ON THE ROYAL ACADEMY, AND ON ACADEMIES IN GENERAL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR. 15th August 1835.
SIR—It is; not of the abuse only of the institution of the Royal Academy that we artists (not of that body) complain, but of the institution itself. It is bad in principle, and therefore we believe that reform will be of no use. The whole ought to be abolished. SJ long as any number of artists are embodied and invested with the powers of the present Royal Academicians, the same oppression, favouritism, and facti- tious importance will continue, that have characterized ;his institution from its birth.
It has been the effect of Academies in all countries to produce artists of me- diocrity only, and, as the must powerful opponent of the Royal Academy (Haveorr) has said, "the sovereigns and people of Europe will at last find out, that academies should never go further than schools." If you talk with an Academician, he will tell you what an excellent institution the Royal Academy is, and what great facilities it affords to the students ; and bid you look at the amount of artistic talent, and then say whether the great share possessed by the Academy does not prove the institution a good one. We answer, that it does not. Without deducting those to which the Academy can lay no claim, except that of adoption after they have become eminent ; and without setting apart from the remainder the mere portrait painters,—in fact, allowing the claim w ith- out investigation,--all that it proves is, that the school, not the institution, is a good one. The school is excellent ; but that is all that is good, or that ought to remain, of the institution. It is the system of embodying and investing the members with power that is faulty, and false in principle. Let there be schools for instruction in the arts of design, but let there be no body of members to control art. That it should be free, is a maxim so long remembered, that it is now forgotten. Let there be a national annual exhibition, where we may all fairly compete. Let art be free ; leave the estimate of an artist's works to the public— they bolster up no man's reputation—crush no man. It is they who at a future they when all paltry distinctions in art shall be forgotten, will form the true estimate of genius, and to whom all whose art is not a juggle will be satisfied to consign their claims to be remembered.
With regard to the present system—is not the genius of an artist to be judged of by his works ? and ought not the artist of genius to be entitled to the honours of his profession ? if it be so, is it not absurd, that the honours, exclusive powers, and indirect advantages, of a Royal Academician, should be given to forty, or to any limited number of men ? Can no more artists of genius arise during the lives of the select forty ; and if they do, is it not unjust to deprive them of those honours and advantages which they can attain only by the very means they have shown they possess? And without supposing new genius to arise, can you mete that which exists, so as without injustice to draw a line? Of their own body, for instance, was STANFIELD before his election (a year or two since) inferior to all the R.As. and A.R.As. ; and is their student 11PCIase inferior to all of them now ? If not, it is unjust to deny them rank and honour, and tacitly to pronounce their powers inferior to those of the members. And what can he said for the subordinate rank now held by the first sculptor in Europe! Out of their own body, the instances of injustice are grosser than these. We cannot understand the principle of limiting Academicians to any fixed number. If in 1768 the number of Academicians appointed were forty, why is not that number now, in 1835, increased, to keep pace with the increased number of the profession ? if no more of the profession be worthy of that honour now, than were then,—away with an institution which is useless. We could tell why the number is not increased ; but our business is with the prin- ciples of the institution, and not with the conduct of its members. The present system is unjust towards the profession in another view. The distinction of R.A. not alone adds a factitious importance to the possessor, but stamps a disqualification on the .part of those deprived of that distinction. A stigma attaches to them, and their works are eyed with suspicion. There is no good reason why art should not be open to all—why all distinc- tions in art (except honours conferred by the King) should not be abolished, and an artist be tried upon his works by the public. The face.painter would preserve his income, and the historic painter have a chance of corning fairly before the public. Complaints that touch lightly the public, affect deeply the struggling artist. Is it no oppression to an artist, to have his works sacrificed at two separate exhibitions, unless he belong to the Academy,—to know that the work on which he has toiled and devoted his whole soul, must give way not only to the finished labours, but to the most shadowy trifles, that may fall from the easels of the Forty ; and to all that may issue forth from the studies of their dependents, the embryo R.As. (for they have provisions for continuing the species)? Is it no oppression to be deprived of coming fairly before the public mice, in order that the select may come before them twice? and if he murmur against the system, to inlist against him, an individual, the displeasure of forty e'en, who by their situation have the power of ruining him in the estimation of that class by which alone he can expect to live ? • • •
Previous page
