"THE LATEST THING"

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 114, 17 May 1933, Page 15

"THE LATEST THING"

BRITISH ART SHOW. CONTROVERSY IN SYDNEY. «MODERNISM» AND ITS CRITICS. J (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, May 12. Sydney has recently been introduced to "the very latest things" in the British art world. An exhibition of oils, water colours, drawings and bronzes has been on view at the Blaxland Galleries, and it includes work by Augustus John, Epstein, Duncan Grant, John Nash, Charles Sans, William Roberts, Demant Lees, Richard Sickert, and many others who have gained fame or notoriety in recent years at Home, but are still almost unknown here.

The arrival of this display was awaited with considerable intercut in artistic circles, especially as it was reported that its reception in Melbourne had been by no means enthusiastic. When it arrived, it produced a very definite sensation, simply because people on this side of the world have not yet had a chance of becoming accustomed to the very modern artists, who make a special cult of "self-expression. , - . The astonishment that this show has caused in artistic circles, and especially among the general public here, may be attributed to the fact that most people when they look at pictures or drawings or sculpture expect to see colours that are more or less attractive and natural, draughtsmanship that is more _or less accurate, human limbs and bodies that conform more or less completely to the average conception of human anatomy— and so on. In this case, for most of these things, they may look in vain. I am not attempting to judge these works of art. For all I know they may represent a very high level of artistic skill, or even of genius. All lam trying to indicate- is this, that people who go to see the work of Epstein and Dobson, and Augustus John, and Matthew Smith, and Sickert, and the rest of them with preconceived ideas about art, based upon aesthetic principles and rules of tech' niquo accepted in the last century or even in the pre-war period of this—well, they are duo to experience a very severe shock. "Accepted and Approved." The first public notice of this collection was a sort of "preliminary' which I appeared in the "Sydney Morning Herald." The writer described this show us "the most important exhibition of contemporary art that has coma to Aue'tralia," But he went on to admit that it would probably surprise or startle a great many people, and he tried to explain why, in his opinion, they should restrain themselves and reserve their ■i judgment. He offered two main argujmente in defence of these modernist I productions—first, that these works are "by artists whom the great body of intelligent people in England has fully ' accepted and approved," and that Australia cannot expect "to dictate standarde to the outside world"; second, that anyone whd imagines that these works of art are extravagant or unnatural may rest assured that there are far more extreme examples of these schools to be eeen elsewhere.

Now, it is all very well to say that "the work of recognised English artists should he received with respect." What guarantee have we that the vogue of these painters and sculptors is firmly based on a permanent foundation? The writer remarks, incidentally, that "Futurism has been dead in Europe since the war"; yet the Futurists took themselves very seriously and many of the general public accepted them at their own valuation. As to the other argument —that if- wo want to be really shocked, we ought to see the work of extremists of the modern French and German schools, who apparently manage to find a good market for their wares— I fail io see where this leads us. All the'modernists may be wrong together; and in that caee it is no consolation to know that Epstein or Augustus John j is not eo imad or bo bad as eomebody else. Local Critics Severe. This challenge to the orthodox in our art world evoked a prompt response. Mr. Julian Ashton, whose name generally evokes the comment that he "has done a, great deal for art in Australia," at once entered the field on behalf of the "diehards , ? who, laving learned that "dicipline, reserve and unstinting travail are necessary to sneces in all arts," must always feel some doubt about the value of work based on new ideas that "threaten to overthrow these essential foundations." Mr. Ashton confined himself chiefly to generalities, but another critic writing in the "Sun" on this exhibition was not so restrained. He fancied this display of "modern" art on the whote —with the exception of a very few fine productions —"considerably below the standard of an average softety of artists' exhibition in Sydney." And why? Because these works have been turned out by people who "cannot take the time to learn how to paint," who are so busy "expressing themselves" that they have not the patience to study "drawing or values or any of the more universal necessaries of good' painting."

I do not suggest that this estimate is necessarily correct, but by way of contrast to the "Sydney Morning Herald" eulogy, the "Sun" critic finds Augustus John's portrait of the Marchesa Casati (priced 3500 guineas) "entirely insincere" and a monument of master talent; ho thinks Dobson's bronzes, over which some people become quite ecstatic, "masterprices of solidity and lifeleseness and distortion of the human form"; and of the great Epstein himself—represented in this show _ by three bronzes all of a curiously -primitive type—he complains that the Bculptor "has studied the negro till he apparently believes that all men are negroes of an inferior type to the black ones." And so on all through the list.

"Self-Expression." When I visitea this exhibition, a young English artist who apparently belongs to the "modernist" school was addressing the visitors on the value and importance of "self-expression," and he took as on inetance the case of William Roberts. It seems that this man was the son of a carpenter in the East End, that he had little early training, and that he grew up with a hatred of "bourgeois" art and culture, perhaps not unnatural in his circumstances. In the two pictures exhibited in this collec-tion—-"The Swimming Lesson" and "The Return of the Prodigal"—he paints human beings with bodies and limbs like blocks of wood, with the barest possible attempt at anatomical precision, his colouring is crude and violent, and the expression of the faces

is uniformly sardonic and repellant. Ia the catalogue I find against his name j the warning that "his gifts are curious J and not for everyhody"; and I am in- i clined to agree. Yet he has attained considerable eminence as a painter, his pictures command a considerable price, and now Australian artists are asked to accept him as one of the "modernists" whom they should appreciate and recognise as "accepted and approved" at. Home. 1 I sincerely hope that it will be possible to "show" these pictures and! bronzes in New Zealand. I would be glad to learn what New Zealanders think of Augustus John (whose "Canadian Soldier" is certainly the work of a great artist), and of Matthew Smith's. "Seated Girl," with her greens and blues' positively screaming at each and Dod Proctor's "Baby," with its quite incredible complexion. At all events this' show Jias given artistically inclined people in Australia plenty to talk about for a long time to come.