THE ART EXHIBITION

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21314, 6 November 1934, Page 8

THE ART EXHIBITION

TO TWS *7>ITO» 01* THE PR*SS. Sir, —I went, I saw, I wept—wept mental tears of artistic anguish. Thus I parody the well-known words of Caesar and apply them to my visit to the present exhibition of pictures in the Durham Street Gallery, by members of the New Zealand Society of Artists. Though, this exhibition is, to my mind, somewhat better in average quality than the previous one by members of the society, and with absence of several quite objectionab e pictures, the impression left in my mind is that in the majority of cases the work is sketchy, blotchy, and crude. There is much evidence of glaring

colour, hard, harsh outlines, lack of atmosphere, absence of artistic taste in choosing a scene likely to give pleasure to purchasers. Proof can be seen of this last statement by the comparative absence of purchases. I have waited, so far vainly, for the art critics of the three leading papers —all of whom write under a pen name or with unsigned articles, and the criticism therefore being of little interest except for those patted on the back, because for all we know they may be the views of the office-boy—-to give any serious criticism or relative appraisement of the work that might be of some value to the exhibitors and help them to correct their faults. What do I find? Largely an enumeration of, in each case, some point on which they can make some favourable comment. No seriously adverse criticism even when the work is shockingly crude, very little pointing out of faults, no helpful remarks, but mostly a passing over of errors in perspective and drawing and colour scheme. In a previous correspondence on the Empire Art Loan Exhibition I was likened to a bull in a china shop, who, when there, did not know what he wanted. Perhaps this time I shall be called a big bold wolf biting the little dogs. In that correspondence I challenged the critics because they (so it seemed fo me) would not attempt real criticism because the work was by artists with well-known names. Those letters of mine attracted considerable attention from art lovers in Canterbury—:so I gather from many remarks of a congratulatory nature from acquaintances, from letters privately received from strangers, from appreciative remarks from well known artists conveyed to me by mutual friends —and in the absence of any real criticism, I feel that on this occasion also, remarks by an outsider may fill a want 011 the part of the reading public; so I again rush into

print. Though perhaps as the bull in the china shop, I might not have known what I wanted, 1 most certainly do now. That is that pictures of scenery should be a reasonably true representation of nature as seen by the normal eye, and not an affectedly exaggerated one, and preferably of the more beautiful part of nature; that they should give pleasure and should have a tendency to elevate. In my claim that artists should endeavour to depict beauty, of course one understands that "beauty exists only in the eye of the beholder"; but if many of the pictures exhibited show beauty as the artists see it, then I am sorry for them, for they miss much. I mean that even though they may get delight from their crudities—which X assume are their best attempts at representations of nature as they see it — how much greater delight might they not get if they saw nature as seen and depicted by Constable, Leader, or Lamorna Birch. Referring to the shockingly bizarre paintings of a few exhibitors, some of the critics seemed to be in doubt how to treat them and what to say. Why do they not say trenchantly what they think? If painters of these works would do as that wise child did when perpetrating some special enormity in its art world and write underneath, "This is a joak," we might have more respect for them. One critic has suggested. almost as if therefore the work must be of merit, that the artist had been receiving instruction in France. What an excuse or reason for palliation of an artistic enormity. To my mind the French schools of the last 70 or 80 years have had a definitely degrading influence on art and the present decadence in the "modern" school is largely due to the influence of men like Brague, Degas. Matisse, Pascin, Roualt, Dufresne, Bonnard, Gauguin, and Henri Rousseau. It has been well said that "English art is at its best when purely English." French artists to my mind have played the same sinister part towards art that French

politicians have played, and are now playing, towards European politics. If it could be brought home by the critics, to the painters of these poor class paintings now exhibitedphow unpleasing an effect their works had on a large section of the intelligent members of the public, there surely would be a marked improvement in the quality of the exhibits, and consequently in the sales. Mentioning for a moment the idea that the artist may be a man with goods for sale, why do so many paint in such a way that the effect that the artist wishes to convey cannot be obtained unless the onlooker is from 10 to 60 feet distant. How many people can place a picture in a house so that it can be viewed from that distance? Most people want pictures that they can look at when sitting at meals, etc. If a man can paint in both the impressionistic and in the exact way, why does he so often choose the former when the latter can be appreciated both at a small and at a large distance? Why not provide the goods the people want? Despite the generally derogatory tone of these remarks. I wish it to be understood that they apply only to a certain proportion of the works hung. There is, in my opinion, a fair proportion of high-class work hung, but as I do not wish to make invidious personal comparisons I make no comment for good or ill on any special works. The black and white work seems to me to be of a much higher average quality than the rest of the exhibits, many pieces being of special merit. —Yours, etc., A. WELLS NEWTON. Ohoka, November 4, 1934.