MR. NICHOLSON'S PORTRAITS.*
IT is curious to reflect how many ways there are of producing the likeness of a person by drawing or painting on a flat sur- face. The methods vary so much, and indeed often seem so fundamentally opposed, that it is strange that they can end in the same result,—a likeness to the model. One master sees a face all lines and hard edges; another nothing but a series of planes at different depths, the boundaries of which melt imperceptibly into one another. Of the forme' kind are the drawings and paintings of Holbein, of the latter • Twelve Portraits. By William Nicholson. London : W. Heinemann. pis.]:
the masterpieces of Velasquez. Both these masters have in common one desire, and that is to reveal minutely the struc- ture of the model's face, though the technique by which they achieve their result is as wide apart as the poles. A portrait such as Holbein's Sir Thomas More reveals at once this minute observation, but the untrained eye may easily pass over that marvellously subtle record of facial structure, the Philip IV.,—the small picture by Velasquez in the National Gallery.
To neither of these methods are due the results reached by Mr. Nicholson in the series of portraits before us. He adopts a different method of attacking the problem of how to set down on paper shapes and lines which will give the appear- ance of his model. His method is to fasten on some one feature or series of features which are the most marked in his original, and to emphasise them even to exaggeration, neglecting as unimportant the rest of the face or figure. The accuracy of these subordinate parts is of no great consequence provided the salient features have been seized correctly. Often one has noticed how a conscientiously painted portrait entirely fails to convey a likeness to the original,—all the features may be there, and all rather like those of the sitter, and yet the result is not a good portrait. Also it is curious to find what a good portrait a totally un- trained person will sometimes scribble with most of the features obviously out of drawing. The success will be found to come from some one characteristic feature having been seized and set down truly. An old lady's nose is drawn with terrible accuracy, or the shape of an old gentleman's bald head truly recorded, and if these objects happen to be the most remarkable points about the originals, the rest matters but little. It is thus that Mr. Nicholson works. Of course we do not mean to suggest for a moment that he could not draw all the parts if he chose, for Mr. Nicholson is a highly accomplished draughtsman. His process of selection is most carefully thought out and practised with the greatest skill. But to produce pictures that shall be pleasing to look at, something more than the accurate recording of facts is wanted, —at least, if the work is to be a picture and not a scientific document expressed in lines and masses instead of in words. Decorative qualities are necessary to make a portrait into a work of art. Mr. Nicholson possesses decorative faculties of a high order. To begin with, his use of large opposing masses of light and dark is of a masterly kind. The well-known portrait of the Queen, which is the first in the portfolio before -us, is a notable example of the dignity to be attained by the simplest means. By a well-thought-out balance the black mass of the Queen's dress looks in no way a spot against the pale-brown background, and although this mass is hardly broken by any indications of modelling, the figure looks as round and solid as possible. In one sense the portrait is merely realistic; there is no attempt to draw an obviously dignified presence or to represent the Queen other than she is in everyday attire, but by the sympathetic perception of an artist the result is of both womanly and queenly dignity.
The artistic qualities just noted are present in varying degrees in the rest of the portraits. None, to our mind, are as success- ful as the picture of the Queen, but vigour and strength are finely given in the Archbishop of Canterbury, though here we think that Mr. Nicholson's sense of general effect has played him false. The background produces a most disturbing effect, and is not subdued even by the bold masses of the Arch- bishop's lawn sleeves. The portrait of Sir Henry Irving is a successful one, especially from the point of view of pattern. Seen in half-length holding his hat and coat, the masses of the figure are excellently disposed within the square of the paper. The head of Mr. ICipling is massive and thoughtful, but we could wish that the figure ended before the expanse of black over the lower part of the coat was reached. This mass of dark for some reason does not suggest the figure naturally, as in the case of Madame Sarah Bernhardt, but seems to indicate that Mr. Kipling had undergone partial immersion in tall Agrippa's inkstand.
The method Mr. Nicholson has chosen to employ is admirable for decorative effect. To see how effective it is one has only to put a row of these portraits up and to look at them across the room. One then realises how right it was not to use any dead white, for by using pale shades of brown instead, the large spaces of satisfying velvety black never look harsh. The secret of the decorative effect of these works is the effectiveness of the blacks.
In the present series there is a portrait of Lord Roberts which is hardly successful. The General is seen at full length, while behind him is a regiment massed on a distant plain. But the means have not been adequate, for the soldiers do not look small by reason of their distance, and, in fact, the impression is that Lord Roberts is standing in front of a lot of little tin soldiers set up on the floor. Something more than reduction of size is wanted to give distance. But it is ungenerous to blame when so much is good, and not only good but original.
Previous page
