ART.
THE ACADEMY.—II. THE PORTRAITS.
IN dealing with the portraits at an exhibition the question of likeness to the original can hardly be considered. Resem- blance, it is curious to reflect, although the first object of a portrait, is the quality that passes away soonest, and after a generation becomes only a vague tradition. Who knows if the portrait of a young man in black in the Pitti gallery was considered lifelike by his friends ? Titian endowed this picture with life and individuality, which have not been dimmed by three centuries. This individuality when realised by the painter carries with it the conviction of resemblance. But if the painter aims at making a portrait a good likeness he must accentuate individualities, so that we may feel in looking at the work that we have before us a particular person, not a type. For this reason the portrait-painter should avoid making his picture look like any other portrait. If he wishes to do more than the head, to make a picture as well as a likeness, he should be most careful that the pose and the arrangement should be original. If a portrait is constructed on lines already familiar, the sense of personality is greatly weakened.
The impression produced by the full-length presentation portrait by Mr. Cope of Lord Portman (No. 173) in a red coat is simply that the picture has been hanging there for years. So familiar is the pose of the figure and the vermilion of the coat that the mind refuses to consider it except as a sample of a particular line of goods. How can a painter hope to make us believe in the likeness under these conditions ? If the sitter does not lend himself to picture-making, no doubt the wisest course is to subordinate his body to his head. Better by.far a small amount of dark, shadowy surroundings than vast expanses of elaborate commonplace objects. This method has been adopted by M. Benjamin Constant in his portrait of M. de Blowitz (No. 138). From a dark back- ground emerges this most powerfully modelled head. Here, indeed, has character been arrested. The Olympian brow reminds us that the Paris correspondent of the Times is aware of the secrets of Cabinets and Kings, while the expan- sive tie of white silk recalls those graces of style which shine so conspicuously amid the crudities of "latest intelligence." The same painter's portrait of Sir Julian Pauncefote (No. 889) is repellent from what might be described as the brutality of the modelling. Every plane, every surface, is insisted on, the artist is determined that every fact of the face shall be looked at, and every bit of gold lace on the coat be seen. It is rather like the conversation of a man possessed of a loud voice and a quantity of facts.
Mr. Sargent's genius for paint is splendidly exemplified in his portrait of Mrs. Ian Hamilton (No. 129). Take any ordinary academic portrait by, say, Mr. Herkomer or Mr, Orden, and examine the surface, and we shall find that a rather unpleasant and sticky material—oil-paint—has been forced to do the work of expressing the painter's intention. But the material itself is not attractive. Now turn to Mr. Sargent's picture and look at the lady's satin dress. What a beautiful substance mere paint has become. How it flows and changes its light and its colour, subservient to the artist's will, while remaining beautiful in itself. The solvent of an alchemist seems to have made some sea-shell plastic, and compelled it to take the billowy form and subtle colour of the dress in shadow where it flows in front of the warm flesh- tones of the arm. Again, the gauzy stuff round the neck seems to be painted with some totally different material, so responsive is paint to Mr. Sargent's hand. Besides the painting the masterly drawing is conspicuous. The fore- shortened leg is painted without any of those exaggerations of light and shade which less accomplished draughtsmen use to obtain projection. How many other painters could produce such solid and convincing modelling throughout a picture, using only these light tones? If we have spoken principally of the technical qualities of this picture it must not be sup- posed that there is nothing else to admire. The characterisa- tion of the sitter is equally admirable. In the portrait of Mr. Chamberlain (No. 64) Mr. Sargent is not so artistically interesting as in the picture just referred to. Able as the whole thing is, somehow the painter does not seem quite happy. The alertness of the figure and the keenness of the face are both there. But strength seems a little sacrificed to these characteristics. The attitude is too conventional, the picture seems to have written across it "Portrait of a statesman." Neither is the colour pleasing, the coat is more inky than black, and the painting is by no means equal to Mr. Sargent at his best.
Mr. Watts has painted Mr. Gilbert the Sculptor (No. 90), no doubt, for his collection of eminent men. The turn of the head suggests brusque movement. Mr. Watts never rests satisfied with a general resemblance to the features ; the pose with him is always an index to the personality of the sitter. At the end of the large room, in the place of honour, hangs a big picture by Mr. Orchardson, a portrait of Mr. David Stewart, in the robes of the Provost of Glasgow. This picture has already been pronounced by one critic to be among the finest portraits of this generation, recalling those of Venetian Doges. But, beautiful as is Mr. Orchardson's painting of his red-robed sitter, nothing could be less Venetian. The essence of the art of Titian and Tintoretto in dealing with such subjects was that the grandeur of rhythmical composi- tion and line usually associated with subject-pictures played its part in their portraits. Besides this, no Venetian would have isolated the head and hands in the way Mr. Orchardson has done. The head, flooded with white light, starts out from the dark-brown background, and seems to have no connection with the hands and feet. The figure might be described as a vast red velvet cloak trimmed with a head, hands, and feet. But if the picture fails to impress us as a whole, it is impossible not to admire the exquisite colour of the red velvet.
Mr. Horsley has surely made a mistake. He calls his picture (No. 227) Archdeacon Sinclair, but who can doubt that this work was inspired by Miss Austen. Except for a trivial discrepancy in the cut of the coat, we have standing before us Mr. Collins as he appeared after dinner in Mrs. Bennet's drawing-room, about to read one of Fordyce's sermons to an audience of reluctant young ladies. The German Emperor
has been painted by Mr. Cope (No. 276), and skied by the Hanging Committee. A look of surprise on the face seems to indicate the dawning of a new idea ; possibly, that tele- grams are not always successful. The frame is unusually hideous. Can it be a first attempt at a new outlet for Imperial energy ?
Notice has already been taken of the unsatisfactoriness of the paint surface of Mr. Herkomer's portraits. It is difficult to entertain a more favourable opinion of them as works of art. Violent projection appears to have been the aim in the pictures of Dr. Williams (No. 285) and of the Bishop of London (No. 563), both of which seem to shout from their frames to attract the passer-by. But to attract the attention is not the same thing as to hold it. Place one of these on a wall beside a great work of art like Mr. Whistler's portrait of Carlyle, and it will catch the eye first across a gallery. But after the first shock it will appear ineffective, while the other, so quiet and so unobtrusive, will give a lasting impression to the mind. Another method of attracting notice is the flashy style of painting used by Mr. Luke Fildes in his picture of Mrs. Samuel as a Shepherdess (No. 16). Without using any very startling colours, Mr. Fildea has managed to produce an effect of gaudiness and vulgarity which is highly unpleasant. The same artist's portrait of the surgeon, Mr. Treves (No. 219), in the pose of lecturing, behind a table spread with a variety of bones and unpleasant things in bottles, falls under the blight spread over presentation portraits. It is photographic in composition,—we had almost said in colour too. It was a blunder of the Hanging Committee to place it where it is. It hangs next to Mr. Watts's great picture already noticed; and as one looks at the glowing colour of this perfect idyll, it is most irritating to have one's eye caught by this leaden por- trait. And this irritation is carried on by a blue lady on the other side. No doubt to hang every picture well would be impossible. But a masterpiece deserved better treatment.
H. S.
Previous page
