ART OR THE ARTIST?

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16569, 5 June 1914, Page 3

ART OR THE ARTIST?

WHICH SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED? LIGHT DUTY ON PAINTINGS. NO DEMAND FOR INCREASE. Mr J. M. Madden, a New Zealand artist, has boon saying in Wellington that New Zealand should hare a heavy duty on imported painting!?, to encourage the local artist. Recently he found himself up against the Australian tariff wall, which imposes a minimum of £1 on the smallest sketch, and charges a maximum of 25 per cent. Ho was annoyed by the inexorable barrier, and refused to take his paintings out of bond. Since returning to New Zealand, however, he has come to regard tho tariff as a good thing for the artist. ; THE LOCAL TARIFF. Ten years or so ago the New Zealand tariff on paintings was 20 per cent. Parliament threshed out the matter of whether art or the artist should bo most encouraged, and decided in favour of art, by retaining the duty of 20 per cent on paintings up to a value of £5, a course calculated to keep out the cheaper stuff, and fixing a maximum of £1 on paintings valued at more than £5. Thus tho tariff on good paintings is nominal, and the dealer is encouraged to import tho more valuable works. A reporter’s inquiries yesterday showed that there was a general feeling in favour of tho retention of the present tariff. A DEALER’S VIEW. “Would a high tariff help the local artist?” asked the reporter of a prominent dealer. 11 Not in the slightest,” was tho reply. “Why not?” “Principally because the buying population is not large enough. Tho man who would buy a £2OO canvas might not be a purchaser if he had to pay £6O in d"(.y, but in tho alternative ho would no. buy a local painting. It is not altogether a matter of price, except that a duty of 20 per cent would restrict sales. A man buys a picture not because he wants to buy a picture, but because lie takes a fancy to it. first of all, and because ho feels he can afford it in tho second place. With a high tariff there would bo fewer pictures sold and loss good pictures imported.” ENGLISH PICTURES PREFERRED. Tho dealer was asked what class of paintings sold best. _ “Naturally, in point of value,” he said, “ you sell far morn English pictures, but if you take, numbers there are more colonial pictures sold.” He went on to remark that at the annual exhibitions nothing but local work was sold. Incidentally, ho added that in the case of a New Zealand arti't’s work being srnt out to New Zealand from England it had to pay duty tho same ns the re-si.. What would be the off ct of a tariff on the quality of the local output? He d'd not think that it would make any difference. A local artist would not rest on his oars, knowing that he had a 2.5 por cent start of his competitors; but tiro absence of English am l Conti-ne-’tal cxampTs of work would prove a big handicap In his art. THE STIFLING OF ART. “ The tariff has kept gord p’cturcs out of Australia,” ecid another dealer “and of cou so it Ims kept a lot <v rubbish- out.” As an instance cf tl; class of good pictures that had bo< lost to the Commonwealth, ho me T tioned tho fact that Haito, one of tl world’s foremost artists, had sent fl< vc-ral pictures to Sydney, but on learn ino: of the duty had not landed them. The intend'wer remarked that the Sydney Art GnlTry already contained two very valuable canvases by Hail both obtained through the Chnstchim Internario-ml Exhibition. “Yes,’’.said the dealer, “ hnt they were import r d before the tariff was raised.” Ho neld'-d .that the change had been effected ,in Australia by tho representations of the artists themselves, who merely looked for their own protection. In the face of a tariff wall he could not import good pictures, because he was not prepared to stand out of the money. RIDICULOUS AUSTRALIAN TARIFF.

A Canterbury artist, a member of the local Society of Arts, was also interviewed. Ho stated that if there was a bigger duty on tho English productions thero would be a better chance for the colonial work. The importation of high class works into New Zealand could not do anything else except help tho local artists in their work. Thero was a large amount of inferior English and Continental paintings bronght into this country and if a protective tariff could bo imposed upon that material it would bo a big improvement. In a number of cases the paintings by local artists were much superior to the importations, while on tho other.hand the importation of paintings of It .oh standard had a good effect. In regard to the difference In the •;nlo between the imported and the )oc..i productions, ho said that the coho a! buyer appeared to have the idea that anything produced in England or on tho Continent was something letter than the colonial painting. The protective tariff that was in existence in Australia at the present time 'no doubt excluded a number of the inferior paintings, but the speaker would object to tho same tariff being used in New Zealand. The tariff in Australia was simply ridiculous. If the artists in New Zealand could not paint as well aa those in other countries tho art , should. be encouraged as much as possible, and in that respect they could always learn something of value from a first-class work of art. If the people of this country wished to improve themselves, whether it bo in painting, drawing or literature, they should see productions that were very much better than their own and '’>ey would no doubt benefit greatly. . .io difficulty in making a heavy protective tariff for the inferior productions, and a small tariff, 6iich as tho present New Zealand tariff, for the high-class productions, would be. in tho discrimination between the inferior and the high-class article. It would be a hard matter to classify, but tho existing tariff was much better than tho tariff of Australia. RECIPROCITY SUGGESTED. Mr C. M. Parker, the secrotary of tho Canterbury Society of Arts, was also interviewed, and he said that at the Society’s last exhibition, there was over £7OO worth of New Zealand pictures sold. Christchurch, he considered, was tho most artistio centre in New Zealand judging by the number of Canterbury paintings, and the value of the pictures sold in other centres. Referring to the protective tariffs existing in New Zealand and Australia, he said that there should be Bomo .reciprocal arrangement between tlui two oountries. ■At the present time, Australian artists could bring paintings into this country under a small tariff, while New Zealand artists could not take their paintings into Australia except under a very heavy protective tariff. There was no reason why exchanges should not bo made between New Zealand and Australian artists.