THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, MAY 10, 1930. THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21022, 10 May 1930, Page 12

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, MAY 10 , 1930. THE ROYAL ACADEMY.

The president and members of the Royal Academy might think they had something approaching a grievance if the annual exhibition at Burlington House were not denounced by the critics —by some of them at least—as tedious, boring, and uninspired. The Daily Herald, which has yet to build up its reputation as a journal deferred to in all matters relating to the fine arts, has lost no time in leading the attack, and describes tho Academy of 1930 as tho worst since the war. Since wo seem to have been hearing very much the same thing, or worse, about every Academy for a decade or two, the condition of affairs so far as British art, measured by Burlington House standards, is concerned, ought to be very shocking indeed. But the Academicians, accustomed to a derisiou to which artists whose work has been submitted for exhibition but rejected no. doubt make a heavy contribution, will not be' greatly perturbed, and the Royal Academy will pursue unshaken the even tenor of its way. It may be a ponderous, rather well-worn way, marked with much respect for tradition, but an Academy has its responsibilities. It cannot lightly shake off the sense of obligation to be academic. There are numerous organisations in the art world that are, however, under no such sense of restraint. It is open to them to challenge the. Royal Academy, and throw the.martinets of Burlington House into-ignoble discredit. But their

efforts in such a direction seem to be comparatively feeble. They arc certainly not crowned with much success. Not infrequently artists who helped to raise the banner of revolt in their youth have become academicians in their prime. But the effect of their influence on the Academy is not very conspicuous. The Royal Academy continues to be dignified, conservative, and, in the opinion of many, always plodding along at a respectable distance behind the times. But per>haps, after all, it is not seriously the worse for that. Innovations in art may be very well in their way, aiid both interesting and amusing, but, while there may be fashions in art as in other things, the standards of art are fortunately built upon a foundation that neither, crumbles nor subsides. So the Royal Academy, despite the slings and arrows of the critics, retains its prestige and holds its course, a venerable if considerably abused institution, still assured of its place in British national esteem. Its exhibitions should be representative of British art of the day at its best. If they are not then it is hardly reasonable to suppose that the Academy is to blame, for it includes among its members, and, of course, also among those who exhibit under its auspices, distinguished artists, men and women who have not hesitated to break now ground so far as this has seemed to them possible, legitimate, or desirable. If the Academy 0f'1930 is uninteresting the natural assumption will be that the year has been rather a lean one so far as •'the output of works of ■ a distinctive quality has been concerned. The Academy Banquet is the occasion of one of the most distinguished assemblages of the year and one upon which members of the .Royal Family and church dignitaries, statesmen and admirals are pleased to contribute to the post-prandial eloquence, and art may constitute the text, but rarely the substance, of discourse. “ Art is necessary to civilised life. It is with us always and you cannot get away from it. Without it there can be no civilisation,” observed Sir William Llewellyn, president of the Academy at a recent meeting of the Artists Benevolent Institution, and Lord Riddell followed up by affirming: “Without artists industry could not flourish.” Such statements express a truth that should be so obvious that they may have the ring of platitudes. Yet how many people are conscious, of their significance? In a young country like New Zealand an increased, consciousness in that relation is very much to be desired. There is every reason why a young community should be careful how it builds for the future, and its members should be capable of recognising the difference between that which is merely utilitarian and that useful and within its possibilities right and attractive at the same time. An important consideration is that Art, as we understand the term, should have its due in the educational sphere. Art has, of course, had its greater and its lesser periods, just as literature and music. What distinguished English painting of the nineteenth century, said Mr W. Rothenstein in a recent lecture, was that for sheer originality there, was nothing to touch it. Despite all the efforts of the innovators' originality is perhaps the outstanding deficiency in modern art. For the rest the times are probably difficult for those who labour in every sphere of art. The greatness of the past weighs, too, upon the present. Possibly it has been somewhat hard upon the Royal Academy of 1930 that it has had to follow so closely upon the great exhibition of Italian masters in London. Respect for the achievements of the past _ was, however, never higher, it would appear, than it is to-day, and the possibility is now being considered of holding in London next year an exhibition of Persian art ranging from 1800 b.c. to 1800 a.d. Speaking of the educational value of these exhibitions of the art of other nations Major Longden has suggested that it would he a happy idea to leave Europe for the moment, and go outside to bring in a “new feelingthe Asiatic sense vof colour vis-a-vis the European sense of form.”