The Artists ’Corner

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 334, 20 April 1928, Page 14

The Artists ’Corner

WHY WERE THE NEW ZEALANDERS SO UNMER- ! ! CIFULLY SLATED AT | i THEIR SYDNEY SHOW? J 1

“ART SCHOOL STANDARD!” The New Zealand painters who exhibited in Sydney this month did not receive a particularly gracious reception at the hands of the critics. It was even suggested by one journal that the work submitted was not on a higher level than the studies of a student at an art school.

>jEW ZEALANDERS will naturally consider this condemnation decidedly sweeping. But even the more moderately inclined critics, with an obvious desire to do art in New Zealand full justice, considered the exhibition “patchy,” and only showing “a fair average.” The truth ■of the matter is that the standard of art in New Zealand, however we may like to dodge the fact, is on a decidedly lower plane than that to which Sydney-siders are accustomed. The honours of the Sydney show, it is generally conceded, went to Elizabeth Wallwork, of Christchurch. But Mrs. Wallwork, w r hose work called forth encomiums from “Art in Australia” long before the Sydney exhibition, is not, strictly speaking, a New Zealander. Her portrait, “The White Ruffle,” was described as “a warm, attractive picture showinggenuine artistry.” Mrs. Tripe’s “Peacocks” (exhibited in Auckland last year), was said to obtain its success from its “garishness.” “The Shingled Head,” by the same artist, was dismissed as commonplace. Marcus King was considered the adventurer of the group, and was given some credit for “the defiant use of strange colours.” Nugent Welch, one of the finest water-colour-ists in the Dominion, was dismissed as being too photographic. Elizabeth Kelly was said to be “posterish.” Archibald F. Nicholl, another Southerner, was commended for his forceful brushwork, feeling for mood, and sense of colours and values. Cecil P. Kelly was voted an artist whose work showed thought and courage. The water-colours of T. A. McCormick, on the other hand, were described as generally shallow. Of the contributions of Minnie F. White, Auckland’s sole representative, and Mrs. Grace Butler, who was painting in this city prior to the exhibition, I could find no mention. So, generally speaking, the New Zealanders did not set Sydney Harbour on fire. It might even be suggested that they have been rather harshly dealt with. New Zealand's first show in Sydney can hardly be characterised as a decided success, even if the New Zealand-born Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Bavin, when declaring it open, did say it was a beneficial and healthy thing that the Australians should be given an opportunity to see work produced in another environment, and to compare it with their own. Obviously, our work has suffered in the comparison. Yet the fault does not lie with the little band of painters who so courageously faced the well-filled fountain pens of the Sydney critics. Rather does it lie with a system which forces all that is really promising in the art life of the Dominion to leave the country. This is essential, not merely to win recognition, but to make a living. It is unnecessary to say that there is genuine talent in our little country. Only the other day I heard of an exceedingly able student, one of the most promising ever to enter the Elam School, who was forced to give up his modelling for the simple reason that he had a livelihood to earn. There was no scholarship or bursary to carry him along financially. He had no means to go abroad, so his art career was abandoned. When next the New Zealanders invade Sydney Town I would humbly suggest that work from certain New Zealanders abroad might be included. Elioth Grunen, of whom Australians are exceedingly proud, is a new Zealander born. He had (speaking from an art point of view) the good fortune, if I am not mistaken, to leave our shores at the age of two. —ERIC RAMSDEN.