The Painting Problem

Sir,—I feel that Mr Gary Evans deserves our thanks and congratulations for his fearless expose of arty fraud in New Zealand. The exhibition held in the S.U.B. : Activities Room recently included : many horrible warnings.

I would also like to congratulate ? Mr Evans on the improvement of; his critical technique; I was beginning to fear that, in an orgy of impressionism, he was allowing, in his own words, "creation to displace communication; all, regardless of the communicability and coherence or otherwise of the work."—Yours, etc.,

Harold Hill.

Replies to Evans

Sir,—I am glad that my letter ("Salient", May 21) drew some response from your art critic, G. L. Evans. His reply seems to be conclusive proof that his writing, and thinking, suffer from two main weaknesses. He is no authority on painting (or, it appears, any visual art) and perhaps worse still, he appears incapable of arriving at coherent and logical conclusions.

Take, for example, the first point G.L.E. makes in his reply to my letter. He concludes that I admire Broke's painting (a conclusion he again arrives at in Point Four of his answer). I made no statement to this effect. I sought not to defend Brooke alone—but those N.Z. painters attacked by G. L. Evans, 9th April.

Again, your art critic tells us that he had to make no comparison between Dufy and Brooke to arrive at his conclusion that a "more than casual relationship exists between the two. Sir, the only comparison (sic., Ed.) that can be made between these two painters, is that they have nothing whatever in common.

There is nothing "peculiar" about my definition of a good painter. I consider that a good painter is one who has "something to say" and who has the ability (craftsmanship) to say (express) it. I must stress again that this is the painter's (or any artist's) craft—his ability to communicate with his viewer—or listener.

How can a pianist, for example, hope to express say, Beethoven's 'message" in the Sonata opus 31 Mo. 1, second movement, without first being able to produce a warm, full-bodied legato with his right hand? The problem of technique or craftsmanship is the same in any art.

Contrary to G. L. Evans's suggestion, there has never been any change in the understanding of the term "craftsmanship" (not in the last few hundred years, that is). There probably never will be. However, it seems necessary for some illustration to show the relative status of the craftsman compared with the artist.

An acquaintance of mine was a frequent visitor to Maxisse's studio (Paris, early 50's). The great painter repeated countless times that an artist is made from a craftsman. He expected his student to be able to paint, accurately, what they could see, before attempting to portray what they felt. Sontine's daughter said her father was always saying the same thing. Picasso, Marini, Hepworth, Miro, etc., have made similar statements recently.

Thus, as I stated in my previous letter, a person with a good command of his subject's craft is only limited as an artist by the depth of that which he has to express. This reminds me of the way the composer Honegger began his classes at the Paris Conservatoire each year. He would say that all he could hope to teach was the craft of composition. To be an artist, well that was up to the student—Yours, etc.,

R. Louis Oliver.

Dear Sir,—In relation to Mr Evans's articles and art and its critics.

Yes, Mr Evans in his own words "can express himself most forcibly in the field of explectitives (sic., Ed.), but alas, that is all.

The right to express an opinion is, or should be, universal; but an opinion appearing in a reputable magazine influencing a number of persons must emanate from a reliable source.

For opinion is a belief based on grounds short of proof; and therefore through inadequate understanding and want of knowledge will be grossly unsound.

Ignorance cloaked in fine words, even if misspelt (sic., Ed.) and erudite references is still ignorance.

What place, then, has Mr Evans's opinion in "Salient" ?— yours, etc.,

V. Hart.

Sir,—What does G. L. Evans mean by—"Constablesque Poetic qualities"? Also, what is the casual relationships between Dufy and Brooke? I am, in fact, still completely bewildered by G. L. Evans's reply to R. L. Oliver's evincive letter.—Yours, etc.,

Elizabeth Bondy.

Sir,—The Olympian conceit of Mr Gary L. Evans is a wonder to me.

Mr Evans deplores the challenge to his divinity. Art must be this, it must be that. It must have 'thematic consistency", it must show signs of an intellect of a size to impress Mr Evans.

The stroke that terrifies the artists, however, is not this penal code that he enacts. It is the little editorial comment in the inset: in which the article "Form and Content in N.Z. Painting" is called a description of "the problems of art criticism and touches on its allied question: what is good painting"?

Isn't it plain that the art critic's attitude to the artist should be one of humility; the same as the historian's relationship to his facts. The art critic's job is to record, to note changes, to classify. One can allow him to comment. The indulgent will bear his dogma. But when the painting is only an "allied question", a lesser being, to volumes of squirted verbiage which it stimulates, one's tolerance is stretched. Mr Evans is breathing thin air which is not for his lungs. —Yours, etc.,

R. B. Oliver.

Nom-De-Plumes

Sir,—In the latest (No. 7) issue of Salient, you printed a letter from J. C. Ross, with which I agree entirely. In the same issue, you printed at least three articles I was particularly interested in— Cancer, etc., the Jazz Concert Criticism, and the tragic fresher opinion (complete with Truth-type sales promotion posters). None of these articles had any indication of the identities of their contributors or authors. Why, then, should letters to the Editor be signed by contributors names? The letters to readers from your staff, for this is, in effect, what they are, remain anonymous. Let us, then, have our noms-de-plumes, or sign your articles.—Yours, etc.,

Dennis J. Higgs.

Sir,—I endorse the view of J. C. Ross about nom-de-plumes now being banned in your columns. I shall miss the spark and vitality of Pro Bono Publico and how can True Blue now argue for another increase In fees? Not everybody has the hide of L. D. Austin. Revealed I stand as—Yours, etc.,

M. W. Burt.

Distortion Claimed

Sir,—I disagree with much of Mr Bromby's report. True enough the period that I was supposed to place emphasis on, 1925-35, does not flatter N.Z. administration but I did go to some pains to explain that N.Z. learned from the earlier mistakes and very much was accomplished after 1935 until the attainment of self-government.

Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that looking back now, taking all things into account we would rather have had N.Z. administrate Samoa than any other country.— Yours, etc.,

O. Tamasese.

Reply to Bromby

Sir,—Mr Bromby accuses me of destructive criticism, and of merely setting out facts which are already well known. His own attack hardly ranks as criticism at all, being merely a personal and spurious harangue. If he were more j perceptive and less ferocious he: would realise that the purpose of! such an article as that which he criticises, is not to bring forward new information, but to bring to, people's attention, facts and correlations of facts which the writer considers to need emphasis. His mention of Cuba is irrelevant, as this country has never been a welfare state. The U.S.A., on the other hand, particularly since the New Deal, is generally considered to be one, if not to the same extent as Britain or New Zealand.—Yours, etc.,

John Murphy.

Extravaganza

Sir,—I wish to protest about the rather inconsiderate and not particularly humorous skit entitled "Life on the Waterfront" in this year's Extravaganza. A large number of University and Training College students seek employment on the wharves as casual labour at various times of the year, and this type of thing does nothing to help the already strained relations between Union and non-union workers. The wharfies who had seen Extrav (including some union officials) and the much larger number who had read the song in Cappicade were, understandably, extremely irate and abusive about its implications.

I have no wish to discuss why the Extrav skit has almost no basis of fact, but rather to point out the harm that can be done by antagonising sections of the working classes bound together by strong union movements, and upon which students are dependent for vacation work. It would be very easy and not out of the ordinary for the Union to pass a resolution refusing to work beside students. As it is some students found themselves having to point out that they did not write Extrav, had nothing to do with it and did not necessarily agree with its opinions, but unfortunately students Lend to be classified as a group and to be considered as representing a single opinion.

There were instances I heard of, of wharfies making working conditions difficult and unpleasant because of Extrav.

This behaviour may seem juvenile and irrational (although no more so than Extrav), but anyone who has worked amongst a strong union well knows that union movements are hypersensitive to criticism, humorous and non-serious, or otherwise, and can be unscrupulous in retaliating, and furthermore students are never in a bargaining position to do anything about it.

There are many topics which an Extrav writer with any ability can use without having to lampoon the hand that allows some of us to be fed.—Yours, etc.,

Robin St. John.

Sir,—I wish to protest against the lack of understanding of the script-writer of this year's Extrav. I refer to the scene called "Life on the Waterfront" where wharf labourers are depicted as Indulging in as little activity as possible.

Does the script-writer not realise that this is just a commonly held but erronlous opinion. Wharf labourers are, in the main, very hard working. More so in fact than the average student who Just sits on his behind all day learning abstruse facts, or playing cards in the common room at the expense of the taxpayer.

The wharfie on the other hand is an industrious worker who pays taxes for the support of students, and as a consequence expects some degree of intelligence from them.

However, the aforementioned Extrav does not seem to be a very effective vehicle for expressing the intelligence of students. For one thing Extrav Is not very subtle, but seems to have degraded into an excuse for a certain number of drunken, exhibitionalistic children to make a spectacle of themselves. No attempt is made to expose the rotten core of politics for instance. The political "lampooning" is confined merely to calling prominent - politicians dirty names. Surely a few pointed remarks could have been made about pressure groups—the vested interests—who influenced the National Party's decision on the cotton mill affair by threatening to refuse to pay party funds.

As I see it, when the Extrav organisation takes itself less seriously it may be able to appreciate I the workings of the world around it.—Yours, etc,

Brian Turner.

Pen-Pal

Sir,—I wonder if you could help me by printing this letter in your "Letters to the Editor" or some" similar column.

I have become very interested in your region of the world and especially New Zealand. I would like to correspond with some people in your country with an outstanding interest in the Biologlical Sciences. My personal interests are in the fields of Biogeography, Ecology and Conservation.

My age is 21 years and I am in my 3rd year of college and would like to find people with whom I can exchange information.—Yours, etc.,

Mr Edward Mcallister,

65 Adams Place, Delmar, New York, United States of America.

Laos, Thailand and the Blindness of the Lett

Yeah. It's news to me.—Yours, etc.

Brijen K. Gupta.

Out with Exec !

Sir,—Thank God that election time has come around again and we have a chance to get rid of the present Exec.

Vacillating, officious, uninspired, irresponsible, unreliable, pseudo-respectable and selfish, they have summarily failed in their primary duty as a body—to look after and promote the best interests of the students. Individually they have, in some instances at any rate, performed their duties with efficiency if hardly with inspiration. But in a University the leaders of the student body should be people oil real ability and personality, and the actions of the Exec, as a whole should reflect this.

Just one example of the way in which the present Exec has merited the adjectives I apply to them On March 20th, at a special General Meeting of the Students Association, a motion was passea requiring the Executive to organise demonstrations against fees if no positive steps had been taken by April 30th to reduce fees or ameliorate the bursary system.

No such steps have been taken. Yet far from organising a demonstration themselves, the Executive have attempted to stab in the back those who have taken the student's interests to heart and gone ahead with organising one. We can only hope that the election will produce a body of greater Integrity.—Yours, etc.,

John Murphy.

Executive Inaction

Sir,—We wish to protest about certain examples of executive mishandling of student affairs.

(1) One of the most annoying is the common room situation. The purpose of the common rooms is to provide room which students may use for recreation. During the day when students are busy attending lectures, all the common rooms are free. But frequently at night, when students have some opportunity for leisure, there are no common rooms vacant for us as common rooms.

Furthermore, when students are evicted from them (usually about 7.00 p.m.) and wish to remain in the S.U.B. they are not allowed to use any other room, e.g., a disused committee room. We have waited a long time for this building, and at last it is completed and we have a night caretaker. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect at least one room to be available for recreational use.

(2) A question arising from this is—why shouldn't the commitee rooms be left open for use by individual students? They could still be used by committees and clubs who wished to book them, but meanwhile could be serving a useful function instead of being locked most of the time. Also, why shouldn't some rooms in the S.U.B. be available for student use in the weekends? This would be very much appreciated, especially on Sundays, by students with uncongenial accommodation.

(3) Notice boards are still inadequate. There is no provision at all for student notices in the Science Block, the Kirk Building or the gymnasium, and very little provision in the Hunter Building. In the S.U.B. there is only one small notice board for general use in each of the three foyers, and these are always hopelessly over crowded. There could be notice boards in the common-rooms, the side-entrance porch, the corridors and the Caf. At present it is impossible to keep the student body informed about current student affairs (e.g., the recent Presidential election).

(4) We object to Exec.'s recent decision to oppose protests against the raising of fees if 500 signatures were not forthcoming. They allowed one week for the collecting of these signatures and then did nothing about publicising their decision or collecting the signatures. Yet at the last Special General Meeting, a motion was passed binding Exec. to organise protests — there were no extenuating conditions included in that motion.— Yours, etc.,

Lecturing Standards

Sir, — Your correspondent who, in the last issue of "Salient" drew attention to the fact that the standard of much of the lecturing at this University leaves much to be desired, has hit the nail right on the head. I quote: "Students at the start of a difficult course in one particular faculty of this university (obviously the Economics Department) have had a gruelling time this year in establishing a firm basis for their studies." Your correspondent never made a truer statement.

Many students nourish the same sentiments about a certain individual who hails from the History Department. (There are at least two lecturers there who need a bomb stuck under them.) This lecturer strides into the room in a most businesslike fashion, and then proceeds to drone on, and on, and on, for almost an hour; many of us who must sit through this misery draw more historical enthusiasm from the backends of our pens.

One of the junior lecturers in Law, recently circulated among the students, copies of a model judgment he had prepared in answer to one of his own questions. We would like to know if he finds it satisfactory to exceed his own two-page limit by 7 pages and why he insists on marking only the first two pages of our efforts. "Since brevity is the soul of wit," you can imagine what his lectures are like: we're not Tort much.

R. Williams.