Untitled

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 38, 21 March 1914, Page 6 (Supplement)

The suggestions made by Mr R. Wallwork in the interview published in this issue should be of particular interest to the City Council, and other local bodies. If adopted they would at least remove that litthr"jlash of authority and judgment between some of the City Councillors and the Council of the Society of Arts. Manifestly it is absurd to expeet the best work from an artist who has received all his training in New Zealand, and who has never come under the broadening influences and stimulations of European art centres. It is also rather absurd to imagine that to buy the work of undeveloped men is the surest way to encourage artistic development in Canterbury, and it should be equally obvious that a far better means of .achieving that object is to provide the most promising of local painters with the means of gaining fuller knowledge and inspiration. There is really nothing difficult about the scheme as suggested. The minor arrangements could easily be | made by- a committee appointed for the purpose, and the City Council, perhaps with the help of other bodies, could quite easily afford to expend £IOO a year on so laudable an object. This is j already done in Sydney and Melbourne, where bigger amounts are awarded for travelling scholarships, and it is matter for wonder that the idea has not long since been adopted in New Zealand. In Sydney and a "diploma picture'' is required from the winners | of the scholarships, and it is the Council of the Art Societies in both [ cities which selects a work sufficiently

representative and worthy for the public collection. The same method could be followed here, and the City Council would still have its picture. That,,the, Arts' Society Council should select it is onfyvjust, since that body is composed of men with some knowledge of what constitutes a good painting.