MODERN ART

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 135, 5 December 1933, Page 4

MODERN ART

'•JOYOUS THOUGHT"'

NATURE'S SHORTCOMINGS

(Written for "The Post" hy Nclle M,

Scanlan.)

It is easy tocoudcnni ivliat vrc do not understand.' In each, generation tlie old, tlic conservative, ,havo criticised bitterly: the challenge of the young to break: away, and explore new paths. In no period lias the break with tradition been so marked as during the present century. The Avar puts'a, line of'demarcation very clearly between the old and the new; not in production perhaps ;so much as in appreciation. ■ • ■ ".Before'the Avar, the pioneers of-new i ideas in art,' iii music,1 were struggling ; along with scant recognition and a few i enthusiastic, followers. ,Jsut ,the.. post-, war 'years' h avis, thrown, into', prominence .1 not ouly great artists—great in aspirai tion'and achie,vcnie,ntT—but artists with, ; the support; o£ -a; considerable public. No one interested in. art' can afford to . dismiss .sh'p, jnoderns. To '. call their: '■ work 'frubbisK''>does. not,: annihilate; thonij nor!eliminate their profound in-! fluerice 'o"n the: decorative tendencies of; todays " ■•■""'■"" Many who- have attuned their, ear to . the new harmonies'-/'of modern music still refuse to accord''the same privilege to their eye,' that is to free it from traditional limitations,,and seek for the motive inspiring modern art. Not only are the young painters and sculptors imbued with fervoUr in its service, but many artists ,witli established reputations along conventional lines are .deserting the- older- method, for the . .newer forms: of 'expression; . It is folly-to fight' new things simply because'they are new and strange auil difficult,fy).Understand, just as it is stupid to: adhere to the old simply because it is old. It is wiser- to'approach, the new.ar.t'.wHh. an open mind, and endeavour to learn' what it is all about, and why it 'has won a place even in the most conservative galleries; for it has done so. ... ..-. ■.... Tho new harmouies are often harsh to the ear, and the- new . forms are crude to the eye. There is programme music which, suggests something definite to tho mind, water,' or wind, or moonlight, or. tho crash of machinery. There is also'1 "pure music" which'does not form a picture in the mind; or -represent, anything. The ' modern artist claims the same freedom. The young- artists in. Kcw .Zealand are forming, a new society, with aims directed at establishing this freedom, and impressing upon the public mind their claims to .equal'recognition with exponents of older methods. There is room for both. No modern artist, at loast no. artist with 'any 'sense of proportion, is foolish enough to deny the value of old masterpieces. They are different; they may think they arc better, but they have to stand the test of time and changing fashions. The pace of this new movement in New Zealand has been retarded by the country's youth and tho'distance fioin the more progressive art centres of tho world, where such revolutionary ideas haves a better chanco of success,.and of spreading, their influence among young artists. Many of these modems undoubtedly are sincere, and masters of their medium. But there are many whose work brings discredit upon the now school; they are such indifferent artists that they would discredit any school. Too often the movement is condemned by a hasty glance at this type of work. Others try by means of eccentricity-tb' claim attention, and they would obscure lack of technique under the plea of modern freedom. We have, grown accustomed to breadth, and simplicity; to impressionists and cubists. They are old fashioned now. It is the '' abstract artist around whom the battle rages today. I have just been looking at the work of Barbara Hepwprth, sculptor, and Ben Nicolson, painter. I notice that the Sunday "Observer," one of the heavyweights of criticism, says of Miss Hepworth's "perfect blending of aesthetic ideals" that she is more consistent in her researches for the basic element of beauty*'than Mr. Nicolson. Her sculpture is not representative of anything. It is stone carved into various shapes that are just shapes. The critic is quite lucid. He says: "They are variations of rhythmic linear movement, the soft continuity of which is. never brought to a halt by a sharp angle or a straight, uncurved line.'' Put more'plainly, they are liko stones that have been smoothed and rounded by the action of water. The critic goes on. to say that almost the last vestige of representational moaning has vanished,- and., that the sculptor derived her inspiration from the "undulant formation of a landscape." Just so. Mr. Nioolsori'paints pictures, or rather "compositions." •; This-critic says his work is "based on linear and chromatic modulations rather than on definite statements." : I ..entirely, agree about, the absence of any definite statement. It is difficult to explain his pictures in words. Let 'me take one, importantly framed, and with a red seal denoting the fact that it has been sold. It is a couple of feet square, a dirty white background on which are two discs of colour, very uncertain circles as to shape—one blood rod, and the smaller, some distance' below,- mauvepink. A black line that shies half-way, then returns to its appointed course, links them together. That is all, absolutely all. Having failed to see any meaning, as it was utterly unrepresentational, I endeavoured to' feel the correct aesthetic or emotional reaction that. ' it should have aroused, and appeared to arouse in an adolescent group around me. But it left me- stone «old. Then a young gir], very "arty" in.dress and manner, led up a middle-aged man and stood before the masterpiece.... He wore that stolid look of the un-artistic,, and his whole manner and expression said.: "What the blanky-blank is.this?'? ■ I listened to her rapt explanation. • "It's a joyous thought,•■andfit was so clever of him to realise that it was just a joyous thought. All joy! Can't you see the joy? Can't you feel the joy* Just joy! A joyous thought." Tho middle-aged man looked stunned, and I turned away, feeling shamed at my lack of perception. I hadn't known a joyous thought when. I Saw it. Ben'NicoisQn is extremely modern, . and Ids dozen compositions of lines and spots have a proud place in the gallery, and are selling well. But doos, this articulate adoration of tho susceptible young really. further the cause of art, I wonder? . . To clear up the problem, I have gone to the recent writings of one of these abstract artists,' to see if he can make it clear. Here are' a few things that Edward Wadsworth has to say. When asked why he preferred abstract Bubjects to Nature^ he declared that Nature was "indiscriminate^ lavish, capricious, and untidy," and it was a ! human instinct-to correct these qualities.- .' ■t , . ~'... ,' .'. '. "Art is. a eontinuati6n of Nature, I .which the artist.uses as an instrument ,to. help him^ create parallel''to "Nature. In my opinion," he says, "a tree 'does' 'a tree much better than an. artist, and the artist is concerned with pictures, ■ ,not with trees."- He. declares that the aim in paining .is .the'same today, "to' animate'surfaces by form arid 'colour."' Natural forms are material forms, ho contends, and a picture which eliminates recognisable natural forms is less material. He suggests that in order to '.'•begin to Jearn'-; :ilie grammar oil ike

abstract painter's language, you must first control your eye, and the part of tho brain that the eye informs. He claims that the trained eye can see an equivalent for natural forms, "which may: bo emotionally all the more telling because direct material association is absent."

In plain terms, they are just form and colour without any specific meaning, and do not represent anythiug at all; they are not meant to, but are the artist's "spiritual activity" expressed in colour and form.

I; suppose that explains the Joyous Thought. But. there aro still many unconvinced, and tho battle rages fiercely over the- Abstract field.