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.