MODERN ART
Sir-M. Mrkusic (Auckland) has a liking for public psychological criticism of art theories, which no one should deny him, but he has also used my argument, so I hope you will publish my use of his. He defines a "dead art" as one "which has no social relevance or meaning," ‘supporting, I think, the opinion that artists are public servants, and so should be criticised in general social terms. Yet he also scoffs at the "philistine public." In my opinion these views are inconsistent. If those of the public who try to understand works of art find tone values consistent with their own theory of art in Picasso’s work, then they will applaud Picasso. That most of them do not applaud this modern art shows the generality of the human mind. It is only the generality of the human mind that distinguishes great art from other art. But M. Mrkusic writes as though artists exist only through working at popular art, reserving their creative theory for something the general public will not understand. I readily join anyone in condemning cheap commercial "art" which .has an appeal from the bottom up to the top of society, but great art is yet a social
cenception, chosen from the rubbish by an intelligent and educated section of society, distributéd among all classes. Each in his own mind makes a psychological estimate of the art-work, which is individual and may be general. That is why I dislike public criticism, of the arts which seeks to thump the critic’s psychological opinion into the minds of his public. The business of a critic of art, the business of the socially-con-scious artist himself, is to emphasise his appreciation of the universal aspect of the human mind. There is nothing easy or dull in that. The human mind is wonderful in its generality. An original note in his description will "make" 4n artist as it will "make" a critic. Peculiarity, however, often takes a minority form. And why not? I praised Picasso in my first letter and I do not regret the fact. I sought merely to explain that "artists are only publi¢ servants after all," and that no one, not even Picasso, need be — dismayed at that. fact.
P.O.
C.
(Auckland).
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZLIST19470516.2.14.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
New Zealand Listener, Volume 16, Issue 412, 16 May 1947, Page 18
Word count
Tapeke kupu
376MODERN ART New Zealand Listener, Volume 16, Issue 412, 16 May 1947, Page 18
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Material in this publication is protected by copyright.
Are Media Limited has granted permission to the National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa to develop and maintain this content online. You can search, browse, print and download for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Are Media Limited for any other use.
Copyright in the work University Entrance by Janet Frame (credited as J.F., 22 March 1946, page 18), is owned by the Janet Frame Literary Trust. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise this article and make it available online as part of this digitised version of the New Zealand Listener. You can search, browse, and print this article for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from the Janet Frame Literary Trust for any other use.
Copyright in the Denis Glover serial Hot Water Sailor published in 1959 is owned by Pia Glover. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise this serial and make it available online as part of this digitised version of the Listener. You can search, browse, and print this serial for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Pia Glover for any other use.
Log in