FINE ARTS.
TSB ROYAL COMMISSION AND THE ARTISTS : THE COMPETITION SYSTEM.
Sows of the unsuccessful competitors for the premiums offered by the Royal Commission have addressed a memorial to the Commissioners, for a division of the proceeds of each of the Cartoon-exhibitions in Westminster Hall, among the " unrewarded artists." They calculate the share of the receipts that would accrue to each incapable—the amounts ranging from 151. to 301. per failure; and back their claim by making the Government debtor to the artists some eight or ten thousand pounds for models and materials! The Commissioners, of course, refuse this modest request; and their Secretary, of his own accord, sends a statement from which it appears that there are no funds in hand; the expenses having exceeded the receipts. The memorialists scrutinize this statement with the lynx-eyed vigilance of an adverse counsel analyzing a bankrupt's schedule; and draw up a balance-sheet of their own, making the Commission debtor to the artists, whose claims are set forth like creditors of an insolvent estate.
The indelicacy of this proceeding is surpassed by its absurdity. It is painful enough to see artists suing in formft pauperis for compensation for their own incapacity; but to crown their humiliation by making them- selves ridiculous, is a deplorable sight indeed. The memorial is only signed by nine artists of inferior ability,—the most distinguished of them being Messrs. Hurlstone, Salter, Buss, and Foggo; but they profess to re- present " the general feeling of the competitors." Still we cannot help thinking, that many will be found anxious to disavow all participation in conduct so distasteful and unworthy of the members of a noble profession. There would be little hope for British art if all its professors were actuated by such mean and paltry feelings, and took such a narrow and mistaken view of their position. For though the memorialists assume the dignity of martyrs—talk of having " suffered in a good cause "—boast their " desire to cooperate and assist," and their willingness to " forego the more lucrative branches of art for the higher walks of historic and poetic composition "—they belie these fine professions by their practice.
The ostentatious manner in which the memorialists have paraded this correspondence in the daily papers compelled us to notice it: but we gladly turn to a consideration of the subject of competition in a different point of view.
Patronage of art is taking the competitive form in every direction; and his desirable, therefore, that the true principles of the system should be clearly understood. Competition, if rightly conducted, is the best possible mode Of eliciting and encouraging talent, and securing the exercise of the great- est ability in the patron's service. But if mismanaged, it is injurious to all parties, and pernicious to art itself. The object of a competition is simply to procure the fittest artists to execute certain work. The most ef- fectual way to promote art is to give the highest rewards to the greatest artists; and the only reward, beyond honorary distinction, that a great artist covets, is remunerative employment. The general talent and capacity of any known artist may be inferred from his works; but the qualification of an individual for any particular task can only be ascertained by experiment. And this involves some sacrifice of labour on the part of competitors for employment; which they are willing enough to make, provided the risk be small and the prize great. In com- petitions open to all, the risk operates as a check to deter the incompetent, and as a spur to the energy of the able. Even were it possible to repay all the competitors for their labour, such a course would vitiate the principle of competition, and convert what should be a premium for excellence into a bounty upon mediocrity. The point to be aimed at is to lighten the labour of the competitors as far as is consistent with the proof of their
efficiency. This is done when a model only is required for a marble or bronze statue, a plan and elevation for a building, and a cartoon or oil. sketch for a picture. In each case the individual sacrifice is small com- pared with the magnitude of the prize and the honour of success; and the effort itself is beneficial even if it be unsuccessful, for real talent learns a lesson in defeat. In select competitions, where the candidates are sifted and a very few only allowed to compete, the artists are in a manner com- missioned, and therefore they ought to be well-paid for their labour—as were Maclise, Cope, and others.
That these truisms are not needless at the present moment, is shown by the strange notions of Messrs. Hurlstone, Buss, and Co.; and also by a pro- posal lately advertised by two provincial manufacturers, of so outrageous a nature that only the most thoughtless ignorance can excuse it. A thousand pounds was offered by the parties alluded to, for a picture that should please them best, representing the Baptism of Christ: the point of time, and the number, size, and position of the principal figures, were specified, as well as the dimensions of the painting. The sum would be a handsome remuneration to the successful painter; but what is to compensate the rest for their time, labour, and outlay? Pictures of such large dimensions and so peculiar a character would not be saleable; and a year's work is thus lost to the luckless speculators. It may be asked, who would venture in such a lottery? But hope of success is stronger than fear of failure. Perhaps the very expectation that few will try may induce many to compete. And as the competition is open to artists of all nations, it is possible that West- minster Hall would not be large enough to contain the number of pictures. We dare say the two manufacturers thought they were acting the part of Brummagem Medici: but, if their preposterous proposals be not amended after the remonstrances that have been addressed to them, their position will not be an enviable one.
The recently-settled competition for the Bermondsey altar-piece was less favourable to the patron than the competitors; for small sketches only were required, whereas a cartoon is the proper test. But the judges, being highly competent, have done their best to overcome that defect in the plan.
The Art-Union Committee have wisely followed the example of the Royal Commission, and require cartoons from the competitors for their 5001. prize.
Competitions are as old as art itself ; and they were conducted with an enlightened munificence and in a generous spirit of emulation worthy of the great men who raised it to so high a pitch of perfection. The famous bronze gates of Ghiberti were the result of a competition, which established the fame of the Raphael of sculptors, until then unknown. That competition was, however, a select one. Seven of the most skilful artists among the number who offered themselves were chosen to compete, and they were handsomely paid for their labour. A subject was named, and each competitor required to produce within a year a design in alto relievo, cast in bronze, about two feet square, the size of one compartment. Each had a separate workshop and furnace; the expense of which, as well as the value of their time for a year, was defrayed by the authorities of Florence, for whom the work was done. No fewer than thirty-four judges, mostly artists, were appointed; and each was obliged to give his vote publicly, and to state the grounds of his judgment. Three of the designs were so nearly equal in merit, that the suffrages were divided; but two of the com- petitors—Donatello and Brimelleschi, both illustrious names—nobly waived their pretensions in favour of Ghiberti, whom they proclaimed aloud to have excelled them all; and their judgment was confirmed by accla- mation.* Publicity and responsibility are the two essentials wanting to make com- petitions fair and cause the decision of the judges to be respected. With us, the award is made in secret, without reasons assigned, and before the public are permitted to see the designs. The people of England are treated worse than children in these matters: they are allowed to peep, but forbid- den to choose, and compelled to pay for what they don't like. They are forced to endure a perpetual eyesore, and to bear the reproach of the bad taste of others: the only hope of redress for their grievance being the chance that the Minister who suffered an ugly building to be erected at the public cost, may discover some years afterwards that a fine site of ground and much money have been thrown away; and that the best way to remedy the evil is by incurring a similar risk, at a greater expense.
* The history of this memorable competition is told at length in Mrs. Jameson's Memoirs of Early Italian Painters; a delightful work, full of information, and interesting. to every class of readers, but especially the lovers of art—it forms two of Knight's Weekly Volumes.
Previous page
