ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 2, Spring 2015
and additionally in taking themes known through the entire world and placing them
into a distinctively New Zealand setting.
Through the Evolutionary Looking-Glass
Evolutionary aesthetics can illuminate both the creation of New Zealandism and
the criticism of Keith’s criteria for possession of the concept. First, I will consider
what evolutionary reasons behind the creation of concepts and trends tells us about
New Zealandism and Keith’s praise of Angus and McCahon, then I will consider
what the role of the evolved interrelationship between artist and viewer tells us.
Research from neuroscience and social studies is very detailed on how our attitudes are determined to an exceptional degree by the attitudes of those around us.
This is adaptive evolutionarily for the same reasons as the adaptation of theory of
mind. When early hominids and later Homo sapiens formed in small homogenous
groups that provided greater protection for the group and its kin, social cohesion
became of greater importance (e.g. Boehm (1999) (2012)). In an environment
where fractions between key members of a hunting party could cause everyone to
go hungry that evening, or refusal to work alongside a social foe could result in
politics that splinter the entire band behind one individual or the other, affecting all
matters of importance thereafter, minimizing large disagreements decreased the
chance of social breakdown and increased solidarity. The phenomena, either adaptations or by-products which aided such cohesion, include the bandwagon effect
and availability cascades, which are tendencies for people to feel warmly to a position if the position appears to be held by a majority of people (e.g. Kuran and Sunstein 1999). These phenomena work in tandem with benefit-cost reading on the
resource of time, when people judge how much time to allocate to an entity respective to the entity’s reputation, as an increased positive reputation with a majority of
people suggests importance.
Looking at this allows us to contemplate that a good portion of what is determined
as New Zealandism in paintings are not just what is in the work of the painters, but
what popular views on the artworks become. New Zealandism in paintings is thus
also a reflection on viewers and specific influences in social trends. Keith’s account has been roundly criticized within New Zealand art, with one of the biggest
complaints being that his ideas have influenced the general public in a narrative
that is out of touch (Leonard 2006, 2009). In general, his argument is what caused
a creation of a distinct post-colonial “New Zealandism” in paintings, and focuses
primarily on New Zealand paintings as a search for a national identity in paintings.
Some of the main criticisms are that Keith focuses on landscape too heavily and
promotes a lack of international-influence as one of the highest virtues in the conception of New Zealandism in paintings (e.g. Pound (1983) strongly challenges
Keith's account of 19th Century New Zealand landscapes); that original abstract
Kiwi artists like Milan Mrkusich and Gordon Walters (Dunn and Vuletic (1972),
Wilson (1976), Leech (1981)) and Maori artists are not credited fully (Panoho
(1992) Mané-Wheoki (1995)), and Keith’s and Brown’s first formulation of New
Zealandism (1967) soon became out of date with the work of a wider number of
artists who have practiced. Keith provides the same argument in The Big Picture
16