.jpg)
Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 25, No. 6. 1962.
Letters
Letters
.jpg)
Art and its Critics
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!
Yours, etc.,
R. Louis Oliver.
| (1) | Andre Brooke is not quite the ubiquitous artist his enamoured correspondent believes he is. I'm not going to waste my time verifying information given to me if Brooke is as inconsiderate enough to tell us nothing of himself. In any case, what's wrong with "runs"? |
| (2) | There was no comparison made between Dufy and Watteau and Brooke. Any comparison between Brooke and Watteau would be ridiculous. A valid Reference was made to the "more than a casual relationship" which exists between Raoul Dufy and Brooke. The citing of Watteau and Corot was with reference to the constablesque "poetic qualities" the very absence of which marks out Brooke's work. |
| (3) | How on earth can painters in Oliver's own words, "immature in expression", express this immaturity "with some considerable ability"? Of what value is this as good painting? R. L. Oliver would appear to have a decidedly peculiar idea of what is "good painting." |
| (4) | "This is craftsmanship—the ability to express oneself in some medium." Now I know why Oliver rates Brooke so highly. Brooke can express himself in paint therefore he is a craftsman, therefore a good painter. The major premise is not only faulty but clouded by the writer's understanding of what constitutes Craftsmanship. After all, I can express myself most forcibly in the field of expletives but I don't claim to be a craftsman in that field! After all, there is a great difference between a craftsman today and his pre-Industrial Revolution counterpart! |
Men in Grey Flannel Suits
Sir.—There has been in recent months a new trend noticeable in the administration of the University. I mean by this, the appearance of large numbers of gentlemen, dressed in grey coats, who appear to perform such indispensible tasks as issuing parking tickets to naughty students with cars, or helping to operate the lifts in Easter field in their spare time. The place must be kept clean, of course, and I am all in favour of providing employment for such members of the community as are willing to take on such arduous work. Yet I cannot help feeling that such large numbers of grey-coated gentlemen (I'm sure I see a new one every week) are not able to find useful employment in so small an establishment. It seemed to me that the lifts operated satisfactorily in previous years without the assistance of paid operators, and that the University and Student Union buildings were kept clean by a comparative handful of men who did not have time to go about performing officious and useless "duties."—Yours etc.,
J.K.M.