Exhibition Shows World Problems

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31087, 16 June 1966, Page 9

Exhibition Shows World Problems

20-20 Vision have arranged their second exhibition and it is now open at the Canterbury Society of Arts Gallery (Armagh street entrance). As the title 20-20 Vision suggests this exhibition is concerned with present-day problems, values and influences and seeks to identify art with a world threatened by thermonuclear devices, militant nationalism masquerading as democratic freedom and a world obsessed by sex symbols, brutalism, lust for speed, change merely for the sake of difference and power for its own sake.

So it is that E. N. Bracey exhibits four paintings entitled “War Series” and Michael Eaton comments with bright, gay, biting satire on the hypnotising influence of the newspaper half-tone reproduction and television screen, the growing power of all things glib, convenient, aseptic and instant, leaving behind such old-fashioned irrelevant matters as truth, integrity and human dignity. By comparison, the “Blockheads” of Trevor Moffitt are more orthodox and take the form of a commentary on cartoon strips. But punctuation matters even in cartoon lines and one of Mr Moffitt’s paintings suffers because of an accident with an apostrophe.

Don Peebles shows works distinguished for their cool, intellectual, sincere, investigation of aesthetic values. In

a sense they are both outside and above the exhibition as a whole. His "Carnival,” a hybrid work containing elements proper to two and three dimensions, continues the work of that section of artists, among others, Fra Angelico, Alberti and Ben Nicholson, who believe art above everything else is a matter of creating an intelligent, coherent unity among our sense of perceptions. In plain words, Don Peebles is a classicist concerned only with emotion engendered by formal excellence.

Like Peebles, David Graham “belongs” in any good exhibition. Graham's works continue the same inquiry which produced the picture that won the ’66 Hay prize; but now there seems to be a greater command and assurance in his work, and like a competent violinist he knows the pitch and quality of each note before he plays it. He contributes an exciting series, worth prolonged viewing and pondering. Indeed, they demand this. The introduction of softening modulations, No. 33 in particular, throws the geometric sharpness of its other elements into superb relief.

Similarly, Barry Cleavin’s four etchings would grace any good exhibition and the variety of their imagery is only matched by their extraordinarily diverse and interesting titles.

One of the most satisfying works is a painted screen by Michael Kitson, the lovely, deep-toned colours enriched by the restained use of silver and gold, remind one of a composition by Bartok. It seems to draw on the rich traditions of folk art yet remains a perfectly apt expression of the twentieth century. One could go on and on. There are works which can be faulted as being inferior or unworthy of being exhibited, but in spite of reported criticism, Hanley’s enormous articulated figure to my mind certainly deserves its place in the show. Unfortunately, it is not possible in a short review to mention all the interesting exhibits and readers must fill the gaps themselves.

Turning to the debit side, again I found the task of reviewing the exhibition, already quite difficult enough, made even more difficult by the unnecessarily loud “noises off” provided by Stockhausen’s Gesang der Junglinge. lam not offering an opinion about this as a work of music in its own right, but rather of its inappropriateness and its singularly irritating and distracting qualities for one trying to think and write. This well shod exhibition will remain open until June 26 and each evening, at 8.15, two films by Murray Reece entitled “A Little Film about Barney” and “Oppit” will be projected. The films are perhaps slight but nevertheless quite delightful. They will surely be among the most popular items in the exhibition. (Since in New Zealand “popular” often means “punk,” I hasten to reassure the reader that Reece's two films are an exception to this rule.)

The problem facing 20-20 is insoluble. Along with op and pop artists and others pursuing “ash-can art” and “design for obsolescence,” they cannot avoid the logical conclusion-*-correctly anticipated by Pat Hanley—that the most topical work will, with the closing of the exhibition, be redundant. —H.J.S.