KEY POINTS:
So what's the greatest misconception about New Zealand art?
There are three. That the art of Paheka is the product of a small farming nation, that the art of Maori belongs in the past, and that neither has anything to do with the other.
What's in your show for the person who might know a McCahon from a Hotere, but not much else?
Oh shit, I guess it's the story of us, an absolutely fascinating story. It's not about art, it's about us. I'm using art as a kind of window that we can look through to see us. One of the things I hope it says is "Oops we got that wrong". I'd like to clear away some of the convenient half-truths, so people can open their eyes to what a remarkable story we have.
What's the difference between your view and the establishment view?
The establishment is all about putting things in convenient, separate boxes. My view is that the story of out culture is one story, not a bunch of separate stories. You shouldn't build Chinese walls between people. Just as Pakeha are not just one story, Maori are not just one story. Cook didn't say he arrived to find a homogenous culture, there was great diversity in language, art and behaviour, and they didn't necessarily get along with each other. To say otherwise is the kind of stuff only a committee of morons in Wellington could come up with.
So is that what your programme is about?
Yes, I'm talking about incredible diversity and how each enriches the others. Maori art has never been treated as art, it's seen as ethnography or as an historical artefact. It's one of the great confidence tricks we've played on ourselves and I've been banging on about it since the 70s. Now I'm in my 70s and I've got this opportunity to look back, get it off my chest, and I don't have to impress anybody.
But is the small screen a good medium for discussing and presenting art?
Well, it is a good medium for opening a conversation about it and while I am enormously pleased with the series and the book, there's no real substitute for standing in front of art yourself. I'm hopefully encouraging people not to be afraid, just stand in front of it and it will have a conversation with you. Unless you are particularly stupid.
Is there a definitive answer to whether a piece of art is worthy or not?
That's something that the art and its culture decide between themselves. Sometimes that takes a long time and sometimes it's instant. Not all art is great art but that doesn't mean that all great art is good art. Some art is immediately seen as reflecting its community, then later people will be scratching their heads wondering why they were ever impressed by it at all. No one paints for posterity.
Have you ever stood in front of a painting and thought "I could do that?"
Yeah, but I didn't. I've even stood there thinking I wish I'd done that and if I had it would have been a better painting, but not often.
If you know a lot about art, does that make it harder to know what you like?
There's this funny idea that art is somehow sacred, but it isn't, it's just art. It's somebody trying to talk to their culture, then you try to work out what it was they were trying to say. The real test for me is if you're looking at a work of art and you forget what it is and just have the experience. It's not about taste, it's about communication. It's like picking someone up at a party, then later thinking "well, that didn't work", but then you keep thinking and wonder if something could come of it after all. It's not a quick grope that's over in five minutes, it's a lifetime affair that should take a bit of thought. When that happens, then art is working.
If reviewers are failed artists, what's an art show presenter?
All I can say is "buggered if I know". But I would hope that it's someone who can sweep away the rubbish between people and their art so they can feel comfortable talking about it. - Alan Perrott
* The Big Picture begins on TV One, Sunday, 10.25pm and repeats on TVNZ6, 8.30pm, Thursdays
