Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 25, No. 6. 1962.

[reply]

Mr Evans replies:

(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!