Andrew Graham-Dixon on a dispute between an artist and his gallery with wider implications
LAST OCTOBER I wrote an article about a young and precociously gifted Scottish artist, Stephen Conroy. It was headlined "A Painter's Progress"; in the light of recent events, the Hogarthian echo has come to seem unpleasantly ap-propriate.
First, a brief outline of Conroy's Progress (so far) is in order. It might go something like this.
Plate I: Origins of the Artist. 1986. Ste¬phen Conroy, a 22-year old Fine Art stu¬dent at Glasgow School of Art, holds his degree show. All his paintings are sold within days of the opening.
Plate II: The Artist's Rise (first part). 1987. Following considerable acclaim, mostly from the Scottish art press, Conroy becomes the youngest artist in-vited to show paintings in "The Vigorous Imagination", the main exhibition of the Edinburgh Festival.
Plate HI: The Artist's Rise (second part). The national critics (The Indepen-dent's included) eulogise Conroy's work, hailing him as A Major Talent in the Making.
Plate IV: The Artist's Levée. An un-precedented number of London galleries offer Conroy one-man exhibitions and exclusive contracts.
Plate V: The Artist's Reception. Conroy has his first one-man show in London. It is not open to the general public. It is not at an art gallery, but above the offices of a small firm of art consultants, Conservation Management. At a champagne reception, the artist re-veals that he has signed with this firm, rather than any of the London galleries, because he is suspicious of "hype".
Plate VI: The Artist's Fall. 1988. The relationship between Conroy and Con-servation Management deteriorates; Conroy contacts a lawyer and instructs him to inform them that he wishes to ter¬minate his contract.
Plate VII: Bedlam. Conservation Man¬agement inform Conroy that they con¬sider him to be in breach of contract, and...
