The Festival of Britain, 1951: A National Showcase and an Artistic Snub by Theresa Kneppers

In the summer of 1951, just six years after the end of the Second World War, the Festival of Britain transformed the South Bank of the Thames into a dazzling celebration of national renewal. Billed as a “tonic for the nation” by its Director General, Sir Gerald Barry, the Festival was both a public morale-booster and a cultural showcase—marking the centenary of the Great Exhibition of 1851 and asserting a confident vision for modern Britain.

From May to September, millions visited the pavilions, sculptures, and design exhibitions, encountering everything from architectural models to futuristic fabrics, modernist furniture to cutting-edge art. Across the country, satellite exhibitions in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and via a travelling programme brought this optimistic vision to the nation at large.

Art and the Festival: A National Stage

At the heart of the Festival was a belief in culture as public good. The Arts Council was charged with commissioning new work from 12 sculptors and 60 painters to form the visual centrepiece of the arts programme. These artists—among them Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, John Piper, Graham Sutherland, and Jacob Epstein—were already central to the post-war art establishment.

The Arts Council stipulation was ambitious: works had to be no smaller than 45 x 60 inches, on a subject of the artist’s choosing. The results ranged from the expressive to the abstract, and the Festival’s art was displayed not only in London but across the UK, in a deliberate attempt to decentralise and democratise access to modern art.

Among those featured in the Arts Council’s 60 Paintings for ’51 were rising stars like Lucian Freud, William Gear, Patrick Heron, and Claude Rogers. Five paintings were ultimately acquired by the Arts Council—an endorsement of the era’s most establishment-approved artists.

The Borough Group and the Festival: A Telling Absence

And yet, conspicuously absent from this cultural celebration were David Bomberg and the students of the Borough Polytechnic—despite Bomberg's profound influence on a younger generation of British painters.

For Bomberg, who had once been lauded as a vanguard figure of modernism and was a founding member of the London Group, the Festival of Britain could have marked a powerful moment of national recognition. The opportunity to paint at scale, to reflect the spirit of post-war regeneration, and to contribute to a public conversation about art and society—these were ideals aligned closely with Bomberg’s own sensibilities.

But the omission speaks volumes. By 1951, Bomberg was largely overlooked by the cultural establishment. His anti-academic approach to teaching, his passionate belief in art as a spiritual and physical encounter, and his resistance to institutional norms had placed him outside the official narrative of British art. The Festival’s curators preferred the more palatable, marketable modernism of Moore, Hepworth, and Sutherland to the raw, vital work being produced in Bomberg’s Borough classroom.

A Legacy of Neglect, and a Reappraisal

In retrospect, the Festival’s exclusion of Bomberg and the Borough Group feels like a missed opportunity. While it succeeded in capturing the energy of some aspects of post-war creativity, it failed to acknowledge the deeper, slower revolutions taking place in classrooms and studios just a few miles away.

The Borough Road Archive preserves this overlooked legacy—a parallel narrative of post-war British art driven by intensity, experimentation, and commitment to truth in painting. Bomberg may not have been celebrated on the South Bank in 1951, but his influence would endure far beyond the bunting and fanfare of the Festival.

Today, as we revisit these national moments of celebration, it's equally important to consider who was left out—and why.

Further Exploration:

  • 60 Paintings for '51 (Arts Council archives)

  • Ten Decades: A Review of British Taste, ICA, 1951

  • Masterpieces of Victorian Photography, Arts Council, 1951

The School of London by Theresa Kneppers

A Return to the Human Form

Key Artists: Michael Andrews, Frank Auerbach, Francis Bacon, Lucian Freud, R. B. Kitaj, Leon Kossoff
Related Artists: Gillian Ayres, Howard Hodgkin

The School of London was a loose association of artists dedicated to figurative painting at a time when abstraction dominated the art world. The term was coined by R. B. Kitaj in his 1987 British Council exhibition, referring to a group of painters who had upheld the importance of the human form, psychological depth, and materiality of paint.

Artists like Auerbach and Kossoff continued David Bomberg’s legacy, using thick impasto and dynamic brushwork to capture the essence of London’s shifting post-war landscape. Their approach contrasted sharply with Francis Bacon’s visceral, distorted figures and Lucian Freud’s intensely detailed, introspective portraits.

“It was through my contact with Bomberg that I felt I might actually function as a painter.” – Leon Kossoff

Contrasting with Contemporary Movements

At a time when conceptualism, performance art, and minimalism were gaining prominence, the School of London artists reaffirmed the importance of the painted surface and human experience. Their work was deeply personal, often depicting friends, lovers, and the urban environment with a raw emotional intensity.

Kitaj described the group as responding to the existential concerns of post-war Britain, exploring themes of alienation, identity, and mortality in a rapidly modernizing world.

"Francis Bacon was much concerned by the human condition, using derision to depict human figures always shown distorted to express anguish and solitude. Contrary to Bacon's nudity of the soul, Lucian Freud was fascinated by the nudity of bodies, proving to be a master in expressing sheer intimacy with no restrictions." – R. B. Kitaj

Kitchen Sink Painters: Gritty Realism in Post-War Britain by Theresa Kneppers

The history of post-war British painting is often told through its competing movements—abstraction, conceptualism, and performance art—but throughout the 20th century, figurative painters in London remained deeply engaged with human experience, social change, and the materiality of paint.

This blog series explores different strands of figurative painting, from the Kitchen Sink Painters, who depicted the realities of working-class life, to the School of London, known for its psychological intensity and expressive brushwork. These movements intersect with the Borough Group, founded in 1946 by David Bomberg and his students, which emphasized the physicality of paint and the importance of direct observation.

By examining these movements and their relationships to British social history and artistic trends, we aim to uncover the enduring significance of figurative art in the 20th and 21st centuries. Upcoming posts will further explore connections and influences within this tradition.

A Movement of Everyday Life

Key Artists: John Bratby, Derrick Greaves, Edward Middleditch, Jack Smith, Peter Coker
Related Artists: Prunella Clough, Joan Eardley, John Berger, Ruskin Spear

Emerging in the early 1950s, the Kitchen Sink Painters focused on the realities of post-war British life, depicting modest domestic scenes, urban landscapes, and working-class interiors. Their work was deeply rooted in social realism, mirroring the mood of British theatre and literature, such as John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger (1956).

Their paintings were characterized by cluttered compositions, muted palettes, and an emphasis on everyday objects—kitchen sinks, household furniture, and unremarkable urban settings. The movement gained recognition when the artists exhibited together at the 1956 Venice Biennale, supported by Helen Lessore’s Beaux Arts Gallery.

“I just painted the objects around me. I lived in that kind of house… If one had lived in a palace, one might have painted chandeliers.” – Jack Smith

A Political and Critical Reception

While the movement was not strictly ideological, it had ties to Marxist cultural criticism, particularly through John Berger, who championed their focus on working-class life. However, for many of the artists, their work was less about politics and more about painting the truth of everyday experience.

The name Kitchen Sink was coined by critic David Sylvester in a 1954 article for Encounter. Initially intended as a criticism, the term stuck, reflecting the painters' focus on the ordinary and unembellished. Their style had links to Pop Art, Soviet Realism, and post-war existentialist painting, but its momentum faded by the early 1960s as artistic trends shifted.

Experimental Forms: The Role of Texture in Modernist Paintings by Theresa Kneppers

Landscape at Greenwich, Dennis Creffield

The artworks of A David Bomberg Legacy – The Sarah Rose Collection are celebrated not only for their visual composition but also for their tactile qualities. Texture, achieved through thick brushstrokes, knife applications, and innovative use of materials, is central to the emotional resonance and dynamic language of the Borough Group's works. This blog explores the role of texture in modernist painting, highlighting the tools, techniques, and philosophies that shaped these vivid creations.

Thick Brushstrokes and the Spirit of the Mass

David Bomberg, a pivotal figure in the collection, emphasized capturing the "spirit in the mass" rather than merely representing forms. His bold use of thick brushstrokes conveyed a physicality and presence that went beyond the surface. This approach allowed Bomberg to imbue his landscapes and portraits with a sense of vitality, where the paint itself seemed to pulse with energy. Bomberg’s students, including Dorothy Mead and Dennis Creffield, inherited and adapted this philosophy, each finding unique ways to translate mass and movement into their works.

Knife Applications and Sculptural Qualities

Several pieces in the collection demonstrate the use of palette knives to create textured, sculptural effects. Knife applications allowed artists to layer paint in a way that produced sharp contrasts and a sense of depth. The tool's versatility enabled both broad, sweeping motions and precise detailing, resulting in works that invited viewers to not only see but almost feel the art. Dorothy Mead’s self-portraits, for instance, often combine dense, tactile layers of paint with subtle color modulations, creating a striking interplay between light and shadow.

Innovative Materials and Techniques

While traditional oil on canvas dominates, many artists in the Borough Group experimented with unconventional materials and methods. Mixed media works in the collection reveal explorations with impasto—a technique where paint is applied so thickly that it stands out from the surface. The ridges and grooves left by brushes or knives catch the light in unexpected ways, adding dynamism and dimensionality to the compositions. These textural experiments reflect the artists’ desire to push boundaries, both technically and conceptually.

Texture as a Visual Language

Texture in modernist painting goes beyond aesthetics; it functions as a language of its own. In Bomberg’s Mountain and Gorge series, for example, the rugged, layered paint evokes the harshness and grandeur of the landscapes he depicted. Similarly, the tactile surfaces in Mead’s works convey a raw emotional intensity, drawing viewers into an intimate dialogue with the piece. Texture becomes a means of storytelling, where every ridge, groove, and stroke holds meaning.

Dennis Creffield: Bridging the Physical and Spiritual

Dennis Creffield, one of Bomberg’s most dedicated students, brought a unique sensitivity to texture in his works. Known for his monumental charcoal drawings of English cathedrals, Creffield’s paintings often explored the interplay of physical structure and spiritual resonance. His thick, gestural brushstrokes and layered paint convey a sense of both solidity and transcendence, capturing the essence of his subjects with a raw, visceral power. Creffield’s commitment to Bomberg’s principles of mass and form is evident in his textured surfaces, which seem to vibrate with energy and emotion, bridging the physical world with the intangible.

Dennis Creffield: Bridging the Physical and Spiritual

Dennis Creffield, one of Bomberg’s most dedicated students, brought a unique sensitivity to texture in his works. Known for his monumental charcoal drawings of English cathedrals, Creffield’s paintings often explored the interplay of physical structure and spiritual resonance. His thick, gestural brushstrokes and layered paint convey a sense of both solidity and transcendence, capturing the essence of his subjects with a raw, visceral power. Creffield’s commitment to Bomberg’s principles of mass and form is evident in his textured surfaces, which seem to vibrate with energy and emotion, bridging the physical world with the intangible.

Tools of Expression

The artists in the collection used a variety of tools to achieve their textured effects. Beyond brushes and palette knives, some works show evidence of fingers, rags, or even experimental tools like combs and sticks. These tools allowed for a direct, visceral connection between the artist and the medium, emphasizing process as much as product. The physicality of these techniques resonates with Bomberg’s belief in the importance of the artist’s presence within the work.

Reclining Nude. Dorothy Mead

Frank - a Jake Auerbach film by Theresa Kneppers

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 by Theresa Kneppers

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.

Report by HM Inspectors on the Borough Polytechnic 1947  Bomberg at the Borough Road by Theresa Kneppers

Report by HM Inspectors on the Borough Polytechnic 1947 

P30-31, on the Art Department 

(ii) Composition 

The teacher is a painter of wide experience who has developed a very personal style in his own work. 

The Composition class takes place on two mornings each week in the Life room and is attended by both full-time and part-time students. The room is badly lit and there is hardly adequate accommodation for the full number of students working on large-scale pictures. 

The subject of each student’s work is carefully related to his interested and potentialities, and the students are then encouraged to develop their ideas in a direct and spontaneous manner concentrating from the beginning on the main construction of their pictures and evolving of forms expressive of the particular theme. Sketches are enlarged and revised in a number of stages until the final work is carried out, usually on a large scale. 

By means of considerable personal effort the teacher has been able to give confidence to his students and to maintain a high level of interest in the work. Although the majority of students have had little previous experience, their work shows a remarkable imaginative intensity and feeling for design. Most of them have at present small ability as draughtsmen and much of their work is characterised by a certain vagueness of form. 

The ultimate value of these rather unorthodox teaching methods will depend very much on whether the students can bring a strong personal perception of nature to the technical understanding of picture making they are now acquiring and thus avoid mannerism. 

(iii) Life Drawing. A Life Drawing class is taken by the same teacher on one afternoon during the week. It is attended by full-time and part-time students, and, as the number has grown too large for the size of the Life room, the Head of Department proposes to split the class. 

The approach to Life Drawing is related to the methods used in the Composition class. The teacher rightly insists on an atmosphere of concentration being maintained in the Life room and he aims at making the student regard each drawing as a creative exercise rather than a piece of passive copying. Many of the drawings in the Students’ folios had been done using charcoal or chalk in a broad sweeping manner which brought out the beauty of the material and gave an attractive suggestion of the main forms and movement of the figure. This method has enabled students of little experience to acquire rapidly a means of expression. If, however, the student came to rely too much on one approach, there is a danger of their developing an empty facility rather than a sound conception of drawing, and it was felt that these drawings should be supported by studies of a more detailed nature. 

The Tuesday and Thursday evening classes are attend mostly by part-time students and the instruction is given on orthodox professional lines. Most of the students are amateur draughtsmen who apparently make no use of their drawing either for producing pictures or for any other purpose. Life Drawing is best studied as a means to some end and it would be valuable if the Sketch Club that formerly used to run in the school could be revived so that these students could be encouraged to produce work for its competitions and put their drawing to some use 

Dorothy Mead and Edna Mann by Dr Nicola Baird by Theresa Kneppers

Text by curator and researcher Dr Nicola Baird for the exhibition ‘The line is an unreal thing’: Dorothy Mead and Edna Mann that opens January 19th, 2024.

Dorothy Mead (1928-1975)

Born in London in 1928 Dorothy Mead attended the South-East Technical College and Dagenham School of Art where she first encountered artist-teacher David Bomberg. Despite having lodged a formal protest against his approach – ‘I was 16 years at the time and understood little’ – Mead was subsequently won over, following Bomberg to the City Literary Institute and, in 1945, to the Borough Polytechnic, now London South Bank University. In 1946 Mead became a founder member of the Borough Group, formed, in the artist’s own words, to ‘further the aims of David Bomberg and to establish his students as professional painters’. She exhibited alongside its other members including Dennis Creffield and Cliff Holden, with whom she had an 11-year relationship, until the group disbanded in 1951.

In 1956 Mead enrolled as a mature student at the Slade School of Art where she continued to flourish, influencing younger artists, including Mario Dubsky, and becoming president of Young Contemporaries (1958-59). And yet, despite winning the Steer Medal for Landscape Painting and a Prize for Figure Painting, Mead was forced to leave without a degree, her failure to sit the perspective exam compounded by Professor Coldstream’s refusal to accept a thesis in which she had stated her belief in ‘the scientific method’ as ‘alien to me in my work as a painter’. Key to understanding the nature of Mead’s audacity and originality as an artist is a statement made in a letter to Andrew Forge: ‘It seems that I do not toe the line. I recognise no line. I accept only myself. The line is an unreal thing to me, and the gamble on myself has to be made, not just in energy and work, but in self-belief.’

Mead was an exceptionally dedicated artist of ‘monumental intention’, and ‘deep feeling’ whose paintings possessed ‘inner thrust and structural density’. And yet, unable to secure a permanent teaching position she struggled to sustain herself financially combining intermittent employment at Goldsmiths, Chelsea School of Art and Morley College with casual jobs including as a cartoon animator for Halas & Bachelor, a West End theatrical costume designer, and a waitress at Lyons Corner House.

Although included in the 1964 Arts Council exhibition, 6 Young Painters along with David Hockney, Peter Blake and Bridget Riley, an active member of the London Group since 1960 and its first female president, Mead was never given the opportunity of a solo show. For Holden, ‘Dorothy had courage, stuck to her principals … She … never sought to turn her work into a saleable commodity’ and yet she did once confide, half-jokingly to her younger sister Val that ‘she would change her name to George – our Dad’s name – giving her much more chance of being recognised as a painter’.

Indeed, Mead has not yet achieved the level of recognition she rightfully deserves, while her role as mentor to her one-time lecturer and married long-term lover Andrew Forge remains largely unacknowledged. For Mead their tempestuous relationship was at once, ‘the most wonderful thing’.

that has ever happened to me’ and the source of much hurt and distress. Although ‘a very abundant, very positive person’, Mead tragically attempted suicide on more than one occasion, resulting in periods of rehabilitation in Springfield University and Maudsley Hospitals. Mead died in 1975 at the age of 46 from a brain tumour.

Edna Mann (1926-1985)

Born in East London in 1926, Edna Mann was an artist, teacher and mother described by her siblings as a ‘brave’, ‘vivacious’ ‘lifeforce’. First educated at Romford County High School for Girls, Mann went on to study at the South-East Technical College and Dagenham School of Art where she encountered artist-teacher David Bomberg. Mann was one of the few female artists to attend Bomberg’s classes and, like Dorothy Mead, though initially sceptical, in 1944 she followed him to the City Literary Institute and subsequently to the Borough Polytechnic, now London South Bank University. Works executed while under Bomberg’s tutelage include charcoal renderings of the exterior of Westminster Abbey, the interior of St Paul’s Cathedral and Cityscape, likely drawn from the roof of the Borough Road building.

United in their appreciation of Bomberg, Mann, along with fellow pupils Mead, Cliff Holden and Miles Richmond founded an exhibiting society known as the Borough Group (1946-51). Prior to the group’s formation Mann had accepted a scholarship to study book illustration at the Royal College of Art, choosing to leave after a year because of her tutors’ trenchant opposition to Bomberg’s influence, a decision which seemed to those around her all the more controversial when having become pregnant, she was encouraged to leave the group as Bomberg did not believe that it was possible to be both an artist and a mother.

Mann would go on to raise three children, combining motherhood with both artmaking and teaching. Transitioning out of what husband Don Baldwin referred to as her “mud plum” period, between the late 1940s and 1960s, Mann began increasingly to embrace abstraction and the use of vivid colour. Moving during this time between Forest Hill, Romford, Leightonstone and Woodford, Mann also taught art at Lucton County Secondary Modern School in Debton near Loughton before gaining employment at Burnt Mill School in Harlow (1962-1978).

In 1965 Mann’s work was included in The Harlow Arts Festival, the same year in which she had her first solo show of paintings, drawings and prints at the Drian Galleries in London, founded by Lithuanian émigré Halima Nalecz. Also in 1965, having begun, from the late 1950s onwards to experiment with imaginative and observational writing, Mann succeeded in having a play – entitled The Leavers written with Frank Hitchcock and including Nigel Graham and Anthony Hall – broadcast by the BBC. Although she is well-represented in the Sarah Rose Collection, it is incredibly rare to see examples of Mann’s work on display elsewhere.