WORK BY FRANCES HODGKINS

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25859, 19 July 1949, Page 4

WORK BY FRANCES HODGKINS

Council Rejects “The Pleasure Garden”

DEPUTATION HEARD LAST EVENING

The Christchurch City Council „ has “respectfully declined” to hang; “The Pleasure Garden” by Frances Hodgkins in the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. For an hour last evening a deputation from those who subscribed to buy the picture addressed the council and answered questions. A quarter of an hour was spent in camera questioning the council’s advisory committee. Subsequent discussion lasted nearly half an hour. Mrs Margaret Frankel recounted how the picture was brought to New Zealand. Was it likely, she asked, that the British Council would select second-grade paintings for exhibition in foreign countries to illustrate British culture? “This painting you see before you is typical of her work; but in it she was not interested in getting a photographic representation. £he painted what she felt about the garden. All those things that are said to be wrong about it were done on purpose. It is a special picture and one that Idaves something to the imagination. Many find it difficult to understand because most are interested only in the photographic approach to art,” she said. Mrs Frankel emphasised that Frances Hodgkins was famous for her paintings late in life, not for her impressionist paintings. Since her death there had been two exhibitions of her work in London. She was represented in the Tate Gallery with four paintings. in a number of provincial collections and in numerous private collections. “Virtually nothing of modern art has reached these shores,” Mrs Frankel added. “Life in art galleries overseas is full of interest.” Was it possible, she asked, that money had been spent in buying the paintings in the McDougall Gallery and yet “The Pleasure Garden” had been rejected. Mrs Frankel finished her speech amidst applause from about 30 people in the public gallery, but the Mayor said that no applause from the gallery was permitted. “Place for Mental Excitement” Mr A. C. Brassington submitted that the controversy about the painting had dene much to draw attention to the work of a great New Zealander. It also drew attention to the future policy of the McDougall Gallery. Those who had subscribed to the painting thought that the advisory committee to the council should be drawn from a wider circle and all varieties of those interested in art should be drawn on. “Let us make the gallery a place for mental excitement. Nothing but good can come from the council accepting this painting,” Mr Brassington added. Asked by Cr. C. D. W. L. Sheppard whether he thought another advisory committee should be appointed Mr Brassington said: “Yes. We have no confidence in their judgment on this matter and we also submit that the panel is too small and narrow. The committee was appointed many years ago and we have no recollection of their appointment.”

In answer to another question Mr Brassington said that the more progressive people in the Canterbury Arts Society had wanted the picture but others had not. Referred to a comment. about the picture by Frances Hodgkins’ brother. Mr Brassington said that Mr Hodgkins had a right to his opinion, “and so.do we; but if we are to be judged by our relatives. ... I attend the police court and could a tale unfold.” Cr. J. E. Tait: Do you agree that the pictures in the McDougall Gallery are no good? Mr Brassington: In the words of Bernard Shaw, a bonfire should be made of half of them. To the Ma yor (Mr E. H. Andrews) Mr -Brassington said that the matter of the appointment of the advisory committee had, Jo the recollection of many members, never been brought before the Society of Arts. “The comm ittee was appointed about 1935, and there have been no criticisms until now," said the Mayor. “We haven’t been able to get criticism before you,” said Mr Brassington. The Mayor said the controversy was typical of artists. “I don’t profess to know whether the picture is good or bad. We want to come to an opinion, but you are not able to give much help to assist us.” When the deputation withdrew the Mayor said: “I think we will have to go into committee to discuss this matter.” “Why?’’ said several councillors. For obvious reasons,” said the Mayor. “We will have to question the advisory committee, and it is not fair to question them in front of the public.” Cr. L. G. Amos moved that the matter be referred back to the finance and by-laws committee for further cohsideration, but the motion lapsed for want of a seconder. Cr. Sheppard moved that the matter be discussed in open council. The motion was seconded by Cr. T. H. Butterfield. Cr. G. D. Griffiths moved an amendment that the council go into committee. Cr. Tait said he would second the amendment if the advisory committee was questioned in committee and the remaining discussion taken in open council. This course was agreed to and the amendment was carried with several dissentient votes. Committee’s Report A report to the council, signed by Mr Archibald F. Nicoll, said that the advisory committee’s report to the council was the normal routine followed in numerous cases of works offered to the gallery for purchase or as gifts, and had been giVen after full and careful consideration. “The persistent agitation, culminating in a deputation asking that the committee’s recommendation be repudiated by (he council, is not. as it might appear, a widespread, spontaneous expression of opinion by artists and public,” said the report. “On the contrary, the deputation’s appeal follows a highly organised campaign of propaganda by a small coterie wishing to substitute its view for that of the advisory committee, and that of an overwhelming majority of the general public and artists of Canterbury. “The number of subscribers to :he fund for purchase (39) was significantly small.

“For whatever reason, the matter received quite remarkable, prolonged, and skilful publicity in one of the daily newspapers, ‘The Press.’ Some light may be thrown on the nature of this by mention of a cable message published in ‘The Press’ recently. It concerned an exhibition entitled ‘Homage to Frances Hodgkins.’ held in the St. George’s Gallery, London. This message, in its setting amongst cables on international affairs, must have appeared to casual readers as an important event of national significance. In fact, the St. George’s Gallery is just another art dealer’s establishment among the many that have sprung up in London. “ ‘Critics’ Enthusiastic Praise’ was part of the headline to the cable and a short extract from the ‘Sunday Times’ was quoted. Here is a fuller quotation from the article in that journal, dated. March 20. 1949:—‘Homage to Frances Hodgkins’ at the St. George’s Gallery is an exhibition to remember ... at such times the pictures she painted were as exuberant as tropical vegetation, yet as perfectly shaped as a violin. ... In No. 27 a family of closely related greys seems to sing aloud against a sudden irruption of earthy reds and browns. Sometimes her colour suggests milk mixed with fruit juices and sometimes it splutters like a forest fire. Some of her drawings seem to be made of smoke; others of tangled black string.

“Now the writer of this nonsense is Mr Eric Newton, whose opinions, judging from their frequent quotation, seem to carry so much weight with Mr A. C. Brassington and his supporters,” the report from Mr Nicoll. continues. “When the local campaign for securing one of the later paintings by Frances Hodgkins was opened by Messrs Lonsdale and Brassington, at an annual meeting of the Art Society, Mr Lonsdale relied mainly, if not solely, on Mr Eric Newton’s authority. On that occasion, Mr Brassington, to quote from ‘The Press’ report, said—‘l would say dogmatically that Frances Hodgkins was the greatest New Zealand artist.’ Under cross-examination Mr Brassington admitted that he himself had never seen a picture by Frances Hodgkins. This throws some light oh the quality of the protest against the recommendation of the advisory committee. Picture Held “Unworthy” “Now Messrs Cecil Kelly and A. F. Nicoll nave known the work of Frances Hodgkins for some 40 years and hold her in high esteem as an artist. At the same time. they can claim to be able to discriminate amongst her works of varying standards and think it most unfortunate that this particular example, ‘Pleasure Garden.’ of all her work, should have been the one to be offered as a gift to the city’s collection. The committee had no option but to advise the council against its acceptance, deeming it unworthy both of Frances Hodgkins and of the McDougall Gallery. “This view has endorsement in a letter written to the ‘N.Z. Listener’ by Mr P. D’E. Hodgkins (a brother), in which he stated:—‘Margaret Frankel (Christchurch) suggests that some of Frances Hodgkins’ paintings be shown in all the centres. The exhibition of some of my late sister’s more modern work I consider both unjust to the artist and to the public. . . . As every artist knows, the practice of painting is subject to moods and all artists attempt to paint at times with hopelessly poor results. These results are usually thrown aside. Much of my sister’s work is of this' nature and should not be exhibited.’ ”

The petition signed by 69 members of the staff of Canterbury University College (reported last week) was also received by the council. After hearing members of the advisory committee privately, the council resumed in open meeting, and the audience returned to the gallery., Cr. Tait then moved that the painting be declined on the recommendation of the advisory committee set up for such work. He believed all'parties sincerely wished to advance art in the city, but it was unfortunate that a painting of this particular quality had been offered. Cr. Tait said he had advised a correspondent that the council thought the oainting unworthy of Frances Hodgkins’s best work. Seconding this motion. Cr. J. Mathison said all his feelings were against hanging the picture. He hoped a better example of a great artist’s work would be secured eventually. Cr. Sheppard supported the speakers and expressed regret that the advisory committee’s report had not been published earlier. Although he did not like the painting, Cr. W. B. Owen said an important matter of principle had been raised—the service of the advisory committee. The suggestion that a wider representation should be secured was worth consideration. He moved an amendment that the finance committee examine this matter. The time had com,e for stocktaking. The Mayor refused to accept the amendment, as he thought it a separate issue. Expert Advice When the council was not fully qualified to decide any matter, it sought the advice of its expert advisers. said Cr. R. G. Brown. He supported the advisory committee. Cr. T. H. Butterfield said that in tong council experience this was the first time he had seen or heard of the advisory committee. “Surely there is room for this picture in the Art Gallery,’’ he said. The iriterest in the painting was sufficient justification for its inclusion. When he was seven years old he did work equal to “The Pleasure Garden,’’ said Cr. W. J. Cowles, Councillors’ own observation and reasoning would support the advisory committee. He' preferred the “stodgy old pictures” to .the new art. Cr. Glue supported the motion; but said many people would like the work. The picture should be hung and a public vdte taken on whether it should remain. This painting should not go into the gallery as a good example of contemporary art, said Cr. G. D. Griffiths. The motion declining the painting •was carried on the Voices. Crs. Butterfield and Owen apparently being the only dissentients. Some members did not vote.