Pontifical Premises
The Approach to Painting. By Thomas Bodkin. (Collins. 8s. 6d.) ONE can almost hear the faint click with which the wicket gate of Professor Bodkin's sensitivity closed, sometime before the last war ; closed to all that followed and to all that is yet to come. Professor Bodkin is one of those art experts who puts the words modern art into quotes as being synonymous with " decadent " and " depraved." This curious tendency, which is no more sensible than referring to all sculpture as marble, does much to remove any sympathy the reader may have for the earlier and more intelligent chapters of his book, for it displays so deficient a judgement that it renders the Professor's other pronouncements suspect. In some ways this is regrettable, for his appreciation of the painting of other days is obviously genuine enough, if tinged with the pedantry of his calling.
He suffers from the curious delusion that contemporary painters are all incompetent, and he seems incapable of attempting to separate the sheep from the goats. Furthermore he is unwise enough to suggest that contemporary painting is the product of " a widespread delusion that a great and beneficient cleavage from outworn tradition occurred about the time of Cezanne's death." It is the author who is here deluded, for the painters he chooses to cast doubts upon are, among others, Henry Moore and Graham Sutherland, two artists in long, perfectly established traditions and proudly aware of it ; surely even the Professor would not be hard pressed, if he sets his mind to it, to discover the traditions behind the painting of Rouault and Derain, whom he does not mention, but who are manifestly among those who come within the scope of his censure. Professor Bodkin confuses morality with painting in the Tolstoyan manner ; " Throng- ing the ranks of modern painters," says he, " are bad men— debauched, drunken, drugged and depraved creatures." They are presumably unlike the drunken Franz Hals, who beat his wife, unlike the savage megalomaniac Torregiani, unlike that notable rake Francisco Goya, or in other arts, Francois Villon, toper and thief, " Black Kit " Marlowe, the spy, or Coleridge or de Quincey, the drug addicts. Even Leonardo's sexual tendencies are question- able. Of what consequence is all this in terms of painting? A truce to nonsense.
If the Professor wishes his writings to be taken seriously by anyone outside his club, let him either play agnostic to contemporary painting or else be prepared to give it proper attention. There is much bad modern art and some good ; the problem for the spectator before this art of his own times is to discern the gold among the dross, for all is before him. The same spectator is not called upon to perform this weeding process when contemplating the art of the high Renaissance or of the 18th century, for time has done it for him ; much of the dross is gone and the gold has been treasured by the discerning in the teeth, sometimes, of denunciations. Equally, the art of the past may now be seen in relation to its age, and the perspective of time past frequently makes understanding easier. The Professor need have no fears that too much loth century art will survive, for in a hundred or so years the worst will have disappeared into the lumber room. But, as in all ages, a percentage will survive— as much, in all probability, as in other centuries. On the whole I think it would be best if he would leave the whole thing atone, for he falls badly into his own categories of invalid criticism. On his own ground he is readable, and his discussion of acknowledged masterpieces will be of use to students. But all through this irritating volume one fact is clear ; the author's approach to painting is the safest possible one ; collection pedigree is his concern, rather than aesthetics. Rembrandt was a master, Velasquez was a master, Titian was a master, and so on. Would anyone likely to read this book dream of confuting these pontifical premises, and is there a living artist in Europe who would question the glories of his heritage? Certainly not the modern ones—Picasso, whose " periods " the Pro- fessor places in the wrong order, Sutherland, Modigliani, Moore and the rest of the " bad men," who occupy the Professor in his last chapter, which is entitled " An Approach to Modernity " but which would be a clearer designation if it read " A Failure to
Previous page
