I refer to the contribution penned by Mark Sagona entitled “Of mediocrity and dilettantism” (TMIS, 5 June).

I admit that for some days I preferred to simply absorb Sagona’s insensitive criticism and lack of courtesy shown in his letter, figuring the best response was no response. It is not my way to go on the defensive in view of such criticism but would delve briefly into some highlights opined by this art connoisseur cum critic (sic) for the benefit of the reader.

The viewpoint adopted by the panel when selecting the exhibits was to bring to the layman’s reach and appreciation the designs of Abram Gatt and ‘objet d’arts’ built on his ecclesiastical ornamental and decorative designs which were his main artistic activity. We also took into consideration other works that were inspired and closely followed the design lines as created by Gatt himself.

Whoever is familiar with this genre of art acknowledges the fact that there is a fine line of demarcation among a number of artists who specialise in the same genre. This is more so if they happen to be very active in the same epoch. Surely the influence of each other’s works would be tangibly palpable.

However this fine line evaporates when a dilettante emulates someone else’s designs and transforms them into one’s own product of artistic creation. This is particularly so in the case of Mgr Francesco Portelli whose works Sagona confuses. Mgr Portelli’s works heavily bears the influence of Gatt’s flowing elaborate lines, making it sometimes confusing for the art admirer to draw a clear line as to the right authorship. The Latin maxim ‘Libris ex Libris’ fits conveniently in this case.

By analogy: were not the works of a long flow of artists inspired by the ‘chiaro scuro’ technique of Caravaggio’s works known as The Caraveggeschi? Today it is an established view in art circles to attribute one’s works to the artist whose works exerted an influence on the outcome of his followers. Furthermore, it is still a strong practice today as artists use other’s works as a source of inspiration in the execution of their commission which I am sure Sagona is well aware of.

Another point which I think that Sagona ignores in his studies of such works is the artist’s initials. A case in point is the design of the silver hanging lantern belonging to St George’s Basilica and executed at Gatt’s preferred Milan-based firm as shown by the hallmark. If one were to inspect closely the vandalised erased signature clearly seen at the bottom right hand side beneath the date of execution, one would certainly recognise the characteristic marking elements of Gatt’s initials. It transpires that an attempt was made to claim Gatt’s design as one’s own.

Sagona made particular reference to the Xagħra’s Chapter mace design as far as its authorship is concerned. Being a researcher in local history myself and a close follower of art, the present silver Chapter mace was made possible after having successfully acquired the design from the Mdina renowned gilder, Joseph Farrugia, in the late 1940s. Farrugia was a contemporary of Gatt and happened to have a number of works by artists of his time who somehow came into contact in relation with his gilt work.

It happened that when the Xagħra church authorities contacted Farrugia to commission him to apply new gilt work design for the vestment of the Xagħra titular statue, they came across the design which was hanging in his Mdina studio. They asked Farrugia to sell it to them for the new Chapter mace to mark the golden jubilee of the Xagħra Collegiate Chapter in 1950. Farrugia acceded to their request and informed them that that design was the work of Abram Gatt.

In his writing, Sagona plays the part of a critic authority who is purely subjective in his views. Such views make criticism lacking in matters of considered choice rather than arbitrary in its decisions of significance. Throughout my long years in contact with different artists of different genre of arts, I have been told that if a customer is not satisfied, he will tell 10 people about his bad experience. I believe that Sagona’s role in art criticism should have provided a new place to assess initiatives as laid out by the Gozo Culture Office since no exhibition of Gatt’s works has ever been organised in the Maltese Islands.

Oh let’s face it! Sagona’s writing of the dissertation and the lack of approach to him in the preparatory stage for the exhibition put him on edge. His nasty review makes his contribution an innovation in criticism as impressive. In Maltese there is a saying which in free language reads as “It is not the hood which makes the monk.” An anecdote related to Toussant Busittil’s approach to critics states “No monument in the world was ever erected in tribute to the critic.” Sagona’s claims trip and stumble when one takes into consideration that since he presented his dissertation, research has evolved and new material came to light through archival material and personal diaries by established individuals of the time.

Sagona’s current writing is a vague confluence of journalism and critical writing that winks at the structures of criticism but does not engage with it because it is used to feign the kind of writing that creates value. Hence his review makes the consistently inconsistent a heroic mediocrity.

Dr Aaron Attard-Hili

Gozo