Frank - a Jake Auerbach film

For an insightful look into the life and work of Frank Auerbach, we recommend the film by his son, Jake Auerbach. Known for his tireless dedication to painting and reclusive nature, Frank Auerbach rarely ventures beyond his North London studio. However, when his retrospective opened at Kunstmuseum Bonn in 2015, Jake captured the exhibition on film to share with his father, offering a rare opportunity for Frank to revisit works he hadn’t seen in decades.

The resulting documentary reveals not only the artist's reflections on his oeuvre but also an intimate portrait of a father-son relationship. Interweaving Auerbach’s artistic philosophy, drawing on inspirations ranging from Gauguin to Shakespeare, with candid moments of personal connection, the film provides a compelling window into the mind of one of Britain’s most celebrated painters.

David Bomberg and Frank Auerbach

The recent death of Frank Auerbach marks the passing of one of the greatest painters of our time, whose commitment to his craft was unmatched. Yet, to fully appreciate Auerbach’s extraordinary achievements, we must turn to his early mentor, David Bomberg. A pioneering modernist, Bomberg not only shaped British art but influenced the course of Auerbach’s career. Their intertwined legacies speak to the transformative power of teaching and the enduring impact of creative mentorship.

David Bomberg: The Radical Innovator

David Bomberg (1890–1957), born into a working-class Polish-Jewish immigrant family in Birmingham, rose to prominence as a revolutionary voice in early 20th-century art. Works like The Mud Bath (1914) and In the Hold (1913–14) showcased his interest in the fragmented forms of Cubism and Futurism. But Bomberg’s artistic vision was never static. His experiences during World War I, where he served as a soldier and later as an official war artist, prompted a dramatic shift toward a more humanistic, emotionally charged approach to painting.

While his contemporaries gained recognition, Bomberg struggled for institutional support. This marginalization led him to focus on teaching, which became a central part of his legacy. Bomberg’s classes at the Borough Polytechnic (now London South Bank University) in the late 1940s and early 1950s became a crucible of creativity, attracting students like Frank Auerbach and Leon Kossoff, who would later define post-war British painting.

The Teacher and the Student

For Auerbach, Bomberg was more than a teacher—he was a philosophical guide who fundamentally altered his approach to painting. Auerbach, a refugee from Nazi Germany, arrived in Bomberg’s class at the Borough Polytechnic in 1947, a young artist grappling with the enormity of his displacement.

Bomberg’s teaching emphasized “the spirit in the mass”—a belief that the painter’s role was not to reproduce appearances but to engage deeply with the subject’s essence. This approach resonated with Auerbach, whose work would come to embody this same intensity. Bomberg urged his students to search relentlessly for truth in their work, to trust their instincts, and to accept failure as a vital part of artistic growth.

Auerbach absorbed Bomberg’s ethos of relentless experimentation, working and reworking his paintings over months—even years—until they captured the essence of his subject. This rigor became the defining hallmark of Auerbach’s career.

Bomberg’s Teaching Legacy

Bomberg’s classes were unconventional, rejecting rigid academic methods. Instead, he fostered an environment of creative exploration. He encouraged students to look beyond surface appearances, to immerse themselves in the emotional and physical reality of their subjects.

Bomberg’s insistence on the relationship between the artist and the material world was revolutionary. He viewed painting as a dialogue between the artist and the subject, one that required complete immersion and honesty. This approach transformed Auerbach’s understanding of painting, laying the foundation for his intense, tactile engagement with the medium.

Auerbach’s thickly layered canvases, capturing the streets of Camden or the faces of friends, embodied and extended some of the principles Bomberg instilled in him. The act of painting, for Auerbach, does engage with Bomberg’s concept of the “spirit in the mass”—a struggle to capture the essence of his subjects through relentless observation and revision.

Auerbach eclipsed Bomberg in public recognition, he never forgot his teacher’s impact. Bomberg’s vision, rooted in the search for truth and the emotional power of form, was a constant presence in Auerbach’s work.

The relationship between David Bomberg and Frank Auerbach exemplifies the profound, lasting impact a teacher can have on an artist’s life. Bomberg’s lessons—about searching, feeling, and daring to fail—shaped Auerbach’s art, while Auerbach’s success brought renewed attention to Bomberg’s work, ensuring his place in the history of British art.

With Auerbach passing, we celebrate not only his remarkable career but also the creative dialogue that began in Bomberg’s classroom. Together, they remind us that the most meaningful art is born not in isolation but through shared ideas and explorations of the medium.

Why Did Dorothy Mead Experience Less Success Than Her Male British Modern Contemporaries?

Why Did Dorothy Mead Experience Less Success Than Her Male British Modern Contemporaries?

by Alice Mcleod-Bishop

Dorothy Mead was a loyal student to Bomberg and championed his work and methods even when the wider British art community was staunchly against Bomberg’s teaching methods and philosophy, leading to Mead being asked to leave the Slade before completing her studies there. It is difficult to know why the art-world failed to appreciate Bomberg’s works despite his students and friends being able to recognise his skills: perhaps they found his teaching style too unorthodox or were threatened by his approach and philosophy. Whatever the reasoning, the establishment was against Bomberg and the Borough Group as a result, which arguably hindered the flourishing of the group-members’ careers as galleries refused to exhibit their work. 

According to Borough Group founding member Cliff Holden, some of those who were in close contact with Bomberg made a mockery of his practice, by recreating (arguably, cheapening) Bomberg’s stylistic affects. One of these individuals is world renowned artist Frank Auerbach, who was an avid student of Bomberg’s from 1947-1953 and the most successful of Bomberg’s students. Auerbach did not join the Borough Group or Bottega during their existence as it seems he intended to not be as closely associated with Bomberg and his followers. It is quite clear when examining Auerbach’s work how heavily he was influenced by Bomberg, especially when you compare Auerbach’s paintings with Mead’s, who was proud to be Bomberg’s student. 

(left: Mead, Reclining Figure, 1954; right: Auerbach, E.O.W Nude, 1954)

(left: Mead, Self Portrait, 1960; right: Auerbach, Julia, 1992)

(left: Mead, Industrial Landscape, Evening, 1947; right, Auerbach, Building Site Earl’s Court Road: Winter (Replica), 1955)

Auerbach’s style does differ from Mead’s – for example he depicts less form and uses thicker or more paint – but the Bombergian influences in both their work is clear on examining some of Bomberg’s paintings in the Borough Road Gallery’s collection. So why did Mead find little success where Auerbach found fame and fortune? It is certain that Auerbach’s distancing from Bomberg and the groups associated to him allowed for his career to flourish since critics, galleries, buyers, and others were unbiased regarding his art since they generally held a strong dislike toward Bomberg. Those who were part of the Borough Group and the Bottega failed to break through because Bomberg’s methods and philosophy were misunderstood, explaining how Auerbach, who had similar stylistic techniques and subjects in his paintings compared to Mead, was so successful despite being taught by Bomberg. 

It can also be inferred that Mead’s gender had a great deal to do with her career not finding the success it had the potential to. Female artists have had the odds stacked against them for as long as society itself has been patriarchal. Until recently, non-male artists were rarely commissioned to make work, and ratio of male to female artists in galleries always shows there are more male artists being exhibited, sold and critiqued. The men who were influenced by Bomberg and were closely aligned to him, such as Holden, still found more success than their female counterparts. And the men who were influenced by Bomberg and distanced themselves from his philosophy, such as Auerbach, found even greater success. Considering that Auerbach was three years younger than Mead, they were certainly contemporaries and so the comparison between their works is relevant, highlighting the distinct differences between their careers. If Mead had distanced herself from Bomberg and continued to study at the Slade, as Auerbach did, she might have been a considerably more well-known and successful artist; and yet, maybe her allegiance to Bomberg and her respect for his teachings made her the artist she became.