ART CRITICISM

New Zealand Listener, Volume 19, Issue 477, 13 August 1948, Page 18

ART CRITICISM

Sir-As the exhibition of Australian art moves to the Southern centres it is fruitful to consider what effect some of the expert criticism to date can have on the public mind. One assumes that radio and written comments in such a case are addressed to a reasonably wide section of society. From 1YA Mr, A. J. C. Fisher, Director of the Auckland School of Art, delivered a waspish attack on the show, while Mr. A. R. D. Fairburn in The Listener hailed it as "better than any collection of contemporary painting that we could bring together in New Zealand." He shouts from the house-tops that "Australian painting is far ahead of our own." He admits there are "a few weak exhibits," but does not specify them, and in the absence of guidance many may like these best. Mr. Fisher thought a lot of the work "slap-dash and accidental, visually wrong in judgment ... bad in concept." He said that painting in the Auckland Metropolitan area could "lick the head off this (Australian) stuff." It was a "crash" or "throw-off" exhibition, and he condemned it (without citing examples) as being derivative, imitative of every -ism, the work of younger artists breaking away, just a Sydney show. Actually it is the work of mature artists of whom no fewer than 19 studied at the Slade and 12 at Continental or New Zealand schools. None of this matters a hoot beyond indicating a tendency to non-factual bases of criticism. Appraisal of the works themselves does not depend on such considerations, nor should it be affected (as a third criticism appeared to be) by the array

of diplomas held by the artists. The point is that such digressions-to say nothing of an instructive dissertation on abstract art scarcely called for by the negligible three or four works in this category-left Mr. Fisher little time to deal with some 55 exhibits. He mentioned about half a dozen of which he dubbed one as "inept and infantile" (which Mr. Fairburn described as "lovely") and another as a "flamboyant accident," which it was "impudent to put on the wall." Mr. Fairburn’s article was largely devoted to a comparison between Australian and New Zealand art, to the overwhelming disadvantage of the latter. One is not here concerned with that issue, but rather with the value of these criticisms in promoting a more intelligent appreciation of the works themselves. As the result of elaboration of a general theme or so, Mr. Fairburn had room to refer to only nine exhibits, thereby leaving his generalizations unsupported. Even allowing for limitations of time and space and the legitimate preferences of critics, may one appeal for a more particular, informative and impartial criticism, and for the avoidance of special pleading.

J.

T.

(Remuera)