MR. LANDSEER'S EVIDENCE ON ART—LETTER II.
TO THE EDITOR OF TIIE SPECTATOR.
Sot—On the day when I appeared before the Committee of the Commons, there seemed a prevailitig cursoriness of regard toward the business in hand, on the part of the Commissioners, with the exception of 111r. Ew taT, Mr. IlOrE, and one or two other gentlemen, with whose names I am unacquainted; from which, incompetency to the high task they lisd undertaken, might fairly he inferred : so at least it struck me. It appeared a moot point whether the M. P.s %weld first be aide to reform the It. A.11, or the R.A.s the
mean in the way of their respective profeesious.
It had never till then happened to me to be summoned by a Committee of Senators; and 1 went prepared to bend—mentally at least—in reverential homage before the Conscript Fathers. I therefore could not but feel come disappoiat. meta at the symptoms which I thought I perceived of the amateur fumbling of men who alive:lied not to perceive that they had any property in the fine arts, or the tine arts any property of urging the national mind onward in its moral career. There was in tact nothing ot what in newspaper slang is styled Parliament:ity excitement, nothing of Toryism, nothing of O'Cox SELL, no. thing of shaieholdiug or railruad work, to rouse gentlemen from their apathetic cursoriness, or lead them to di.tinguish duly between leading questions and suburtfittate points of iequiry se that it appeared AS if the Lutiuea: ef legislating far the Arta, and tIte influence of the arts upon the progress of social refinement, might be abraded to or not attended to, just as gentlemen might find leisure or Dot find leisuire„ between the acts of the drama of private life, or a* the whim of the moment might induce. flow irregular was the attendance of our Repre- sentativee—theirpresence, I meat], for men may be present a ithout attending— their own printed reports will show. Whether lassitude, or want of intelligence on the subject at ilium, was at the bottom of thil, I eannot tell ; but they are equally fatal to the philosophic purity and the patriotic discernment, which can alone legi.late wisely for England and Art in their present state. And, on accouot of tide real or apparent supine. nese, I think that some of the summoned witnesses (Mr. RENNIE among them) became the more ardent in the cattle of art : at least it bad this effect upon me. Among the witnesses examined, was a travelled baronet, who, either because he was a baronet, or because he had travelled, or because those who introduced and lietened to Win knew no better, was eernestly attended to through a longish and doubtless well-intended course of testimony. I believe Mr. Jelin Pee, or some other gentleman, was interrupted and imbed aside, in order to make way for thie travelled baronet, who haying in the course of his foreign travels, noticed with high approbation a certain mecha- nical system of picture-copying as practised somewhere abroad, either in Germany or Italy, dw.clt upon it with considerable proiixity, con& deafly recommending it as the summum bonum. And hie exatnining audi- tory appeared to think thie, capital evidence, and to hail and dwell upon it as if they almost believed its introduction into England would he the sure means of raising British art to perfection. Need I say that men who would act and reason thee, are too uninformed on the main question at issue, to perceive, or too hasty to heed, the immense difference with regard to progression, be- Vreen Fine Art and Religion. I mean, if they conceive that, ['teatime the religion of Italy, consisting of unalterable creeds and dogmas, in the belief and observ. ance of which (as is supposed) poor modern, fallen, human nature, can only feebly endeavour to imitate the purity of the Apostolic ages; that the same rela- tions exist between einque.eento art and modern degeneracy. But if men of genuine discernment only laugh at such obsolete fallacies, how exceedingly ridi- culous, or more gravely deplorable, it is, to behold British senators of the nine-. teenth century, with an apparatus of pen.in.hand clerks, all in readiness to pre- vent the possibility of our losing a syllable of information so super-royal and ultra- marine, while they fastidiously reject what is proffered to them ready written —not because it is good, bad, or indifferent, (for of that they were ignorant, and I do not suppose any thing personal toward toe was intended,) but be- cause it is written.
No doubt, I shall now have what I then offered, pretty severely castigated ; but SO much the better for the public. When I shall have been heard, let them strike ; but don't let them say they could not, for want of room, have inserted in tlieir ponderous volume what I shall now proceed to recite; because I shall here perhaps, on some points, amplify a little; at least I shall not here restrict
self, a. I did before the Committee, in consequence of certain intimations as to the quantity of evidence already accumulated. Hee it been accurately and wisely calculated that there shall always be Arty Academicians of the London Academy of Arts? that sixty-eight or seventy years ago there should be forty ; that there should be no more now ; and that there should remain forty to the end of time? This is very questionable at the best. The affirmative is, indeed, almost prima facie an unteoable position. I do no' believe that, at the first, the number fixed upon, arose out of any calcula- tioa re toed on the relations between existing talent and existing patronage, or the moral demands of the country; or that any such calculation ever crossed the mind of either the Royal founder or his intriguing protees. I rather believe the specified forty, was a mere bell.wether adoption of the number of French Academicians, just as the rest of the first printed laws by which the Academy was govetned, were Mere shreds and patches, ill tacked together, and taken from the preexisting Academies of the Continent: yet so incompetent were these first Academicians of the British Academy to the task they had under- taken, that, where personal considerations induced them to deviate from the principles of the foreign Academies and to he original, (I mean in their unpa- triotic and unwise degradation of British Engraving,) they did even worse than where they were mere copyists But on this, I shall not at this place stop to dilate.
in my humble opinion, forty was too great a number of R.A.e to begin with in England, at a time when H0GARTII and WILSON could not sell their ad- mirable works. And the Royal stamp has in some cases been employed in such manner as not benefits, but mislead& All that portion of the public who were unable to discriminate merit in art for themselves, have in various instances, including those of ROMNEY, Woosserr, and STRANGE, (I shall say nothing of living artists,) been egregiously misled. Now, in a philosophical and social view, the information conveyed by the royal stamp, must be presumed to be chiefly intended for that portion of the public whose taste is too immature to enable them to appreciate art and artists for themselves: and none will assert, or allow, that it could have been intended to create arbitrary and irresponsible power to be exercised within the republic of art, or that favouritism ehould supersede intrinsic talent. The title of Royal Academician, is viltually an assurance held forth to the world, or that portion of it which is disposed to rely on the royal auspices ; and—is not honour always due in proportion as confidence is reposed ? Neither does the public alone suffer from the partial misemployment of the royal stamp. Those artists who do not bear the accredited honourable die- naction, also suffer in credit, professional profits, and general reputation ; while threw inferior artists who do bear the stamp, are really, in the compati- sons which are incontinently made by taste and philosophy, but as base or adulterated coin, uttered by the Metropolitan Academy of Arts, and in the King's name.
My ideas having been requested as to the improvement of the Royal Aca- demy, is it for me to suppose the question cui bono as to this royal stamp was to come under my consideration? Probably not, for reasons already sub- scribed to : hut I doubt here, and what I am writing, partakes of this hesita. lion. I incline to believe (as is intimated above) that the chief use of such an impress, is during the itifiney and adoleecence of public taste, because afterward, when a sound public taste is formed, every one tests and weighs the proffered gold for himself, as is now beginning to be pretty much the case in England: and in consequence, all gentlemen of genuine discernment in art now per- ceive, that of the forty Academicians bearing the stamp of equality, some are worth-1 shall not say how many times as much as others— it might seem invidious to employ arithmetic here, especially to an extent that might reach my own undissembled ratio of preference; and it is not absolutely called for. Enough that the members of kale merit would inevitably gain as much in public estimation as those of most merit would low, were it not for that more genuine and just extra-Academical appreciation,which, little regarding the stamp, tots and weighs the buliion. Art —fine art—is essentially, at least as much of a republic, as literature, which is avowedly and emphatically so; and where the mutual appreciation or esteem in which the literati respectively hold each other is confessedly the sole measure of relative merit and respect ; and hence ?very grade of talent rises or gravitates toward its proper level on the scale of judicious public appreciation ; and the name of an author, warrants his indivi- anal value, without the honourable additions of Sir JOHN MILTON, or Wie• Lam Smaaaraaaa, Rivas& nu' tiseu, the British republic of arts, as I havelbefore intimated, exists within a monarchy—a limited monarchy, or mixed political government; and wherever the head of the government bears a royal title, it has been held by the mast eminent publicists, or philosophers of legislation,—honourable distinctioos ought thence to emanate. Our National Institution of Ant should probably then, partake of the mixed nature of the British Government ; sod does so par. take, totrinsic merit in art being amalgamated with Royal warrant, titles, and authority. The republic (but our London establishment is confessedly more of as oligarchy) a art elects the members ; the King supplies the stamp and ssne.
lions their election. •
Taking for granted that this ordination of things is gnod for the publie,:or at heart is unalterable, the question for those who would reform or improve the British Academy must essentially be—Is it not practicable, preserving the Royal contour, to convert the establishment into something better in i:s details and in its effects, than exists at present? Awl first, Is not the eesence of the !eliding principle inconsiderately adulterated? is there not too much alloy mingled with the precious metal which merits the stamp? I fear that the essential principle and ostensible motive of conferring the title of Royal Academieian is adulterated in our Engli.h Academy, inasmuch as the forty honoured artists are all stamped alike, as if they scene equivalent in weight and value. You will probably, on reflection, think this a dishonest application ot the royal stamp, iti as far as (not to mention living artists) it has placed, still places, and will continue to place, as lung as the custom continues, the GAR. yevs of larelscape.painting upon a level with the Vi'tesoes, GA INssoRoucirs, and Lotertirettior tics ; and the twaddling and imbecile AVOODFORnES of hietory.painting. within the saute Chia, with the Rev Noenses, VESTS, ana STOTHA !IDS. 14 net this a prime cause of the adulteration which the Spa- tator deplores? end is it not in effect, and as far as its influence may reach, a deceptive Patel practised upon the public,—though quite otherwise intended?
In the existime etate of British art and of British taste, the propagation of mediocrity, or of levelling, at head-quarters, (unless I mistake,) is of all things the meet to be deprecated. And here, Mr. SVECTATOR, permit me a momentary pause, just to state that I fear the Commons, in their recent resolution, have been but following in the wake of GEORGE the Third and his thoughtless Meek- mical advisers; for now may be easily understood what I meant by "beginning at the wreng end." I did not quarrel with the establishment of a Drawing. school for artisan', had it taken its proper secondary place; but I objected to commencing with such a school, without at the same time doing any thing to foster genius and stimulate superior art, both by honour and reward. I incline to think the Commons have in this instance mistaken the major for the minor of the business at issue, and have shown that they had only a dim apprehension of their subject, instead of comprehending it. .1 fear that they have, in mistake, done all that in them ley, to dilute the generous wine of art, whereas by begin. oing at the other end, they must of necessity have improved the flavour of the manufacturing branches. Nothing indeed can at any time be healthful for art that is not stimulative of higher degree" of excellence than has at that time been attained; and the Academical levelling of the forty distinguished artists, to a common average in the public estimation—in so far as such levelling coula be effected by a royal stamp—I hold to have had, and to have, an influence decidedly deleterious. To have adopted and to persist in, as if it were a dictate of wis- dom, a levelling ordination, which lowers the highest as much as it raises the lowest, appears so demonstrably—so manifestly, I may say—erroneous and un-
just, that it cannot, I think, be right. Is it not even worse in principle than would be the enactment of an agrarian law with regard to landed property, inasmuch as it is an attempt to equalize, in the estimation of the public, those mental properties by which the great Author of Nature has been pleased to dis- tinguish individual al tiets from each other, and in its consequences must be most injurious to those whom wise kings and wise statesmen would met delight to honour, I mean the Academicians who possess (let us, for the sake of proceed. ing with our argument, say) six or eight times as much mental wealth
as others. The disparity is in fact even greater. The less talented of the R.A.s gain more than five-sixths or seven-eighths by thus sharing with their superiors in fame or reputation, as Moravians do in worldly goods, and the highly talented lose in the same proportion. I don't mean to say that this is absolutely and actually the case, because (as I have allowed) there is now suf. ficieut diffusion of taeteful discernment among the public, in some measure to correct the passing off of gilded Academical pence and shillings, for crowns and guineas: but as far as the influence of the Academical institution reaches, it is undeniably the case,—a bad case, unless I am much mistaken, both for artists and the public. Is it not. even to a certain extent and within its own precincts a counteraction even, of the ostensible Academical principle of separating the more admirable, frotn the less worthy, professors? If, in the dispensation of artificial property, it would be unwise thus to equalize the gifts or acquisitions of fortune, bow much more unwise must it be, to equalize, or reduce to a com- mon Procruetrian standard, the nobler properties which God and nature have bestowed on their favoured sons; and to clog and impede the loftier flights of
genius with temporal and earth.dragging appurtenances ? The Arts and Sciences, affording us the only means of increasing sublunary happiness, by curving human nature upward and onward in its approximations toward ideal or divine perfection, does it not follow that the scale of merit should be de- graduated with all possible justness and delicacy of appreciation? An) does a not also follow, that we should honour and reward first-rate excellence to the very utmost that our social institutions will admit of or afford, iustead of har- uniting Pegasus and placiug him in a team ?
Here I shall beg leave to pause ; satisfied if for the present I shall have vita- Wished a point in the constitution of our National Academy needing reformation or adniitting improvement, and for which the remedy is neither difficult nor expensive. So unexpensive is it indeed, that Mr. Bunko might well have reckoned it among "the cheap defences of nations." Against next week I pun pose to resume the subject; until when I remain, Sir, your very obedient servant, J. LANDSZZIt.
Previous page
