The Appreciation of Art

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11785, 22 March 1924, Page 11

The Appreciation of Art

By

H. Prouse, Brooklyn.

Ruskin once said: “No great art ever rose on earth hut by a nation of soldiers. There is no art among a shepherd people, or an agricultural people, if it remains at peace.” “Commerce is barely consistent with fine art, and cannot produce it. Manufacture not only is unable to produce ft, but invariably destroys whatever seeds of it exists.” Egypt produced Kings going into battle. From Egypt art passes directly into Greece where all poetry, and all paintings are nothing else than the description, praise, or dramatic representation of war.” Tolstoi wrote a book “What is Art.” He by powerful and logical reasoning, formulated definitions of art, and demonstrates to his own satisfaction that some of the world’s masters in art were either had artists or not artists at all, while the maker of a child’s doll is a true artist. Such theorising is going on at the present time about art, and the art of painting seems to get more than its share. To avoid error we must examine painting as it is and as it was ■ If we find out those characteristics which have come right down through long ages and are in practice to-day, wt may assume with reasonable assurance that they are essential to its nature. The origin of painting or sculpture seems to be twofold. Primitive man probably first learnt to mix and apply colours for the adornment of his body. The second cause is given birth in the idea of a hunter being asked to describe a strange beast he bas seen in the forest, and with infinite pains draws an outline with ? stick on the ground, or tries to model it in day. Here we have the art (t imitation. ; When their powers of observation increased and a feeling after colour and rhythm made itself felt, then rea son and the powers of the mind had been brought into play, and we have the beginning of the so called “Fine Arts.” Egyptian art lacks the life and movement of the caveman, and is more an art of representation, and an it grows more conventional in form so it introduces the human figure into art for the first time as the princnoal subject. The temple and tomb work of Egypt are the books wherein one can read the lives of the King and his subjects. The rise and fall of painting from earliest time until now m all counties is well known. Different nations have employed different methods to attain a degree of imitation, but the object has always been the fame. All have Been striving to arrive at a truthful representation of his art tilth the materials at his disposal. One may think from all this the more exact the imitation tho laoie perfect will be the painting, and the greater pleasure will it afford. Leon ardo da Vinci considered the finest painting that which most nearly resembled nature in a mirror. This statement is not an accepted fact. Art is limited in its degree of imitation by the nature of the means employed. The Greek vase painter’s tools consisted only of a fine pointed brush and his medium black paint He could give no degree of colour or show the beauty of light and shade. Set if the contours be true the eye will at once delight in it although all the other truths are not there. One painter will seek after one truth which another would neglect, each interpreting as the light is revealed to him, and the more sure he is of that truth the more he will avoid a olose imitation. Even Leonardo dr Vinci refrained from painting all he saw because they confused the form. The business of the painter is to give the benefit of his power of vision, his technical training and knowledge; he makes a selection of the things he wishes to see, exaggerating here and retarding there until we see what he sees. His rank as an artist depends on his ability to select these truths and direct our attention to them. The appeal of musio and poetry is to the ear, while architecture, sculpture, and painting appeals to the eye—one the Art of time, the other the Art of

space, all Arte of Relation. Painting as an Art of relation deals with lines and spaces, colour and degrees of light and dark. As painting cannot do without imitation, neither is it able to do without the Art of relation, for the laws of lines, spaoes, colour and light and shade which belong to the Art of relation are also the tools of imitation. Therefore, by a successful combination of the two the painter is able to portray those truths which reveal themselves to his eye and in turn delights the eye of all to whom they. are revealed. The appreciation, of Art in New Zealand by the majority of the publio has been that of a tolerant parent for a child’s plaything. Sir Harold Beauchamp’s plea for an Art Gallery seems to have fallen on deaf ears. He interest taken in the appeal has been but the flutter of a candle in the wind. What is the reason for this apathy? Is ,it that we have no civic pride, no interest, in the fipeyArt education of our country, and no' appreciation of those works of Art which are our birthright? That 6uch a state exists seems the only conclusion one can arrive at, and to such a degree have things gone' that an enterprising artist has to seek his laurels abroad. New Zealand wants the best men she can produce, and it is disgraceful to think the best have to migrate to be appreciated and make a living. The Art Schools can do a lot to rectify this, but they in turn are governed by the wrong class of men. All the schools can do under the present system is to point a method, or to 'provide a formula. The educationalist who knows the imitative powers of the young, is perfectly well aware that, within reason, it is possible to bring a student to the learning and copying of almost any formula.

This applies above all things to drawing and designing, and hence the need for the constant change of method in the teaching of drawing in schools, or, better still, for the abolition of the formula altogether. It should he the teacher’s object to get the student to invent methods of expression of his own. Do not misunderstand mej I do not dream of the postulating of Art schools in general. The danger lies not in the schools, but in society itself, in the very bones and sinews of men as they are to-day. They are part and parcel of our own contemporary civilisation, and they show themselves in Church, in State, ip business, In professional and social life, more generally than in the' life of Art. Yet it is in tho latter category that they may he most fatal in their operation. After a walk through our local School of Art and the conditions under which the student has to study, one is’ apt To ask “Can any good come out or Nazareth?” And yet it is to these students and schools that the Art of the future depends. With the,aid of a good Art Gallery a lot of good can So accomplished which would be beneficial both to student and publio alike. A systematic study of the works of our great artists ancT an appreciation of sound methods is the foundation of good technic. Our soldier artists who have had the opportunity of study abroad realise the value of this, and it is to them that we must look for a renaissance in Art, and produce mural paintings of the history ,of our Dominion and those works of Art which will adorn both home and gallery, and create that atmosphere of beauty which is essential to our national life. Wellington, with, its harbour of Venetianlika beauty, our hills and vales which would have sent Ruskin into a seventh heaven of delight, our bays whose sparkles of colour would make a galleyslave out of Brangwyn, and the proximity of the Hutt Valley should calL forth another Constable.

Geographically central, and with all the props for the staging of an artists’ colony, Wellington should, With all these environments, he the centre and Home of New Zealand Art.