JAMES GLEESON INTERVIEWS: LOUIS JAMES

5 August 1979

JAMES GLEESON: Louis, can we begin with some biographical information first of all? You were born in Adelaide, I believe?

LOUIS JAMES: That’s right. Yes.

JAMES GLEESON: What date was that?

LOUIS JAMES: September, 1920.

JAMES GLEESON: What date in September?

LOUIS JAMES: September 22nd.

JAMES GLEESON: Twenty-second, 1920?

LOUIS JAMES: Nineteen twenty.

JAMES GLEESON: Any background of interest in art in your family? Parents or—

LOUIS JAMES: Not particularly. Father always encouraged me when I was young because he had a particular interest in black and white drawing and cartoons and sketching, for some reason or another. Do you remember in those days Miss Weekly and those papers?

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Rather a special bulletin, of course. A lot of black and white, very good artists working, and he was particularly interested in that, so he had always urged me. He knew I loved drawing, of course, so he was always urging me to do black and white drawings. So I did a lot of drawing in my younger days, up to 1930, 1936. I was doing illustrations in ’36–I was 16 then–for I think the Adelaide Mail, illustrating stories and things like that. But then there were breaks. But I did quite a bit of work at that time. My family generally were interested, of course.

JAMES GLEESON: They encouraged your interest in it?

LOUIS JAMES: They did, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: You didn’t go to a formal art school?

LOUIS JAMES: I did for a short time, Jimmy. I went to the School of Art, Saturday morning life class drawing.

5 August 1979

2

JAMES GLEESON: I see, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: But I think I wagged it more than I went there. I used to be a bit embarrassed by my clothes and things at that time, you know. It was a very bad time, 1930, and I was a very sensitive adolescent at that time.

JAMES GLEESON: Of course, it was the middle of the Depression.

LOUIS JAMES: That was about ’35 or ’36 and I somehow didn’t really like going there. I enjoyed being there, but I was a curious person at that age. Anyway, very frequently I would simply wag it and go down to the Botanical Gardens, which was very close, and I’d draw down there or go to the parklands which are all around Adelaide.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s about the extent of it. It was one year I think I did there. But it was enjoyable, I think, and of course all I did at that period was simply drawing from the antique models which we all—

JAMES GLEESON: I see. How did you develop your technique? You use oils, do you, or acrylic?

LOUIS JAMES: I use oils mainly. I do use acrylic. I like doing drawings from watercolours–most techniques. I find I am inclined though to work in one medium at a time. I find it difficult if I have to switch and do two or three watercolours to oils at the same time. I like to concentrate on—I’d rather do a number of, you know, spend a few weeks, or a month or two doing drawings or watercolours, you know, which has very different technique, and then go back to the oils or something like that.

JAMES GLEESON: Did you find out for yourself, develop your own ways of using oil and acrylic?

LOUIS JAMES: I think so, yes. I remember making some terrible blunders very early on with oils, you know, but I think I’ve learnt. The difference between formal art education and, I suppose, informal, I think is rather narrow because most people who study, they have the advantage, I think, at an art school of having companions, people involved in the same, other artists working with them. They also often have the advantage of a mentor or a tutor that would be enormous help. But I think I’ve found other people, I’ve found other artists, I’ve found people I wanted to talk to and listen to, and learnt very much the same way outside of formal training.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, of course.

LOUIS JAMES: I think I’ve found that over the years. I probably worked a bit harder at it because of the awareness that I hadn’t had formal training.

5 August 1979

3

JAMES GLEESON: Your work in Adelaide at that time was illustration mainly?

LOUIS JAMES: It was, yes. Little before the war, but I was very young then. I went to the Lands Department. I was a draftsman there, so a certain amount of watercolour and drawing and so on. Then the war came, and after that—

JAMES GLEESON: Were you involved in the war?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes. I went away in ’39 actually then. I was in the army in ’39. Then in ’45 I rejoined–I think it was ’45, ’44, end of ’44 I think–the Lands Department and I was doing illustrations for a few papers in Adelaide. I think there was a paper called The Express and Journal which is defunct now and one or two papers like that. But they were simply black and white drawings again, and then I applied for a post-war reconstruction grant which I felt I’d earned. Everybody seemed to be getting them. It was rejected in way because the idea seemed to be, ‘Well, you’ve got a very good job with the public service, why do you want to study painting?’. Painting seemed to be a crazy thing.

JAMES GLEESON: I see.

LOUIS JAMES: In way it was a very discouraging knock-back and the time limit at that time had expired and I missed it. I felt a bit angry about this, so I said ‘Well, I’ll either go to Melbourne to study or try to get to the tech in Sydney, or maybe to London’. I thought ‘Or we might as well go the whole hog and move’, so we sold everything we had.

JAMES GLEESON: You were married at this time?

LOUIS JAMES: We were married, yes, in ’43 and we’d built a house and furnished it and we sold everything down to the last teaspoon and left it intact, and walked out and the money from that took us to London.

JAMES GLEESON: But you had a show in Adelaide before that?

LOUIS JAMES: I had one at John Martin’s, yes, the gallery which existed then. I don’t know whether it’s still there, but that was a one-man show in ’49.

JAMES GLEESON: Forty-nine. What was your work like then? Were you working in oils?

LOUIS JAMES: I think it was rather primitive, looking back on it. I have destroyed most of the works since then. I had a store. When I came back I kept certain things. I’ve seen one or two around actually recently in Queen Street, curiously, very close. But many of them I’ve got back and I went through them, like most painters do, and said ‘I don’t like that’, and I destroyed a certain amount of them. Well, the reason for that was simply that after 15 years working very seriously and quite hard actually in London, coming back and re-looking at earlier

5 August 1979

4

work, you know, I realised that there are all sorts of deficiencies and inadequacies there.

JAMES GLEESON: What was it like in a sense, was it abstract, or figurative?

LOUIS JAMES: No, it was figurative; slightly primitive, I suppose, if I can use that word, in those days. I became very interested, naturally, in London, in what was happening at that particular period when I got there. So that coming back and seeing my earlier work it seemed to be something I felt wasn’t quite what I wanted to be represented by.

JAMES GLEESON: You were in London for a long time, 15 years?

LOUIS JAMES: Fifteen years, yes, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: You were painting there?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, I was painting the whole time. It meant in London I developed the habit of working at night because I had to work during the day to earn money, and I worked with all sorts of jobs in London, but the main was I was working four years with the London Electricity Board as a draftsman. Part of that I was working at the Geological Museum in London in the same type of work. Then four years with a framer and decorator, which was rather valuable because I mean, I ended up doing most of his restoring, which I enjoyed. Then I started my own business for a few years which was mainly gilding and restoring furniture, restoring paintings and framing. It was a sort of rather a disaster. It kept us alive anyway at the time. Of course, Pat’s always worked. God bless her, if she hadn’t, I don’t know what we would have done.

JAMES GLEESON: What did you see in London at that time, what shows or artists that you met that sort of you felt interested in? Can you remember?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, I can. At the time, probably before I left I was particularly interested in Blake, Palmer and the English romantic school. I think it probably died a bit after I got there, but I found I could see very little. There were very few, for instance, Samuel Palmers available in London. I was surprised. Anyway, I had a friend who lived in the Shoreham Valley in Kent and we did a lot of sketching and painting around those areas and I think probably the painting was something to do with English romantic, sort of a slight revival in painting after the war which happened in England at that time. It’s hard to think of names but there was a lot of painters involved. But one of the first exhibitions I saw, I think the first week and it probably was his first exhibition in London, was Francis Bacon. Not that it had much influence on me, but I do remember that. It was rather a startling exhibition.

JAMES GLEESON: Spectacular.

5 August 1979

5

LOUIS JAMES: Spectacular. I still think he’s, you know, one of the best painters that I know.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, of course.

LOUIS JAMES: Then I became involved with Redfern, just showing odd paintings and eventually having one-man shows. I think I had four there altogether.

JAMES GLEESON: I see. Was Harry Tatlock Miller there?

LOUIS JAMES: Harry Tatlock Miller, yes. I saw Harry again last year actually. Sadly Rex had died, Rex Nan Kivell.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: I’m very sad about that because I was very fond of him. I read that he’d been knighted. Then I checked just before we left with I think Patsy Zabell of the British Council. I was going to write to him, I wanted to get his exact title, and she said, ‘Well, I’m afraid that Rex died last week’. Anyway.

JAMES GLEESON: And Harry’s still well?

LOUIS JAMES: Harry is well, yes. I think he’s—

JAMES GLEESON: Carrying on.

LOUIS JAMES: Carrying on still there. The Redfern still looks busier than ever and very active.

JAMES GLEESON: You had four shows there?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes. They spread from about ’56 until we left, ’63 or ’64, about that time, over that period, plus lots of minor things between.

JAMES GLEESON: Now, the first sort of work that I remember of yours were, I think, like The dreamtime which is in our collection.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: Now, was that the kind of work that you were showing in London?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes.

JAMES GLEESON: Or did this develop after your return?

LOUIS JAMES: No. That was really London work.

5 August 1979

6

JAMES GLEESON: Was it painted in London?

LOUIS JAMES: That was painted in London, I’m pretty certain about that. It was ’62, definitely, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: You came back in ’65?

LOUIS JAMES: Sixty-four.

JAMES GLEESON: Sixty-four.

LOUIS JAMES: I continued painting in that manner, but prior to that I was painting very rather figurative paintings.

JAMES GLEESON: I see.

LOUIS JAMES: Heavy outlinish figurative paintings until about ’56 or something. Then I became interested in figures and heads and things in landscapes, but rather abstract, just like these.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: That continued right till ’64 when we came back, and then afterwards for a couple of years. That was painted, that particular painting, The dreamtime, was painted in London.

JAMES GLEESON: Dreamtime, does that have an Aboriginal connotation? Were you thinking in terms of the Aboriginal dreamtime?

LOUIS JAMES: I think the name had something to do with that, but in a way a lot of these paintings were really associated largely with probably a relationship there with the Aborigine dreamtime. But I had made a number of trips to the South of France and to Spain and the peninsula there and I became very interested in cave art and naturally we saw all these sort of places. We went up the Dordogne Valley and looked at not only Lascaux; there are many others there. It rather fascinated me the way people had painted and repainted. I suppose generations of cave dwellers at that time have painted over and over and over and it became like an abstract calligraphy which I suppose that’s something to do with it. Except that I introduced my own faces and figures. Maybe the dreamtime—

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. Pick out the faces coming through in—

LOUIS JAMES: Suggestions of faces and shapes and symbols which don’t necessarily mean anything, but they were imaginary symbols and shapes.

JAMES GLEESON: Almost like some kind of primitive written—

5 August 1979

7

LOUIS JAMES: Written language, yes, script, written scripts. Not that it has ever affected my painting, but the Alhambra in Spain–and I can’t remember the city–the incredible decoration of Arabic script.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: The non-figurative. That sort of script interests me very much.

JAMES GLEESON: I notice that you have often used script, letters, words, sentences, signs, in your work. Would you say that this perhaps came from this interest in—

LOUIS JAMES: I think it comes from calligraphy, probably from the draftsman days when we were lettering which I used to like. I’m not very good at it now. My hands just not—I haven’t done much but, I mean, that’s still there. I love lettering. I would like to just mention one particular painter at this point whom we all know, Ben Shahn.

JAMES GLEESON: Oh yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: He’s dead I think now.

JAMES GLEESON: The American.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes. I believe he started off in something the same way, in a printer’s office drawing and lettering, and it always fascinated me the way he used lettering and the way he often introduced it, even imaginary lettering which meant nothing, but he liked, accepting he was terribly good at it. He could make letters into a beautiful abstract painting which meant nothing; he could shape them the way he wanted to.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, in the Dreamtime, you’ve used imaginary letters or imaginary letters or imaginary symbols.

LOUIS JAMES: Imaginary symbols. Some of them are more emphatic than others. Some aren’t. They’re not meant to carry messages, except in my own private sort of messages. I’ve always had a belief that, you know–well, we all know this, I know–there’s a sort of memory storehouse, a visual memory storehouse, which we have from birth and under certain circumstances there’s many things can be resurrected and brought to the surface. These symbols and signs often just mean nothing more than shapes in the work, but all these things I think are things which you have stored away somewhere and they come to the surface at certain points.

JAMES GLEESON: Louis, this one has a different kind of texture to our later ones. It’s built up, very textured.

LOUIS JAMES: It’s, yes, rather heavily textured.

5 August 1979

8

JAMES GLEESON: Do you think this was a response to that experience in the caves at Lascaux?

LOUIS JAMES: I think it was, yes. But curious things happen in my painting. That time I seldom did drawings, preparatory drawing, for paintings. I started off laying in paintings with sort of textures and heavy things and the idea started to work and the paintings formed themselves gradually until they arrived at some, you know, point of conclusion. Later, probably beginning with that painting, I found that I was working—

JAMES GLEESON: That’s King of the Gold Coast.

LOUIS JAMES: King of the Gold Coast. I began working from drawings and I still do. So even though they may not be quite like the drawings, I do preparatory sketches and I do, oh, hundreds of drawings.

JAMES GLEESON: So that’s from about 1966.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s about 1966, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: When you began this practice of working from drawings.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, from drawings and sometimes they wouldn’t turn out quite like I planned.

JAMES GLEESON: No.

LOUIS JAMES: But very frequently I start off with a drawing which may give me an idea and develop into something, or I probably had the idea. Then I would possibly use half a dozen drawings till something jelled in these drawings and then the painting would, you know, work on from there. I still do that. It does mean I keep the drawing. I tear most of them up, if they’re not drawings meant for anything other than my own private use as notes.

JAMES GLEESON: Part of the process of getting the thing into your head.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s right, getting ideas into some sort of order.

JAMES GLEESON: So that this would be representative of an early period of your work?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, yes. I think that’s the first early serious period when I felt that I was doing something which really interested me and which I felt that I had. I was in an area where I felt that I had quite a lot to say. At the time I thought I could go on for a long time. But then it started to work more towards figurative things, just after about ’66 when I came back.

5 August 1979

9

JAMES GLEESON: This has, as you mentioned, a sort of feeling of looking back at the past, at the deposits that the ages have left on—

LOUIS JAMES: It does. It’s rather northern in a way. I think it was a lot to do with Europe. I always had this feeling, or people often can read this in many of the paintings I did were red. I like venetian red. It’s a beautiful colour which excites me.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Because of this sometimes I’ve read reviews or things where people have related some of these to perhaps the Australian scene with the red landscapes, and possibly they were. I think these scenes are; after all I am Australian and I’ve never felt anything else. But possibly these things are in the back of my mind. I always associate red with Australia. I don’t know why, the venetian red, I think it’s just there.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, it’s so much a colour of earth.

LOUIS JAMES: Colour of earth.

JAMES GLEESON: Colours of our country.

LOUIS JAMES: The colour which Aborigines use very much in their work too.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. This was oil, wasn’t it?

LOUIS JAMES: That’s an oil, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: The Dreamtime.

LOUIS JAMES: I think it was about 60/50 or something like that.

JAMES GLEESON: Was that shown in the Redfern Gallery?

LOUIS JAMES: It could have been. I’m not sure. I think I may have sent that back to an exhibition with the Museum of Modern Art. I’m not certain. At that time there was a Museum of Modern Art in Melbourne.

JAMES GLEESON: We bought it in 1963 from von Bertouch.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, that’s right. Well, that was sent back to von Bertouch Gallery. That’s right, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: So it wasn’t shown in London.

LOUIS JAMES: No, I don’t think it was shown in London at all. But there were similar ones being shown. If I’m not mistaken, I painted that about the same time

5 August 1979

10

as I was painting an exhibition for the Redfern, so they would have been very similar to others in that exhibition.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, the next one in the sequence would be King of the Gold Coast of 1966.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s probably one of the first transitions of painting; one of the first paintings which I did about that time. After that I started to paint much more figurative painting.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Like the Peasant. But this was the result of one of the trips I mentioned through the Gold Coast. It has much to do with a trip actually excepting that I did this drawing. I wanted to do something about the Gold Coast. (inaudible) lettering and the motel they’ve been hidden by the photograph there. I think there’s more than that actually. All the people and the excitement in the Gold Coast. We had everything which I rather like when I came back to Australia after Europe. It was rather brash and it was untidy and garish and a lot of lettering and signs and things, all those things.

JAMES GLEESON: Urban confusion.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, yes, and how this, well, this here just came. I think the name came after, in this case. It looked like a dominant figure there, so definitely call it King of the Gold Coast, (inaudible) dominating the picture. It was sort of a transition painting between the others and the much more figurative paintings I was doing later on.

JAMES GLEESON: It’s very closely related to your later work in the sense that you have worked out a system of very compacted areas filled with movement balanced against very open flat areas.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes. Well, yes, from this period on—I still do this a lot. I’m inclined to do this. I don’t know why, I just like compacted areas in a painting. You know, composed to those sort of spaces, which I hope means something. Empty spaces don’t.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, I’ve always interpreted them as depictions of the bustle, the busyness, the liveliness of an urban place.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s right, yes. I feel this is a space sometimes when I can probably give it a bit of emphasis to the—

JAMES GLEESON: Congestion.

LOUIS JAMES: The congestion and the hurley-burley, and that sort of activity which is going on in that area.

5 August 1979

11

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. In this case you’ve brought this compacted form into the head of the king.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, yes. He’s rather an abstracted figure. I had the feeling–we were talking about this earlier–I don’t think I’d want to go to the Gold Coast as for a holiday, for relaxing, but I’d like to go there. I think there’d be a lot of painting there for me.

JAMES GLEESON: Visually?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, visually, exciting and brash and vulgar probably. But this is part of Australia and I seem to like painting this type of thing, the cities, the people, and the crazy masses of people the things they do and the way they—

JAMES GLEESON: That was bought in ’66 from the Hungry Horse. Is that oil too, Louis?

LOUIS JAMES: That’s an oil and it’s a fairly large painting. I think it’s about 72, six feet by five, and it’s bluish grey with warmer colours in here and here.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, in this mass at the top of the head.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes.

JAMES GLEESON: You’ve used the stripes of the jacket with all the things wearing as a contrast to the down—

LOUIS JAMES: That’s right. They were sort of meant to be rather areas of surf or water but, you know, it’s developed in a certain—you know how painting often develops into (inaudible). I think the basic abstraction of a painting interests me a lot now. I find that I do paint figurative things. I’m not an abstract painter. I’m very concerned about little things that happen. Well, even that painting over there. Disregarding the content of that picture on the wall, just the way the light brings up, say, the one tone of the blues, the light shining from the sun, I mean.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: To me is almost like a painting in itself there, irrespective of the subject. It’s just the contrasting shaft of light coming through there. What it does to the other colours. These things interest me a lot now; being interested in refraction and reflection and light and dappled light and things like that. Particularly since I was away last year, my paintings are becoming a little more just direct figuration.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. Louis, do you work with an easel or do you have the picture flat.

5 August 1979

12

LOUIS JAMES: I’m afraid I do. I’m still an easel painter. The easel I have actually belonged to Augustus John. He had many easels in studios like he had women and wives and all sorts. But the man for whom I worked, Robert Savage in London, this easel came in there for sale. I’m not sure; just at the time he died or about that time. Robert had it for sale and I needed an easel at that time and I bought it. I found I still use it. I can use it for very large paintings. I won’t say very large; the largest I did is about six by six, seven by seven. I can put one of those on it.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: And why not? You know, I still like it. I’ve never really got used to the idea of painting on the floor. It’s not my scene.

JAMES GLEESON: Not your scene.

LOUIS JAMES: No.

JAMES GLEESON: But it occurred to me that, you know, because abstract shapes and spaces play a very important part in your compositions, I just wondered if you look at it from every angle when you’re making up your mind about it.

LOUIS JAMES: I do, but rather than put it on the floor I often use a mirror, you know.

JAMES GLEESON: Oh yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Put it upside down and sideways and (inaudible) examine it.

JAMES GLEESON: What about when you’re drawing your ideas, do you look at those from every angle? Turn them upside down?

LOUIS JAMES: Probably not. Well, I probably do. Because it’s just a little sketch book, you know. But I suppose it’s to do with a form of the painting. It seems important to me.

JAMES GLEESON: But there is a right way to read all your works?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, definitely. Yes. I don’t think I’ve ever really done any painting, even when they were rather abstract, which I could say, you know, I could it upside down and it made no difference. I mean, they had a very definite top and bottom.

JAMES GLEESON: Even in The Dreamtime—

5 August 1979

13

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, there were faces in there and the shapes which are meant to be read that way and suggestion of legs and arms and things. But I suppose it could be turned upside down.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, as an abstract it would, but it would lose that—

LOUIS JAMES: Well, to me, it would upset me a bit. If I saw it hanging upside down, you know, what I mean. It’s meant to be that way.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, after King of the Gold Coast ’66, we come to two works I think both dated ’69. Triptych.

LOUIS JAMES: Looks like ’69 yes.

JAMES GLEESON: Landscape Triptych and Noon.

LOUIS JAMES: Well, Jimmy, in these–and I think you’d notice immediately here–I’ve started using insets to a fair degree. When I say ‘insets’, cut-outs.

JAMES GLEESON: Oh yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Areas which are more definite than that and the same here.

JAMES GLEESON: Are they actual collages?

LOUIS JAMES: No.

JAMES GLEESON: Pieces collaged on?

LOUIS JAMES: No. There are little pieces of collage. I’m not sure, there could be possibly a bit—

JAMES GLEESON: That one looks like—

LOUIS JAMES: That’s a collage, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: There is a bit there and there’s possibly a bit there. Some of them are drawn. I rather like doing imitation collage and, you know (inaudible). It’s simply the trompe l’oeil thing, yes, which is mainly fun. I mean, it’s not much to do with the serious part of the painting, but I like using it, that’s my own enjoyment. After all, I think painting’s a personal indulgement.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Even though we sell paintings and we show them and want other people to see them.

5 August 1979

14

JAMES GLEESON: It’s your personal thing.

LOUIS JAMES: I can’t get away from the feeling that painting is really very much just a personal indulgement and I enjoy myself when I’m doing it. I see no reason why I shouldn’t. But in most of these, this period for a number of years until last year, I have been using—some of them are on the wall here. Many of these have insets and little pictures within pictures and frames within frames, the same as these two here which you mentioned.

JAMES GLEESON: Were they done close together in time?

LOUIS JAMES: I think they must have been.

JAMES GLEESON: The same year.

LOUIS JAMES: The same year, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: You can’t remember which came first?

LOUIS JAMES: I can’t actually. I number all my paintings on the back and that’s about the way I can indicate, you know, it might be B96 and one might be B76.

JAMES GLEESON: I see.

LOUIS JAMES: I have that on every painting. Very often I use the same theme, same name for many paintings like, oh, Rushing through town or Rush hour or something like this, rather than say Rush hour 20, or Rush hour 10. I have a number on the back so I know myself when they were painted, but it’s a bit hard to—

JAMES GLEESON: Just by the name—

LOUIS JAMES: Looking doesn’t mean a lot to me.

JAMES GLEESON: No, no.

LOUIS JAMES: I think that one over there on the wall, for instance, was called Landscape or something like the same name as this.

JAMES GLEESON: Triptych.

LOUIS JAMES: That may have been painted about the same time. As you can see, there are elements there which are very similar.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, yes. Except that that one’s a horizontal triptych and this is a vertical one.

LOUIS JAMES: Horizontal one, that’s right. Exactly, yes. Well, it’s not dissimilar in the sense of its (inaudible).

5 August 1979

15

JAMES GLEESON: No. In Noon I see you’ve used in that part of the collage lettering again.

LOUIS JAMES: I have, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: But none I think—

LOUIS JAMES: (inaudible) considerably on certain other paintings.

JAMES GLEESON: Landcape Triptych, it may be the only one of yours that doesn’t have a—

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, there are stencils in that possibly but not—

JAMES GLEESON: What, this chevron shape?

LOUIS JAMES: Well, some of those verticals may be stencils. I can’t remember. I don’t find it necessary to stencil straight line like that, I often draw them. But sometimes I rather like the effect of—

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, a very sharp—

LOUIS JAMES: On this painting, Noon, they would be stencils. I generally cut the stencils out and paint in between them. I’m pretty certain they are by the look of them. I have a feeling they’re stencils.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: There are none in the earlier (inaudible). In Landscape Triptych and Noon there are stencils in there. I think they would be too probably.

JAMES GLEESON: Louis, the title Noon, does that have any significance?

LOUIS JAMES: It would probably, Jimmy, have something to do with the colour. I think that’s yellow.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. A hot sunlit noon.

LOUIS JAMES: The name would probably have come from that.

JAMES GLEESON: The feeling, the atmospheric feeling—

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, sunshine. Rightly or wrongly I regard the yellow as a sunlight feeling. Well, that’s the other one. Landscape Triptych is self-explanatory anyway. It’s just three versions of a landscape which is rather abstract.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, and using again very abstract symbols like a chevron and stripes.

5 August 1979

16

LOUIS JAMES: That’s right, yes, yes. Yes, so many of these are similar. I think, as I mentioned, they just are similar to which are simply abstract symbols, more to do with the form of the painting or the shapes in the painting rather than sort of any particular meanings.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, I see.

LOUIS JAMES: Whereas in here, the Noon, many of these shapes are mostly related to drapery on people and arms and legs or heads and shapes.

JAMES GLEESON: That part has a definite figurative implication?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, meant to be a sort of rush of people surging somewhere.

JAMES GLEESON: But there’s none of that in—

LOUIS JAMES: No. In fact, that’s one of the few paintings at that time which as far as I can remember there are no figures.

JAMES GLEESON: Or letters or signs.

LOUIS JAMES: Lettering in it at all. It’s virtually a straight landscape painting, or triptych of a landscape.

JAMES GLEESON: Noon we acquired in ’74 from the Bonython.

LOUIS JAMES: I was pleased to know that painting.

JAMES GLEESON: Triptych, Bonython also in ’69.

LOUIS JAMES: Sixty-nine. That’s from Bonython?

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Was it, yes?

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. That’s acrylic, so our paper tells us. Would that be right?

LOUIS JAMES: No, I don’t think so.

JAMES GLEESON: Oh.

LOUIS JAMES: Can I look that up?

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. Well, now, Louis, Landscape Triptych we have down as acrylic on hardboard. It’s in fact oil.

LOUIS JAMES: It’s oil, yes. Yes, it’s oil. It’s 40 inches, I think, by 40 and it’s oil.

5 August 1979

17

JAMES GLEESON: It’s the same, I suppose, period of that one I’m looking at?

LOUIS JAMES: It’s very similar; they must be very much about that time, I would guess.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, because that same sort of—

LOUIS JAMES: The same things up top.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: I think that’s because (inaudible) and possibly the same colours, if I’m not mistaken, of yellows, reds and pinks. That could have been a yellow centre panel.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: I think that’s pinks and mauve. I think that’s rather venetian-y red, if I’m not mistaken.

JAMES GLEESON: You mentioned that you always use a wax varnish.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes. With oils I use a Rowney’s wax. It’s a matt varnish and I put it on hot, just heat it till it’s liquid and paint it on. It ended up just simply giving a matt surface.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, you don’t polish it after?

LOUIS JAMES: I don’t polish it. No, I don’t. No. It usually sets. Unless there’s a mark on it, I’d polish it to get it off. It sets matt and after a while, as you can see—or semi matt.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: I don’t like paintings which are too shiny or too glossy.

JAMES GLEESON: No. No, it’s a matt wax varnish.

LOUIS JAMES: Except in the early ones, possibly that very early one, that may have been—

JAMES GLEESON: The Dreamtime?

LOUIS JAMES: I never use a heavy varnish; I always use retouching varnish just over it. That would have had a retouching varnish possibly. But I started using wax about that time. I found that then the only trouble is of course with a lot of my paintings if I have to restore them, there’s rather large areas of the same colour. For instance, on that King of the Gold Coast, the area of damage there would mean respotting. That’s very, very difficult with the paints I use.

5 August 1979

18

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: I have the same damage there (inaudible) you can see the round circle on that.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, it’s been (inaudible) from the back, has it?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, well, just handling. The blessed picture’s only been shown once and it’s just damaged by somebody handling it with their hands coming round and, oh, pressing something against it. But to restore that it’s just not worth it at the moment. Packing’s not bad and it would mean actually putting the whole area of blue back. I think that area’s exactly the same colour as all over that.

JAMES GLEESON: Goodness, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: So it means a total repainting. Then, well, I have to clean the wax; it has to be cleaned off.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s rather a job in itself because it’s possibly start taking off the paint as well.

JAMES GLEESON: Louis, that’s on canvas?

LOUIS JAMES: That’s on canvas.

JAMES GLEESON: How many of these are on canvas?

LOUIS JAMES: I think that might be The Dreamtime.

JAMES GLEESON: It looked as though it—

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, it’s ’62.

JAMES GLEESON: Sixty-two.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes. My records aren’t so good earlier on, but they’re better later. It’s The Dreamtime.

JAMES GLEESON: The Dreamtime.

LOUIS JAMES: Lot of work in ’62. I did a lot of Dreamtimes for that matter too, you know. Sorry to delay you here, I’m just going through this.

JAMES GLEESON: No, that’s all right, no. Did I see Dreamtime on that?

LOUIS JAMES: You probably did.

5 August 1979

19

JAMES GLEESON: No, The dawn angels, sorry.

LOUIS JAMES: No, it must be here, because it would have been—

JAMES GLEESON: About that time.

LOUIS JAMES: This time.

JAMES GLEESON: Fossil and (inaudible).

LOUIS JAMES: The Dreamtime, 50 by 40, that would be the one, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: May ’62.

LOUIS JAMES: May ’62, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: Now that’s 519 in your catalogue.

LOUIS JAMES: Five-one-nine is the number on the back of it.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. And shown?

LOUIS JAMES: It was shown at the Bonython Gallery in ’62.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Oh, I sent that off to Adelaide, that would be that. Then at the Melbourne Museum of Modern Art in ’62.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Then the one man show in Sydney ’62, that would be with Ken Marshall. Wait, it must have—’63. No, Macquarie Gallery.

JAMES GLEESON: Oh, I see.

LOUIS JAMES: I think that’s the only place where I would have—

JAMES GLEESON: Then we bought it in December ’63, the Art Advisory Board.

LOUIS JAMES: We bought in December ’63, yes, and the price was there. I don’t know whether that interests you.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes. Good. Well, now, could you look up the King of the Gold Coast ’66?

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, that’s easy, that one. I have colour photographs of all of these pictures. So they’re snapshots.

5 August 1979

20

JAMES GLEESON: Well, I think your records are pretty good.

LOUIS JAMES: Well, I don’t know. In ’63, was it?

JAMES GLEESON: No, ’66.

LOUIS JAMES: I’m sorry. Well, they’re not all in (inaudible). They are lately but a lot of the earlier ones there are so many missing.

JAMES GLEESON: I see.

LOUIS JAMES: It’s called King of the Gold Coast. Sixty-six, is it?

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: They’ll be here very—

JAMES GLEESON: King of the Gold Coast.

LOUIS JAMES: Back there somewhere. It must be.

JAMES GLEESON: King of the Gold Coast.

LOUIS JAMES: King of the Gold Coast. Yes, 72 by 50. It’s oil on hardboard. Oh, yes, that was hardboard.

JAMES GLEESON: Oil on hardboard, and it’s 758 in your catalogue. Painted February ’66.

LOUIS JAMES: February ’66 and it was at the opening show of the Bonython Gallery, the Hungry Horse Gallery.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: It was sold to the Art Advisory Board.

JAMES GLEESON: Oh, this is marvellous; we’re getting all sorts of information. Well, what now about Noon ’69?

LOUIS JAMES: Sixty-nine. Yes. A long way to go yet. Noon. Yes, here we are; 30/25.

JAMES GLEESON: Oil on masonite.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s oil on masonite. That was shown at a one-man show at the Bonython Gallery in ’69, one-man show at the Bonython Gallery in Adelaide in ’69, and a one-man show at the von Bertouch Gallery. It went through a few one-man shows ’69, yes. It would have sold from the Bonython later to Canberra.

5 August 1979

21

JAMES GLEESON: Is that March ’69?

LOUIS JAMES: That’s March ’69.

JAMES GLEESON: It was painted.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, it was painted, that’s right.

JAMES GLEESON: And your catalogue No 8/96.

LOUIS JAMES: Well no, no, B38.

JAMES GLEESON: B38.

LOUIS JAMES: I started numbering, yes. The numbers are on the back.

JAMES GLEESON: I see.

LOUIS JAMES: That just happens to be the number of the painting as well.

JAMES GLEESON: Oil on masonite?

LOUIS JAMES: Oil on masonite.

JAMES GLEESON: Now, let’s go back to Landscape Triptych of 1969.

LOUIS JAMES: Landscape triptych. Yes, here we are, 40 by 40. I think this is the painting. B56 was on the back of that. Landscape Triptych, it’s an oil on masonite. It’s 40/40. That would be waxed on the surface.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: That was in a one-man show at Bonython Gallery. I don’t know what I’ve done there. Sydney’s crossed out and it’s obviously Adelaide.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: It was sold in September ’69. When did Kim come? I’m not sure when Kim came to Sydney? I’m highly confusing there, some of my records are. It appears it was sold—

JAMES GLEESON: No, here’s Sydney. We’ve got purchased Sydney Gallery. Bonython Gallery, Sydney on 10/10/69.

LOUIS JAMES: Tenth of the 10th. Yes, I have September which is—

JAMES GLEESON: Oh well, yes. By the time it probably went through accounts.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s right. By the time I heard about it.

5 August 1979

22

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes. Yes.

JAMES GLEESON: So that’s okay. Well, that I think helps to give us all the information about these. Now, there remain two lithographs. At least I assume this one would be a—

LOUIS JAMES: Untitled.

JAMES GLEESON: Untitled. Purchased ’73 from the Blue Boy Gallery in Melbourne for $400.

LOUIS JAMES: Very naughty these people.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, it’s possibly—

LOUIS JAMES: I was never paid for any of these. I did four sets of these of seven. There were 70 in each edition. I sold one set to the World Record Club. They bought the whole set. The others have been sold; they’re turning up everywhere. I’ve never heard. I was supposed to get 9 or 10 dollars for a litho. That was the only trouble about etchings and lithographs, they escape you, you know.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, the point is—

LOUIS JAMES: I don’t know who owned it, or where it came from.

JAMES GLEESON: This lithograph which we’ve got—

LOUIS JAMES: Oh that’s definitely, yes. That was bought from where, Jim?

JAMES GLEESON: That was bought from Gallery A in 1976, 14/9/76 for $25. Now, is it likely that we would have paid 400 in ’73 for a lithograph? That must be a painting, I think.

LOUIS JAMES: That could be for a lithograph, because even that one I’m surprised it was sold for that amount because that section of—what happened, I did that colour lithographs with Gallery A and it was a first colour lithograph I’d done and it was I think $4 or $5. It was complicated. It cost quite a bit by the time we got it. Well, I think 75 copies, or 70 copies.

JAMES GLEESON: Fifty here.

LOUIS JAMES: Fifty, is it?

JAMES GLEESON: Fifty-eight out of 50.

5 August 1979

23

LOUIS JAMES: Fifty, was it? Yes. I see, yes. Well, the cost of it was about, I was selling them for about 60 or something. I don’t know. Max had half of them so he could have sold them for whatever he liked and possibly he sold them.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, this may not, I wouldn’t take it as absolutely accurate because in all possibility we may have bought a group of works.

LOUIS JAMES: That’s right.

JAMES GLEESON: This often happens.

LOUIS JAMES: Exactly.

JAMES GLEESON: For a certain sum and then averaged the price out.

LOUIS JAMES: Averaged the price after, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: So I wouldn’t take that 25 as being definitive.

LOUIS JAMES: No, no. It could have been, yes, but that sort of might have been a little bit later.

JAMES GLEESON: But this one is a mystery.

LOUIS JAMES: But this one, I’m puzzled about this one.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: The only indication, the only thing I would know there would be a number on the back.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: If it was a lithograph it wouldn’t be.

JAMES GLEESON: No, no. I think it’s a painting because—

LOUIS JAMES: Well, that price would be a painting, and I really have (inaudible) it wouldn’t be Untitled.

JAMES GLEESON: I think it’s probably a re-sale that has come in through the Acquisitions Committee and the title has been lost in the re-sale.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, that’s right. Yet the title would be very clearly on the back.

JAMES GLEESON: Would it? Well, now, the point for us to do is to find out the number on the back and check with you.

5 August 1979

24

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, I can tell you immediately. In fact, the number, as you can see, Jimmy, from here would be more important, or not so much there. There are a number of things with the same title (inaudible) perhaps. I might have used that, I don’t know. But D49, for instance, on that particular thing would be identified instantly for me.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, I’ll make a note on this card. Check number on back and find title in Louis’ catalogue.

LOUIS JAMES: There was a painting missing of mine in Melbourne. It has always been a mystery to me.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: An oil, about 40 by 40. I won’t mention the gallery because it was involving a gallery, but there was always a little bit of a dispute about it. I didn’t care, but the painting was supposed to have been sent back to me but it was never sent back. Somewhere along the line it just escaped both of us, the gallery and me. I always felt that it might have been let out somewhere to a possible client and the gallery forgot about it, or they might have sold it and forgot about it. I know that I never had it back for sure.

JAMES GLEESON: I see.

LOUIS JAMES: I know that I wasn’t paid for it. But it was 40/40 and it was called Desert fantasy. What’s the date of that? I don’t think—

JAMES GLEESON: We purchased it in ’73. That’s the only information.

LOUIS JAMES: Seventy-three.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, so it would have to be before ’73.

LOUIS JAMES: May I have a look?

JAMES GLEESON: Louis, you think this Untitled painting could possibly be—

LOUIS JAMES: It could possibly be a painting in oil which is on canvas, 40 by 40 inches, and it’s called Desert fantasy. I think it was a reddish painting, venetian-y red and yellows. It disappeared in Victoria. It was shown at Clunes Gallery ’65 in a one-man show that I had a show in South Yarra, a one-man show and it went off the scene. I’d be very interested to know if it’s that.

JAMES GLEESON: All right. Well, now, I’ll check the number on that.

LOUIS JAMES: The number of that was 738. This is the number on Desert fantasy.

5 August 1979

25

JAMES GLEESON: Seven thirty-eight, number 400 Desert fantasy.

LOUIS JAMES: I’ll check. Yes, exactly. It could have been. Now, there’s another painting here which is oil on canvas by 40/40, same size, which I sold at the same time for 400. So that’s sort of curious.

JAMES GLEESON: Still life.

LOUIS JAMES: Well, not to you, I’m sorry. This is just a private sale to somebody in America. I keep saying prices at the same time, same size. So that’s the same size.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes, yes, all right. Well, that’s something that we can easily check on. When I say ‘easily’ if it’s over in an overseas post at the moment, we’ll have to wait until it comes back.

LOUIS JAMES: They do go overseas, do they?

JAMES GLEESON: Sometimes. They’ll all come back before the opening of the gallery. In fact, we’ve sent circulars around now to all the embassies asking them, first of all, to let us know what paintings are there, and to return the ones that we want before the opening.

LOUIS JAMES: I’m glad they do, actually. I like the idea. I think all artists feel the same. I’m sure you feel that your paintings are being shown somewhere at some point and not always put away in a cellar or something.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, Louis, By-pass ’68 was a coloured lithograph. You did that with Gallery A. Was that at Janet Dawson’s time?

LOUIS JAMES: Well, Gallery A, yes, Janet Dawson was there and the studio was below the lithographic studio. Ken asked me would I like to do it and I think he sort of sponsored it. I think it ended up costing a bit more than expected, because of experiments we were making.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: And because Max, you know, had men working there. But anyway, it was an experience. It was my first attempt at a lithograph and a coloured lithograph, and I found it interesting. That’s about all.

JAMES GLEESON: You had done some black and white lithographs before?

LOUIS JAMES: I did in Melbourne, yes. I did but they were photo-lithographs.

JAMES GLEESON: Oh, I see.

5 August 1979

26

LOUIS JAMES: They were quite effective, I think, but I don’t know, they were simply—

JAMES GLEESON: Photographed from the drawing.

LOUIS JAMES: Done from drawings, yes.

JAMES GLEESON: For Gallery A?

LOUIS JAMES: No. The man’s name, Pat, was called Sharp, was it?

PAT: (inaudible).

LOUIS JAMES: He can’t remember.

PAT: Oh, quick.

LOUIS JAMES: Quick. Peter Villiquick. Yes.

JAMES GLEESON: I remember.

LOUIS JAMES: Now, Peter (inaudible) Peter Junior, Violet Junior, something sort of went wrong there. They did sell a complete set to World Record Company or World Records, whoever they were then.

JAMES GLEESON: How many in a set? Four?

LOUIS JAMES: Seven; I think, there were seven.

JAMES GLEESON: Seven? Oh, I see, the whole set. But how many different—

LOUIS JAMES: Oh, there were four sets of 17.

JAMES GLEESON: Four sets of 17.

LOUIS JAMES: Naturally, I was paid for those. The other three sets, they’ve been turning up in all sorts of places. I’ve never heard any more about them at all. So I just don’t know.

JAMES GLEESON: Well, we haven’t any of those. The only lithograph we have is this coloured one.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, that’s right.

JAMES GLEESON: That’s the only one of—

LOUIS JAMES: Yes. That photo is a very dark photo; it’s actually a very strong blue.

5 August 1979

27

JAMES GLEESON: In the light you can see. Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Yes, two or three blues and pinks which are, you know. Yes, that’s just an indication.

JAMES GLEESON: Is this an embossed area?

LOUIS JAMES: No, it’s not. It looks embossed. We do that deliberately. What we did, you can see on the by-pass we shifted the colour deliberately to get this offset and that gave a rather nice—

JAMES GLEESON: Relief quality.

LOUIS JAMES: Almost like relief here. It looked like an embossed; in fact, it had a nice effect on it. But there was a deliberate shift. I think you can see white left in certain areas where (inaudible). It worked well and I think it was one of the experiments we made. But it did teach me a few things. It made me realise the incredible possibilities with colour lithographs, if I ever did any more, but unfortunately I haven’t done any more.

JAMES GLEESON: Now, you’re working still on paintings?

LOUIS JAMES: Paintings. Well, I’ve just had a show in Newcastle. I have one in Brisbane which has gone very successfully. I’m enormously pleased. Because this is really one of the first shows I’ve had since I’ve been away, back to Europe.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: Just slightly different paintings. More figurative.

JAMES GLEESON: Yes.

LOUIS JAMES: They’re a bit more textured. I won’t say more figurative. I’m not using so many insets and panels and splitting up the surface of the painting. That show in Brisbane has just finished and I—

JAMES GLEESON: What gallery was that?

LOUIS JAMES: The Town Gallery.

JAMES GLEESON: Oh yes, yes.

LOUIS JAMES: I’m working on a show now for Barry Stern in Sydney in April. I’m really looking forward to that. It’s going to give me a chance to—I haven’t had a show in Sydney for a few years; since Kim Bonython left.

JAMES GLEESON: No, no.

LOUIS JAMES: I’m looking forward to it very much.

5 August 1979

28

JAMES GLEESON: Good. Well, Louis, I think that covers it very well. Anything else you would like to say?

LOUIS JAMES: I don’t think so, Jim. The only thing I’m surprised, I had no idea I had this many paintings. I thought I knew there were two there. I thought these were the only two, but I’m rather pleased the others are here.

JAMES GLEESON: Good, right. Well, thank you very much.

LOUIS JAMES: Well, thank you very much, Jimmy. Thank you.