[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPEOTATOR."]
SIR,--At the outset of this contmversy, I ventured to state that questions of " taste " are not subjects for controversy; matters of fact, however, stand upon another basis. I do not quarrel with "D. S. M." for his predisposition towards a certain kind (..4 painting; I take exception to his means of Promoting his sympathies, and to his assumption of omnipo- tence. A critic who is satisfied to write about "the summary method" of M. Angelo, "more summary than that of M. Degas," as displa,yed by his work at the Grafton, and who stands by that assertion, puts himself out of court. By such a statement, he demonstrates a limited claim indeed to be an "expert," and failure as a critic ; for he states as a fact that which is not a fact. Feeling or sentiment apart, the method of M. Angelo is the reverse of summary !
"D. S. M." has proved himself, according to his own words, to belong to "a Populace," for whom he has a supreme dis- taste; for he calls it "a beast." If such is his method of "persuasion," he will no more convince Leviathan than he will cease to provide an amusement for " experts." "D. S. M." has retired from the field ; he has hidden himself in clouds from whence he syringes the Spectator with ink in a light, irresponsible, and wholly impressionistic fashion. He made a statement in a previous letter which I challenged. He now explains it away by nebulous generalisations; he gives up " populace " and coercion," and substitutes " people " and "persuasion." He answers my questions by stating that the experts contrived to impose their views of the art of Cimabue upon the Church ; the Church having accepted them proceeded to impose them upon the people. This is, indeed, an elaborate argument of guess-work, which looks uncommonly like "playing." I withdraw "fooling." His indignation against the Westminster Gazette follows, quite naturally. "D. S. M." intimates that Ciinabue may have made a "weak protest" against Byzantine traditions in spite of the warnings of his contemporaries.
Broadly speaking, his claim is that all unpopular art is good, and the reverse. If English is English, he claims that the public needs, and has always needed, an interpreter who speaks in a different language of art, that they may be called to comprehend. the art of painting. Such are my conclusions, not only after his answers—if answers they can be called—to my questions, but after having constantly amused myself by his critical assumptions. Is this all that "D. S. M." has to say in support of his "platitude," as he himself christens his historical guess ?
Is it my reward for unravelling a tangle of words only to find paradox and problematical imaginings ? Every one superficially acquainted with the history and. growth of art is aware of what was almost greediness in its eagerness with which scientific truths were absorbed, one after the other, by the artists during the prolific years that intervened between the birth of Cimabue and the death of M. Angelo. They were impelled to go on. They persuaded themselves, and they persuaded others. The artists of those times, as well as the citizens of the Italian States, where everything moved. under the very eyes of the populace, grasped truth after truth and hailed progress. But what progress ? The greater and greater attainment of truth for the sake of beauty and nobility. Who, then, were the " coercers" and " experts " ? Certainly not art critics. They were the architects, sculptors, and painters who " convinced " the people (without the intrusion of journalists) by the majesty of their works ; they led the merchant-princes of Florence and made themselves indispensable to the Popes of Rome by their genius. Critics may write on till they are blind ; they will never "convince." They can only advertise. It is only the artist who persuades,—by the perennial power of his imagination, by his compelling magic of genius, before which, sooner or later, men humbly lay their heads.
No doubt, for the full enjoyment of any art, a lifetime of study is needed. Still, in every great achievement of litera- ture, or of other arts, there has been a something adumbrated, even if not clearly expressed, that has touched the people, a nobility of motive which has reached their' hearts. And the nobility of the motive is at the root of all great work. "D. S. M." claims too much for the select clique whose mouthpiece he is. The world is too big, too grand, too serious, to be ruled by technique; at its worst it wants ideas.
Handel, Bach, Shakespeare, M. Angelo, and Raphael, and many other great Masters speak, and have spoken, to countless multitudes of the people, uneducated as well as educated, without instruction from the pen of critics. "Good wine needs no bush 1" Great Art will always sway the hearts of men sooner or later, just as bad Art will go to the wall without assistance. " Coercion " or " Persuasion " have never been employed, except by the labours of great artists, until recent
times. The conscious coercion of the pen is a modern pro. fessional invention. The self-imposed position of an arbiter before an art in which he is not a proficient can only be endurable when his accuracy is without a flaw and his judgment
[If Mr. Richmond could make up his mind whether it is technique or the absence of technique he admires in painting; whether it is the nobility of the motive or the expressiveness of the performance by which a work of art is to be judged ; whether he is a critic engaged in a journalistic discussion, or a painter smiling in silence at the vanity of writing; whether
he despises or respects popular opinion ; and whether A with B is more or less of a clique than A without B, he would be a more satisfactory antagonist to deal with. As it is, I leave the subject with three remarks. (I.) If Mr. Richmond really does not see that the painting of Michael Angelo is more summary than that of Degas, in being more abstract in form and more conventional in colour, I am perfectly content with any view he may take of my knowledge of painting. Observe, there is no question of relative merit ; for to attempt to measure incommensurable qualities is a futile proceeding. (2.) It is as needless to support, as it would be silly to dis- credit, a truism, on the inconclusive gossip of history. And to dispute how much of any one artist's popularity was a genuine appreciation would be unprofitable, since the evidence must be inexact and the result necessarily guess-work. The point is, that a popular acclaim is no test of the merit or demerit of an artist. (3.) Here, to Bum up, is how the actual case at issue, the modern instance, stands. Mr. Richmond and his com- panion art critic of the Westminster Gazette have a poor opinion of Degas. Mr. Richmond discounts this by the opinion of Velasquez, already quoted. The editor of the Westminster Gazette has the following opinion of Rembrandt, for he quotes it as a luminous sentiment in his "Handbook to the National Gallery" :—" It was the aim of the best painters to paint the noblest things they could see by sunlight. It was the aim of Rembrandt to paint the foulest things he could see by rushligbt." Now Velasquez and itetnorandt are the two Masters on whose inspiration the modern art of painting is chiefly founded, and he who is blind to them is blind to what comes after. I, in my narrow way, am the humble mouthpiece of a clique which includes not only the Masters whom these two critics admire, and such capable modern followers as they can boast, but also those two whom they thus disparage and the great strain they have begotten. I do not pretend to prove the beauty of Old or New Masters to those who have not the necessary sense- equipment ; but I do think it possible and useful by the analysis of false ideas of "Imagination," of " Technique," of "Finish," and the like, to clear the logical approaches to an art for reasonable people. And to convince reasonable people is to coerce the multitude, and restrain the fanatic.—D. S. M.]
[This controversy must end here.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
