Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 25, No. 10. 1962.

NZBC "Arts Review"

NZBC "Arts Review"

Just what exactly is the N.Z.B.C. trying to do with "Arts Review"? Is it trying to equate the Arts with an exclusively feminine viewpoint?

Opening these days with a few pretentious guitar strummings, capably backed by the acid dry monotone of Peter Bland, the show invites the listener to re-assess recent activities In the Arts with the aid of critics whose views he already knows. Owen Jensen may be a fine critic; Russell Bond's views we can read each morning, but as much as we may like or dislike reading reviews from them both, must we be subjected yet again to the same ideas?

Surely, the old panel discussion—with all its limitations—was more effective in bringing out differing points of view. Perhaps the present policy caters for illiterate critics?

The Galleries have been conspicuous for their absence on recent programmes or, more exactly, for their one totally inadequate and ludicrous appearance under the "Woman's Hour." Twice now, we have had interviews of Arts personalities (no doubt a value to the ladies), by Robin King. I feel Nelson Thompson was done a serious injustice; the re-broadcast "Woman's Hour" interview between himself and Robin King, over "Arts Review" was just plain silly. Why was there no criticism, no discussion of his works by critics?

One hopes that the N.Z.B.C. will wake its ideas up! To have whole editions devoted to discussion of Drama in New Zealand, or of the Theatre (with such eminent critics as B. Crump, Esq.) at a time when Wellington has a surfeit of musical and other events, Is nothing better than crazy planning.

The whole trouble with the old panel discussion, of course, was the difficulty in getting critics qualified to speak on the various arts—music, ballet, drama and the fine arts. We had music critics saying, "Well, I'm no expert on painting, but here goes . . ."(!)

However, we did get more than one man's opinion which is always refreshing. After all, a critic can only give his bona fide opinion to be "taken or left" by the listener. When we get several persons' opinions, then we have more opportunity to test them against our own reactions.

Unfortunately in New Zealand, there is an unhealthy public reaction towards a critic's opinion. If people disagree with the critic they immediately abuse him, taking his views as a personal Insult to their integrity. An Interesting illustration of this was manifested recently, when Roger Savage—who later appeared in an "Arts Review" edition—made a scathing criticism of one of the performances of the visiting Hungarian String Quartet. Who is to doubt his sincerity? There is no reason in the world; yet members of the National Orchestra—as though their professional status contained an implied right, ex officio, to abuse critics—leapt to the fray, pouring critically Invalid, ill-deserved vindictiveness at "R.S." But, it was noticeable, No constructive analysis of the particular performance was forthcoming.

It was most interesting to hear Savage's re-evaluation of the Quartet's playing. I rather think most listeners, and discriminating readers, would have taken "R.S.'s" opponents' childish jabberings at their face value.

—G.L.E.