THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20058, 22 September 1928, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

MOVING WITH THE TIMES. ET W. PAGE HOWE. Some time ago I published an article in New Zealand oil tho Royal Academy, in which I corrected some popular misconceptions of tho functions of that body, and its position in the art-world. Some of my New Zealand friends who, like many people at Home, regarded tho Academy as existing almost by divine right and inspiration, wero somewhat scandalised by that column. Especially were they surprised to learn that the 11.A., as it is usually spoken of in art circles, is not a State institution, but a self-constituted body. Since it is, in popular estimation, by far the most important organisation of its kind, I propose to record my general impressions of this year's exhibition. It was eight, years since I visited tho Academy, and I was very curious as to what tlioso impressions might be. I warned myself to bear in mind that I had spent the interval in New Zealand, where art-development is necessarily in its infancy. In attempting to further that development, I had quickly realised that it would bo worse than useless to attempt to set a Home standard. Therefore my own standards of judgment had possibly become unconsciously modified. Bearing all this in mind, I have come to the very definite conclusion that this year's exhibition shows a very marked improvement, as compared with those of pre-war days, and that tho R.A. has begun to realise that it must move with the times if it is to re-establish its ancient prestige, which, except in tho eyes of tho public, it lost during the last century. Fewer Pictures. To begin with, many fewer pictures are hung than formerly. There arc not, generally speaking, more than two rows. Besides doing fuller justice to accepted works, this goes far to eliminate one of tho worst faults of the Academy, which, to cover the walls almost to the cornice, hung a great many pictures of little or no merit. Thus the public was both wearied and bewildered by much that was misleading to those wdio believed that the R.A. conferred upon every work it admitted an indisputable hall-mark of excellence. Good artists, also, lost their respect for the Academy, and sent their works only because of the advertising and selling possibilities, while others, many of them of great ability, did not send at all. Another reason also brought the Academy .nto disrepute. It obstinately refused to move with the times. When associato vacancies occurred, it passed by artists of undoubtedly established importance, because they had gone beyond its antiquated point of view. A glance at the Academy personnel, as it now stands, shows a radical alteration of that attitude. The Associateships of Augustus, John and Walter Sickert are most notable, and thero aro others. The motto on the title-page of this year's catalogue is significant: Enough, if something from our hands have power To live, and act, and servo the future hour A Beformed Academy. Tho exhibition itself proves this more catholic point of view. Thero are fewer pictures of the kind that used to make the R.A. so tiresome, repeating the same themes with the same dulness of lifeless conventionality, year after year. But critics of Academy methods should remember that nothing is moro difficult than to appraiso contemporary art justly, especi ally in the present era, during which there have been so many violent upheavals. I think it may bo fairly said that tho Academy, standing, as it should, for tho academic point of view, is now doing fuller justice to modern art-developments, especially among the pictures, of which there are not a few with which some of tlio older academicians can havo had little sympathy, but which they havo recognised as being entitled to a place. Curiously enough, tho most "advanced" examples are by one of the R.A.'s, Charles Sims, whose death is so greatly lamented, and whose poetic imagination and delicate technique wore always so refreshing in the surrounding dulness of former exhibitions. These pictures are attempts to give graphic representation to psychic phenomena, some of which arc claimed by tho initiated to bo visual facts. They may be said lo represent phases of contact between the human spirit and the eternal forces. They are not intelligible to common perceptions, which have, as yet at any rate, no knowledge and, therefore, no standards of judgment by which to appraise them. Artistically "they have a certain merit which is hard to define, and, in my humble opinion, of tho slightest. If and when these phenomena come within moro general experience, it is possible that the human emotions will be thus treated in art. These experiments would probably have not been accepted, if they had been done by other than an R.A., who is entitled to exhibit practically without submission to the hanging-committee. Comparisons. This exhibition, as a. whole, has helped mo to test tho validity of my judgment of current art in New Zealand during the last seven years. Perhaps I can stato the result by answering a question which has been put to me fairly often in Auckland and elsewhere, as to the chances of acceptance by tho R.A. of New Zealand works. My memories at that time caused mo to make a more encouraging answer than I would now. Judging by my impressions of this year's exhibition, only a very few pictures which I have seen in New Zealand would bo likely to pass muster, much fewer than in former times. That conclusion will surprise nobody. But moro than ever am I disposed to urge tho necessity of raising the New Zealand standard for exhibitions of current art, and for public galleries, in accordance with such knowledge of art as exists in the Dominion. At each of the four most important art-centres, thero arc at least a fewartists or students of art who know its traditions and something of its modern phases. With good reason to know the difficulties, I commend to these the duty of judiciously raising tho standard. To "attempt anything liko the London criterion at once would, in my opinion, bo unwise, though I know a few of my New Zealand friends think otherwise. But I am more than ever sure that a higher standard should bo aimed at moro consistently. As to the New Zealand art galleries, may I add another word to my frequently expressed opinions, especially with reference to the one with which I am most familiar? The tendency, hitherto, has been to buy pictures, or accept them, as gifts at sight, becauso they have been hung: at tlio R.A., and that at its worst period. That standard, as at present understood in New Zealand, does less than justice to the Academy of to-day. In any caso the policy is unsound, because obviously all tho best contemporary work does not find its way to tho Academy, where also the art of "other countries is not represented.