Sunday, 31 January 2016

Vale Ronald Greenaway (1932-2016), the unspoken achiever of Melbourne surrealism

Ronald Greenaway -
Portrait of Charles Blackman in 1959

Every so often, you come across a person seemingly bypassed by history. But never more did I have that sense, and a sense of how history robs itself through its obsession with "great", iconic artists, of which each generation is allowed but a handful, than the night I met Ronald Greenaway.

Ronald was neighbour to my parents in Camberwell for many years, and they were privvy to and indeed part of some of tumults of his later years.

I'm grateful of having had the opportunity to meet Ronald in person in what transpired to be his final weeks. It was at the opening of a retrospective of his works at Town Hall Gallery in what used to be the grandiose Hawthorn Town Hall, another spectacular result of a kind  of 'competition' between councils at the time  the Eastern suburbs was being developed in the 1880s to have the swankiest Town Hall.

Ronald Greenaway
- Albert Tucker at 9 Collins Street, Melbourne, Grooming his Pet Flea, Hector (1963)

It was there I had the pleasure of shaking Ronald Greenaway's hand and muttering a few appreciative words that I can't be entirely sure he heard, much less comprehended, for he didn't seem happy in small talk, nor indeed in talk at all. Ronald was by this stage so pallid, so extracted in all his dealings with the world, and so seemingly apologetic for them, it struck me I'd never before seen a man seemingly so ready to embrace the beyond, but that it was a rather noble effect, rather than the sad one you might expect.

Ronald Greenaway -
Upstairs at Cafe Osmonia, Lonsdale Street, Melbourne

Was there a sense of final achievement, of some real and tangible life's testament and legacy behind all this? The exhibition curators claim to have catalogued over 300 of his own works from Ronald's home collection alone.

For it's almost as if this accumulation of his life's works was enough to bring to resolution something major within Ronald Greenaway, for him to have passed so soon after its celebration. I had wanted to meet with him again with half a mind to writing him a fitting biography, but that's now clearly not to be. But a blog at least you shall have, sir.

Ronald Greenaway -
Albert Tucker in New York

For, every so often, you come across a person seemingly bypassed by history. And it's that sense that had gripped me so immediately at the gallery that night, the enormity of history's loss. Here was an artist, the peer of Nolan, Tucker, Blackman, Vassilief, Mora, painted all their portraits, whose shows were glowingly reviewed in The Age by Patrick McCaughey, part of the John and Sunday Reed set at Heide, whose work sits in the NGV collection, but whose life's work was being retrospected at a suburban gallery, rather than the that more iconic institution.

And it seemed to me there was a real story here. There were no paintings in the retrospective between around 1971 and 1988. And I know enough of Mr Greenaway's personal history to plug those missing years with any manner of intriguing possible tales, but all of which point to a figure of some fascination and complexity letting their light dim, allowing themself to possibly revel in obscurity, a retreat from the public to the personal as a realm within which one derives ones very identity.

Ronald Greenaway -
(detail of) Lamp, Jug and skull (1959)

Almost none of the post-88 works had been exhibited before. Ronald had tried to get permission from the Council to operate a gallery out of his home and been refused. His house proudly displayed a brass plaque that read "Ronald Greenaway Gallery" regardless. His house was by all reports a veritable salon of artworks covering every surface. His own and his erstwhile peers' work.  

So many of those peers are celebrated for their often nebulous contributions to the lumpen body of Australian surrealist practice at the NGV's Lurid Beauty exhibition - reviewed in my next post, now closed of course - wombat timing strikes again...

Ronald Greenaway - clockwise from top left - 
Lunar Favourite
(1957), Boneyard Steeplechaser (1957), Rider (1956), Trophy for a Winner (1957)

But I have personally found it far more useful to read that exhibition in relation to someone who was never a leading exponent of the movement, but someone on whose own formative art, surrealism was an obvious and telling influence.

The story of Australian surrealism is the story of a formerly isolated and pre-modern nation being forced into modernity through the wave of globalisation ushered in by the end of the second world war. And for local artists seeking to ply their trades, this environment presented several certain and unique challenges.

The sense of isolation from Europe, or even America where things 'were really happening' was palpable. But the sense in which artistic practices still had a prominence within public discourse such that they were even capable of scandalising large sectors of society, which they certainly aren't accorded today, and in fact would not have been accorded in the same way in Europe or America at the time, was also an opportunity.

Ronald Greenaway -
Portrait of Ethel Malley,  Somewhere in St. Kilda 1943

It's difficult to imagine that the Ern Malley scandal could have been anything other than an obscure academic hullaballoo anywhere or any time other than Australia in the 1940s. It was important time in our cultural history, and the players were literal pioneers. To them we owe virtually all our significant artistic and cultural heritage.

Thirty years after Gallipoli, these diggers were needed to storm the trenches of the national mindset that could have consigned Australia to colonial backwater as the rest of the world modernised and globalised into the mid-twentieth century.

That Ronald Greenaway was flitting around the scenes of what was really the formative period for a genuine Australian and specifically Melburnian bohemia makes his story an important one. And his artwork, I would argue remains a neglected and important body from the period.

His style, particularly that of his portraiture was often highly naive (in the art terminology sense - primitivist). And he owed an obvious debt in his formative years to cubism and through that surrealism. Repressed and deferred sexuality is everywhere present in Greenaway's early work.

Ronald Greenaway -
Portrait of Maxwell Wilcox, date unknown

Greenaway appeared, as others have commented, somewhat in the thrall of fellow Melbourne painter Maxwell Wilcox, whose portrait he most numerously painted, and with whom he traveled around Papua New Guinea, the country which was famously and literally placed at the center of the surrealist 'map of the world', with Australia not far off. Exotic animals help, one suspects.

Surrealist 'map of the world'
Ronald Greenaway -
Cups and Cakes,

And his repeated invocation of anthropomorphising figures owed an obvious debt to surrealist practice, but his use of colour and form  did increasingly deviate over the course of his career ever more radically from any surrealist aesthetic, and it was this that really singled him out for contemporary critical praise from Patrick McCaughey.
"In his time, Greenaway has cultivated a bold, almost harsh manner to accomodate an obsession with violent sexual fantasies. Every painting confronts the viewer with a bright, hard surface where no quarters is asked or given. One of his most recent paintings typifies Greenaway's black humour with its strident, hectic, manner.
Frequently the basis of these fantasies lies in the elimination of the distance between human beings and physical objects; vases sprout breasts or a human being sits like a plaster cast upon a chair. All such goings on give Greenaway's work a coarse vitality which is impressive."
-Patrick McCaughey, The Age, 24 August 1968
In his later years, Ronald developed his own unique, cartoon-ish style, featuring lurid and often violently clashing colours set in extremely chaotic forms, wherein the work's formal elements manage to resolve all this inherent tension. Greenaway's later works seem poised almost to explode from their own formal chaos, with only the artist's skill in resolving it all standing between us and a formal mess. The Hoodlums of Ryan's Lane is typical of this later style.

Ronald Greenaway
- The Hoodlums of Ryan's Lane (2007)

Ronald was born in Melbourne in 1932, attended Swinburne Technical College - which grew to become today's Swinburne University, and Melbourne University, where he took an MA. Ronald became, as we have seen, a key figure on the Melbourne art scene of the 1950s, just as it was becoming invigorated by the new strands of modernism it had been exposed to during the second world war, and by waves of immigrants like the Mora clan translating their experience of European bohemia to an antipodean environ.

Ronald Greenaway
- Daffodils and Jug (1961)

The Contemporary Art Society CAS) was a formative institution in the development of modernist art practice and dissemination in Australia, and in Melbourne in particular. Founded by George Bell in 1938, all of the leading lights of Melbourne's modernist scene were members. Tucker, Boyd, Nolan, Mora. In 1954, John and Sunday Reed had reinviorated the flagging society, establishing a new headquarters at Heide.

Through these years, Greenaway served variously as President and Secretary of the CAS, as well as editing its magazine, and he was made an honorary life member in 1971. As well as the NGV, Ronald's works are represented at Swan Hill and Newcastle Galleries.

Ronald Greenaway's contribution to the emergent, and reinvigorated Melbourne art scene in the post-war years was both significant and enduring. This author looks forward to a day when this fact is more commonly known and remembered.

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

Bowie's Gone. And THIS woman, NOT Kanye now wears his crown ...

Because Bowie's ultimate greatest artwork was himself, his fame, his methods for shaping and reworking them.

So there's simply no other contender.

Monday, 4 January 2016

High-Speed Rail is a Dumb Idea for Australia - but a brilliant one for Victoria

The (Shaky) Case for HSR in Australia

The 2013 High Speed Rail in Australia Study Phase 2 Report (large pdf file) was delivered in 2012 as a preliminary study towards constructing High-Speed Inter-Capital Rail along the Australia's eastern seabord.

The study proposed a service allowing for conventional High Speed Rail express journeys from Sydney to Melbourne taking 2 hours and 44 minutes. The cost of the proposed project was
"about $114 billion (in 2012 terms), comprising $64 billion between Brisbane and Sydney and $50 billion between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne." 
The study predicted
"By 2065, HSR could attract 40 per cent of inter- city air travel on the east coast and 60 per cent of regional air travel (primarily long regional). On the three main sectors, Sydney-Melbourne, Sydney-Brisbane and Sydney-Canberra, HSR could attract more than 50 per cent of the air travel market." 
The current flight time from Sydney to Melbourne is 1 hour and 35 minutes. So allowing for the extra transfer time required with air ravel, where one generally arrives an hour before one's flight after traveling half an hour or so on a freeway, HSR would APPEAR to be relatively time competitive to its alternative mode.

But consider this - Sydney's current airport rail link carries just 17% of traffic to the airport. The alternative mode via taxi or private vehicle is both cost and time UNCOMPETITIVE with rail transit. Travelers know they'll still need to factor in getting to their hotel or wherever once at their ultimate destination and lugging their bags via some means to the train station. Somehow rail always seems sexier as an idea than as a reality to people.

The Phase Two Report numbers seem intuitively optimistic to me. I just can't see business travelers, who make up the majority of this route shifting to train travel, where the company gets their cab fare at either end anyway seeing the imperative to travel by rail. However they are backed up by international research into mode-share for HSR versus air over similar distances and volumes.

But the Phase Two Report makes it explicit; "A key (benefit) component is the assessment of time savings for travellers across their full journey including travel time, waiting time, check-in time and access time, with adjustments for the inconvenience of having to change modes."

The gains here all accrue to the private sector, but require a huge public subsidy to facilitate them. That should be an enormous warning sign to any elected official that their project is about transferring value FROM the public purse.

And that private benefit will accrue on, again by the report's own numbers, just 18,760 Melbourne-Sydney trips a year. For a $50bn pricetag. 
Over a decade, that's a 0.26 million dollar public subsidy PER TRIP. This is just ludicrous public economics. 
Let's be clear - our biggest policy problem in Australia worthy of $50bn of public funds is NOT the higher emissions caused by people traveling from Melbourne to Sydney by air.

Nor is it the amount of time these people spend getting to or from the airport a handful of times a year on average. Air transport emissions are an issue of certain public concern obviously, but in the greater pantheon of public spending demands, it isn't remotely on the radar.

But the straining of our eastern capital cities IS. Enabling regional commuter centers and allowing us to end the process of urban sprawl that leaves the city's most needy consigned to urban ghettoes with poor social services and networks IS, at least for this commentator somewhere close to the top of our list of needs.



And so it gets worse.

Again the Phase Two Report states "To achieve the target journey time of under three hours for Sydney-Melbourne, an average journey speed of approximately 300 kilometres per hour would need to be achieved. This would require a system capable of a maximum operating speed of 350 kilometres per hour, to allow for some slower sections of track."

But the study also clearly articulates that these speeds won't be possible if the network is also used for commuter travel into suburban centres. IE this whole things assumes the trains are EXPRESS Melbourne to Sydney which COMPLETELY DENUDES HSR OF ONE OF ITS KEY BENEFITS - FACILITATING THE GROWTH OF SATELLITE COMMUTER TOWNS.

If the speed of the network is reduced to 250km/h then the Sydney-Melbourne journey time balloons to three hours and seventeen minutes - and over four hours at 200 kph.

So, we can't have a network that does both - intercapital and commuter HSR. And because I see all the REAL PUBLIC benefits from HSR as accruing from a commuter network, I believe every sane advocate of HSR in this country needs to be clamouring for an immediate re-assessment of the project's priorities to create a COMMUTER network as first priority, one that could be expanded into an inter-capital network at a later date.



Towards that end, this week we're looking at what an effective HSR network enabling commuter travel into MELBOURNE might look like, and what benefits would accrue to the state of Victoria from such a network.

Proposed Victorian High-Speed Rail Network in Stages

To best enable commuter HSR to maximise the number of commuter journeys possible into Melbourne from effective satellite regional centres.

This proposal is costed on the basis of the Phase 2 Study estimate of construction costs of $56m per kilometer on its proposed Shepparton-Melbourne section. This incorporates a higher cost of getting HSR in to Melbourne, but under my model if we use the existing RRL tracks/reservation the cost per kilometre may be signifcantly lower. It should also be noted that the Phase 2 Study costed track graded to run trains capable of 350 km/h. My figures only anticipate running commuter services at the lower speeds of 250 km/h, requiring track capable of max 300 km/h. So, my actual figures should be either be CHEAPER than those shown if a lower capacity track were used, or my time savings HIGHER than those indicated if we had higher capacity track.

The total construction cost of the proposal at face value is $17.03 bn. Allowing for some featherbedding, we can comfortably state the project could be delivered for under $20 bn.

Instead of spending $50bn on Melbourne-Sydney HSR, Canberra should jointly fund this $20bn project with the State of Victoria. It would therefore represent a $10bn investment towards the long-run development of Melbourne-Sydney HSR. Victoria would then need to find $10bn, which could easily be done with a combination of value capture methods, debt, or even a one-off "Melbourne congestion levee" implemented probably best via a Melbourne Water surcharge on everyone in Melbourne, Ballarat and Bendigo who all stand to gain from the proposal.

In line with the above objectives, our best potential established regional commuter centres - by distance to Melbourne - are Ballarat, Geelong and Bendigo. At present PTV's plans for Geelong involve a long-run electrification of the route, without any clear timeline. No upgrades are planned for the Ballarat or Bendigo routes.

I propose instead, because all these services now run on dedicated Regional Rail Link tracks through suburban Melbourne, that the Ballarat and Geelong routes be completely replaced by HSR in to Southern Cross Station.

Instead of replacing the Bendigo line, which currently runs direct from Castlemaine-Melbourne and only uses Regional Rail Link from Nth Melbourne Station to Southern Cross, it is proposed to create a new HSR Bendigo-Ballarat route replacing the existing track section Bendigo through Castlemaine and with a new dedicated HSR track running via one of two routes to Ballarat, depending on whether Daylesford is included in the network.

Under this proposal, I envisage V/Line services continuing with existing V/Locity rolling stock on the existing Bendigo line as far as Malmsbury - that being the northernmost station that wouldn't receive HSR, although it may only be economic to continue it as far north as Kyneton. Under this proposal, this line would to return to sharing the network with Metro trains between North Melbourne and Southern Cross, though this would be a relatively minor issue.

A bigger issue would be how to have Metro trains service the planned future Melton line electrification if the RRL tracks were ripped up for HSR. One I'll set aside because it's kind of boring, but it's one that would need to be solved for Tarneit and Wyndham Vale Stations also.

The only major question posed by route selection is whether the increase in travel time to and from Castlemaine and Bendigo that would result from including a Daylesford stop on the route would be justified. At the estimated increase in time of just nine minutes, this would seem justified based on the potential to Victoria's tourism industry of being able to take a one hour train trip to Daylesford.

As stated, both the Ballarat and Geelong lines would be replaced in their entirety using current alignments and easements, with the sole exception being the dog-leg placed in the Melbourne-Geelong route to allow for the inclusion of Avalon Airport.

Provision of heavy rail to Avalon remains a major public policy concern in Victoria, and the deviation would add a matter of around three minutes to the journey, so this is a negative-brainer.

Another issue will be the need for planning and provision of metro-style public transport infrastructure in regional centers. In fact the current Victorian government has commenced tentative planning towards this end in some centers. It would need to be coordinated and consider how metro services in Geelong in particular would interact with the HSR, where HSR tracks in Geelong would replace notionally "metro" ones in the north of the city. A large part of the featherbedding in my costing is to allow for necessary track duplication works (possible with double-decking) into urban areas.

STAGE ONE - Ballarat to Southern Cross

High-Speed rail for Victoria -
Stages One (purple) and Two (blue)

Bacchus Marsh
*to be serviced by Metro in future


Projected Cost

Time Savings
Please note these times are based on existing train travel times, although for our purposes a better comparison might be with current motor vehicle transit times, these are almost impossible to extrapolate meaningfully into the future.

Because Stage Three of the project envisages Bendigo trains running express from Ballarat to Melbourne, passengers will at that point be offered an even speedier express service to Melbourne.

It is envisaged that as per present services, demand to Melton and Rockbank would not initially warrant all services stopping there. Accordingly, Ballarat-Melbourne travelers would have a choice of "two stop" or "four stop" services, and ultimately also an express service.

Ballarat - Melbourne with four stops via HSR travel time 48 minutes down from 72. Save 24 minutes.
Ballarat - Melbourne with two stops via HSR travel time 42 minutes. Save 30 minutes.
Ballarat - Melbourne HSR Express travel time 36 minutes. Save 36 minutes. Travel time HALVED.

If that sort of quantum change isn't enough to induce the kind of responses we are looking for with this policy, well I'm keen to hear of any policy that could possibly do MORE...

Please note also that these time savings are predicated on speeds of ONLY 200 km/h. The likelihood of being able to build a network attaining speeds of up to 250 km/h without much incremental expense is extremely high. So these estimates are at the PESSIMISTIC end of the spectrum. The reality SHOULD be even better.

Proposed Victorian High-Speed Rail - Urban Section

STAGE TWO - Geelong to Deer Park

Little River
Avalon Airport
Deer Park*
Wyndham Vale*
*to be serviced by Metro in future

61.3 km new track

Projected Cost

Time Savings
As per Stage One, not all these stations demand being serviced by every train. It is envisaged travelers from Geelong would have the option of an "Express" service to Melbourne stopping only at Avalon Airport, in addition to the slightly longer services.

Geelong - Melbourne with six stops travel time 42 minutes, down from 62. Save 20 minutes
Geelong - Melbourne with four stops travel time 36 minutes, down from 62. Save 26 minutes
Geelong - Melbourne with one stop travel time 27 minutes, down from 62. Save 35 minutes. Travel Time more than HALVED.

STAGE THREE - Bendigo to Ballarat

High Speed Rail Stage Three (red), showing alternative ex. Daylesford route (light blue)
and proposed national HSR alignment (dark blue)

Kangaroo Flat
Service would run express Ballarat-Melbourne

123.5 km  via Daylesford

Projected Cost

Time Savings
Bendigo - Melbourne via Daylesford with four stops travel time 86 minutes down from 112,
save 26 minutes.
Bendigo - Melbourne ex Daylesford with three stops travel time 77 minutes down from 112,
save 35 minutes.


Directing Victoria's and Melbourne's Growth

So, the proposal would then set us up with the following:

Designated Regional Commuter Centers 
Greater Ballarat, Greater Geelong, Greater Bendigo, Lara, Little River, Ballan, Bacchus Marsh and Castlemaine.
NB I wouldn't propose significant residential development for Daylesford, where preserving and enhancing Tourism and Heritage values should be the objective.

Urban Fringe Stations with Fast Rail Access
Ardeer, Deer Park, Melton, Rockbank, Tarneit, Wyndham Vale 

Looking beyond this though, while it will be these designated commuter cities that stand to benefit most economically and socially from fast rail access to Melbourne, travel times will be reduced significantly to a vast range of regional towns that would it is envisaged retain their existing V/Line service as a shuttle to the nearest major center.

So, we should actually see benefits accrue to Swan Hill and Echuca, Ararat, Maryborough, all of which would still be a relatively short hop to being on the High Speed Network, and even further flung places on the network like Colac and Warrnambool should benefit proportionately also.

Proposed Northern Victorian High-Speed Rail with V/Line Shuttles (yellow)
and proposed national HSR alignment (blue)

Proposed Southern Victorian High-Speed Rail with V/Line Shuttles (yellow)

What About Freight?

Ripping up the tracks to accomodate the HSR should be easy enough, but what about freight to places like Ballarat and all the towns they serve? I don't believe it has been attempted anywhere in the world, but there would be no reason not to run a high speed freight service along this route also as per demand, in fact there would be a lot of reasons for.

Doing so would be the prelude to one way a national HSR may someday happen. We've seen the cost-benefits don't stack up, but they MIGHT if we could incorporate inter-capital HSR freight as a means to removing a large amount of the truck traffic from our highways, resulting in lower maintenance, fewer accidents, air particulates, etc.

Not to mention we'd possess an absolute world beating eastern seabord freight network by way of national competitive advantage. Because doing this initially Sydney-Canberra ought to make sense on a similar basis to the above, and if we've gone as far as Bendigo, building the extra stretch in the middle might make sense down the track.

I dunno. To my eye, all of this seems to offer a lot more concrete than any of the nebulous and largely non-public benefits we've yet heard of associated with building a national HSR network. What do readers think?