Monnington’s studies for his ‘Geometric Paintings’ (as he preferred
to call them) are works which he crafted meticulously. He frequently
reworked the same design over and over again before producing a version
in tempera. ‘I do feel that as President of the R.A. I should show at
least one painting there a year .. I take a long time to resolve a
painting problem. I take a year to do one painting because I make
innumerable studies preparing the way’ (Sunday Express, 19 Oct 1969).
Monnington
was significantly the first President of the Royal Academy to paint
abstracts, and inevitably his work was not always well received:
‘The
President is indeed a charming man but his work is an embarrassment. I
can only recommend it to some linoleum manufacturer.’ So wrote Terence
Mullaly, reviewing the Royal Academy Summer Show (Daily Telegraph, 28
April 1967)
Unlike his predecessors, Monnington was prepared to
throw open to debate questions about contemporary art. ‘I happen to
paint abstracts, but surely what matters is not whether a work is
abstract or representative, but whether it has merit. If those who visit
exhibitions – and this applies to artists as well as to the public –
would come without preconceptions, would apply to art the elementary
standards they apply in other spheres, they might glimpse new horizons.
They might ask themselves: Is this work distinguished or is it
commonplace? Fresh and original or uninspired, derivative and dull? Is
it modest or pretentious?’ (Marjorie Bruce-Milne, The Christian Science
Monitor, 29 May 1967). At the same time Monnington was keen to defend
traditional values. ‘You cannot be a revolutionary and kick against the
rules unless you learn first what you are kicking against. Some modern
art is good, some bad, some indifferent. It might be common, refined or
intelligent. You can apply the same judgements to it as you can to
traditional works,’ (interview with Colin Frame, undated newspaper
clipping, 1967).