NEW ZEALAND CRITICISM
Sir.-There is an undeclared premise behind criticism in New Zealand which was illustrated in last week’s Critics’ Panel from 1YA, The Critics discussed two volumes of poetry, one by Denis Glover and one by C. Day Lewis. Mr. Glover’s poetry was praised highly, for its skilful terseness and internal rhymes, and for its message (praise to the New Zealand common man). Mr. Day Lewis’s verse was treated with grudging disdain; ignoring its obvious technical superiority’ over Mr: Glover’s work, the Critics chose to decry Mr. Lewis as shallow and decadent. Now Mr. Curnow, Mr. Fairburn and Mr. Keith Sinclair each know who, be-
tween Denis Glover and C. Day Lewis, is the better poet, What’s more, the listenets know, more or less, that the Critics were measuring Mr. Day Lewis against world standards, meaningful standards, and Mr. Glover against the standards we use for local art. At the toot of this practice, accepted by the public and defended strongly by many critics of press and radio, is the assumption that New Zealand art must be, now and for a long time to come, so inferior that it cannot be talked about/in terms of universal standards. Many cfitics and some artists want to perpetuate the double statidard-because.they think it kind’and well-mannered, and because it exists. None of these are valid reasons, and it can be argued that the practice is unkind to. creative artists. So much of what is wrong with art in New Zealand ¢an be put down to lack of standards. So much of what is still provincial, "folksy" and amateurish could be helped along by exposure and constructive evaluation. To hide behind the philosophy of "we know this is :nferior, but we'll give it a big pat on thie back anyway," merely perpetuates the attitude of mind in which New Zealand artists function today. This applies even mofe strofigly to local performances -by dratha groups, by musical societies and instrumental groups, and to art societies. To deplore colonial art because it is derivative is only the beginning: when ‘it is inferior, one must say so, and say why, and ‘search for the means to im-
prove.
E.R.
H.
(Auckland) _
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZLIST19530904.2.12.4
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
New Zealand Listener, Volume 29, Issue 738, 4 September 1953, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
364NEW ZEALAND CRITICISM New Zealand Listener, Volume 29, Issue 738, 4 September 1953, Page 5
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