.
Last year, I participated in a small seminar asking whether the notion of ‘New Zealand art’ is still of use in this post-nationalist day and age. On the one hand, things have definitely shifted—gone global. But, on the other, so much of what we call ‘New Zealand art’ remains effectively of interest here and only here, and that won’t change in a hurry.

The seminar got me thinking. What has ‘New Zealand art’ meant, what does it mean, what will it mean? How has its meaning and purchase changed? What has the term revealed and concealed, enabled and enacted? Who has, does, and will it serve and undermine? What is the history, legacy, and future of ‘New Zealand art’ as idea? Political questions.

The idea of ‘New Zealand art’ is vague. It’s boundaries have never been clear. What counts? Is it art made by New Zealanders (where ever), art made in New Zealand (by whom ever), or art recognised in New Zealand? What art practices does it encompass? Forty years ago, many thought of ‘New Zealand art’ simply as mainstream New Zealand painting, with other local developments out of court.

Of course, in-out definitional boundaries aren’t the only thing. It’s also about what is emphasised and privileged. Is ‘New Zealand art’ the good New Zealand art—canonical New Zealand art? Are Peter McIntyre and Colin McCahon both New Zealand art? Are they equally and similarly so? What about Rangimarie Hetet and Michael Smither? Evelyn Page and Simon Denny? We also can’t look to the experts to resolve these questions, because their business is to disagree. If, say, Wystan Curnow and the late Francis Pound were both talking about ‘New Zealand art’, they would probably not have same thing in mind. ‘New Zealand art’ is a necessarily contested term.

Even if we can’t define ‘New Zealand art’ precisely, life goes on. There’s a New Zealand art industry. There are books on New Zealand art that sit in the New Zealand art section in the library. We have magazines called Art New Zealand, Art News New Zealand, and the Journal of New Zealand Art History. We have shows of New Zealand art. New Zealand art museums appoint specialist curators to address it. Creative New Zealand funds it. The Walters Prize celebrates those who contribute to it. The Arts Foundation declares some practitioners New Zealand arts laureates and icons. Artists represent New Zealand at Venice. 

It may be unclear as to exactly what counts as New Zealand art, but, in arguing the toss, we construct it. And it’s the vague, unspecified nature of the term that allows us to construct it this way and that, giving it a discursive life. A clear, unambiguous definition would kill the conversation. Perhaps it’s best to think of ‘New Zealand art’ not as something that can be defined, but in terms of all that has been, is, and will be done and undone in its name. The history of New Zealand art, then, is the history of an idea.

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger developed a novel approach to working with compromised and contested terms. In texts, he put them ‘under erasure’, crossing them out but allowing them to remain legible and in place. His thought was that a word may be inadequate and flawed, yet it must be used, as language provides nothing better. (Later, French philosopher Jacques Derrida took up the idea. But, for him, it was not just particular words but the entire language system that needed to be placed under erasure.) Perhaps it’s time to put ‘New Zealand art’ under erasure, so we can excise and exercise it knowingly. Have our cake.
•