Sir.—You (9th April) have an amazing art critic! His article "Art and Anarchy in New Zealand" is not only factually incorrect. but a misleading statement of situation of New Zealand art.

Andre Brooke does not "run" anything in Christchurch. He is the Secretary and Treasurer of the Canterbury Society of Arts. This society has a gallery and offices in Durham Street, Christchurch. but other than this there is no such place as "The Durham Art Gallery", as stated by your critic.

Knowing Andre Brooke, and having been in a position to watch his work over the last few years, I was amused—astounded, in fact —to read the comparisons, made by your critic, between Brooke, Dufy and Watteau. Such statements are nothing but misleading distortions.

Further, can I point out to your critic that of the New Zealand painters recognised here and abroad (I refer to Colin McCahon, Toss Wollaston, R. Gopas, Louise Henderson, etc.), most are abstractionists or semi-abstractionists. It is audacious in the extreme to suggest that their development is due to a period of stagnation and repression. Alas, their very existence has inspired the younger painters—T. A. Field. Julian Royds, T. Fomison, T. Moffitt. etc.

How can your critic consider these to have no craftsmanship, no technical ability? They may be. in some cases, immature in expression, but what they have to say they can express in paint with some considerable ability. This is craftsmanship—the ability to express oneself in some medium. The craftsman to the artist, this has been the order of an artist's develovment, from Fiesole to Chagall.

Finally, your critic suggests that there is no "professional art criticism of any standard in New Zealand". Having just read his article, I am inclined to agree! However, thank Heavens for John Summers!