ART.
THE ACADEMY.—L
THERE are many indications that we have reached the close of an epoch in art, and that what is coming will differ essentially from the immediate past. But at present the new is uncer- tain. At the beginning of the nineteenth century there was a break in artistic tradition which was caused by the spirit that led to the great scientific discoveries of that epoch. Men became greatly interested in the outward manifestations of Nature, and tried to represent them in paint. To do this a whole series of fresh methods had to be invented to express the new attitude of mind. The work of rendering natural effects received a further stimulus from the explorations of the founders of the Preraphaelite movement. When their discoveries had become common property a new school arose. The Impres. sionista were really working at the same problem, though outwardly their methods appeared to be different, for they too were realists; and though they sought to portray new effects of light, colour, and atmosphere, instead of detailed and • The habit of ,• promiscuous " thus gallantly described and defended seems to corns natural to certain men. We remember hearing of an affidavit of a butler In a probate case, where the decease of a testator wee sought to be presumed, which contained the following delightfully breezy statement: ••.e. sailor came to the back door and had a glass of beer and said, • The lost time I saw your master, maybe seven years gone, he was sailing on the Spanish Hain in gold speetaclee.'" Was there over a prouder promiscuity of sailing, beer-drinking, and wide general statement than this? There is the authentio ring of Stevenson romance is every word of it:En. Spectator.
complicated drawing with clear definition, both were working for the same end—the realistic copying of the appearance of Nature. This second force now seems to be exhausting itself, but the two together have left their mark, and the feeling is still powerful that the sole test of the excel- lence of a picture is its so-called truth to Nature. But another feeling has made itself evident, and the words which have been current in the jargon of art for several years past, "stylistic" and " decorative," show that there is a recognition of the fact that imitation alone is not the whole gospel of painting. This uneasiness, although far-reaching, has not led to results which will be enduring or really healthy, because it is only caused by a looking back to the past, with a more or less mechanical adoption of the qualities of past ages. Nevertheless, the movement for a time quieted the artistic conscience, though no real gain of power was the result. Now we hear acclaimed a new departure, and one of the most fur-reaching kind, which makes no less a demand than the throwing to the winds, not only of recent practice, but of the traditions of a good deal more than the immediate past. This is not the place to discuss either the theory or the practice of Post-Impressionism, but what it is possible to do is to try to take stock of the position in so far as it regards the art of the present when crystallized and acknowledged by academic authority. Can we, looking at the pictures shown on the walls, and making allowances for the inevitable accidents of a yearly Exhibition, come to the conclusion that all is well ? Can we say that, although there may not be a genius of commanding excellence to enchant us, there are, nevertheless, the signs that the general direction of art is the right one P Can we feel that the foundations are being well laid for the genius that is to come ? Can we rest satisfied, or must we consider deeply what is amiss, and strain our eyes to see whether there is any indication of the dawn ?
The great mass of the pictures in the present Exhibition are frankly naturalistic, and have no higher artistic aim than that of copying Nature, and of making the canvas act the part of a looking-glass for selected natural objects. Another class, not so numerous, yet considerable in numbers, make an attempt to superimpose sentiment upon the materialistic background. Models more or less appropriately clothed or un- clothed, and portrayed with varying degrees of accuracy, masquerade as symbolical figures, historical characters, or poetic imaginings. On most walls we can observe the result of the process, and note its dismal failure. Over and over again we see that the painter has had nothing further in view than the effect prodneal by the photographer who poses models in a landscape and thinks he is making an ideal picture. The only difference is that the painter has the use of colour and more control over his background. The power of constructing forms and effects which will produce an aesthetic emotion seems hardly to exist. On one side there is mere copying of Nature, well or ill, but both equally futile as regards art ; on the other side is the attempt to stir some sort of emotion by association of ideas and by allusion. But to find a picture which stirs emotion by aesthetic creation is a hard task.
There are, however, pictures which do stir us in the right way here, but they must be sought for. One of these is Mr. Clausen's In the Fields in June (No. 529). Large, severe in form, and simple in colour, this picture has some of the great qualities which we associate with primitive art. The sky is the result of profound knowledge of cloud form, but its lines and tunes have not been put on the canvas with any idea of making us say "How like a sky !" but rather of making us feel the space, the light, and the magic of out-of-doors. So it is with the stretches of laud—sun-lit or shadowed—the group of trees, and the two men at work. It is the essence of the things that the painter gives us here, not their outward appearance; the inner reality, not the show. The same might be said of Mr. Clausen's portrait (No. 223), which, even if it is rather dry in style, puts to shame the monstrous regi- ments of men, painted with every form of stupid dexterity and vulgarity, which invade the Exhibition and horrify us in every room.
A truly artistic conception is His. Swynnerton's portrait group of two little boys, David and Jonathan (No. 686). The way in which the two children are combined and contrasted is nothing short of masterly. Their colour, too, is beautiful, and they can freely join hands with their fellows in many a relief by Lucca della Robbie. Here we feel we are in presence of the real thing and not the imitation. There are weaknesses in the picture taken as a whole, for the creative force seems to have expended. itself in the children, while the garden in which they are found, as it recedes from them, weakens in intention, till we regret the presence of the upper half of the picture, beautiful as it is in colour. Another work which offers a strange contrast to its surroundings is a group of Japanese Carp (No. 1,265), by Mr. Kazanori Ishibashi. The picture is painted on silk in monochrome. It is, of course, not modelled in the ordinary sense, but depends for effect on line and flat tones. Never- theless, its reality makes its would-be realistic neighbours shrink into insignificance. Cherished tradition from a great past has enabled the artist to impress our sense of inner truth by means of design and pure form in a way impossible by mere representation.
Next week it will be possible to discuss some more of the pictures with a view to answering the question asked at the beginning of this article. Then it will be necessary to point out pictures which give but small hope of any advance on present lines. Some pictures will also have to be noticed which justify a witty French critic in the comment: "On a ate fusille pour beaucoup morns que ca." H. S.
Previous page
