‘Twenty Māori also died…’

Vocabularies Matter

Elizabeth Eastmond

The following is Elizabeth Eastmond's posthumous review of the Bruce Connew exhibition 'A Vocabulary' shown in various galleries around Aotearoa 2020-2025. I contributed initially to the accompanying book and the exhibition texts which originally sat alongside Connew’s photographs in vitrines designed by his partner Catherine Griffiths. Elizabeth Eastmond, and our mutual friend Zaeem and his partner, attended a panel discussion for the exhibition at Te Uru in Titirangi. Both Liz and Zaeem were vocal in their support of my involvement in the project. I performed the poem ‘Ten Shades of Crimson’ which Elizabeth references towards the latter portion of this essay.

But subsequent to her initial viewing of the show probing questions remained. Over the following months Elizabeth began to formulate a response. Her text here places the show in a broader international context (i.e. public monuments connected with imperialism and histories of war and slavery). Interestingly her commentary resonates some of the late twentieth century debate generated by major exhibitions like William Rubin’s ‘Primitivism in 20th Century Art’ curated for the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1984. One of the key criticisms directed at that particular exhibition (by observers like Thomas McEvilley) the aestheticisation of the tribal artefacts in the service of the modernist history being carefully described in the show.


This essay is, I think, a powerful example of Elizabeth’s lifelong tenacity and determination in exploring and critiquing neo-colonialism and its’ ironic and continuing presence within tribute and patronage. I have left it as she intended. My only editorial changes have been the grammar and spelling in relation to her use of te reo Māori. R.P

I am writing about A Vocabulary, an interesting linguistic proposition, an unusual exhibition title and a significant – and challenging – exhibition. A Vocabulary is a touring show whose first iteration was at Te Uru, Titirangi, Auckland. 1 It’s also variously described as ‘Bruce Connew: A Vocabulary’, or, in online text, as ‘Bruce Connew’s Vocabulary’. In the artist’s book component of the exhibit ‘A Vocabulary, Bruce Connew’ features alone on the title page, while the following page has this wording repeated with, diagonally below, in identical font size ‘He Mōteatea & essay, Rangihīroa Panoho.

Pedantic observations? Not altogether: I would argue this is, after all, an exhibit comprising the term ‘vocabulary’ in its title, suggesting a necessary alertness to the finer points of language, plus, of paramount import, it is a vocabulary observed, photographed, re-framed and drawn from memorial inscriptions recording Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, this country’s 19th century Land Wars. The result: colonization. And all that that entails. These are the key events. The instability around the title, how it is formed and who is named is therefore of note. The lack of resolution is telling, and particularly significant, I think, for this subject, now. This ambivalence also plays out, it seems to me, in other aspects of this renowned photographer/artist’s engagement with this weighty subject.


As a work associated with the colonial construction of history, it operates alongside others here and elsewhere critiquing colonization and alongside discourses of de-colonisation. This includes those university courses on ‘Critical Race Theory’ currently under fire in America, or a recent panel discussion ‘Monuments, Memorials and Public Space’ at the University of Auckland. 2 So, an immediate question posed by ‘A Vocabulary’ or ‘Bruce Connew: A Vocabulary’ is, how does – or should? – this complex, ambitious exhibition relate to this context?

What has been named ‘The wilful amnesia about the dark sides of imperialism’ is currently being addressed through different strategies in the visual arts. 3 In relation to figurative war/colonial memorial statuary there has been toppling (slaver Edward Colston, Bristol), removal (Captain John Hamilton, Kirikiriroa – Hamilton), a head-on re-imagining: African-American Kara Walker’s 13 metre-high Fons Americanus referencing the transatlantic slave trade, a direct riposte to the imperialist Victoria Monument outside Buckingham Palace. 4 In Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, Michael Parekowhai has Cook, forerunner of colonization, seated, in The English Channel (2017), feet off the ground and de-plinthed, entirely drained of imperial charisma.

Brett Graham’s powerful touring ‘Tai Moana Tai Tangata’ exhibit is one of the few major recent works here to focus, like ‘A Vocabulary’ specifically on aspects of 19th century Māori/Imperial conflict. 5 Importantly, it has a film component addressing related contemporary issues of resource depletion (oil) via offshore capitalist consortiums, so exposing a continuum between past and present.

But ‘A Vocabulary’ is concerned not with figurative statuary, but with text, which appears in the abstract form of letters, decoded, interpreted – read – by us, a diverse audience, on plaques or other stone, marble, concrete etc. grounds. Generally, these are objects looked down on or across at, not up to, as with statuary aimed at evoking reverence for specific personages. Their inscriptions (despite some deletions/revisions) are less provocative, less visible, more like textual histories in book format. 6 They don’t dominate physical public space to the same extent. Which doesn’t mean the narratives they tell and don’t tell are not immensely significant, and painfully so for tāngata whenua. Like all memorial colonial narratives, they mainly favor the victors, name the victorious, and use a vocabulary slanted towards them. Māori resistance fighters, are infrequently named, while those Māori ‘loyal’ to imperial forces may be: ‘A Firm Friend of Europeans and Supporter of the Queen’s Laws…’ 7 Otherwise ‘fanatics’ and rebels’ are the usual derogatory terms: ‘The Memory of Ephraim Coad who was killed by Rebel Natives…’ 8 ‘Law and Order against Fanaticism and Barbarianism…’ 9 In a sense, then, this exhibition is about who isn’t there. It’s about the weight of absence. Or, rather, the denial of presence. A ‘wilful amnesia.’

Incredibly, precisely this slanted approach to memorializing the Land Wars persists in 2021. As I began thinking about this project in February, only two days before this year’s Waitangi Day, the Herald reported:

The dedication of a memorial at Ruapekapeka Pā to twelve British soldiers, whose unmarked grave was discovered in 2017, was Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s first official engagement…Twenty Māori also died in the Battle of Ruapekapeka, the final conflict of the 1845-46 Northern War. 10

Here then is a twenty-first century Addendum to this exhibition. For the twelve soldiers who were killed. Not however for the twenty Māori, yet to be memorialized, who died. Colonial mind-sets continue and vocabulary matters, still, in journalists’ accounts, where the language chosen is telling. 11

That the overall intention of Bruce Connew: A Vocabulary is evidently to demonstrate how history has been constructed by the colonisers seems, initially, evident. A history told in the vocabulary of the colonial masters. That is ostensibly the crux of this exhibition. Which does however leave us, the viewers, to fill in the gaps.

Problems immediately arise. Not all gallery visitors are fully, or even partly informed on the Land Wars and Aotearoa New Zealand’s difficult colonial history. Especially those Māori histories. Can we all fill in the gaps? I, for one, have only limited knowledge of the details of Māori resistance during these Wars. No wall panels provide a summary. The Government’s proposed new history curriculum is yet to be actioned. You need to read the texts in the accompanying artist’s book, A Vocabulary, those by Rangihīroa Panoho, (Te Uriroroi, Te Parawhau, affiliations Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whātua) for context (obviously not intended to be a full history there, plus the book is in a limited edition, costing $95), or recent studies like Vincent O’Malley’s important The New Zealand Wars Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa. 12 You may well focus on the visual, mostly on the recording of the imperial forces’ victories and the aesthetic qualities of the photographs of their inscriptions. Why, now that it is common practice for artists and galleries to provide some context for their diverse audiences? Even some QR codes, say, could lead enquiring viewers to background historical material. 13 So, a modernist – arguably dated – template for display has been chosen, involving the old mantra ‘let the art speak for itself.’ The artist seems to favour this approach: in a recent interview he described this project as ‘…my new abstract art narrative (that’s my name for it!) concerning the New Zealand Wars…’ 14 An ‘abstract art narrative’. Isn’t that descriptor in danger of distracting or diluting the very essence of this subject?

Connew also, in his introductory text to the artist’s book, with the title ‘A Vocabulary of Colonisation’ – why wasn’t this used as the overall title? – appears to entertain the notion of ‘both sides’ when he recounts how, in his research, he steps ‘mindfully onto the farmland to photograph a panorama of the battle site from both Māori and Pākehā points of view.’ 15 The term ‘points of view’ in its blandness jars, although he does follow this up with a description of his visceral reaction at this particular place (Motūroa), so revealing signs of a troubling, unresolved perspective, as suggested in the exhibition’s shifting titling.

It was the specifically aesthetic qualities of this exhibit, its ‘abstract art’ characteristics, that became problematic for me. The way the photographs caught the visual attraction of weathered stone, of concrete, the squiggle of commas, the fall of light and shadow over text, the intriguing variety of fonts, the now archaic 19th century typographic signs, the lonely floating ampersand… all quite beautiful. 16 For someone like me, interested in text in art, this was especially seductive. Added to that the choice of the fracturing of texts, of selecting enigmatic portions of inscriptions, of focusing on the very abstract nature of letters, an isolated ‘AROHA’ here, that floating ampersand there…these too were, initially, engaging. 17

But to what ends? On my first visit I thought this (the fragmentation) might be an intentionally destabilizing strategy in order to disempower the Imperialists’ narratives. But it was adopted throughout, including for those memorials naming Māori. It was a sign of Connew’s ‘art abstraction.’ But it didn’t feel right. Was this ‘over aestheticisation’, as I call it, appropriate? It turned attention back onto itself, its lexical components, resulting in their celebration. Dangerously close to a kind of celebration of typography and at odds with the ostensible subject.

The texts, as you move around the gallery walls, can also – as suggested by both artist and commentators – be read as a kind of poem, as concrete? poetry perhaps. A novel concept. But again, what does this imply, in relation to these events and their absences, as expressed in these memorials? A further dilution?  Critic Terry Eagleton’s point in The Ideology of the Aesthetic is pertinent: ‘In the post-war years a form of aestheticization was…to saturate the entire culture of late capitalism, with its fetishization of style and surface…Its reifying of the signifier and displacement of discursive meaning’. 18 A strand of feminist art historical analysis from the 1970s on developed a similar critique.

Is it useful to consider ‘A Vocabulary’ in relation to ‘war art’? While it may not comprise a response to war in a figurative sense, it is its later recording. War is the subject. And it is well-known that war art often runs the risk of ‘aestheticizing’ the brutal events involved. Many works clearly do. Some, although adopting a non-naturalistic style (Picasso’s Guernica) can use an ‘aesthetic’ – his of expressive stylization – with enormous power. The question here is, does Connew’s specific type of aestheticizing the textual records assist, dilute…or displace, even, the ostensible subject-matter? For this viewer, despite her allegiances to text-as-image-as-art, to floating ampersands, dilution, if not displacement, reign.

Until the full history of Ngā Pakanga Whenua o Mua ki Aotearoa, The Land Wars, and their implications, are more widely known and understood, my question is: how appropriate is it at this stage of history in Aotearoa New Zealand to prioritise style over content, sign over signified, to this degree, for this subject? To characterize it as an ’abstract art narrative’?

While naming, or its lack, in the inscriptions is revealing in terms of how history is constructed, the ambiguity around naming in the exhibition’s title(s), as suggested above, is also revealing, and, arguably, problematic. It foregrounds a Pākehā artist’s name. Its subject is, The New Zealand Land Wars.  This reminded me of McCahon’s use, on the same canvas ground as his painted words of the Tainui whakapapa (in The Canoe Tainui, 1969), of his signature. Signatures connote authorship and ownership. 19 Both works, in this respect, I suggest, form examples, if inadvertent and unconscious, of that apt term used by both Ngāhuia Te Awekōtuku, in 1986, and Panoho, in 1992: ‘residual colonialism.’ 20 Again, vocabularies can matter, in the case of McChon’s The Canoe Tainui in the placement of an artist’s signature, and for Connew, in the exhibit titles.

McCahon and Connew are both acclaimed New Zealand artists. Critique may not be welcome. But, as has been said of, for example, Eliot, discussion of any ‘flaws’ hardly effects his ‘well-earned reputation….and does him no favour.’ 21 Critique and debate associated with the notion of ‘residual colonialism’ in Aotearoa New Zealand was, back in the ‘80s and ‘90s, a dynamic strand of discourse, as is well-known.  It has been one re-visited in a more informed way in recent time by some commentators. As Antony Byrt put it in 2018 (regarding issues of appropriation) ‘Panoho had every right to raise his concerns…and did it at a moment when post-colonial thinking was beginning to reshape museums and galleries around the world…’ 22

Connew’s project, although some years on from those earlier debates, can also be viewed, I would argue, in relation to them. Aotearoa New Zealand continues to negotiate and attempt to resolve its continuing asymmetries in power relations, including the ways its art world operates, its artists practice and its colonial history is explored and represented.

The artist’s book A Vocabulary (on the spine ‘Bruce Connew, A Vocabulary, V.M.B.’) is key to this exhibition. 23 And will survive it.  It was prominently displayed, by a large wall text ‘A Vocabulary’ in typographically deconstructed format. As described the title page displays both Connew’s and Panoho’s names equally, so suggesting an involvement on an equal basis. And indeed, there was a working together on the book. The question arises though: was this project, as a whole, a collaboration? Should it have been? For such a topic such as this, now, in a context where biculturalism, the precepts of Te Tiriti and approaches appropriate to decolonizing practices are relevant, many would argue so. It’s certainly a relevant question. The photographer/artist did state that he sought a writer before he embarked on ‘the fieldwork proper’ and that he wanted them to have total freedom. But oddly, the name of that writer, Rangihīroa Panoho, who had been working on his texts for some time, was not mentioned in that interview. 24 Once again, important issues connected with the progressing of this project remain unresolved. While a subject providing opportunity for a more genuinely equal engagement in it did not result in that equality.

Connew’s brief introductory text referencing ‘Aotearoa’s reprehensible colonial wars’ spells out something of his involvement in the project together with a personal note: its, on occasion visceral (as noted earlier) impact on him.  His concluding sentence gets to grips with the nub of the matter: ‘A brutal  dispossession came, no matter a treaty, the consequences of which abide.’ 25 However these ‘consequences’ might, I felt, have been critical issues up for further public discussion alongside the exhibition. No accompanying talks focused on this, on the continuum from 19th century of forms of colonisation playing out today at sites like Ihumātao.  Nor did the panel discussion on the day prior to the exhibition’s closure explore this. Another opportunity missed?

As an art object the book is superb. Such care and invention in its design, largely by Catherine Griffiths (her name not cited in the book). The tactile dark brown cloth cover, pink headband, quality of paper, spacing, size and choice of fonts, surprising detail of the swooping flip-book pagination, playful fragmentation of the word ‘vocabulary’ from ‘y’ down in triangular format on the cover, subtle details in the numeration of the end-papers, quality of the photographs themselves…all these make for a major contribution to the history of New Zealand artist’s books. But much as I admire this book as art object, I again question the appropriateness of its type of design and production in relation to the subject. What I have called ‘over-aestheticisation’ is a concern here, as in the wall-hung component of the exhibition. (Plus cost, as noted, and availability, do remain issues, restricting the book to a limited audience).

Of the book’s 600 plus pages, Rangihīroa Panoho’s 44 – powerful, informed – comprise around one eighth. They play the central part in this project. They are given some emphasis via the use of colour, a delicate pale green. Or, does that make them look like an insert? The initial He Mōteatea,‘The Lament’ texts are an unusual, creative intervention: a highly poetic mosaic of fragments of Biblical, archival 19th century Te Reo Māori and other texts, communicating a specifically Māori world-view, from the pre-colonial image of the ‘Foodstage’ to the dire consequences of the Land Wars and colonisation. Metaphor, incantation, lament and whakataukī colour this rich vocabulary. And communicate on a level conventional discourse cannot.  Some fragments:

‘Shall I compare thee to a ‘foodstage’ piercing the heavens? …like the proverbial pūriri grove, laughing, blocking the sun, your laden arms reaching joyously upwards?’ 26

‘Comfort my people for this is the time of the war.

‘…This is the time of the great stripping of the land…the central shoot has been plucked. The bellbird no longer sings here…’ 27

‘This is the time of the great war. Here is ‘North Star’, like a juvenile hawk, swooping down on its prey, breathing fire, lightning drops from the heavens.…’

‘…Help me Tāne. Shelter me beneath this soil securely enfolded in the wings of the peka…’ 28

Conventional modes of addressing audiences at openings were also challenged by Panoho. A bid to re-vitalise entrenched Pākehā institutional gallery practice? Rather than background his approach and essay content, he ‘simply’ (and movingly) read a poem composed specifically for the event: 10 Shades of Crimson. It ranges from lament at the site of a parekura, battlefield, through referencing his experience of reading a memorial text:

‘he read the text again and again/ as if it would reveal/ some other truth or meaning/ that might possibly transcend/ a vocabulary of forgetting/ bronze letters that won’t bend/colourful adjectives/ murdering rebels, barbarous savages/…he struggled with the message/ they were a people worth forgetting/

It cynically calls out the role of archaeologists: ‘E hoa, haul your trig over here, man/ Yeah map us brother, draft us on that plan/but the grid only measures trenches/

ends with the melancholy poetic image‘and summer comes and summer goes/ and the pōhutukawa bleeds/ scarlet in the morning/ 10 shades of crimson/ when the sun retreats/ 29

The following essay by Panoho, more conventional in format, is headed Ka Kakati Te Namu…Ka Ora Tonu Te Kōrero ‘The Sandfly Nips…The Conversation Lives’. It addresses the void vocabulary of officialdom’s commemoration of Māori and the Land Wars. ‘An indigenous invisibility pervades the ‘national approach’ to monuments…’ the author begins, and cites O’Malley’s (mild) observation ‘I think we need to own the New Zealand Wars as part of our…history.’ 30 Panoho adds, unsurprisingly, ‘the fuller history needs owning…one involving Māori defending their lands and their sovereignty against Crown invasion…long an indigenous sub-text lost in the haunting silence of the anonymous dead…’ 31  He continues to describe ‘this whole unpleasant phase of New Zealand history, that strips and redistributes the wealth of an entire indigenous people’ as ‘the nightmare that continues to haunt Pākehā daring to look too closely.’ 32  Yes, that’s getting at the whole, (uncomfortable for Pākehā) point.  In the powerful, substantial projects of artists and writers like Graham and Panoho, Te Ruki Kawiti’s sandfly referenced in ‘The Sandfly Nips’ is clearly beginning to bite. 33

Panoho contextualises colonisation with reference to other places, to the ‘the histories of Imperial monuments in foreign lands’, notes the dearth of monuments to Māori leaders here, listing names from Hone Heke to Rua Kēnana Hepetipa, (although no women), quotes from Belich, O’Malley, Te Wārihi Hetaraka, Orwell, Ben Okri (he reads widely) and describes the continuing story of colonisation – protests like the 1975 Land March, the occupation of Takaparawhā Bastion Point, Ihumātao. His close knowledge of the various historical conflicts and those referred to (and not) in the memorial texts makes for salutary reading. Lesser-known issues like the rewarding of loyalty (the ‘Moutoa banner’), the ‘unintentionally inaccurate’ aspect of Mark Twain’s reading of the Moutoa inscription, the subtleties of divergent readings of other inscriptions, are revealingly examined.

This project as a whole, initiated by Connew, raises many complex issues. It is very much part of the changing understandings not only of history but of art practice at this time and within this decolonising context.  For Panoho’s part, despite the gross imbalances evidenced in the memorial texts, despite the ongoing effects of colonisation in this country, he generously? ends his texts on a note of… hope.  The Ngā Pakanga Whenua o Mua ‘Land Wars’ memorials, he writes, ‘are not simply places of death and silence, they are sites that challenge ongoing kōrero be practised.’ 34 And kōrero here, as I understand it, can involve a necessary understanding for all of the realities of this history, the full story, alongside ongoing discussion… and action. An additional memorial at Ruapekapeka. Support for Te Reo, for issues like Ihumātao. Support for Rā Maumahara, Te Pūtaki o te Riri, the National Day of Remembrance for the New Zealand Wars. 35 He ends with a repeat of his opening quotation from Hone Heke to Queen Victoria, from 1849, where Heke’s reminder then that ‘…still the conversation lives’ continues to be ‘an abiding and timely one’. 36

My questions have been about what for me are this exhibition’s unresolved tensions, its ‘over-aestheticization’, its’ unclear position on collaboration, its lack of accompanying context. But it is also clear that it is a significant intervention among others exploring and attempting to deconstruct the given history of Aotearoa New Zealand. It involves three outstanding practitioners in the arts. 37  But, to me, it is vitally important that further iterations are presented with more context. That the issues are up for more discussion and debate. For kōrero. Rangihīroa Panoho’s texts, I suggest, should be made more accessible (as well as in the expensive book and display stand summaries). They are integral to the exhibition. Without easy access to their vocabularies, the project’s intentions will remain only partially realised and those ‘new conversations’ barely flower. 38


1 Bruce Connew: A Vocabulary, exhibition and artist’s book (Vapour Momenta Books, 2021), by Bruce Connew with He Mōteatea and essay by Rangihīroa Panoho, Te Uru, Waitakere Contemporary Gallery, Titirangi, 5 December 2020 – 14 February 2021.

2 ‘What we remember? What we forget? Monuments, Memorials and Public Space’, The Europe Institute, Faculty of Arts, University of Auckland, 9 July, 2021.

3 Fara Dabhoiwala, ‘Imperial Formulae’, The Guardian Weekly, 12 Feb 2021, p.58. Review of Empireland, How Imperialism has shaped Modern Britain, Sathnam Sanghera.

4 Tate Modern, Turbine Hall, October 2, 2019 – February 7, 2021.

5 Govett-Brewster Art Gallery, Ngamotu New Plymouth 5 Dec 2020 – 2 May 2021 and City Gallery, Wellington, 4 August – 31 October 2021. Brett Graham’s (Ngāti Korokī, Kahukura,Tainui) 2018 exhibition Monument, Two Rooms, Auckland, 13 July – 11 August incorporated the naming of Māori dispossessed from the great 19th century land estates in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland.

6 e.g. the removal of the 1915 plaque  ‘…built by friendly Māoris’ on the Barracks Wall at Auckland University after the 1970s Land Wars protests.

7 Bruce Connew, A Vocabulary, Vapour Momenta Books, 2021, 215: Memorial (c1880), Ihaka Whaanga, te rangatira o Ngāti Rākaipaaka, Ngāti Kahungunu, died 14 December 1875. Te Kotahitanga Hall, Nūhaka.

8 ibid., 65-66: The memory of Ephraim Coad who was killed by rebel natives…’, Henui, 17 August 1860.

9 ibid., 172 – 173: Memorial (1865), ‘lower’ Whanganui River hapū…’, Moutoa, 14 May 1864. Pākaitore Moutoa Gardens, Whanganui.

10 The New Zealand Herald, Thurs Feb 4, 2021, A 10, Peter de Graal, ‘Memorial dedicated to British soldiers killed 175 years ago.’

11 However some iwi representatives state this memorial to the British intentionally represents a post-colonial mindset, expressing generosity to former foes.

12 Vincent O’Malley, The New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa, Bridget Williams Books, 2019.

13 As used in Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki’s  All That Was Solid Melts, 5 June – 10 October 2021.

14 ‘Oblong as an Egg, Flat as a Stone, Deep as a Jungle, Bruce Connew Talks with Sophia Powers’, Art New Zealand 171, Spring 2019, p.59.

15 Connew, A Vocabulary, op.cit., (Introduction) ‘A vocabulary of colonisation’, n.p.

16 ibid., 256: Memorial (1912), colonial forces …in battle against Hauhau…,Turuturumōkai redoubt, 12 July 1868, Waihī Cemetery, Normanby; 254: Gravestone, Capt. Frederick James Ross…Turuturumōkai redoubt, 12 July 1868, Waihi Cemetery, Normanby; 104: Memorial (1896), British forces…, Rangiriri Pā, 20 December 1863, Rangiriri Cemetery;

17 ibid., 216: Memorial (c1880), Ihaka Whaanga…died 14 December 1875, Te Kotahitanga Hall, Nūhaka; 39: Gravestone, LS William Roberts…Battle Hill, Horokiwi, 6 August 1846, Battle Hill Farm Forest Park, Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington.

18 Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic, Basil Blackwell, 1990, p. 372.

19 Simon Morley, Writing on the Wall, Word and Image in Modern Art, Thames and Hudson, 2003, p.34, in discussing Gauguin’s Merahi Metua no Teha’amana (Teha’amana Has Many Ancestors) 1893, (Art Institute of Chicago), where ‘…the artist’s signature…constitutes a decisive mark of authorial presence and authority – even colonization…’

20 Nghahuia Te Awekotuku in conversation with Elizabeth Eastmond and Priscilla Pitts’, ANTIC 1, 1986, p. 48; Rangihīroa Panoho, ‘Māori at the Centre: On the Margins’, Headlands, Thinking Through New Zealand Art, ed. Mary Barr, Sydney, Museum of Contemporary Art, 1992, p.133

21 Eagleton, Terry, op.cit. p. 390.

22 Anthony Byrt, ‘Looking for Mr Walters: are we any closer to understanding the abstract artist?’ Metro, Oct. 12, 2018. Christina Barton reassessed Headlands in ‘Rethinking Headlands’, Afterall, University of Chicago Press, 2015, (39).

23 Bruce Connew, A Vocabulary, V.M.B., (Vapour Momenta Books), He Mōteatea & essay Rangihīroa Panoho, 2021.

24 ‘…Bruce Connew Talks with Sophia Powers’, Art New Zealand, op. cit., p.59.

25 Bruce Connew, A Vocabulary, (Introduction), op.cit., n.p.

26 Rangihīroa Panoho, A Vocabulary, op. cit., He Mōteatea ‘The Lament’, 1 He Hākari ‘The Foodstage’, p.3

27 ibid., He Mōteatea ‘The Lament’, 11 He Inoi ‘The Appeal’, p.4

28 Ibid., He Mōteatea ‘The Lament’, 111 He Putanga ‘The Outcome’, pp. 6 – 7.

29 Rangihīroa Panoho, 10 Shades of Crimsonhttps://pirihau.co.nz/blog/, ‘written for the opening of Bruce Connew, ‘A Vocabulary’, Te Uru, Waitakere Contemporary Art Gallery, Titirangi, 12 December 2020’.

30 A Vocabulary, Bruce Connew, op.cit., Rangihīroa Panoho, Ka Kakatu Te Namu…Ka Ora Tonu Te Kōrero ‘The Sandfly Nips…The Conversation Lives’, pp.12 -13.

31 ibid., p.13

32 Ibid., p.13

33 Te Ruki Kawiti told his people to ’wait until the sandfly nips the pages of the book (the Treaty), then you will rise up and oppose.’ Te Ruki Kawiti, NZ History, Nga Kōrero a ipurangi o Aotearoa: www.htttps://nzhistory.govt.nz

34 A Vocabulary, op.cit., p.12

35 Ibid., p.38.

36 2015 Petition initiated by students of Ōtorohanga College for ‘a national day of commemoration for the New Zealand Land Wars.’

37 For example, Bruce Connew and Vernon Wright: South Africa, Auckland, Hodder and Stoughton, 1987, Bruce Connew: Stopover, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2007; Rangihīroa Panoho: Māori Art: History, Architecture, Landscape and Theory, Photographs Mark Adams and Haruko Sameshima, David Bateman, Auckland, 2017, Rangihīroa Panoho, ĀTĀROA, the ‘long shadow of the New Zealand Wars, Mahara Gallery, Waikanae, 27 July – 18 September, 2021; Catherine Griffiths: works in major international collections, SOLO exhibition [ ] SPACE, Shanghai, 2019.

38 A Vocabulary, op.cit., p. 37. Here Panoho cites Te Wārihi Hetaraka’s 2017 interview with Mihingārangi Forbes in which the painful continuities between ancestors and descendants of the 19th century Land Wars are expressed. These continue to challenge us to peer back through this palimpsest of the past so that the future can be opened up for new flowerings and new conversation.’

REVIEWS

publicity Maori Art book

Tafanua as a kōtiro, Hunua Room, Aotea Centre, 14 July 2022

TAFANUA.

Performance and hākari ‘feast’, Hunua Room, Aotea Centre, Tāmaki Makaurau, 14 – 23 July 2022 Directed by Tausani Simei-Papali’i and brought to life by Tala Pasifika Productions and Pacific Women’s dance collective Ura Tabu. Costumes: Shona Tawhio.

I attended the first showing of ‘Tafanua’ last night at the Hunua Room with my wife. The whole performance was deeply refreshing. I would go so far as to say ‘Tafanua’ was a spiritual experience because of the values you could feel being gently pushed at one as an audience. If fa’a ‘the Samoan way’ (i.e. culture) is based on the principles of alofa ‘love’, faaaloalo ‘mutual respect’ feosia’i ‘reciprocity’, fetufaa’i ‘sharing’ and felagolagoma’i ‘mutual support’ then I sensed, without fully being able to explain why, these values or tikanga were present and bubbling. There simply isn’t any other way to describe it and we, Aucklanders, are lucky to be at the epicentre of a creative performance fabric that is being woven before our very eyes on our stages. Go and see this performance, it will move you and you will be confronted with the challenge to interact with these wonderful performers. Go and support the ongoing development of these extraordinary outpourings of creativity and generous sharing of wānanga, Samoan narratives, legacy, tā rātou kupu ‘their stories’. It’s only on for a short 4 nights from tonight. Don’t miss out (14 Jul – 23 Jul 2022). Plan an evening in town, it is 2 hours and 30 minutes with a 20 min interval. Parking is available at the Civic Centre (Entry from Greys Ave) and the venue is the Hunua Room, on level 1, Aotea Centre.


https://pihirau.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/tafanua-720p-1.mp4

https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/730234672

ĀTĀROA, Mahara Gallery, Waikanae

Mark Amery ‘The Dominion’, Wellington 14 August 2021

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/300380986/te-hkoi-toi-creating-new-zealand-antiwar-memorials

William Dart, Review, (Editor for Art New Zealand) February 2021
John Hurrell, Review ‘A Vocabulary’ for eyecontact social media site dedicated to critical commentary on NZ visual art

BEST BOOKS OF 2020

The publication_A Vocabulary

A fair and supportive response to my Ngā Pakanga Whenua o Mua mōteatea and pito kōrero in Bruce Connew’s ‘A Vocabulary…’

Review by Paul Diamond interviewed by Catherine Ryan on Radio New Zealand. The particular part of the sound byte concerning ‘A Vocabulary’ starts at 2 minutes…

The show ‘A Vocabulary’ is still on at Te Uru in Titirangi for another couple of weeks. And I just signed another 60 books this morning so I know there are now more books available from Te Uru, Waitakere Contemporary Gallery. There is also a panel discussion planned with Bruce Connew, myself and the typography artist Catherine Griffiths who designed both the book and the exhibition, prior to the completion of the show at Te Uru (details to come). Best Rangihīroa

P.S Nice to know I am still a curator, perhaps Māori Curator 🙂

See also Bruce Connew’s interview on Radio New Zealand with Kim Hill ‘NZ’s Colonial Memorials’ 19 December 2020

Rangihīroa’s response to Adam Gifford’s New Zealand Herald article on ‘MĀORI ART’

RESPONSE TO ADAM GIFFORD’S REVIEW OF ‘MĀORI ART’ in

‘Maori Art – An ever-changing river – New Zealand Herald

Saturday 4 July 2015

Newly arrived settlers travelling from Tāmaki to Port Albert in the early 1860s were at times in danger of getting lost in the voluminous mangroves and mud of vast Kaipara. I might feel inclined to offer Gifford the obligatory canoe pole to help haul him out but I find his words neither generous nor fair. A map was offered at the beginning of the book to help those readers struggling with direction. The chapter outline in MĀORI ART very clearly indicates how the book will unfold. A senior editor acknowledged that structure as working. Gifford has chosen to chart his own course so, I will go with his points largely in the (dis)order he, or perhaps the ‘community of taste’ behind him, makes. The muddled response, perhaps the various voices pulling at his ear, may account for the mixed bag of thoughts offered up. For those left even more confused I say, bypass the review, buy the book. If you still are confused and looking for more explanation read on. The following is an attempt to make sense of what was dished up last weekend. The plethora of unfounded and dismissive statements beg response.

(‘Having garnered academic credentials, he feels obliged to deliver the definitive text, the big book.’)

Firstly with regard to the idea that my degrees give me some presumptuous right to create a definitive Toi Tāhuhu ‘Māori art history’. What would Gifford and others in the community of taste prefer? A Māori less qualified with less or no degrees or no PhD? Someone sitting in a position in a gallery, a university or museum who better serves an institutional agenda? As Māori the best thing we can offer the world is to tell the story as we see it. I have never presumed to write a definitive text that kills other people’s stories. Big authoritative books, is apparently what other colleagues are interested in at the moment. That I feel this way can already be read in my own 2013 critique on the first book called MĀORI ART by Augustus Hamilton in 1898. As to this book, yes it has grown large but it also demonstrates a genuine heartfelt commitment to Māori art and it’s diverse communities. It will be others (not simply locals) who over a much longer timeframe, will assess the importance of MĀORI ART in the wider scheme of things. I, along with many others, gave everything we had to get this out. That energy deserves to be properly and respectfully recognised.

As for shying away from making the big calls in relation to Maori art and avoiding a discussion of Māori modernism – who are Gifford and his mates kidding? There are some institutions that get way too much self congratulatory praise, and even mention, in a book review here about ‘Māori Art’ not trotting out out their own average record with curating and funding costly projects on the topic. Lets put modernism and its various offshoots (i.e post-modernism…) in their place. MĀORI ART introduces a new expansive vision of 5-6,000 years of history. Māori are simply the end of that long trail beginning in Southern China and many earlier Hawaiki throughout insular Asia even prior to the West and East Polynesian homelands. Contemporary Māori (modern/post-modern…) is a post world war II phenomenon that is an even smaller dot on the horizon. This “is” making the big call and I never shie away from either this huge panorama, or the intensely microcosmic tribal view, or from acknowledging some of our great European, American and global treasures. Where is the book on Maori Art by a Maori, within the discipline of art history, that dares to cover that territory? If someone else wants to bring that book out it’a little too late – it’s already out. Buy the book. Read about it.

And what’s with the idea of knocking someone who has spent their entire working life committed to Māori art history? Isn’t it a good thing that someone has chosen to dedicate themselves to write and share their life work in their specialist area? My understanding of the Māori world is that we love to celebrate the achievements of our own. I am not seeking to place myself above judgement, and regardless of whether or not people are agreeable with what I say, what has been achieved should be properly acknowledged otherwise commentary tends to be read as unflatteringly bitter. Noone can require that others acknowledge achievement but if a reviewer is reluctant to do so, as is abundantly clear in this review, he can hardly take issue with factual statements about primacy that demonstrate achievement. More typically I have found others, particularly Māori in the media, enormously generous in both the response and the pride they take in the achievements of their own. How many Māori do we get coming through with PhDs in Art History prior to 2003 or being offered an international contract to publish in Toi Tāhuhu prior to 1994? I may feel a little uncomfortable with TVNZ and Radio referencing me as an ‘expert’ in relation to my PhD and my past career but that is someone else’s thing, not mine. Indeed in my own trailer for the book, and within the book itself, I make it clear that so called ‘experts’ can sometimes prove problematic in the history of Māori art (again the reviewer or whomever made the comment regarding Sir Āpirana Ngata totally missed the point of the chapter).

Perhaps one of the saddest things, as the object of a review, is gaining an impression the reviewer is having a discussion about something else (personality, other people, other people’s opinions, other histories, other ideas…) and NOT the book itself. I can only attribute such dislocation to one of two issues. Either Gifford has trouble reading the book because: he doesn’t want to accept another take on Toi Tāhuhu or perhaps more likely he simply hasn’t taken the time to more carefully consider, reflect on and try to understand the work. Perhaps the reviewer may have done well to listen to my tuākana at the launch at Te Uru when he warned, ‘… this is not the kind of book that you can just [frivolously] dip into …’. It is a meditative philosophical work requiring reciprocal respect, focus and determination on the part of the reader. Not engaging with content leads to the kind of disconnected shallow commentary, and the resulting confused readership, under discussion here.

Take for example the decontextualising of key content crudely reduced to throwaway lines. ‘He describes his alternative as a palimpsest, after the scraping off and writing over old manuscripts.’ Presumably this explanation is supposed to help a reader understand how I was creating Toi Tāhuhu, a new Māori Art history. The line offers no hope that this reviewer possesses any real understanding of what palimpsest means in my book, its emphasis on translucency versus opacity, the use of Jan and Hubert van Eyck’s aesthetic, the avoidance of replacement and the importance of everpresent accumulative layers and the key concept of te hana ‘radiance’. Of course he can’t possibly go into this kind of detail but he does bring up material later in the review which could have very quickly deepened the idea. The discussion of Fred Graham and Shona Rapira-Davies’ sculptural installation was a lost opportunity to clarify palimpsest. Did he simply chose to ignore the idea because he simply didn’t care enough to read any further about why I chose to describe those two important public works?

My critical commentary on the opinions of others, specifically in relation to Māori art criticism, is also removed from its context and rather obviously used to try to create controversy. The idea that I am, ‘…picking a fight’ with various writers such as Ranginui Walker, Robert Leonard and Greg Burke is simply not factual. The wording is inciteful and silly, While he is annoyed by Walker’s conservatism, he is seriously angered.’ Says who? Now the reviewer reads my mind. I don’t know if Māori art history is something one can get that seriously angry over. Celebrated American modernist critic Clement Greeenberg, who visited New Zealand in 1968, certainly didn’t think that art history was something worth getting worked up over. More to the point, people get angry over lots of other things: power, loss of control, ego, reputation, threatened investment in objects and artists and so on.

Since he is trying to pursue the controversial line lets look at that idea. In relation to both Walker and Walker’s text on Harrison’s work he will have problems connecting the dots. I consider Harrison a whānuanga, I told whānau about my writing and in case there is any doubt I am a big admirer of Harrison’s toi whakairo (particularly that inside Tanenui-a-Rangi and Rākaiora at Harataunga). I also have a lot of time for Walker’s voice and am thrilled he covered the colourful life of this very important carver, mentor and teacher in his biography. On the odd occasion that Ranginui has expressed an opinion in my specialist area I have not shied away from voicing concern if I felt it was important. Such expression is here both warranted and necessary. ‘Te Waiherehere’ the chapter (the short chapter under discussion here) where all three people (Ranginui, Burke and Leonard) are mentioned is entirely devoted to what others say about Māori art. Presumably New Zealanders and the world are interested not only in monologues, from institutions and from key stakeholders, but also critical engagements with these narratives as well. The purpose of weighing up these veiwpoints is to look at the different ways in which people perceive and value particular expressions of Māori art over different periods of time. Comparing and contrasting ideas and philosophical positions is a pretty normal practice in the discipline. If you look at each of these people examined and others mentioned they have put themselves and their strong opinions out into the public arena. Why shouldn’t they expect critical response? Is it preferable that those the community of taste patronises, employs or supports not be questioned, challenged or queried? It is a real shock to me that a lot of this kōrero seems to have gone unnoticed and in some cases, where it begs to be tested, unchallenged.

(‘That’s where the book gets unwieldy. If it had come out in the 1990s it might have contributed to the effort to write the Maori modernists into the canon of New Zealand modernism, a job that has now been taken up by the Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki.’)

This is where the review gets unwieldy and hopelessly irrelevant. Nobody, and certainly not a Māori, could have brought a book out like this one, in relation to the discipline of art history, in the early 1990s let alone 2015. I only finished my Masters thesis in 1988. I was 24 years of age. What did I know about Māori Art, life, and how things are approved or advanced in the New Zealand artworld? The offer by a major publishing house for a Māori to write a book on contemporary Maori art for the local and international market came in 1993 from Sydney, not New Zealand. It was Craftsman House under Gordon and Breach International Publishing Group who first offered me a contract that was totally unique at the time. Books like this don’t just appear in a couple of years.

As for the issue of writing Māori into some imagined New Zealand canon of modernism. What an absolute waste of time and public money in the service of a hopelessly outdated objective that seriously deserves to sucumb to local government scrutiny and wider social and political change. Again anyone reading my book would know I don’t have much faith in a pantheon of artists endorsed by the community of taste. You received poor advice in picking the wrong person to try out this idea of ommission. The words of American Thomas McEvilley, from ‘Art and Otherness’ (enjoyed in both MĀORI ART and in my PhD) are both pertinent and timely in relation to the vested interest oozing from this attack:

All value judgements [i.e. regarding beauty and taste in art], being historically conditioned, are partly motivated ideologically and these are susceptible to social change, but it is to the advantage of the controlling group to posit its own criteria as eternal and universal.’ Exposing this discrepancy the writer then goes on to inclusively suggest, ‘… we have to criticise our own tastes and to see that certain elements in them are local and temporary and have hidden motivations that are not necessarily honorable …

If the reviewer had more carefully read the work he would have demonstrated an appreciation that MĀORI ART, for its own unique reasons, involves a very different sense of taste and quite different criteria in its selection of material, imagery and ideas. It is not only a different kind of project. It is a lifetimes work. Here a later comment is more useful to this particular discussion:

(‘Panoho’s views may have been better served by a more regular publishing schedule – collections of essays, perhaps poetic explorations of history and landscape illuminated by Mark Adams’ photographs, monographs on Matchitt or Hotere, and exhibition catalogues for the shows Panoho needs to curate to bring what he loves to the attention of an audience.’)

The country that I have been working in for nearly the last three decades would never have publically funded one individual let alone the team of individuals required to undertake all of the projects patronisingly suggested here. MĀORI ART was generously supported, to an extent, by Creative New Zealand, Te Puni Kōkiri and the Asia New Zealand Foundation. However, not even a larger institution may have been able to practice this glibly offered advice. I doubt any institution would have had the focus, determination and experience (shared amongst myself, Adams and Sameshima) to sustain this type of unique collaborative project over such a time period. The words ‘better served’ then ring hollow. Better served by whom or what? This project was largely altruistic. Primarily it was my family, the photographers and their homes that bore the costs of this beautiful high end book. It is a 23 year long project that would quite easily have sunk many a writer and would have hopelessly frustrated any institution. As for the helpful suggestion of curating and monographs. Why? Doesn’t New Zealand have enough monographs on artists and surveys…? Why keep working within formulas and with structures that are not helpful to the flow of the art or to embracing its broad diversity.

In relation to the idea that I should have gone off and curated some of the material in Māori Art. Oh yes, try a different profession. I thought I had already given enough to Māori and Pacific art in this area in the Australasian gallery museum circuit (see current blog Maori Curator I,II…which describe this legacy in detail) Nothing much can be achieved in this country (not all countries) if key stakeholders don’t support it and galleries won’t collaborate. This is why I would appeal to the reader to buy the book MĀORI ART and make up your own minds as to whether there is value in supporting its flow. Paraphrasing the great Ephesian philosopher Heraclitus I say, ‘…dip your feet in the river and neither you nor the river will be the same again.’

Verified by MonsterInsights