TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 204, 29 August 1934, Page 6

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

MODERN ART.

AN EXPLANATORY NOTE.

(By PRO BONO PUBLICO.)

As you know, my knowledge of Art, spelt with a capital, is very indifferent, but in view of the fact that a collection of British pictures, some of them modern, was being brought to New Zealand, I wrote to an old friend who studied in Paris and lived among artists and asked him for material for a note on modern Art. His reply, which has come to hand rather belatedly, is to the effect that there are eo many books by competent critics that it was. not worth his while attempting to write anything himself. "The most useful book for your purposes," he says, "is the comparatively recent one written by Professor Read, palled 'Art Now,' which covers the whole modern movement."

Happily, my friend was not content with this recommendation, but has added some notes which I am glad to' be able to pass on to you. He says, in effect, that it i* no more difficult to understand modern art than it is to understand modern politics, but people will take the trouble to read about . politics, whereas they do not trouble to read about art. The impulse in modern art and modern politics is the same. Both are purely emotional. Politicians and artist* are both following the impulses of their feelings. Neither one nor the other is inspired by reason, but "if you can see any rational line in politics you should be able to find one in art."

My friend makes what seems to be quite an acute comment, when he save that the artist is entitled to be more irrational than the politician, because the politician has to convince a lot of people before he can make progress, whereas the artist need please only himself, and if he faite to please the public he is the only sufferer. "However," he goes on, "vou can explain what is happening i" painting this way. The classical artists tried to paint something that everyone could understand, each giving hie own conception of beauty of colour or line, but keeping to ideas that meant the same to everyone. Then you have artists who tried to express their own ideas of beauty, irrespective Of whether people understood them or not. Next the artists tried to express in colour and line what they saw in a face or a scene. Next they aimed at putting on canvas something that was within themselves, and some of the most beautiful, though most unpopular, pictures are 'conceptions' of this character.

"You cnnnot get any definite idea out of all this undisciplined and undirected and uncoordinated art, but one or two great artists worked out for themselves ,a set of rules that might be called the grammar of their art and a general theory that might be called their philosophy. The main point about their work was that' they were not concerned about depict mo , Nature. They were rather representing it. The rational representation of Nature ceased to be of any consequence, and art really become symbolical. Tf you keep this in mind you will realise that in looking at any y. o<l cm picture you are not expected to sec anything that looks like Nature. What you see is the artist's attempt to put in line and colour his own emotional response to any natural scene. I need eay no more, except, perhaps, to remind you that what you seem to regard as revolutionary movements arc no sudden development, but are the perfectly natural developments from ideas that you will find in painters like Constable and Turner, who aro accepted a.s quite classical."