with a wider range of artists and amenities.

 

The 1990s

The 1990s saw a shift in the ethos and the organisation of festivals. In the 70s and 80s, festivals were largely still conceived as the descendants of Woodstock, and even mainstream festivals retained echoes of 1960s counter-culture, and were regarded in the media as hotbeds of sex, drugs, dirt and disorder. In the 1990s, festivals shifted futher away from their hippy roots and became more firmly a part of the leisure industry. This move was partly driven by legislation, which forced ever more stringent standards on festivals applying for local authority licences, and effectively killed off the new age traveller and free festival movements, and partly to meet the changing expectations of audiences.

 

The challenge to keep existing audiences and attract new blood became more acute when those attracted to festivals in the 1970s and 80s settled down and gained careers and families. Festivals began to become family-friendly, with more salubrious facilities and activities for children. As I mentioned earlier, these moves were not sufficient to tempt me to take my own young family to festivals, and consequently my experience of the 1990s was limited to an annual pilgrimage to Cropredy while my wife minded the kids, and a couple of snatched afternoons at local free festivals. The latter were ‘legitimate’ free festivals, supported by local authorities or commercial sponsors. For some years, the WOMAD organisation put on an annual free festival in the somewhat unlikely setting of Morecambe in Lancashire, taking over a number of venues around the town, and in 1993 I saw a couple of fine sets from Remmy Ongala and Edward the Second. Then in 1994, Heineken sponsored a series of free events in a number of towns and cities, and I caught the Christians and Tom Robinson on a Sunday evening in Avenham Park, Preston. It was a shame that I had not gone on the Saturday, as second on the bill were a young and largely unknown band that created quite a stir, and went by the name of Oasis. When I finally did see Oasis live, some twelve years later, it was as one of a crowd of 70,000 in Heaton Park, Manchester.

 

In the early 1990s, the traveller-associated free festival scene was still active in a small way, but was being overtaken by the ecstasy-fuelled “Rave” scene, which took over the free-festivals’ reputation for noise and disorder and was similarly clamped down on by the Tory government. Matters came to a head in 1992, when a small travellers’ festival was taken over by ravers, leading to a week-long rave at Castlemorton Common, Worcestershire. West Mercia police allowed the event to happen, but the noise and filth generated by an estimated 20,000 ravers gave the government license to act, and the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act effectively finished off both the travellers and the ravers.

 

The traveller movement was already tainted by the infiltration into the movement of ‘crusties’ and ‘brewheads’, who brought with them hard drugs and drug dealers. In 1990, there was a major confrontation between travellers and security guards at Glastonbury festival, leading to 200 arrests, and the cancellation of the next year’s festival. In 1992 it returned, with a 70,000 capacity, There was further trouble in 1995, when the perimeter fence was torn down by revellers getting in for free, leading to today’s ‘Iron Curtain’ fence. By the end of the decade, the official attendance had grown to 100,000.

 

The number of festivals increased markedly during the nineties, but remained far short of today’s figure. The professionalization and commercialisation of festivals continued during the decade. Large event promotion firms became established that put on festivals along with concert and tours, such as the American company SFX Entertainment, founded in 1996, and now known as Live Nation Entertainment. Michael Eavis went into partnership with the Mean Fiddler organisation to assist in the running of Glastonbury, despite opposition from other organisers who feared that it would lead to commercial ‘sellout’. Many festivals sought to attract commercial sponsorship. The apotheosis of the new style of festival was V Festival, first held in 1996, that deliberately sought to distance itself from the counter-culture by booking mainstream pop and rock acts and providing high-quality facilities to become “a festival for those who don’t like festivals”. V stood for Virgin, the event being sponsored by Virgin Media.

 

V Festival was aimed at 16 – 34-year-olds, and sought to regularly renew its audience. Cropredy festival, on the other hand, relied on retaining its core audience, which aged along with the members of Fairport Convention. In 1997, the band celebrated its 30th anniversary, with its members and fans now pushing 50, and the rows of camping chairs spreading across the arena field. In their different ways, V and Cropredy encapsulated the greenfield festival scene in the late 1990s: large versus medium-sized; corporate versus cottage-industry; sponsored versus independent. Twenty years later, V festival was no more; abandoned after Virgin withdrew its sponsorship, while Cropredy was still going strong, with band and fans approaching their 70s. But that is for another article…

 

Growing up with their audience: Fairport Convention at Cropredy 1993


 

Sources Used

Anderton C (2006) (Re)constructing Music Festival Places. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Wales

Aubrey C & Shearlaw J (2004) Glastonbury: An oral history of the music, mud and magic. London: Ebury Press

Christopher D (2003) Mean Fields: New Age Travellers, The English Countryside and Thatcherism. Unpublished PhD Thesis, London School of Economics

McKay G (2015) The Pop Festival: History, Music, Media, Culture. London: Bloomsbury Academic

UKRockFestivals.com

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Wednesday, 29 July 2026

The Madnesses of Vincent Van Gogh


...And when no hope was left inside
On that starry, starry night

You took your life as lovers often do


But I could have told you, Vincent
This world was never meant for one
As beautiful as you

(Vincent – Don McLean)


I’ve never been a fan of Don McLean’s music. He only ever wrote two noteworthy songs, and of those, American Pie is pretentious gobbledegook, and Vincent is syrupy shmaltz. Its lyrics regurgitate the tired old trope of Vincent van Gogh as a martyr to an uncomprehending and unfeeling world that could not recognise his genius. I’ve also never been a committed fan of van Gogh, despite seeing many of his paintings at the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam, the Kroller-Muller museum at Otterlo (the world’s second largest collection of his works), and elsewhere. To me, his late pictures appear wonky and gaudy; his images diminished by being overused on merchandise. So the purpose of this article is not to present a Don McLean-like hagiography of Vincent van Gogh, but to critically explore his life and his art, his experience of mental illness and the obsessive efforts of modern psychiatry to explain that experience. I will also consider what may be regarded as the madness of his mythical afterlife as one of the icons of modern art.

Self Portrait with Bandaged Ear (1889)


The Madness of Vincent van Gogh

Vincent was born in 1853 in a village named Zundert, in Brabant, the Netherlands. The van Goghs were a successful middle class clan – one of Vincent’s uncles was an Admiral in the Dutch navy and another (Uncle Cent) was a partner in the international art dealing firm Goupil and Cie. Vincent’s father, however, was a humble pastor in the Dutch Reformed Church, spending his working life in small rural congregations in mainly Catholic areas. Consequently, the family was not well-off, and money would be an issue for Vincent throughout his life.


Vincent was highly intelligent, very well-read and a good linguist. He was articulate and expressed his innermost thoughts clearly in his extensive correspondence with his younger brother Theo and others (he used his letters to Theo as one might use a diary). His letters show that he had a deep-seated need for social companionship and love (and sex), and for a fulfilling purpose for his life. Unfortunately however, from childhood he had an extreme personality that meant that he never achieved those dreams. He was careless with his personal appearance and looked odd. He had poor social skills and lacked empathy with others. He was intense, not allowing those he latched onto any space. He was also argumentative and sure of his own opinions and browbeat those who disagreed with him. All his life he tried to form relationships with family and acquaintances, but sooner or later most were put off by his manner and behaviour and broke contact with him. The only person who did not reject him (though he mostly kept his distance) was his brother Theo.


By the age of fourteen, Vincent’s schooling was finished, largely through his inability to get on with his fellow pupils and teachers. When he was sixteen, Vincent’s Uncle Cent found him a job with the art dealers Goupil and Cie, at the firm’s office in the Hague. A few years later, his brother Theo also joined the firm, initially in the Brussels office. Theo thrived as an art dealer, rising to become head of the prestigious Paris office. Vincent, by contrast, performed poorly, and at this stage in his life showed limited active interest in art. He would have been quickly dismissed if not for his Uncle Cent. Instead, he was transferred to the London office, and later to Paris (before Theo went to work there), but would not (or could not) toe the line and was finally sacked in 1876, aged twenty-three.


By this time, Vincent was becoming increasingly religious – one of a series of enthusiasms that came and went during his life. Following a brief (and unsuccessful) spell as a schoolteacher in England, he persuaded his parents to let him study for the priesthood. Yet again, however, he failed to fit in and was forced to abandon this ambition. Still full of religious fervour, he became a lay preacher and missionary in the Borinage, a mining area in Belgium, where he lived among the poor inhabitants and tried to establish a religious community. Unsuccessful again, his contract was not renewed.


By now (1880) Vincent was twenty-seven and had failed at every attempt at a career. His religious fervour faded, but he had begun to show a greater interest in art, adding rough sketches to some of his many letters to Theo. His brother encouraged him to take up art seriously, and for the remaining ten years of his life, Vincent devoted himself to drawing and painting. He had no paid employment, and sold just one painting in his lifetime. He was supported financially for the decade by Theo, who regularly sent him money from his own salary.


Theo van Gogh was a complex character. On one hand he was a sophisticated and successful art dealer, with standing in his profession and a wide circle of clever friends (and mistresses). On the other hand he was himself emotionally needy and never escaped Vincent’s clutches. He allowed Vincent to manipulate him into sending increasing amounts of money with vague promises of reimbursement when Vincent became a successful artist. Although he mostly kept Vincent at arms length geographically, for two years (1886-1888) he allowed Vincent to live in his apartment in Paris, and was swept up in Vincent’s chaotic lifestyle, which embraced excessive drinking (particularly absinthe), eating junk food and making extensive visits to prostitutes. Both Vincent and Theo contracted syphilis – with later tragic consequences for Theo.


Having decided to devote his life to art, Vincent never wavered from that aim. With no training in drawing or painting, he largely taught himself, from books and endless practice. He had a few brief spells of instruction, first from a cousin, a respected Dutch painter named Anton Mauve; later at an Art School in Antwerp, and finally at the studio of Fernand Cormon in Paris, where fellow students included Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. In every setting, Vincent quickly fell out with his teachers, and did not get on well with other students. He was not a naturally talented draughtsman and never perfected the ability to accurately depict the human figure. However, he never stopped practising, spending copious sums on art materials, subsidised by Theo.


In the first half of the 1880s, Vincent lived in a variety of places in the Netherlands, sometimes in rented studios and sometimes with his parents, though his relationship with them was always stormy. This was partly a consequence of his typically eccentric love life. For a time, he was infatuated with a widowed cousin named Kee Vos, bombarding her with proposals of marriage and in the process alienating both her and many members of his wider family. Later, he lived in the Hague for some eighteen months with a former prostitute named Sien Hoornik and her two children. Theo finally persuaded Vincent to leave Sien, and following the break-up Vincent moved to Drenthe, an isolated rural area where he hoped to establish himself as a painter of landscapes and peasant life. After only a few months, however, he was driven away by poor weather and loneliness, the locals regarding him as an oddball and ostracising him.


In the Kroller-Muller museum in Otterlo, a room is devoted to Vincent’s paintings. On one wall are earlier works, mainly landscapes or scenes of peasant life, and uniformly dark in colour and form. On the other wall are the later works, in the brightly coloured, emotionally charged style that is today most associated with Vincent van Gogh. The contrast is startling, and perfectly encapsulates the development of Vincent’s art. In the years before moving to Paris to live with Theo in 1886, Vincent was heavily influenced by the works of Jean-Francois Millet and other painters of the ‘Barbizon School’. This was a group of artists who established a ‘colony’ in the small French village of Barbizon in the 1830s, painting landscapes and depictions of peasant life ‘en plein air’. As well as admiring their art, in his loneliness Vincent long dreamt of establishing an artistic colony himself. But Vincent would not, or could not, paint pictures with the facility of Millet and the others, who produced sanitised rustic scenes attractive to middle-class urban buyers. Despite Theo’s constructive criticism, Vincent’s early paintings, typified by his first ‘masterpiece’, The Potato Eaters (1885), were unremittingly dark in colour and tone, messily constructed, and with human figures that were little more than caricatures. Vincent sent The Potato Eaters to Theo hoping that he would find a buyer for it, but Theo knew better than to offer it for sale.

The Potato Eaters (1885)


In late 1885, Vincent left the family home and the Netherlands for good, driven out by conflict with his family (his father had died in March 1885), and the local villagers, who accused him of getting a peasant girl pregnant. He went to Antwerp in Belgium, enrolling at the Art School there, but soon alienated his teachers and fellow students. He seems to have had a depressive breakdown as a result, and following a vague invitation from Theo he turned up unannounced at his apartment in Paris, staying there for the next two years.


As mentioned earlier, Vincent’s stay in Paris did not do his brother’s health much good, and cramped his social life, as Vincent put off Theo’s friends with his strange and combative manner. Theo himself wrote in a letter that Vincent was, “impossible to get along with...since he spares nothing and nobody...Everyone who sees him has said: ‘C’est un fou’”. However, Paris marked a turning point in Vincent’s art. Theo introduced him to the work of the Impressionists, of whom Vincent had previously known little. Vincent started to paint like an Impressionist, his work making the transition from dark to light.


The art dealing firm for whom Theo worked, which had previously largely sold old masters and Salon painters, began to embrace avant garde art, with Theo van Gogh taking the lead. Through Theo, Vincent met Impressionist artists such as Camille Pissaro, and newcomers who came to Theo hoping that he would promote their art. Chief among these was Emil Bernard, who used his acquaintance with Vincent as a way of currying favour with Theo. However, he also introduced Vincent to Japanese art, whose bold, simple colours and clean lines combined with Impressionist influences to create Vincent’s late, most popular paintings. Another hopeful artist who crossed Vincent’s path at that time was Paul Gauguin.


Then in February 1888, Vincent abruptly left Paris and settled in the little town of Arles, in Provence – no one knows why (there is no surviving correspondence with Theo from this time). He rented rooms in a building known as the Yellow House, next to a rough all-night cafe, and adjacent to a park that was a haunt of prostitutes and their clients. Subsidised by Theo, Vincent set up a studio and produced painting after painting in his new style, enchanted by the light and bright colours of the South. As elsewhere, the locals viewed him with suspicion (Paris hadn’t changed him), and his only acquaintances were some of the lowlife characters who frequented the cafe. However, he maintained his dream of a community of artists, and tried to persuade artistic acquaintances such as Emil Bernard to join him in Arles. He also cajoled Theo into trying to recruit candidates for a community. The only person who could be persuaded was Paul Gauguin, who was ambitious but broke, and came to Arles on condition that Theo subsidised him as well as Vincent.


Gauguin provisionally planned to stay with Vincent for a year, but left after just nine weeks (at the end of December 1888), finding Vincent’s lifestyle, his neediness and combustibility overwhelming. When he learned that Gauguin was leaving, Vincent had the first of what would prove to be a series of apparently psychotic breakdowns. He threatened Gauguin with a razor, and after he left, sliced off most of his own ear. In a delirious state, he knocked on the door of his favourite prostitute and handed her the ear. He was admitted to hospital in Arles, staying there for several weeks and remembering little about the incident.


On discharge, Vincent returned to the Yellow House and continued to paint, but experienced more psychotic or delirious episodes, and in May 1889 allowed himself to be admitted to a Mental Hospital in Sant-Remy-de-Provence, staying there for a year. The psychotic attacks continued; sometimes taking the form of stuporous episodes. On one occasion, in a delirious state, Vincent was found eating paint. In between times he continued to produce pictures, painting some of his best known works (including ‘A Starry Night’).

Starry Night (1889)


Vincent left the mental hospital in May 1890 (pronounced cured) and moved to the village of Auvers-sur-Oise, some twenty miles from Paris, to be nearer to Theo, and also to Doctor Paul Gachet, a psychiatrist who had treated other artists. Yet again, Vincent resumed painting. Yet again, he struggled with companionship in Auvers, but he spent time over the summer with teenage brothers, Rene and Gaston Secretan, who were staying at the family holiday home. Vincent regarded them as friends, but they were more motivated by teasing or playing pranks on him.


During the turbulent time following the ear-cutting episode, two significant events happened far away in Paris. The first was that in April 1889 Theo married Johanna Bonger (Jo), the sister of a friend, and their son, Vincent Willem was born in January 1890. The second was the publication, also in January 1890, of an appreciative article about Vincent’s work by a young art critic named Albert Aurier (some of Vincent’s paintings had been displayed at Theo’s instigation at the Salon des Independentes and a group exhibition of Belgian artists known as ‘les Vingt’). As a result of the article, Vincent began to get some recognition among his fellow artists, and made his first sale, of a painting named ‘The Red Vineyard’. However, Aurier’s article related Vincent’s art to his social isolation and mental disorder, thus sowing the seeds for the legend of the ‘mad genius’.


Vincent was pleased by the positive review of his work, but was more concerned by the implications for his future of Theo’s marriage. As well as being preoccupied with his wife and baby son, Theo was also unsettled at work, and spoke of setting up his own art dealership – and he was increasingly worried about his own health. Vincent feared losing Theo and his financial support, and the consequences of his continuing psychotic attacks, and became more and more despondent. He pleaded with Theo to bring his family to Auvers, where they could all live together. Inevitably, Theo declined.


On 27 July 1890, Vincent took his painting materials into the fields, as he was accustomed to do most days. He returned in the evening, apparently in physical distress. His landlord asked him what was wrong and Vincent showed him a small hole under his ribs from a gunshot wound, and said, ‘I wounded myself’. There were no witnesses to the incident. When the police came to investigate, they asked him if he had intended to kill himself (suicide at the time was a crime), and Vincent replied, ‘Yes, I believe so’. Medical help was summoned, and Theo arrived from Paris. Two days, later, Vincent died of his wound, aged 37. He was buried in Auvers on 30 July 1890.


The manner of Vincent’s death raised questions that have never been fully answered, and which call into question the assumption that Vincent had committed suicide (needless to say, in the USA a group of conspiracy theorists believe that he was murdered). While Vincent had talked of suicide before, he never mentioned the possibility of shooting himself. He was not known to own a gun, and the weapon that shot him was never recovered. It was identified as belonging to young Rene Secretan, who denied knowing how Vincent had got hold of it. Vincent was shot in the abdomen, not the heart or the head as with most suicides. And when the first shot did not immediately kill him, he staggered home rather than finishing the job. The verdict of suicide suited everyone, apparently including Vincent. But years later, Rene Secretan, then in his eighties, gave an interview in which he stated that it was indeed his gun that had shot Vincent, and, without giving specific details, said that the incident was a prank that had gone wrong.


Six months after Vincent’s death, Theo van Gogh died in a Paris asylum, of an incurable neuro-degenerative disease. He was 33 years old.


The Madness of Vincent’s Psychiatric Diagnoses

Just as armchair detectives love to speculate on the identity of Jack the Ripper, armchair psychiatrists are fascinated by Vincent van Gogh. Some 150 mental health professionals have considered his case in the 130-odd years since his death, and he has been given over 30 different diagnoses. It is of course hard to properly assess a historical figure – one cannot interview, observe or get to know him, and cannot use modern psychological or medical tests. There is written evidence available, from Vincent’s copious letters, eye witness accounts and the surviving case notes of the doctors who treated him. But Vincent was garrulous and self-absorbed to a fault, and his letters reveal everything and nothing. Stories by people who knew Vincent were generally told long after his death – while he was alive few paid him any attention. And his nineteenth century doctors wrote to other sets of assumptions and diagnostic categories to those of today, and used terminology differently. None of this however has stopped speculation about his confusing mental state.


Disorders that Vincent has been suggested to have experienced include bipolar disorder, as evidenced by his mood swings from despondency to excessive energy and enthusiasm. He has also been labelled as having borderline personality disorder, which may have been behind his difficulty with social relationships, holding down a job and his successful manipulation of his brother. In his letters, he spoke fluent ‘therapy speak’, showing understanding of his problems while being completely unable to change – another characteristic of borderline personality disorder. He was also almost certainly an alcoholic, freely admitting to consuming large quantities of absinthe and cognac to blunt his feelings and get him through the day. In addition, he may have been experiencing mental effects of syphillis infection.


His psychotic or delirious episodes were diagnosed by his doctors as being caused by temporal lobe epilepsy, and that diagnosis was held to be valid for many years, before falling out of favour more recently. Other possible explanations for them are schizophrenia, catatonia or an acute stress reaction fuelled by alcoholism and nutrient deficiency. Opinions differ as to whether the attacks were a more extreme continuation of his previous difficulties, or a new mental illness.


In 2016, the van Gogh museum held an Expert Symposium on Vincent’s mental state. Its conclusions were suitably guarded. Each of the above conditions were considered possible, without coming to a definite verdict. Could Vincent be diagnosed more accurately if he was alive today? Well perhaps, but psychiatry is still a notoriously imprecise business. Psychiatrists often disagree about a diagnosis even if they have the patient in front of them, with a battery of test results, and are generally stumped when asked what actually caused the person’s disorder. And there is also no guarantee that the person can be treated, let alone cured. As a commentator pointed out recently, only one psychiatric condition has been reliably pinned down in the past hundred years, in terms of identifying a reliable diagnosis, cause, treatment and cure, with the result that the condition in question has more or less been eradicated. It is a neurodegenerative condition named General Paralysis of the Insane (GPI), which before the development of antibiotics was a common (and fatal) consequence of tertiary syphilis – and ironically what killed Theo van Gogh.


But this is not the end of the story, for in the last few years, two new conditions have been invented that have eagerly been applied to Vincent’s case. These are the ‘neurodevelopmental’ conditions, Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Both appear to fit Vincent like a glove. His lifelong difficulties with social skills, empathy and making friends are characteristic of ASD, as is his single-minded pursuance of notions or activities. At the same time, his chaotic lifestyle, constant production of swiftly completed paintings (sometimes one a day) and inability to manage money tick the boxes for ADHD. Vincent has become a poster boy for neurodevelopmental disorders.


So that’s that then. But in reality, ASD and ADHD are hypotheses, not solidly identified medical entities, like GPI. Vincent fits their diagnostic criteria – but those criteria are so broad that so do a significant portion of the adult population. Actual neurological mechanisms underpinning the ‘symptoms’ of these ‘conditions’ have not been discovered. While trendy at the moment, it is quite possible that in the future ASD and/or ADHD will go out of fashion, and new diagnoses will be mooted to explain the enigma of Vincent van Gogh.


Or perhaps, the medicalisation of life will itself fall out of fashion, and like those who knew him in the nineteenth century people will simply shrug their shoulders and say, ‘C’est un fou’ – which roughly translates to, ‘He’s an arsehole’.


The Madness of Vincent’s Artistic Afterlife

We noted above that Vincent sold just one painting in his lifetime. When he died, his entire stock of paintings and drawings (some 860 oil paintings and over a thousand works on paper) came into Theo’s possession. Theo died just six months later, and his widow, Jo van Gogh Bonger was left with Vincent’s artworks. And that could have been that. Despite some positive attention given to those paintings that Theo had exhibited on Vincent’s behalf, there was no clear demand for his art, and apparently no one alive to promote it. Jo could have disposed of her cumbersome legacy, and Vincent would have been, at best, a brief footnote in art history.


But Jo had other ideas. She was an intelligent, cultivated, energetic and canny woman, whose role in rescuing Vincent’s art from obscurity has until recently been underplayed (when Jo and Theo’s son, V. W. van Gogh spoke at the opening of the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam in 1973, long after Jo’s death, he inexplicably did not mention his mother’s contribution). Jo began to act as an art dealer, to bring Vincent’s work to the market. She was apparently not motivated by money (she was comfortably off), but by her desire to provide a fitting memorial to Theo and Vincent. She cannily placed paintings on the market, and stoked up interest in Vincent’s work by accompanying them with extracts from his letters to Theo. Thus, as with Albert Aurier’s 1890 article, Vincent’s art was inextricably linked to his backstory. In 1905, Jo organised a major exhibition of Vincent’s work at the Stediljk museum in Amsterdam, and in 1914 she published her own translation of his letters to Theo. By 1920 the popular legend of Vincent van Gogh as a ‘mad genius’ was in place. It was reinforced by the publication in 1934 of Irving Stone’s novel ‘Lust for Life’, loosely based on Vincent’s life, and boosted further by the 1956 film of the book, starring all-American hero Kirk Douglas as a far too handsome and strapping Vincent.


So was Vincent a genius, mad or otherwise? He certainly adhered to Malcolm Gladwell’s dictum that genius requires at least 10,000 hours of practice (despite which his draughtsmanship remained imperfect), and he had an encyclopedic knowledge of art theory and contemporary artists from his extensive reading (Theo sometimes sought advice from Vincent when considering whether to promote an artist). His untutored mix of impressionism and Japanese styles, and his signature bright colours and wonky compositions are certainly appealing to popular taste, with or without his romanticised backstory. He has been credited as a key influence on the early-twentieth century European Expressionist movement, and on post-war ‘Neo-expressionist’ artists such as Anselm Keifer and Julian Schnabel.


At the same time, while Jo was trying to spark interest in Vincent’s art, not all art critics or dealers were equally impressed by his work. Paul Durand-Ruel, the dealer who brought the Impressionists to the attention of the public would not promote Vincent’s paintings (though to be fair, he disliked Cezanne and Gauguin as well). Roger Fry, the inventor of the term ’Post-impressionism’, included some of Vincent’s works in his seminal 1910 exhibition of the same name, but preferred the more formal and technically adept style of Cezanne and omitted Vincent from the 1912 follow-up exhibition. Later, the dealer Daniel Kahnweiler, who promoted Picasso and Cubism, censured a fellow dealer for advertising that he was interested in purchasing van Goghs, stating disdainfully that this was “the behaviour of an interior decorator, not an art dealer”. And in the 1950s, the influential American critic Clement Greenberg was uncomplimentary about Vincent’s ‘craft competence’, and questioned whether he could be regarded as a great artist.


By this time, however, critics such as Greenberg were on the wrong side of history. The popularity of Vincent’s art, fuelled by ‘Lust for Life’, had rendered all criticism null and void. Prices paid for Vincent’s paintings have risen exponentially, with the most expensive sold at auction to date being Orchard with Cypresses’, painted at Arles in 1888, and fetching $117 million in November 2022. A canny commentator has noted that as the prices of Vincent’s paintings increased, critics became more positive about his art. Vincent van Gogh has become a genius by default.


Conclusion: The Madnesses of Vincent van Gogh – a Marriage of Art and Backstory

In 2025, the Turner Prize, the UK’s annual art prize, was won by Nnena Kalu, a 59-year old woman artist who is autistic (uncontroversially), learning disabled and has limited communication. Her art includes sculptures bound together with VHS tape and drawings of swirling, tornado-like shapes. Her victory was not universally approved of by the critics. Some saw little in her work that the other short-listed artists couldn’t do as well or better, and questioned the extent that the judges were influenced by her history of cognitive difficulties. Others came to Kalu’s defence, deeming her an original and exciting artist and a worthy winner and accusing the naysayers of prejudice against people with learning disabilities. As with Vincent, any sober consideration of her art was rendered moot by knowledge of her backstory.


So what can we learn from the life and afterlife of Vincent van Gogh? In my opinion, nothing. He was a one-off – a freak, if you will – a deeply disturbed and unsympathetic character with a unique and baffling array of psychiatric symptoms. He somehow taught himself to paint, and was lucky enough to have a brother and sister-in-law who devoted themselves to supporting him and promoting his art in life and after his death. The stratospheric popularity he has gained in the 130-odd years since his passing is the result of a unique coming-together of a highly romanticised version of his life story, and the garish, untutored output of his brush. We will never see his like again.

 

Key Reference

Naifeh S & Smith GW (2011) Van Gogh: The Life. New York: Random House  

Charles Saatchi: The Man Who Was British Contemporary Art

One Sunday afternoon in June 2013, a paparazzi photographer named Jean-Paul noticed the retired adman and art collector Charles Saatchi and his then wife, the TV personality Nigella Lawson, on a terrace of Scotts, a Mayfair restaurant. They were arguing, and Saatchi put his hand around Lawson’s neck, apparently throttling her, while she jerked back in alarm. Soon, Jean-Paul’s photographs were in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Saatchi urbanely referred to the incident as a “playful tiff” and insouciantly accepted a police caution. But soon after, he and Lawson were divorced.


It was a rare insight into the character of a notoriously private man. Saatchi rarely gives interviews and his spoken and written utterances are generally bland and uninformative. Despite a lifetime as a leading patron of contemporary art, he remains an enigma. He rarely appears at exhibitions in the gallery that bears his name, and fundamental questions about his relationship with the art that he collects remain unanswered. In particular: does he actually like the art that he buys, or is he just playing the market? And how good is he as a judge of contemporary art? In this article we will review Saatchi’s ‘career’ in contemporary art and explore these questions.


Where did the Money come from: Charles Saatchi, the Adman

Saatchi’s involvement with the world of art was financed by his career in advertising. He was born into a prominent Jewish family in Iraq in 1943. Soon after, his family moved to Britain to escape antisemitism. He founded his first advertising agency, CramerSaatchi, in 1965 and then Saatchi and Saatchi, with his brother Maurice in 1970. Through a combination of Charles’s creative understanding and Maurice’s business acumen, Saatchi and Saatchi became the largest advertising agency in the world. Its most famous advert was the ‘Labour Isn’t Working’ poster campaign that may have helped the Conservative party win the 1979 General Election. But by the end of the 1980s, profits had fallen and an ill-judged attempt to buy the Midland Bank damaged the brothers’ reputations. They stepped down as joint Chief Executives of the company and in 1995 Maurice was ousted as Chairman. The brothers left to found a new agency, M&C Saatchi, which still operates today, though neither brother is still actively involved in the company. Saatchi and Saatchi also still exists, but the crown of the world’s largest agency has long been held by WPP, run until recently by Martin Sorrell, a former Saatchi and Saatchi finance director. His business career has left Charles extremely well off; at the time of their divorce, his and Lawson’s combined wealth was estimated at around £250 million.


Collecting Art in the 1970s and 1980s – and Selling it Too

Saatchi’s first art purchase was a piece by the American minimalist artist Sol LeWitt, in 1969. His taste in art during this period was heavily influenced by his first (American) wife, the late Doris Lockhart Saatchi, whom he met in 1967 and married in 1973. Doris had degrees in art and art history (Saatchi had left school with two O-Levels), and reputedly moved Charles’s collecting tastes on from old comics and jukeboxes. The couple accumulated a collection made up of works by British artists, along with a fine sample of American pop art and minimalism, and later ‘neo-expressionist’ works by the likes of Anselm Keifer and Julian Schnabel.


In 1985, the Saatchi Gallery opened in a disused paint factory in St John’s Wood, with exhibitions of artists collected by the Saatchi’s. At the time, Saatchi was unusual in Britain in showing his artworks to the public, rather than keeping them for himself, and his gallery hosted some of the first exhibitions in Britain of American contemporary art. The gallery moved in 2003 to part of the former County Hall building on the South Bank, then in 2008 to the Duke of York’s Headquarters building in Chelsea, where it remains.


At the end of the 1980s, Saatchi abruptly sold much of his art collection, for a considerable profit. This act created waves in the art world, and began the accusations, never dispelled, that he was effectively an art dealer rather than a collector, motivated primarily by money rather than by a love of art, and using his gallery as a shop window to attract future sales. In mitigation, it has been pointed out that at the time his advertising business was not thriving, and he needed funds to pay for his divorce from Doris. However, his actions left a sour taste with some of the artists whose work he offloaded. The art market is divided into the ‘primary market’, where artists sell their new work, usually to a dealer, and the ‘secondary market’, where dealers and collectors sell to each other. Artists do not get any direct benefit from sales in the secondary market (or bear the losses if their work drops in value), but it can affect the prices they achieve for their new work. Saatchi had been in the habit of buying individual artists’ works in volume, and so selling many pieces all at once flooded the market, lowering prices for the artists’ new pieces, and sending a signal to the market that he believed the artists’ popularity may have peaked. One artist whose work he sold, the abstract painter Sean Scully, remarked, "He's really a commodities broker who has been let loose on the art world. He claims to love art, but his is the love that the wolf has for the lamb." The Italian neo-expressionist painter Sandro Chia went further, claiming that Saatchi had ruined his career, an accusation that has been oft-repeated. In response, Saatchi and his supporters pointed out that he had only sold seven works by Chia, not enough to significantly affect his market, and opined that if Chia couldn’t attract good prices for his new work it was due to the diminishing quality of that work.


Today, Scully remains one of the most popular contemporary artists in the world in terms of auction sales, and even Chia is within the top 350. But Saatchi’s clear out started a habit that he has continued, with him buying work, often in bulk, displaying it in his gallery and selling it a few years later. He has been termed a ‘specullector’, somewhere between a dealer and a collector, an art world character that he more or less invented, but which has proliferated worldwide in recent years.


Saatchi and the Young British Artists (yBas)

In 1988, Saatchi was invited to view Freeze, an exhibition of work by art students studying at London’s Goldsmith’s College. It was highly unusual for students to put on their own art show, and unheard for such a show to be attended by the country’s foremost contemporary art collector (Saatchi), along with senior figures from the Royal Academy (Norman Rosenthal) and the Tate Gallery (Nicholas Serota). The exhibition was organised by 23-year-old Damien Hirst, and included work by sixteen students, including Hirst himself and others who would come to dominate British contemporary art in subsequent years, including Gary Hume, Sarah Lucas and Fiona Rae. Saatchi - and Doris, to whom he was still married - liked what they saw and started buying work by members of the group and other young artists, including Rachel Whiteread, Tracey Emin, Jenny Saville, Jake and Dinos Chapman and Chris Ofili. Starting in 1992, Saatchi put on a series of exhibitions at his gallery entitled ‘Young British Artists’ (subsequently abbreviated to ‘yBas’). The centrepiece of the first exhibition was Hirst’s The Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, otherwise known as ‘The Shark’, the construction of which was funded by the Saatchis, who paid Hirst £50,000 for it.


The yBas became fixtures on the list of nominees for the Turner Prize and it was won by Saatchi-supported artists Rachel Whiteread (1993), Damien Hirst (1995); Gillian Wearing (1997) and Chris Ofili (1998). But the yBas’ fame did not really spread beyond the world of contemporary art until an exhibition staged at the august Royal Academy in 1997. Entitled Sensation, it was arranged by Norman Rosenthal and comprised works by yBas and other contemporary artists from Saatchi’s collection. The exhibition achieved notoriety for the controversial – and confrontational – nature of some of the works, such Hirst’s A Thousand Years, which comprised thousands of flies feasting on a rotting cow’s head; Jake and Dinos Chapman’s disturbing mannequins of children with displaced sexual organs and – especially – Marcus Harvey’s huge painting Myra, a depiction of a familiar police photo of Moors Murderer Myra Hindley, made out of hundreds of children’s handprints. The yBa formula – an attention-grabbing mix of pop art and conceptualism, reinforced by the outsized personalities of figures such as Hirst, Emin and Lucas, who combined the attitudes and behaviour of 70s punk rock with 80s ‘Loadsamoney’ culture, caught the popular imagination. Outrage in the popular media fuelled the fire, and the public visited the exhibition in droves - some 300,000 during its run. The yBas became – briefly – as feted as the contemporary Britpop bands (Oasis, Blur, Pulp etc) as symbols of ‘Cool Britannia’. The impact of The Shark and other yBa pieces has been credited by the critic Waldermar Janusek with providing the impetus for the establishment of Tate Modern, in 2000.


Sensation has been compared in its impact on the contemporary art world to the 1863 Salon des Refuses that saw the first stirrings of the Impressionist movement. But while the Salon des Refuses marked a beginning, Sensation was the beginning of the end for the yBas, who were felt to have already produced their best work. Certainly Saatchi himself thought so and, as we will see, was moving on to sponsoring other groups of artists. In 1998, Saatchi sold 130 works (5% of his collection) at auction, including pieces by Hirst, Whiteread, Lucas and Ofili, the total sale generating £1.6 million, which Saatchi said would be used to finance bursaries for art students. Subsequently, Saatchi sold many other yBa works. In 2003, Hirst bought twelve works back from Saatchi for much more than Saatchi originally paid him, and in 2005 Saatchi sold ‘the Shark’ to an American collector for around £7 million (remember he originally paid Hirst £50,000 to make it). In 2004, Saatchi let it be known that in his view, only Hirst out of the yBas would still be regarded as of lasting influence in ten years time.


Also in 2004, a huge fire at a warehouse rented by the art storage firm Momart destroyed some 100 artworks owned by Saatchi, including iconic yBa pieces such as Tracey Emin’s Everyone I have Ever Slept With, a tent embroidered with their names, and the Chapman brothers’ installation Hell. Saatchi was said to be ‘devastated’, but the reaction of the popular press was of glee and schadenfreude, with commentators opining that the lost works were so unskilfully made that they could easily be reproduced, and that any sense of loss that Saatchi felt would be swiftly assuaged by a substantial compensation cheque.


So did Saatchi cynically nurture the yBas during the 1990s so that he could profit from their notoriety? Certainly, his actions were in keeping with the ‘specullector’ model that he had developed in the 1980s. Protestations that his sales were to fund his gallery and to support new artists were met with scepticism. Inevitably he fell out with some of the yBa artists; in 2002 Hirst remarked, "I'm not Charles Saatchi's barrel-organ monkey...He only recognises art with his wallet.” It is often said that Saatchi the Adman was attracted to the yBas as their more striking works looked like advertisements, eye catching images carrying simple messages, and regarded them in the same way, to be discarded once their impact had been made. Certainly, one of Saatchi and Saatchi’s most iconic adverts, the photograph of a ‘pregnant man’, made in 1970 for a health education campaign, could easily have been repackaged as a yBa artwork.


On the other hand, Saatchi’s involvement with the yBas did not really follow a clearly planned route. It is said that at first Saatchi was not particularly impressed by the original Freeze exhibition, and it was Doris who encouraged him to engage with Hirst and others. He did not dream up the term ‘Young British Artists’ (or ‘yBas’), it is attributed to the writer Michael Corris. If Saatchi seemed to be the only collector buying yBa art in the 1990s, it was largely because at the time he effectively was the market for contemporary British art – no one else in the UK was buying on anything like his scale, so Saatchi set the market by default. Even the Sensation exhibition was a lucky accident; Norman Rosenthal had a gap in his schedule, and at short notice (in art world terms) Saatchi offered to fill the gap with works from his collection, reputedly making some hasty last-minute purchases to bulk up the exhibits. While the yBas attracted all the headlines, they actually only made up around half of the 42 artists shown at Sensation.


And so, while Saatchi is sometimes credited with ‘discovering’ and controlling the careers of the yBas, the reality is more nuanced, with Saatchi’s contributions being sometimes more seat-of-the-pants than ruthlessly focused. It seems improbable that world-class self-promoters such as Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin would not have succeeded in the art world without Saatchi. No yBa careers were ruined by Saatchi selling their work. And twenty years on, Saatchi’s 2004 claim that only Hirst would be regarded as consequential in ten years time has proven to be wide of the mark. Today, while Hirst is fabulously rich, his artistic reputation is at a low ebb, while other yBas, such as Rachel Whiteread, Sarah Lucas, Jenny Saville and, yes, Tracey Emin achieve both high prices for their work and continuing critical plaudits.


After the yBas – Diminishing Returns?

In 1998-9, while the afterglow of Sensation was still shining, and iconic yBa works such as Tracey Emin’s My Bed had only just been created, Saatchi held two exhibitions in his gallery of rather different young artists. The exhibitions were put on under the titleNeurotic Realism’, a term apparently coined by Saatchi himself, and included artists in their 20s or 30s, mostly British or working in the UK (and mostly male). A couple (Martin Maloney and Paul Davies) had been included in Sensation, but were not connected with the yBas; the others were essentially unknowns.


And mostly remained so. If Neurotic Realism was Saatchi’s attempt to invent a new popular art movement to succeed the yBas, it had all the impact of a Sinclair C5. Reviews of the shows were generally scathing, with critics finding the label amorphous and confusing and many of the individual artists second-rate (though two artists involved in the shows were subsequently nominated for the Turner Prize: Tomoko Takahashi in 2000 and Dexter Dalwood in 2010). The public stayed away. If, in showbiz terms, the yBas and Sensation was a Hit, Neurotic Realismwas a resounding Miss.


The Neurotic Realism label was dropped quicker than a misfiring advertising campaign, but the exhibitions set a pattern for subsequent shows at the Saatchi gallery. Saatchi specialised in buying and displaying works by young artists, predominantly in traditional media (painting, sculpture, some photography), and with little pure conceptualism. While some of the photographers he supported explored social issues, there were few overtly political works (as one might expect from a man who reputedly helped Margaret Thatcher win an election). Images he favoured tended to be bright and immediate. His exhibitions leaned towards ‘art for art’s sake’, and there was less of a shock factor than previously, although in 2004 the press was stirred up by his inclusion of paintings by Stella Vine of heroin victim Rachel Whitear and an unflattering portrayal of Princess Diana. During the first two decades of the twenty-first century his gallery put on a series of exhibitions of ‘new’ British artists, picked up by Saatchi at degree shows and trade fairs. Stories abounded of Saatchi turning up at degree shows and buying all the works exhibited by an artist; sometimes paying full price and sometimes ruthlessly beating the hapless student down, apparently with little rhyme or reason behind his purchases. It was sometimes said that some young artists deliberately made works in ‘Saatchi style’ to try to attract his interest.


Few of the young artists he promoted have had stellar careers, and the feeling among some commentators was that Saatchi was continually searching for the ‘next big thing’ to cement his reputation as a creator of art trends. In 2009, he put his name to (but characteristically didn’t appear in) a television series called School of Saatchi, a reality show that aimed to find a new great young British artist (spoiler alert: it didn’t). He also bought, and put on shows of young artists from other countries: America, India and China. The most successful exhibition at the Saatchi gallery in terms of visitor numbers was 2008’s ‘The Revolution Continues, New Art from China’, which had 500,000 visitors (beating Sensation’s 300,000), but which included artists who were already becoming established in China and worldwide. Do I like ‘Saatchi style’ art? Not really, it is all a bit gaudy and trite for my taste; the sort of pictures one might see on the walls of a trendy hotel or restaurant. Easy on the eye but needing no more than a few seconds scrutiny.


Saatchi continued his ‘specullecting’ by regularly selling works after he had shown them. Following a well-received 2005 show called ‘The Triumph of Painting’, which featured established artists such as Martin Kipperberger, Marlene Dumas and Luc Tuymans, Saatchi auctioned many of the paintings, and a work entitled The White Canoe, by the Scottish painter Peter Doig, was bought by a Georgian oligarch for £6 million, far more than Saatchi had originally paid for it. The sale sparked increased interest in Doig’s work, which now regularly goes for seven-figure sums in the secondary market, although the artist ruefully reflects that he doesn’t see any of the proceeds. Saatchi could not claim to have ‘discovered’ Doig – he had won the Turner prize back in 1994 – and this sale possibly reflected good luck more than an expert eye for the market.


The relationship between Saatchi’s gallery and London’s other major venue for contemporary art, Tate Modern, has not always run smooth. Tate Modern opened in 2000, and in 2003, Saatchi moved his gallery from the wilds of St John’s Wood to the former County Hall building on the South Bank. It was now a short distance from the new museum, a move some commentators interpreted as provocative. In 2004, Saatchi let it be known that he had spoken to the Tate’s Director, Nicholas Serota, about the possibility of donating his collection to Tate Modern, to be displayed in a then-unused area of the building known as the Tanks. Serota apparently rebuffed the proposal, citing the cost of converting the Tanks, and doubtless concerned about the degree of influence that Saatchi would expect to wield. Time has demonstrated also that the Tate’s priorities are not those of Saatchi, with the former favouring art with a strong theoretical base and a social or political message (latterly embracing ‘woke’ themes), and being less keen than Saatchi on works that are visually striking.


In 2010, Saatchi announced that he was donating his gallery and entire collection, which at the time had an estimated value of £30 million, to the Nation. He anticipated that this offer would be gratefully received by the Arts Council, and indeed by the Tate. However, both those bodies sat on their hands, and the donation never materialised. While the details of the negotiations were not made public, there was once again suspicion as to Saatchi’s motives – did he want to rid himself of the expense of running his gallery and would he want to influence which of his artworks were shown and how? The proposal came to nothing, and in 2019 the management of the Saatchi gallery was taken on by a charitable Trust. Also in 2010,Saatchi founded ‘Saatchi Online’ (now ‘Saatchi Art’), an online platform for artists and the public to sell and buy art (all Saatchi’s ventures include his name, which may be vanity, but as an Adman, Saatchi understands the power of brands).


In 2024, Saatchi, now 81, sent three-quarters of his art collection, some 500 pieces, for sale by public auction through the online dealer Artsy. The proceeds were donated to Great Ormond Street Hospital. Typically, Saatchi did not explain why he had chosen to benefit this charity. The total proceeds of the sale were some £250,000, or an average of £500 per piece. Doubtless, Saatchi kept his more valuable artworks out of the auction, but it was a far cry from the £30 million his collection had once been worth. Scrolling through the images of the sale works online, it was notable how many of his purchases since the yBas have been of paintings that were visually impactful but by artists with small followings and low value.


Conclusion: Charles Saatchi – A Rich Man who likes a Flutter?

One day in 2004, shortly before the opening at his gallery of one of his many exhibitions of new young artists, Saatchi had a chance meeting with the critic Adrian Searle. Years of frustration came out as Saatchi fumed, "Let me write your review for you. I'm a cunt, this place is shit, and the artists I show are all fucked. Will that do for you?"


Searle’s subsequent review of the exhibition said much the same thing, though in 1,500 words rather than 15. Saatchi has never been a darling of the critics, who like to think that their motives are more pure, and their taste more acute than his. And by writing this article, I am setting myself up as a critic, passing judgement on Saatchi and his decades in the contemporary art world. Now he is in his eighties, Saatchi’s ‘career’ in art is largely behind him. He is no longer the only British patron of contemporary art, or even the richest. His collection has largely been sold off and his gallery is under new management. So what conclusions can I reach?


Well, there is no doubt that for several decades, Saatchi was the foremost patron of contemporary art in Britain, and a revolutionary figure in the art world. In the 1980s, he introduced leading American artists to this country, and was the only collector in Britain showing contemporary art in his own gallery. In the 1990s, he was midwife to the yBas, the most impactful contemporary art movement that the country has seen. He created the ‘specullector’ model of art patronage, and his example has subsequently been followed by art patrons worldwide.


Was he a great judge of art? His record of buying and exhibiting art in the years since Sensation would suggest not. Many of the shows of new artists that took place at the Saatchi gallery received lukewarm reviews. If he hoped to discover the ‘next big thing’ he was disappointed (although no one else has found the ‘next big thing’ either). But perhaps that was never the point.


Saatchi’s public utterances have been few and far between, and are generally dismissed as trite and disingenuous. He once said to an interviewer, "There's nothing complicated about me. There are no hidden depths. As Frank Stella said about minimalism, what you see is what you see." But perhaps he speaks more candidly about himself than he is given credit for. Talking to the same interviewer about his purchasing strategy, he said, I buy new art, and 90% of the art I buy will probably be worthless in 10 years' time to anyone except me. I don't know how much of the art I like is significant; I hope some of it is. Who knows what will last?...I do it for the pleasure of putting on shows”.


And perhaps that’s it. Perhaps Saatchi wasn’t trying to find the next big thing, he was just buying new art – lots of it – and giving young artists a chance. As we have seen, there was a ‘Saatchi style’ – brash, immediate, eye-catching, largely non-political, that his exhibitions after Sensation largely stuck to. Saatchi may (or may not) have known a lot about art, but he knew what he liked.


Similarly, perhaps there was less to Saatchi’s ‘specullecting’ than conspiracy theorists think. In 2009 he published a typically slight book titled, ‘My name is Charles and I’m an Artoholic’. But perhaps the (rather crass) title has significance – maybe Saatchi was addicted to buying art (Damien Hirst once said that he was “addicted to shopping”). At the end of the day, Saatchi was a rich man with an absorbing hobby – and rich men often like a flutter. And so, along with supporting young artists, Saatchi sometimes indulged himself by playing the market.


Let us leave the last word to Saatchi himself. In a 2009 interview, he summed up his thirty years’ involvement with contemporary art:

I buy art that I like. I buy it to show it off in exhibitions. Then, if I feel like it, I sell it and buy more art….What matters and survives is the art”.

Veni, Vidi, Imbibi: An Incomplete and Personal History of British Music Festivals (1): The Twentieth Century

 In January 2020 I attended a music festival. On the face of it, this is not a remarkable statement - it is estimated that in 2019 over a qu...