7 AUGUST 1841, Page 20

ENGLISH STYLE OF PAINTING.

THE art of painting is just now in a transition state in this country : the loose, sketchy, generalizing indication of " the good old English school," to which REYNOLDS, GAINSBOROUGH, and MORLAND belonged, is giving way to the exact, defined, and finished imitation of Macuse, HER13ERT, REDGRAVE, STANFIELD, and others of the new school. But though the style of painting is thus changing, the mode of execution is not improved in a proportionate degree : the consequence is, that with all the elaboration and minute detail of the present day, there is su- perficiality—a want of substance and variety of texture. The landscape-painters of the old school were essentially sketchers their practice of painting was only a more laboured kind of sketching ; and they worked with oil-paint on the same system as water-colours are now used. The Market-Cart and the Watering-Place, by Gauss- BOROUGH, in the National Gallery, are examples of his best mode of treating such subjects : the poetry of the scenes is brought out in the feelings of repose and seclusion, of rural industry and content, that arise in the mind. The deep mellow tone of the effect is suffused with a warm glow that does not destroy the sense of •out-door freshness : in a word, they are English pastorals. But the beauty of these pictures belongs to the refined sentiment of GAINSBOROUGH, whick would have invested the slightest daub or roughest charcoal sketch with the attributes of his genius : they charm us not by an imitation of actual objects, but by a suggestive indication of them, serving to con- vey the influence of the scene to the beholder. This is the true spirit of painting; but we could wish the body in which it dwells were more perfect and real. If all artists were GAINSBOROUGHS, or imbued with his feeling, we should not much regard the means when they so well attained the end ; but others imitate his defects without being able to emulate his beauties. Moreover, the rustic class of subjects is pecu- liarly adapted to this style : the details of poverty are best slurred over ; the litter of a farm-yard, the rags and dirt of the beggar, are most be- coming in a vague indication of the picturesque characteristics sug- gestive of the surrounding scene. MouLAND's homely prose style of sketching was equally well suited to his choice of subjects,—a sow wallowing in a stye, or a smock-frocked ploughman making love to a blowzy dairy-wench : there is a picture in the British Institution of a couple of farmers overtaken by a storm spurring their rough-coated cobs homeward, which shows the extent of MORLAND'S art ; it is a vivid representation of the effect of lightning, though a slight painting of the water-colour sort.

But besides this thin, slovenly manner of handling, there is a want of correct drawing; the forms of things are not well made out, though their general characteristics are indicated. There is very bad drawing in Hoosiers', but his strong expression of character diverts attention from minor defects : when he had to hit a critical point, such as the hus- band who has been run through the body and is in the act of falling, in the night-scene of Marriage a-la-mode, he showed his want of know- ledge. The Hurdygurdy-Player, in the British Institution, by Ho- GARTH, is bawling her loudest : the act of singing could not be better depicted, yet there is no " drawing " in the face. In The Distressed Poet, you almost hear the shrill scolding voice of the milkwoman clamouring for her score ; but you look in vain for any trace of form in her features. The quick and lively perception of the painter intuitively guided his hand to portray the characteristic expression : whatever Ho- GARTH saw he could depict, and he rarely painted what he did not see ; hence the life-like reality of his faces. A few touches sufficed to represent not a mere physical action, but the state of mind of the individual : this is the inspiration of genius, which acting unconsciously, is so far inde- pendent of thtesnechanism of art that it overcomes all obstacles. Never- theless, it is not desirable that needless obstacles should be suffered to remain ; there are always plenty in art of the most perfect kind to make the task of surmounting them difficult. It is the business of science— which is only practical experience and knowledge methodized—to clear the path for genius ; and in so material a medium for the transmission of ideas as painting,—one, indeed, where the means is as much to be ad- mired as the end, and often more,—a complete and right method is of prime importance. The imitative part of painting consists in representing vividly the external appearances of things ; not in an illusory degree, for the aim of pictorial representation is not to deceive, but so as to satisfy the sense through which it influences the mind : the necessity of depicting the shape and substance of objects correctly, the action and movement of living forms, and the animated look of men and animals, is therefore obvious. An intelligent approximation to the semblance of reality, however, charms the eye, and is so suggestive to the mind, that close

imitation has been alike considered superfluous by artists and those whom they address : but imperfect mechanical skill limits the power and increases the difficulty of the artist in conveying his ideas, while it lessens the gratification of the beholder in contemplating the works of the finest genius. Moreover, it excludes, or materially interferes with that source of pleasure arising am finished execution, which the griat ma- jority of pictures cannot afford to dispense with ; and that is not to be lost sight of in those of the highest class. In depicting the semblance of realities, the substance as well as the form and surface of objects should be represented—the vitality of living beings, the mobility of things that have motion, and the effect of light and atmosphere on external nature : if any of these qualities are im- perfectly expressed, the impression of actuality is enfeebled if not de- stroyed; and the sensation of delight, that a true representation of the simplest scene conveys, is lost or greatly impaired. There is a mode of indicating the general characteristics of things in which the very slight- ness of the means increases our admiration of the artist's skill, and we ourselves assist in realizing the scene with the aid of his imperfect delineation : this is the art of sketching ; and its excellence depends on the quickness and vividness of the sketcher's perception, and his skill and readiness in seizing upon those leading points which present the characteristics of the subject before him. Forms and effects are indicated by a few expressive touches, and the pervading feeling in the artist's mind is insensibly conveyed in the act of delineation. A sketch is to a picture what a transient glance of passer-by is to a steady contemplation of a person sitting opposite to you. The sketch suggests a lively image from a vague and indefinite indication : the picture should give the details as well as the general appearances, and distinctly represent all the qualities of the objects introduced ; embody- ing or realizing the idea (so to speak) conceived in the sketch.

It seemed necessary to show clearly the understood difference between these two operations of art, because they are constantly confounded in the practice of English artists. A very large proportion of the pictures in our exhibitions are only sketches highly wrought up with strong effects, and more carefully pencilled than a first rough draft: indeed, the essential distinction between a sketch and a picture is not borne in mind, if it be thoroughly comprehended, by modern artists. Their system of painting, which is that of sketching, proclaims their want of scientific method in producing a complete picture. Sketches are among the most delightful productions of art, and their value is not to be depreciated because of their slightness ; moreover, this sty le of at t is most congenial to the habits, the resources and the subjects of our artists : let them continue to be sketchers, by all means ; but they should not spoil good sketches in the attempt to convert them into bad pictures, nor claim the rank and honours due to great painters on the strength of such proceedings. A fine picture is composed of many sketches and studies, digested and arranged so as to form an entire and harmonious whole ; and the art that goes to the selection, and reproduction of the various parts in a perfect shape, is itself of a more refined kind, inde- pendently of the greater amount of labour and skill required : the difference between a sketcher and a painter in the full sense of the term, is as great as that between a sonneteer and an epic poet—between an essayist and a philosophic historian.

Our young artists of the new school are ambitious of being thought great painters; but their method, or practice rather, being based on the sketcher's art, is insufficient for the production of grand or finished pictures. The insubstantial quality of their works is sufficient evidence of this ; not to mention their imperfect drawing, crude colouring, and slovenly execution : they aim at rapidity and dashing mannerism as the ne plus ultra of art. It was not so that RAPHAEL and LIONARDO, TITIAN and VANDYKE, CLAUDE and SALVATOR, worked. The magnate of the English school, Sir Joanne REYNOLDS, who aimed at the power and grandeur of the Italian masters, only achieved a half sort of com- pleteness: one of his finest works, the portrait of General Ileathfield, an the National Gallery, looks like the front section of a figure ; the face has no back to the head—it is a mere mask let into the back- ground. Much of the skill of the English painters in the management of effect is devoted to concealing their defects. There is scarcely one face in a hundred among the thousands of modern portraits that is any thing more than a mask.

Sir Josiwa. REYNOLDS, in his efforts to attain the powerful relief and impasto of the Venetian school, played all sorts of tricks ; and among others, resorted to the use of wax to give solidity to his painting. TURNER literally lays on his colours with a trowel, for he paints with his pallette-knife ; and it is said that he uses a vehicle of paste in order to obtain substance, and will not let wet sponge come near some of his pictures. STANFIELD'S rocks and castles are called " putty " by his " scumbling" brethren : other artists also have different contrivances for getting what they call "texture," either by employing a particular kind of canvass, or some foreign substance as a vehicle, or by a peculiar manner of handling. These quackeries are not only unworthy of a fine art, but they do not answer the end. What avails "substance" which is only superficially solid ? or " texture " where every part of the surface is alike?—It only thickens the external coat of paint, it does not give body to form. STANFIELD'S rocks and buildings are better made out than TURNER'S, but they have no more variety of surface, and have scarcely more rotundity. TURNER'S paste does not supply the deficiency of form in his buildings ; for it is phadow that gives the appearance of substance, and he is the " shadowress man" of painting: be has gone on filling shade with colour until it has become all light. LEE endeavours to project the branches of his trees by the force of pigment ; but he only makes the boughs hard and brittle—the mass of foliage is flat.

The designers and limners of figures are equally at a loss to con- vey the idea of a living form under their draperies, and to depict the

sanguineous substance of flesh. MACLISE'S men and women seem cut out of chalk, or-painted on egg-shell ; silk, metal, wood, flesh, hair' in his pictures all have the same glossy smoothnes§,s, HERBERT'S figures look like woorkn toys. The flesh of Errz's n-burnt men is like leather, and the %Mike delicate cuticle of his women is paint and nothing else; both are boneless as bladders or wine-skins. MULREADY stipples up the limbs and faces of his figures elaborately, but there is nothing beneath the film of colour ; and EASTLAKE'S forms, delicate as they are, seem tender las waxen images. Even REncats.vz, viho is most sue- cessful in giving the appearance of substance and vitality to human beings, fails to make us forget the material he works with ; while LESLIE, among others, takes no pains to hide it. Among the portrait- painters how rare is the aspect of flesh and blood in the face! Mrs. CARPENTER'S carnation tints are of the right hue, but they are as fragile as a rose-leaf; and Bitincs's flesh looks like a smoky mist. To go no further with these "base comparisons," it is sufficient to say that in all modern painting a substratum of form is wanting. The photographic miniatures show better than words can tell what is wanting in our pic- tures—namely, the relief of shade. How exquisitely Nature makes out the details in her painting ; preserving that breadth of effect which has been contended to be incompatible with minuteness. Having pointed out the great defects in English painting, we may be perhaps expected to point out the means for correcting them ; though that is for practitioners to discover. Without entering into the technical points too minutely, we will venture to suggest that the old practice, now deemed antiquated, of painting the forms in "dead colour"—that is, laying in the broad masses of shade in neutral tint, and " glazing " with transparent colours over it—seems to US to be the true method of pro- ceeding. But still the degree of solidity and relief will depend on the art with which the gradations of shade are managed; and the brilliancy of colour will be influenced by the kind of neutral tint representing the half-lights and shades, as well as by the nature and arrangement of the bright hues laid upon it. The point to which we desire to direct the attention of artists, is the necessity for this under-painting, or ground- work of shade, to represent form and substance ; leaving the colour and texture to be got by bright hues and dexterous handling.