McCahon painting

Press, 3 September 1982, Page 12

McCahon painting

Sir, - As a ratepayer, I too object to the waste of public money in the purchase of the controversial painting by Colin McCahon. No wonder Christchurch rates are the highest in New Zealand. Who actually purchased the painting on behalf of the Christchurch City Council and who appointed the purchaser? If a private individual has $lO,OOO to spend on a painting, and his taste runs to subjects like the McCahon painting, well and good, but noone has the right to use public money to buy something so far outside the public understanding and appreciation. There are thousands of elderly homeowners in Christchurch struggling to pay their rates. No one has the. right to pledge their credit to pay $lO,OOO for such a picture. — Yours, etc., S. L. DONALDSON. September 1, 1982.

Sir,-What a pity the Robert McDougall Art Gallery has to buy a frame for Colin McCahon’s painting, in addition to the $lO,OOO purchase price (more than one-fifth of its annual budget).-Yours, etc., MAURICE SIMES. September 1, 1982. Sir,-On the regional TV programme, we saw and heard the director of, the Robert McDougall Art Gallery, discussing the purchase of the McCahon painting. Without entering into a discussion on the merits of the painting, it was disappointing to find the director so rudely patronising. When asked about the painting, he insisted on discussing the painter, and the financial advantages of the “investment." After several attempts by the interviewer, he did produce one sentence about the painting; it was McCahon’s view of New Zealand. Mr Coley would do well to remember that he was talking to the people who pay his salary, and who also pay for his acquisitions. They are entitled to know what artistic merit he sees in these works. This is his job. not that of investment adviser.—Yours, etc ■J. P. SENIOR. September 2, 1982. ; :