Arts Panel ‘Ignored’

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32076, 26 August 1969, Page 10

Arts Panel ‘Ignored’

The Visual Arts Panel, a special committee of the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council, is being ignored by the council, three leading art authorities who are members of the panel said recently in an open letter to the arts council. Professor 3. Simpson, dean of the faculty of music and fine arts at the University of Canterbury, Mr G. C. Docking, director of the Auckland City Art Gallery, and Mr M. Day, director of the National Gallery, said in their open letter that the panel was not discussing matters which vitally concerned It, and urged the council to call more frequent meetings of the panel. The last meeting was on May 25. They also asked why a series of exhibitions of pottery, printmaking, painting and sculpture, recently announced by the arts council, was not on the agenda of the panel's last meeting. But the director of the arts council, Mr D. Peters, has said in reply that the panel, far from having been ignored, has been fully consulted "on all matters within its terms of reference." He said the main functions of the panel were to be artistic adviser to the council, to examine proposals referred to it, to recommend projects worthy of financial support, and to keep the

council fully Informed on visual arts in New Zealand. The three members of the panel had asked in their letter about the cost of the new exhibitions, which are to be held in retail stores in Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland. “How much of this cost is being carried by the arts council,” they asked. “How much is being given by the retail stores in which the promotions are taking place?” The arts council had said that priority should be given to exhibitions of important works in New Zealand. The three members of the panel contended that exhibitions originating from both overseas and within the country should be developed equally. “For many years before the life of the arts council exhibitions of material from New Zealand collections had been circulated throughout the , country. There is nothing new , in this proposal except that . the arts council seems determined to force a visual arts . policy on the country which ' reflects the opinion of the staff of the arts council.” Mr Peters replied that the ; retail promotion scheme was essentially a public relations project, and the decision to go ahead with it was for the ; council alone to make. The aim of the project was i to take the arts into a new . area, and to present to the public a cross-section of artis- , tic activity and creativity. “Most of the costs will be met by the stores themselves,” he said. “The council

is indebted to them for the time, effort and money they are expending. “Any expenditure the council incurs will be fully in concord with its statutory responsibility to encourage, foster and promote the practice and appreciation of the arts in New Zealand.” On the allegation that the panel had been ignored, Mr Peters said: “The council has referred many projects and proposals to the panel and to its predecessor, the Visual Arts Committee. It has also given the fullest consideration to all recommendations. “For example, the most recent meeting—attended by only one of the three signatories of the letter of com-plaint-forwarded a number of recommendations to the council. All were approved. They included long-term, pl?ns for important exhibitions to and from New Zealand.” To this, Mr Docking has since replied that there was only one reason why he and Professor Simpson missed the last meeting of the panel— Wellington’s weather. “Mr Day was at the meeting, but Professor Simpson and myself were at our respective airports waiting for the weather to clear in Wellington so that we could fly in.” He said it seemed clear that the council referred matters to the panel only when it wanted to. “It views us as just a shop front for the council.”