In the 1950s, a movement for the promotion and cultivation of the arts from the Commonwealth began in London by individuals who had mainly worked within the Commonwealth or who were somehow involved with matters concerning British or ex-British territories. These people realised that the British had neglected the cultural life of each Commonwealth nation and in doing so had maintained the view that the art from these nations was primitive, unrefined, and even indecent.

The hierarchical centre-periphery relationship was a problem which they wanted to address, as being accepted in London was the seal of success for an artist, whilst those based outside of the dominant Western cosmopolitan centres, British and non-British alike, were regarded as second-rate.

Another point of consideration was that of engendering cultural solidarity between these nations without ever simplifying differences to avoid conveying a false image of homogeneity. The only common link which was emphasised was that of experiencing life under the British Empire, taking into account that these experiences were translated according to the particularities of each context.

These talks resulted in the formation of two groups; the Commonwealth Arts Organisation and the Commonwealth Arts Association, a number of conferences, journals, and an official institute. Only the latter was concerned with being a dedicated visual arts space as well an educational and cultural centre.

Back in 1887, the Imperial Institute was founded, marking the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria, 'to serve the interests of the entire Empire.' By the mid-twentieth century, when many former colonies became established as independent nation states (and when both Empire and colony were lamentable terms), the Imperial Institute was rebranded as the Commonwealth Institute in 1958. A new modern complex was constructed to house the new Institute, which was inaugurated in 1962, and with it was established the Commonwealth Institute Art Gallery, a large exhibition space for the display of contemporary art from the Commonwealth.

Under the curator Donald Bowen, several exhibitions were held each year, including solo and collective exhibitions of works by Maltese artists. The first of these was an exhibition of paintings and sculptures by Willie Apap and Vincent Apap respectively. This was held in 1960 in the old Institute building.

The next time that Maltese modern artists showcased their work was in the new Institute building. A huge, rather over-ambitious, exhibition of art from all over the Commonwealth was organised to mark the opening of the building. The exhibition was called Commonwealth Art Today and featured paintings by Emvin Cremona, Antoine Camilleri, Esprit Barthet and Frank Portelli. A painting by each artist was selected by Bowen himself and the art critic Eric Newton, both of whom had visited Malta on separate occasions.

This was followed by a solo exhibition of Giorgio Preca's paintings in 1966. The artist was invited by the Institute to show 50 pieces. Preca's exhibition hung alongside two others; one by an Indian artist and another by a Canadian. It was recorded that over 5000 people visited the three exhibitions all together. It was Bowen's curatorial philosophy to show two, three or even four one-man exhibitions simultaneously to elicit contrasts between artists coming from different backgrounds. Another objective of hosting multiple showings was to attract diverse audiences who would have otherwise not gone to see works by artists from certain nations were they not exhibited alongside those of familiar cultures or those of personal interest.

In 1967, the Malta Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce organised a comprehensive exhibition of paintings and sculptures by 19 Maltese artists, titled Contemporary Art from Malta, which was held at the London building and was then transported up to Edinburgh to be shown at the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland.

After this, two other exhibitions of works by Maltese artists were held in 1969 and 1975. The first showcased Alfred Chircop's abstract canvases, although it seemingly failed to impress as no note was made of it by the reviewer in the Institute's annual report, unlike the other exhibitions. The second was a joint exhibition which displayed the works of textile designer and embroiderer Julie Caprara and the architectural drawings of Richard England.

I would like to focus on the 1967 collective, as it demonstrates some of the problems of running a singular space to represent inscrutable cultural variety. Bowen wrote a review of the show for the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts in which he sincerely expressed his mixed opinion on the overall product. Whilst some artists were described as 'uncompromisingly contemporary', and here he named sculptors Tony Pace and Joseph Casha, he felt that in a number of works there was 'evidence of misunderstood stylistic developments and techniques.' His ultimate assessment was that the artists had considerable potential but needed to break away from their apparent insular mindset.

Looking at the exhibition catalogue, it appears that the works chosen were selected with a London audience in mind. It is interesting that some artists, such as Emvin Cremona, did exhibit their more daring works. The only exception was Josef Kalleya since his 'safer' sculptures were exported. This adjustment to 'expectations of the centre' went contrary to the intentions proclaimed with the opening of the new Institute, and yet is testimony to the fact that London preserved its dominance as an art centre despite efforts to dispel the evidently deeply-ingrained hierarchy.

Even though I do agree with Bowen's statement, I cannot help but thinking that the Commonwealth Institute Art Gallery was an impossible project from the outset. That artworks and objet d'art coming from all over the world were seen by audiences in a 'clean' exhibition space with the intention of proving that they were equally as significant as the art produced by London artists unavoidably created a level of expectation judged against the leading contemporary art from the capital. There remained a need for validation by London. Newton himself stated that the British artists whose works were selected for Commonwealth Art Today 'establish a standard of quality for the rest of this exhibition.'

In spite of this, Bowen was hostile to the idea of artistic homogeneity and delivered several papers which argued that specific cultural elements existed in the works of each individual artist from the Commonwealth nations. He said that even though some works looked similar, a close assessment of them would reveal much more to the viewer than initially perceived. As curator of the art gallery, this was probably his biggest challenge; to make audiences analyse these works rather than resort to simplistic generalisations based on criteria developed by the Western art world, and effectively imposed onto the arts from all over the globe.