Art Critic Answers His Critics

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31726, 9 July 1968, Page 24

Art Critic Answers His Critics

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, July 8. New Zealanders seemed to relish criticism with a sens? of masochism and inferiority, the United States critic Mr Clement Greenberg said in Auckland at the week-end.

He said he had been misquoted in Christchurch as saying that New Zealand art did not exist. This was a distortion which had needlessly upset people. There had been considerable reaction to the reported remarks. “I don’t blame them,” he said. “The artists concerned had a right to jump—I’d been in the country only 24 hours.” He said that the way in which the report was snapped up indicated that New Zealanders in general were too sensitive about criticism. Mr Greenberg said he was making a distinction between good art and major art. Good art could exist in New Zealand but according to the record major work—work which influenced the mainstream of art history—was unlikely to be produced in New Zealand. In the last few hundred years major work had been produced only in great centres like Paris, London and New York.

This applied just as much to Chicago or California as it did to Christchurch. They were just as provincial. “But if I said Chicago was

only fit for automobiles, noone would care very much,” he said. He said he had been impressed by the work of two living New Zealand painters, Colin McCahon, of Auckland, and Toss Woolaston, of Greymouth. There were others producing good work, too.