FINE ARTS.
ROYAL ACADEMY EXHIBITION. THE SCULPTURE.
A CLOSER examination of the sculpture confirmed the unfavourabh impression left by a first cursory glance. What with the want of light and space in this round-house, where the works of our sculpts= are condemened to do penance during the Academy exhibition, and the deficiency of vitality and mind in the mass of marbles and mode% it is difficult to fix the attention on any one work: all is confusion; the eye, bewildered with the crowd of white forms, cold and lifeless, seeks in vain a resting-place. The statuary is of that conventional kind with which we are faminar in halls and lobbies, where any deficiency of ideal beauty is atoned for by the real utility of the figures ; nymphs and swains doing good ser- vice as candelabra. A colossal "bully Hector," a Samson furioso, and a complacent David, are prominent objects ; Cupid and Psyche, Faith and Hope, Paul and Virginia, Helen and Paris, Hero and Leander, Hercules and Lychas, figure among other established commonplaces of the sculptor's studio, together with a whole nursery of sleeping in- fants. There is neither an Eve nor a Venus ; and we are disposed to regard the absence of any attempt at giving shape to these ideal imper- sonations of feminine loveliness as a favourable sign, inasmuch as it may be taken to imply a consciousness of inability to cope with such sublime subjects. Lotroit's Group in Marble of a Bacchanal! .Revel, (1399,) is the most ambitious and elaborate work ; and it possesses considerable merit, though the composition is not happy. A male and female Bacchante are carrying on their shoulders a young Bacchus, whose look and action are expressive of vinous intoxication; the nymph is at the same time filling a cup of wine, while her companion holds a wreath in one hand and a thyrsus in the other, and they walk with free limbs as if insensible to the weight of the youthful god, whose action is so lively as to require their combined efforts to maintain his equilibrium. Here we have three different actions, inconsistent with each other ; and the figures do not form a group, in the proper sense of the term, every one having• a separate and independent movement. Mr. Lonou's Ophelia, (1394,) is utterly petrifie. The Genevieve, (1393,) of W. GEETs is a graceful composition ; and the form of the mother, which reminds us of Ceittovs's Magdalen, is fleshy ; but the countenance is not so expressive as is desirable, and the babe is by no means a model of infantine beauty. F. THRUPP'S ArethlteR, (1406,) is too rigid for flesh ; and this objection applies to other marble figures. Indeed, it is a remark of general application that the statues represent the human form no further than the shape is concerned : the marble does not breathe ; neither is the dis- tinction between flesh and bone sufficiently indicated. Hagar and Ishmael, (1414,) by E. B. SrEpaerts, regarded as a sketch only, mani, fests a true feeling for the pathos of the subject : the relaxed limbs of the fainting boy are admirably modelled, and the mother's look of anguish is expressive ; but it is placed so as to be scarcely visible, and only under a very great disadvantage. In portraiture, CHANTREY is greatly missed : no sculptor gives that living expression to the eyes that he threw into the marble brow; making the colourless orbs seem to possess the sense of sight. In the majority of tbe busts, the brow, the seat of intelligence, is less conspicuous than the nose and month. The strong shadow of the nostrils and of the lips when open necessarily attracts the eye first to those features in the bast, when the sculptor, as is, commonly the case, is content to make a correct copy of the form of the head. CHANTRET knew that the art of sculpture consisted not merely in rendering a human shape by a shape of marble, but in expressing with a rigid and colourless material the animation and play of countenance in a form of flesh and blood, enlivened with the florid hues of health and the lustre of the eye : he therefore so modelled the head that the light and shade of the solid form should convey the characteristics of the living face ; in a word, he painted with the chisel in black and white. The most strikingly effective bust in this respect is that of Lord Lyndhurst, (1524,) by BEHNES ; at least it appeared so to us, when the evening sun brought out its light and shade : his bust of Sir William Follett, (1520,) also is not only correct in feature but animated in expression and faithful in character. Jo- MPH'S bust of Wilkie, (15150 may be literally true in form, though we doubt if it be ; but it is mean and unintellectual, and not characteristic of the painter in his thoughtful moments. The busts of Kialbaark, (1524,) and Thalberg, (1525,) by BALLY; of Dwarkanauth Tagore, (1467,) by WEEILES ; of Judge Perrin, (1429,) and A Lady, (1478,) by C. MOORE ; and of Lord John Russell, (1530,) by R. WEsTmecorr, are among the best and most characteristic. J. H. FOLEY'S of Miss .Helen Faucit, (14680 has less strongly marked character than the lady's countenance exhibits ; the lineaments are too hard and smooth. The effect of PARK'S bust of Mrs. Robertson, (I466,) is marred by the rigid cork- screw curls on each side: it is surprising to see such a mistake made by a clever sculptor as rendering a yielding substance like hair, the shadows of which are soft and rich, by harsh and cutting forms ; and it only shows how imperfectly the art itself has been considered even by those who have studied and practised it successfully. The bust of the Dutchess of Kent, (1386,) by E. DAVIS, is an excellent likeness, and ex- emplifies the successful treatment of hair ; though plaits are not so difficult to represent as crisp curls.
The life-size statues of Dr. Wood of Cambridge, (1387,) and Dr. Ruder, the Late Bishop of Lichfield, (1412,) by BAILS', have not the grandeur and repose that are desirable in sculpture, and which were so conspicuous in CHANTREY'S statues : that of the late Duke of Suther- land, (I400,) by J. FRANCIS, is not only mean, but ridiculous. But the most enormous failure of all is the Study of the Head of William the Fourth, (1415,) by S. Nixon, intended for a colossal statue in granite : so disproportionately small are the markings of the features to the mass, that the face of this statue, seen from a reasonable distance, would have no more form than a barber's block. It is modelled rather on the prin- cipal of a medal than a statue : indeed, it appears to be but a magnified copy of the effigy on the coins.
Previous page
