ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 2, Spring 2015
in respect to that of other country's paintings. The same applies to criticism of
Keith’s work in the art world.
These social effects on affecting people’s positions and the effect they have on social opinions explains one of the reasons why discussion around concepts like New
Zealandism can be very fierce, passionate and important. The major criticisms of
Keith’s historical narrative based around discovering national identity through
landscape painting are that 1) this interpretation of what best expresses New Zealandism in paintings focuses on Pakeha art in the post-colonial period, not incorporating Maori art, the most original art in New Zealand history, 2) it does not credit
New Zealand’s first most original abstract artists Mrkusich and Walters and might
devalue work that is unique in using themes from New Zealand but influenced in
style from overseas, such as William Hodgkins’s Turner-styled New Zealand
scenes; and 3) it does not tackle contemporary New Zealand art well enough. The
implication is that New Zealandism of a different ilk, dealing with different artforms and themes is neglected or undervalued in art appreciation. Leonard expresses his concern about the broadcasting of The Big Picture on national television because he feels it will increase the influence of Keith’s narrative that he
thinks does not address contemporary New Zealand art well enough. “The pity is
that, being such compelling and accessible television, The Big Picture will probably still be being used as a teaching aid in our schools in ten years’ time”.
The value of evolutionary study here is that it shows the battle for hearts and minds
over a narrative is far deeper than merely people’s response to argument and detail:
it is conscious of how social opinion and framing affects our viewpoints in equal
manner. Leonard’s anxiety about the “compelling and accessible television” of The
Big Picture is worry that the high processing fluency of Keith’s narrative of New
Zealandism will influence a majority of people at potential expense to other art in
New Zealand history that is unique, but differs from the “idea of ‘New Zealand
art’” as “art made by New Zealand artists in New Zealand, shown in New Zealand
galleries, purchased by New Zealand collectors and institutions, discussed by New
Zealand critics in New Zealand journals, and about ‘us’”. The latter is an easy way
to distinguish artworks as having more New Zealandism than others. In terms of
influence solely from factors within New Zealand, it is a form of New Zealandism
in art. But art created by artists outside New Zealand, yet nevertheless unique, such
as Len Lye’s pioneering film work, mostly conducted in England and the United
States and having huge influence internationally amongst filmmakers (Horrocks
2001), is also a big part of New Zealand art history, a different New Zealandism in
that it is work from a New Zealander in the international realm. The neglect of
Maori art in The Introduction was a severe blow to the narrative of post-colonial
New Zealand art history as a search for a national identity, but Keith’s argument in
The Big Picture incorporates Maori art alongside Pakeha art and bicultural art influenced by both cultures as supporting the take of New Zealandism as national
distinctness. Leonard writes that nevertheless, this is “a reason to retain rather than
reject a nationalistic bias”, and justly questioning “Pakeha assumptions about nation, biculturalism can’t see beyond nation”. Criticisms of Brown’s and Keith’s
arguments and Keith’s qualifications are contests over ways to interpret postcolonial New Zealand art history, and the coherence of these interpretations. From
19