THE ACADEMY, 1872-1882.*
WE should not review a pamphlet which embodies so many of -the opinions on Art which Mr. Quilter has expressed in the Spectator, did we not think that a criticism even of our own Art critic, by one who accepts many of his principles, while 'often differing from him on the application of them, might be of real _advantage to our readers. In the following -article, we shall endeavour to speak with perfect freedom and independence of the pamphlet before us. We do not think that Mr. Quilter will object to our assuming that his writing on Art has certainly had the effect of increasing rather than of lessening the standing feud which exists between the -artist and the critic. We believe Mr. Quitter would prefer being accused of any amount of barbarity to an artist, to its being thought possible that he would cede too much to the sensibilities of any one. He likes to startle us with abrupt -truth, truth in its most naked form. But the artist who is criticised and condemned naturally asks, " What is truth ? Why must it be what Mr. Quilter says it is ?" Mr. Quilter treats his mission as an Art critic with an almost Biblical solemnity. He prefaces his pamphlet with the following quotations,— " More is it than ease,
Palace and pomp, honours and luxuries, To have seen White Presences upon the hills To have heard the Voices of the Eternal Gods ;" and,— "Leonato.—Are these things spoken, or do I dream P
Don John.—Sir, they are spoken, and these things are true."
More moderate are the following remarks of Mr. Quilter as to his own conceptions of his task :—
" At best, the pamphlet only pretends to be a Liebig's biscuit of Art, compressed food in a somewhat unpalatable form. The sole merit I claim for it is that it attempts to tell plain truth in plain English. It may be that the opinions herein expressed are erroneous, and even absurd; but, at all events, those opinions have a definite meaning, are susceptible of a clear statement, and are firmly believed by the present writer. I pretend to no critical infallibility."
Mr. Quilter states his general drift in the following manner :— " In these notes an attempt has been made to describe the character of English painting during the last ten years, and to mention, as far as was poslible within the limited space, a few of the merits and peculiarities of the most notable pictures. It is no part of my object to frame an indictment against the Academy, but it would be simply cowardly, in professing to estimate the work which has been lately done therein, and the influence which the institution has exercised over English painting, to conceal my conviction that the Royal Academy, in its present constitution, exists for the good of itself rather than the good of the nation, and is detrimental rather than favourable to many of the best interests of English Art. It is, in plainest words, a private club administering public functions, and irresponsibly applying public interest and public money. That in such a position it fails of acting with regard to the good of the governed many, rather than the governing few, is only to say that its administrators are men, not angels. The blame rests. with those who permit such administration to continue. The blame rests with the English people."
We entirely agree with Mr. Quilter in thinking it unfortunate
that the Academy has not centred all the different branches of Art which have been developed during the last thirty years within the interests of its own body. All artistic industries ought, we think, to have found a generous patron in the Royal Academy. Surely the idea of South Kensington and the many branch schools for teaching art and design should have emanated with the Academy. The particular purpose for which the Grosvenor Gallery was started should have been thought of and fulfilled by the Academy. The new Water-colour Institute should long ago have been made unnecessary by the Academy's interest and encouragement of that branch of painting. Many of the Royal Academicians would, we believe, agree in wishing that the genius of such artists as Da Maurier, Linley Sambourne, Walter Crane, W. Morris, and William de Morgan was associated with their own institution. Probably there are rules, unknown to outsiders, which make it difficult to incorporate into their system the branches of Art in which these artists are so distinguished, and certainly the red-tapeism must be difficult to get over, if the present President does not succeed in doing so. Sir Frederick Leighton has shown his appreciation of all kinds of genius in a very practical way, and would, we believe, certainly make the Academy as catholic in its sympathies as any one could wish. But we feel that the more difficulties there are inside the Academy in making its spirit elastic and sensitive to merit in every line of Art, the more should the public outside clamour for more real sense in the governing of such a national institution, and for a change in all those rules which create the difficulties. They should not be allowed to stand in the way of the real importance which such a body ought to have as an influence in the country.
Mr. Quilter's second chapter is entitled " Traditions and Changes." In this, though there are many interesting passages, we do not feel that Mr. Quilter meets what he says " is a great need in England just now, of art-writing which can be definitely traced to its first principles."
We do not feel that his standing-point is so high that he can get a sufficiently wide horizon for a comprehensive view of his subject. Not that he does not touch every side of his question, but he does not so command it that he brings it harmoniously into a whole. Like the light of a bull's-eye lantern. his criticism strikes one point startlingly, but leaves the surrounding space all the darker. Hence, we believe, the inconsistencies in his expressions of opinion. As one example of the want of a truly comprehensive grasp, we might cite the way in which Mr. gainer is constantly suggesting it as possible to separate the excellence of the technique in a work of art from the value of the feeling. Oar opinion is that the one dominates the other so entirely in the work of a born artist, that it is most misleading to disentangle the power of the workmanship from that of the intention, as Mr. Quilter does in such sentences as the following :—" The perfection of Sir Frederick Leighton's technique will not save his dainty-skinned damsels from the oblivion that awaits them." There are also strangely inaccurate state ments of facts made to play part in Mr. Quilter's arguments, which remind us of a story told of a famous lawyer who instructed his pupil in this wise,—" Never make a mistake in your logic, you are sure to be found out. The facts remain at your disposal." Speaking of the irresponsibility of the Academy, Mr. Quilter says, in a note, "The best proof of this is that the Academy as a body has never deigned to answer, much less to remedy, any complaint which has been made against its pro. ceedings." It was only last winter that the Academy, finding that Rossetti's pictures were not hung to the taste of many of his admirers, had them rehung, though they had been hang in the first instance with the greatest care, and on the principle that to break the view of them altogether by screens would be an advantage, considering the similarity in the type of the faces delineated. Again, to our minds nothing could be further from the truth than the following
statement with reference to Mr. Watts's portraits :—" The painter has never mastered his method, or, rather, he has never had a method that was not an experimental one." The late exhibition of Mr. Watts's works will, we think, to those who recall it, be a sufficient proof of the inaccuracy of this sweeping assertion. His pictures painted years ago prove how good. and safe has been his method. They become fairer, lighter,
and clearer the older they are. The famous picture of Daphne is a notable example of this.
The present writer quite disagrees in Mr. Quitter's verdict expressed at the end of chapter ii., namely, "that there is no very great Art in England just now." In chapter iii., Mr. Quilter begins his criticisms of the yearly Academy exhibitions, from 1872 to 1882. We find in them much with which we heartily agree, much from which we dissent. He is not, we think, sufficiently alive to the untrue and ugly side in the workmanship of the preRaphaelites, the workmanship in which each spot in the nature represented seems to have been put under a microscope, and there and then accentuated in vivid hue, irrespective of all surrounding influences. To us, such painting, skimming, as it were, the bloom of atmosphere from colour, even as workmanship, seems as little to represent the truth in the beauty of Nature's colour as an hcorch,e figure in which the muscles are denuded of the skin impresses us with the beauty of the human form. We often regret the form in which Mr. Quilter puts his criticisms. We think his opinions are too often deformed by the positiveness of his style, especially when his reasons are not given. We are convinced that Mr. Quitter's criticisms are most sincere. They are sometimes remarkably clever, and, as isolated opinions, often true. Nevertheless, he makes a mistake, we think, in somewhat naïvely feeling that entire confidence that his desire and intention to be honest must insure the result that "these things are true." "What is truth ?" is as difficult a question to settle with respect to Art, when once the teachable qualities are mastered, as it is with respect to religion. Every one who feels keenly and fervently on matters of Art believes his view to be the truth. There is no provable right or wrong, when once the boundaries of the teachable qualities are passed, and we believe the writing on Art which does not fatly realise the inevitable variety in human tastes and impressions, cannot treat the subject sufficiently sympathetically to influence the public in a wholesome and truly enlightening manner. No two people's eyes see exactly the same, not. only because colours affect the actual vision differently, but because there will be in different people unconscious preferences, affected by unconscious memories and associations ; so also will certain aspects and renderings of Nature affect the moral and spiritual side of our nature in a. wholesome manner, or the reverse, according to individual associations and sensibilities. We know of work by contemporary artists which very genuinely appeals to the most refined, delicate, spiritual side of many natures, whereas to other natures, the very same art as genuinely affects them as sensuous and maudlin in feeling and affected in expression. The skill of the critic is proved by his meeting the first and obvious necessity of his art, namely, expressing his individual opinions in an entirely sincere, honest,,and unbiassed way, while, at the same time, he frames those opinions in a form which proves his mind beyond and above narrow dogmatism, and by intelligent reasoning and by reference to general principles he inspires his readers with a desire to think with him. Criticism, like all other arts, depends partly upon its form for its influence and power. Our own experience is that true-born artists do not resent hearing any honest expression of opinion about their work. The standard they are aiming at, the conception of their own artistic natures, is far beyond and above what even any art critic might require of them, and they are the first to know that their work never can, never will reach it. At the same time, the manner in which their achievements impress other minds of any intelligence must be a matter of great interest to them. But what reasonable artists do condemn is that any critic should direct the public taste in any degree merely by dogmatic assertions maintained by no adequate reference to generallyacknowledged principles. Such assertions may often be true, but what the artists feel is that the critic's style is unwarrantable, if it be such as to suggest that, before having proved his accuracy of judgment, he should himself take his right to dogmatize for granted. We all know when the Times or the Spectator speaks on subjects such as Art, it is an individual speaking, though, perhaps, under slight editorial correction ; it is no synod of wise minds evoking judgments out of weighty evidence and principles. Still, the popular mind, which has never come into intimate relation with the real producers of art and literature, is, perhaps, unduly impressed by the importance of what the papers say on such matters. The creative mind resents the probability that an individual opinion on matters which are very difficult to discuss with perfect fairness and fullness will gain the undue prestige wielded by
the Press. The real grievance of the artist as against the art critic lies in the former's belief that the more dogmatic the style of the critic, the more will the simple-minded public fall under its influence. Really valuable influence among the more cultivated minds has been lost by the wrong form in which critics have expressed their opinions. We cannot too much regret the influence that even Mr. Ruskin has lost by the form in which he has expressed some of his sweeping, even if at times jocular condemnations. Certainly, if any one has made for himself a right to speak dogmatically, it is the author of Modena Painters, a classic for all times, in which the author has proved, not only that he has profoundly studied his subject, but that his genius and fine instinct for perceiving, enjoying, and analysing the sources of the impressions which beauty produces is as great as that possessed by the best artists themselves. Mr. Ruskin has, so to speak, won his spurs in that field where all great poets, artists, and writers have won their glory. To do anything as well as he has done it is impossible without the rare fibre of true greatness ; but to descend to a lower level, all who have ever tried their hands at art and criticism must know how comparatively easy the one is, compared to the other. Mr. John Morley, in returning thanks for " Literature" at the Royal Academy banquet this year, said :—" As I look round these walls, it is with humiliation that I contrast the energy and industry, the patient and arduous apprenticeship that have gone to the production of these works, with the comparatively superficial manner in which men of my own profession perform their work. What amazes and humiliates me is the contrast between the industry and study that precede success in Art, and the comparatively superficial preparation that achieves a kind of success in literature." We believe firmly that much good might be done if a more genuine sympathy existed between those who follow art and those who follow art-literature ; but such a sympathy is not likely to come about while the form in which the Art critic puts his opinions in is that of, " I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my. mouth let no dog bark." We agree with many of MrQuitter's criticisms so often, that we regret the moire the undue dogmatism by which his censure is sometimes disfigured.
We think the mistake Mr. Quilter makes is that he asserts an opinion, and instead of using his very uncertain, though often great literary power, to prove it true,. takes it as already proved when once asserted. The following are a few out of many examples in the pamphlet before us where assertions are made without being explained :—" Mr. Fildes is not a great painter ;" or, again, with reference to a picture by Mr. Orchardson, " With nearly every defect of subject and method a painting could have," &a In speaking of Mr. Frith's " Road to Ruin," " This is not fine art, not even nature. It is simply cheap shoddy, manufactured sentiment, sentiment of the scene-shifter and the costumier, and the sooner it is estimated at its proper value, the better." And of Sir F. Leighton's "Elijah,"—" Elijah was large, ambitious and unsatisfactory, nnpleasing in the attitude of the prophet, and uninteresting in the angel." Of Mr. Rooke, "Neither a great painter nor a good draughtsman." Of Mr• Long's "Diana or Christ," "his least meritorious picture, utterly failing to tell its story, or to realise th-e scene intended." These may or may not be right criticisms, but they are not verified in any way, and they are not only vexatious to the painter, but are of no value to the public without being verified. A truth, we feel, is not the truer for being bare, still less is it the truer for being roughly expressed. On the contrary, one isolated truth is falsified, if it be accentuated into prominence ; whereas, were the subject treated exhaustively, it would take a relatively almost subordinate place. It is a temptation in current literature to condense a subject without reference to the relative importance of its many sides. The striking and startling element is retained in its entirety, often at the expense of a sense of balance, the firm strength of reserve, of all "sweetness and light," in fact. In conclusion, we believe that if Mr. Quilter could change his too dogmatic style, his criticism on Art might not only be clever, which it generally is, and sound, which it often is, but be of much more value to the public.
Previous page
