The Franco-British Exhibition

cA^ THE FRANCO-BRITISH

T H E F R E N C H S E C T I O N

P O P U L A R v e n t u r e i n t e r m i t­

tently backed b y the official world of two nations, i m p o r t a n t o w i n g to the c h a n c e of politics,

• at o n c e reactionary in aim, yet ' in part admirable : such is the

character of the F r a n c o ­ B r i t i s h . E x h i b i t i o n at S h e p h e r d ' s B u s h

— I h a d almost said Earl's Court. At first o n e feels t h a t the m a n a g e m e n t w h i c h is answerable for the T u r c o ­ A u s t r i a n architecture can claim part a u t h o r ­ ship in s o m e of the sculpture represented, that d e c o r a t i o n s i n t e n d e d for the buildings have f o u n d a place in the galleries, w h e r e the energetic impres­

arios of the exhibition m a y be detected in works disguised u n d e r very F r e n c h a n d E n g l i s h n a m e s ; b u t this impression passes, a n d w e find a m o n g the litter of exhibition art s o m e masterpieces by the giants w h o have illustrated the nineteenth century.

My business is with the F r e n c h section. Unlike the E n g l i s h one, this is confined to a period of p r o d u c t i o n w h i c h excludes even the survivors f r o m the eighteenth c e n t u r y w h o lived into the nine­

teenth, s u c h as P r u d h o n , F r a g o n a r d , H o u d o n a n d C l o d i o n . F r a n c e , however, has s t r e n g t h e n e d her exhibit by a g r o u p of m o n u m e n t s by her great sculp­

tors, Barye, Rude, C a r p e a u x a n d D a l o u ; whilst E n g l a n d , forgetful of the m o n u m e n t a l work of her o n e great sculptor, A l f r e d Stevens, benefits only b y o n e work (Watts's Clyte), w h i c h is n o t of recent p r o d u c t i o n . In the E n g l i s h section the y o u n g e r masters have been practically extinguished by bad placing ; if in the F r e n c h section there is also a p r e d o m i n a n c e of work w h i c h has lost its hold even u p o n the market, there are several examples by the m o r e p r o m i n e n t masters of the N e w Salon, even the reluctant Monsieur R o d i n being present with t w o marvellous busts. W i t h the works of the F r e n c h m e m b e r s of the International Society, such as A. Besnard, J . E . Blanche, Cottet, E . Carriere, B a r t o l o m e , I have n o space to deal adequately ; it w o u l d also be difficult for a c o n t e m p o r a r y to write with that generosity w h i c h the i m p o r t a n c e of their art c o m m a n d s , a n d their work is n o t unfamiliar to L o n d o n . T h e bulk of this article m u s t of necessity c o n c e r n itself with the masterpieces d o n e s o m e years ago, t h o u g h n o system has been observed in the a r r a n g e m e n t of t h e F r e n c h section, a n d works d o n e yesterday are placed next to those of the past.

S o m e a c k n o w l e d g e d masterpieces stand in the centre of the Sculpture Hall ; foremost a m o n g t h e m is the Ugolino by Carpeaux. W e have to revert to The Deposition by Michelangelo to find a design at o n c e so central a n d significant as this. W e have b u t to think of the wriggling Laocoon and his Sons, with their a c a d e m i c anatomies, meaningless h a n d s , a n d the lack of relation of the figures to each other, to realize the beauty of this tragic work, w h i c h stands b e y o n d the habit a n d range of Car­

EXHIBITION r*,

peaux as the Collconi stands b e y o n d the r a n g e of Verrocchio.1

I have to confess to a great d i s a p p o i n t m e n t in the sketch for Carpeaux's Flora ; it s h o w s signs of physical fatigue w h i c h are absent f r o m the final version. T h e Dead Cavaignac by R u d e is o n e of the great t r i u m p h s of F r e n c h sculpture, w h i c h was so fertile in masterpieces d u r i n g the nineteenth century. T h e c u r r e n t estimate of m o d e r n art t e n d s to exaggerate the significance of m o d e r n l a n d s c a p e p a i n t i n g ; it is in sculpture, in the masterpieces of Barye, C a r p e a u x a n d R o d i n , that the highest level of success has been achieved. T h e y can challenge c o m p a r i s o n with the masters of the Renaissance. B u t the study of art is ever fertile in surprises, a n d leads constantly to unexpected ' t r a n s v a l u a t i o n s ' of the w o r k of a period. W e overrate the p a i n t i n g of the eighteenth century, hardly as yet appreciate its sculpture to the full, whilst its beautiful architecture r e m a i n s for a n o t h e r generation to u n d e r s t a n d . H o w shall I convey the austere tenderness, t h e dignity a n d realism w h i c h characterize the effigy of G. Cavaignac ? T h e r e n d e r i n g of the head, the h u m b l e a n a t o m y , the clinging draperies, each a n d all are b e y o n d praise ; I prize this n o b l e w o r k b e y o n d H o l b e i n ' s tragic Dead Christ, or that h a u n t i n g effigy of a dead m a n with a wreath of roses b y that great m o d e r n Italian sculptor Bastianini, to w h o m w e o w e three masterpieces a n d o n e of the great scandals or b a n k r u p t c i e s of criticism in the history of art.2

T h e f a m o u s statue by L . Brian is half lost against a wall ; close to it is a tired a n d dirty cast of Falguere's Martyr. Falguere, at o n e time over­

praised a n d n o w u n d e r r a t e d , is represented again by an e n c h a n t i n g little b r o n z e bas­relief h u n g in the picture gallery, w h i c h holds also Barye's fascinating Theseus and Minotaur a n d a case of small bronzes b y Dalou, three out of these last having been seen recently in L o n d o n . O n e feels before these masterly w o r k s that o n e is face to face with s o m e priceless addition presented to the m u s e u m of s o m e impoverished or stingy nation b y s o m e p r i n c e of finance, a n d n o t before the m o d e r n work of a m a n w h o o n c e c o u n t e d like R o d i n only as a skilful w o r k m a n . P a u l Dubois's f a m o u s Eve a n d bust of Paid Baudry have n o t stood too well the test of time ; after R o d i n ' s busts the portrait of B a u d r y , w h i c h seemed at the time of its p r o d u c t i o n an e p o c h ­ m a k i n g work, has lost force a n d power. If the sculpture d e p a r t m e n t h o l d s several a d m i r a b l e works b y C a r p e a u x a n d Rude, there are disappointments, n o t a b l y with Fremiet, w h o seems too tight a n d too anecdotic in a i m ; there are also countless pretentious a n d meaningless female n u d e s flaunting the curves of professional hips before the m o r e m o d e s t male a c a d e m i c s of the British sculptors, w h o face t h e m

!T h e sura of £ 2 , 0 0 0 would secure this priceless work for the nation.

2 Rude w a s assisted in the work by Christophe.

192

Originalveröffentlichung in: The Burlington magazine for connoisseurs 13 (1908), Nr. April-September, S. 192-205

in bashful poses suited for instant purchase by the Chantrey Bequest.

Ingres is represented by a masterpiece, this alone is an artistic event!—Ingres who still remains unin

­ telligible to most Englishmen. Unlike David, who really focused the reactionary temper of an epoch in the commonplace terms of that period, Ingres is no mere contemporary of Canova and Vigee­

Lebrun. Like his contemporary, the Englishman Blake, Ingres held tenaciously to an ideal which ignored the limitations of his time. Something of the pontiff or prophet characterized both. Blake thundered to a chapel audience about original innocence and about the might in the Holy Ghost of Michelangelo ; there was a chapel fervour in the art of this man who might have been also the founder of a pre­Mormon sect. To Ingres be­

longed the culture and obstinacy of a great tradition:

he thundered also to his disciples and enemies, doubtless explaining to Madame Ingres that he, she and art lived in an ' dpoque apostat'! But he loved art only, and with his pencil and brush he tracked down that which he wished to see with something of that instinctive grip upon delicate form which characterizes Holbein and Raphael. If Blake despised the beauties of the noblest painting to evolve at times a curious and not unlovely workmanship of his own, leaving form, which he worshipped, to the chances of a ' provincial' practice, Ingres knew his qualities and persisted in them till drawing acquired with him a new quality of its own, unlike the balanced design of Raphael, unlike the delicate precision of Holbein, yet allied to each—at times more realistic, at times more abstract, but rarely failing in some strange quality of emphasis which constitutes the essence of art. Baudelaire, in one of the most searching pieces of criticism ever penned, analyzes the extraordinary quality of exaggeration in Ingres's drawing, the profound sensuousness which underlies it, and its freedom from academic vacancy. Was this draughtsman's quality always present in his subject pieces as it is in his direct transcripts from nature ? It is often there, but not always ; it is present in the Stratonice at Chantilly and in the Virgil at Brussels. In the work of this arch­priest of perfection we shall find anticipations of the voluptuous and melancholy figures of his pupil Chassdrieau, represented in the exhibition by a small pensive Venus rising from a silent sea under the grey of the dawn.

The colour and pigment of Ingres's portrait of Bartolini are sober and fine ; the painting of the left hand has the quality of some masterpiece of the Renaissance. The drawing of the coat is worthy of Holbein, the painting being on a par with that of Velazquez when a young man or Courbet at his best.

Delacroix fares less well; he is represented by a superb sketch for the Louvre ceiling, but the ugly

little picture of Mirabeau, if intelligent in concep­

tion, lacks the pictorial substance or the emotional range that would allow full scope to the master's hand, which became chilled, outside tasks not calling for the utmost effort and emotion.

To Delacroix belonged an astonishing gift of expressive draughtsmanship ; to a great plastic sense he has added a sense of emotional move­

ment which is unparalleled in art and different in kind from that of any other master. His strange and emotional sense of colour was often marred by the uncertainties of his practice as a painter. If the very size of his designs excludes the beauties of fine pigment, in his sketches we recognize the born painter. In his large and noblest work Delacroix is one of the great draughtsmen of the century; in some small pic­

tures, like the Mirabeau, for instance, his drawing becomes cramped and the colour uncertain—even his powers as a designer have forsaken him here, and we long in its place for some masterpiece like the Combat de Chevaux dans une Ecurie or the

Fortunately, he is present in the Wallace Collection by a masterpiece, the Marino Faliero, with its marvellously painted banners and columns, and its nobly designed Doge in white on the black velvet carpet. I would hasten past Courbet's superb La Sieste, the adequate but not supremely representative pictures by Corot, since these painters are well known in England. The small, sombre and laboured little Millet is a masterpiece ; it is dull and dingy only at first sight, in conception and design it is worthy of the Louvre.

I have hastened past Courbet, yet the most fertile and sequent efforts in French painting since i860 owe their impulse to him. Manet, Whistler, each and all the Impressionists, have at some time painted in his dark massive manner, whilst the early work of Legros and Carolus Duran reflects his influence, three notable pictures by the latter being one of the pleasant surprises of the exhibi­

tion. To Courbet's example, modified by Impres­

sionism and the influence of the Ecole des Beaux­

Arts, we may ascribe the now underrated painting of Bastien Lepage, represented by his best work,

Many painters of uncertain artistic achievement, such as Butin, Roll and Duez, owe the salt in their better work to the example of Courbet, modified by the developments of Impressionism. To Courbet belongs the largest share in influencing French painting in the channel of direct painting from nature. I am aware of a side influence from Corot, and even Millet, but this has been less certain and less constant, and has to be sought for more in Holland. Another cur­

rent in French painting may be said to start with Chasserieau, and to have been modified by the

3 When this article was written the famous drawings by Ingres and Millet were not on view.

193

The Franco-British Exhibition

e x a m p l e of Ricard. E a c h artist influenced by it developed in isolation, a n d n o n e have achieved as yet their full m e e d of praise. If we m i g h t de­

scribe C o u r b e t ' s naturalistic m o v e m e n t as a sort of assertion of middle­class feeling for s u b s t a n c e a n d fact, t h e stylists a b o u t w h o m I a m a b o u t to write t e n d e d t o w a r d s a decorative or a m o r e expressive or intimate type of art.

In a f o r m e r n u m b e r of this m a g a z i n e * I have w a r n e d the reader n o t to overestimate the influ­

e n c e of Chasserieau u p o n P u v i s d e C h a v a n n e s , represented here b y o n e of his earliest a n d noblest works, the Decapitation of St. John. In this synthetic design, in the r e n d e r i n g of the draperies, r u d i m e n t a r y tree a n d the f o r m a l r e n d e r i n g of accessories, we recognize the u n i q u e aspect a n d t e m p e r c o m m o n to the w o r k of this great master ; the c h a r m i n g a n d singular colour u n u s u a l in Puvis can be ascribed to n o k n o w n influence ; in the exotic p e r f u m e w h i c h envelops the Salome, however, there r e m a i n s an indefinable trace of Chasserieau/'

N o t far f r o m this noble picture h a n g s an admir­

able work, The Plague in Rome, b y D e l a u n a y , an u n e q u a l artist, a d m i r a b l e in this o n e work, w h i c h s h o w s the influence of Chasserieau, whilst his conscientious portraits reflect a r e m o t e in­

fluence of Ricard. Ricard, the magician, the s u p r e m e p a i n t e r of w o m e n in the n i n e t e e n t h cen­

tury, w h o m I s h o u l d have m e n t i o n e d earlier in this article, is represented in the next r o o m by a t h o u g h t f u l portrait of a m a n , skied to m a k e r o o m for s o m e n o n d e s c r i p t m o d e r n work, a n d by a study of a w o m a n w h o waits a n d w a t c h e s in the golden twilight of the picture with h a u n t i n g eyes a n d lips like s o m e pensive flower.

P e r h a p s a n o t h e r generation m a y recognize quite readily that in expression, variety a n d delicacy T u r n e r , Ricard a n d W a t t s are the original a n d subtle t e c h n i c i a n s of the century, a n d n o t C o u r b e t or C o r o t a n d Manet. P e r h a p s it is u n w i s e to prophesy, since all great emotional or t h o u g h t f u l w o r k requires e m o t i o n a n d t h o u g h t in t h e spec­

tator. O u r civilization h a s witnessed the indiffer­

e n c e of three centuries to the noble primitives ; Tiepolo, W a t t e a u a n d H o u d o n have each at o n e time been forgotten ; Alfred Stevens is still u n f a ­ miliar to E n g l i s h s c u l p t o r s ; while F r a n c e has for­

gotten the marvellous art of P a u l B a u d r y , w h o died little m o r e t h a n t w e n t y years ago.

A p r o f o u n d study of the great Italians resulted in o n e of the m o s t astonishing a n d d a r i n g creations in the history of p a i n t i n g — n a m e l y , B a u d r y ' s cycle of d e c o r a t i o n s in the foyer of t h e P a r i s O p e r a . T h e s u d d e n f a m e of these w o r k s can be estimated

* S e e T H E B U R L I N G T O N M A G A Z I N E , v o l . x i i i , p p 9, f f . ' ( A p r i l , 1908).

8 W o u l d that this rare picture could be secured for the nation for £ 1 , 0 0 0 before it is too late, for the pictures by this master arc as rare in number as the n o w unobtainable work of s o m e Italian masters of the past.

I94

in c o n t e m p o r a r y writing ; then followed a period of eclipse as s u d d e n a n d absolute as that w h i c h overlook T i e p o l o a few years after his death.

B a u d r y ' s f a m o u s portrait of Madeleine Brohan here exhibited c o u n t s a m o n g the portraits of the century. T h e p a i n t i n g of t h e h a n d s a n d m o u t h is w o n d e r f u l ; n o t h i n g could surpass the l u m i n o u s tones of the flesh ; as yet time has n o t m a d e in­

teresting to us the ugly but beautifully r e n d e r e d dress a n d Castellani jewels or s o m e of the acces­

sories. I h a d imagined that B a u d r y ' s elegant a n d ' m i l i t a n t ' portraits might interest m e b u t l i t t l e ; that the reverence a n d affection with w h i c h I viewed his d e c o r a t i o n s m i g h t fail m e in his rather restless r e n d e r i n g of the w o m e n of his t i m e ; b u t this picture e n c h a n t s me, a n d I a m appalled to think that this great artist is often dismissed a m o n g faded a c a d e m i c i a n s .

It is well k n o w n that Chasserieau influenced the strange, c o m p l e x art of Gustave Moreau, b u t this can be overstated. T h i s curious a n d u n e q u a l artist is represented by a St. George and the Dragon w h i c h expresses only o n e side of the painter's bent, w h e r e h e a p p e a r s as a sort of enameller or weaver of strange patterns in paint. Capable of a m a z i n g intensity of expression in s u c h w o r k s as the Hercules and the Hydra ; of a h a u n t i n g a n d musical vein of invention in his David, exhibited m a n y years ago in L o n d o n , or in that early a n d fascinating picture w h e r e a n y m p h passes h o l d i n g the head of O r p h e u s , w h i c h is o n e of the g e m s of the L u x e m b o u r g , in the St. George he aims at the effect of s o m e fairy tale in a picture w h i c h is s u d d e n a n d visionary in aspect, b u t n o t sufficiently fused or melodious. C o m p a r e d with great p a i n t i n g a n d great d r a w i n g , Moreau's w o r k is thin a n d feverish. C o m p a r e d with w h a t is often accepted as g o o d p a i n t i n g a n d d r a w i n g — i n the o u t p u t of C o u r b e t a n d Manet, for instance—it b e c o m e s pro­

f o u n d l y sensitive a n d expressive. I o w e to a malicious f r i e n d the statement that Moreau's later years were embittered b y s o m e p h o t o g r a p h s he saw of the work of B u r n e ­ J o n e s , in w h i c h h e p r o b a b l y divined a c o h e r e n c e a n d element of f u s i o n in w h i c h his work is lacking ; that h e raged against W h i s t l e r a n d the Impressionists, feeling the v a c a n c y of m u c h of their w o r k a n d the m e n t a l vulgarity a n d bigotry w h i c h characterize the followers of their cult. Moreau, P u v i s a n d Degas o n c e were f r i e n d s ; with time their f r i e n d s h i p w o r e badly, a n d each lived to deplore the b l a t a n c y of m u c h c o n t e m p o r a r y p a i n t i n g w i t h o u t realizing that art can be g o o d only with a few masters, a n d that the average tendencies are valueless n o w , as they have been in the past.

T h e veteran a c a d e m i c i a n H e b e r t (a pupil of R i c a r d ) exhibits three pictures. T h e s e are at o n c e interesting a n d unpleasant, t h o u g h m o r e significant t h a n m a n y pictures p a i n t e d almost yesterday by other m e m b e r s of the old Salon. T o g e t h e r with

such veterans as J. P. Laurens and L. Bonnat (that noble collector of old and modern art) he stands far above the exhibits by the conservative section of the Salon. E. Detaille, with The Victims of Duty, achieves a triumph in all that art should not be. In vulgarity of conception, ugly colour and paint and nerveless drawing, this is easily the worst picture in the entire exhibition. I believe that no royalty in Europe has missed visiting this painter's studio. One feels that the German Emperor would give back the French pro­

vinces to claim the art of Detaille for the Fatherland. Nothing in the English section shows so profound an indifference to all that makes for art. It is with a sigh of relief that one turns from such a work to the wall given over to the Impres­

sionists. The great quality of fresh instinctive painting in the work of Manet was revealed to the English public some three years ago at the Grafton Galleries ; two important paintings of his (one of them a masterpiece) now represent him at Dublin.

In the Franco­British Exhibition he is represented by Le Liseur, an early and somewhat lifeless work, and by a large still­life, La Brioche, which is inky in tone—better, but not greatly so, than a good Vollon. The Jeanne represents a later phase of his practice which has influenced countless painters in the Salon. At his best Manet has painted en­

chanting pictures; at his worst his work merges into the output of a period which he helped to influence. Renoir fares better ; all his three works are typical, one of them, La Loge, counting among his best pictures. If Renoir is the most unequal painter of the nineteenth century he is at his best less impersonal in his outlook than his fellow Impressionists. If Manet saw actual local colour in broad sudden patches with something of the transposition in their relation which characterizes the vision of a man of defective eyesight, Renoir broods by preference over bright summer colours and sees them like a tangle of coloured silks. At the start his work was influenced by Fantin Latour.

The singularly unequal quality of his output may be ascribed not merely to the tyranny of an acquired formula which has burdened most Impres­

sionists but to failing health, some of his canvases having been painted of necessity with the left hand.

The absence of Degas (probably at his express wish) renders the discussion of one of the most complex and fascinating personalities of the nine­

teenth century beyond the scope of this article.

The effect of the Impressionist group is unforeseen ; each of them, Monet even, seems tranquil in aspect when compared with the conventional works of the old Salon hanging by. Whatever may be the future estimate of the value of this school, both in conscious aim and in result, their practice shows always a genuine love of their profession and a genuine love of nature. The space at my disposal does not allow me to analyze and praise other

quite modern works by friends and contemporaries.

I can only express a genuine pleasure in seeing again pictures that I liked in my youth, such as Cazin's decoration and Besnard's charming por­

trait group of his children. I am delighted to praise the St. John of Puvis de Chavannes which I admired in his studio, and to be able to state in print that it is time to do justice to Baudry. I am pained by the practical absence in both sections of a picture by a master and friend, A. Legros.

Despite gaps in representation, errors in prece­

dence, and the atmosphere of jobbery which cha­

racterizes all universal exhibitions, there remains a fairly sequent series of representative works illus­

trating the art of France in the nineteenth century.

These are shown among others that are on the mental level with the switchbacks and other popular attractions of this show at Shepherd's Bush.

CHARLES R I C K E T T S .

T H E B R I T I S H SECTION

THE British Art Committee of the Franco­British Exhibition, which includes so many presidents of different societies, might well have invited the directors of our permanent galleries to their august councils. Mr. Claude Phillips would surely have not been de trop, and Sir Charles Holroyd and Mr. D. S. MacColl with their wonderful and recently proved capacity for hang­

ing, apart from their knowledge and sympathies in English art, might have prevented certain errors of omission and commission. All committees, especially in connexion with art, are of course a mistake. An ideal committee should consist of two persons with power to reduce their number ; Caesarism is the only possible alternative. Directors should be dictators. The great European collec­

tions which we admire, whether in a municipal building or at an auction room, were formed by one man's taste or at one man's discretion.

Nearer home, in a city seldom held up for a model, the admirable tyranny of Mr. Hugh P.

Lane has brought together the finest public collection of modern pictures in existence, with the possible exception of those at Birmingham and Manchester. But the English rivals devoted years where Mr. Lane has given months to his objective. Even at Shepherd's Bush the most happily chosen group of modern pictures is to be found, not in the British Pavilion at all, but in the remote and otherwise foolish Irish Village.

It is quite worth the extra sixpence, however, to see what the persuasive talent of Mr. Lane can achieve, and ethnologically to realise the un­

expected Celtic talent in our midst.

In this more democratic country nothing can be done without a committee ; else the public might suspect unfairness, prejudice and jealousy, characteristically un­English faults confined

195

The Franco-British Exhibition

entirely to other nations. T h e significant n a m e s of Mr. F r a n c i s Bate, of the N e w E n g l i s h Art Club, a n d Sir Charles L a w e s - W i t t e w r o n g e , Bart., seem g u a r a n t e e s that any mistakes are d u e n o t to insufficient k n o w l e d g e of c o n t e m p o r a r y art, to p r e j u d i c e , internal dissensions, lack of catholicity o r taste. Wisely perhaps, it has been a s s u m e d that o u r F r e n c h visitors will s p e n d their Sundays, w h e n the E x h i b i t i o n is closed, at the B u r l i n g t o n F i n e Arts C l u b (in order to correct preconceived ideas of E n g l i s h p r e - R e f o r m a t i o n Art) o r at the N a t i o n a l a n d T a t e Galleries, w h i c h fill u p fairly e n o u g h t h e lacunae in a necessarily exiguous display. An invitation to tea with Mr. H e r b e r t T r e n c h at R i c h m o n d is the easiest way to b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d with the art of Mr. W i l s o n Steer, o n e of o u r leading landscape painters, of w h o m t h e F r e n c h m a y have heard m o r e t h a n s o m e of the c o m m i t t e e seem to have d o n e . Permission to visit t h e w o n d e r f u l silk p a i n t i n g s of Mr. Charles C o n d e r b e l o n g i n g to Mr. E d m u n d Davis will be a privilege s u c h as the E x h i b i t i o n does n o t afford : f o r o n e of the m o s t original a n d exquisite E n g l i s h artists is u n r e p r e s e n t e d .

E n g l i s h p a i n t i n g has always been a Cinderella a m o n g the schools of E u r o p e . D e n i e d or neglected a b r o a d , her treatment at h o m e has hardly been creditable to o u r patriotism. She has been hustled by her older a n d plainer sisters, Religion a n d Literature, w h o have pulled her ball dress to tatters in trying to get it o n themselves, a n d have e n­

larged the glass slippers out of all recognition in o r d e r to fit their splay extremities. W h e n she is allowed to be seen, she has always been arrayed as the h a n d m a i d of s o m e t h i n g . She has been a ' t w e e n y ' in the H o u s e of Intellect, t h e victim of kitchen politics below stairs ; she has suffered f r o m a w a n t of u n i t y of p u r p o s e or singleness of a i m ; s h e has h a d to please too m a n y masters as well as h e r s e l f — s o m e t i m e s the public, s o m e t i m e s the publican, the dealer, or the nouvcaux riches. She was s n u b b e d by t h e c h u r c h of the eighteenth cen­

t u r y a n d rescued by the moralitarian in the nine­

t e e n t h ; a n d hers is t h e head o n w h i c h all the o d d s a n d e n d s of the w o r l d are flung. N o w o n d e r the F r e n c h critics find that o u r art is o d d w h e n it is s u b j e c t e d to s u c h o d d t r e a t m e n t by those at h o m e .

W h o does n o t r e m e m b e r the s h o c k i n g collection of British pictures in the Paris Exhibition of 1900 ? T h e impression left o n the F r e n c h critics was only partly modified by the small a n d rare collection of deceased masters at t h e E n g l i s h Pavilion in the R u e des N a t i o n s . At S h e p h e r d ' s B u s h we have risked a similar eventuality. In the Old Masters section, i n a d e q u a t e only p e r h a p s o w i n g to space, there is at all events evidence of an individual taste u n r a v ­ aged by the dissensions of a c o m m i t t e e . H e r e are great masterpieces b y G a i n s b o r o u g h : The Duchess of Cumberland a n d The Blue Boy, typical with

others of E n g l i s h p a i n t i n g at its highest. T h e y illustrate that G o t h i c element w h i c h Ruskin subtly detected in the m o s t R o m a n e s q u e of o u r portrait painters. Ruskin insists—and the p o i n t is n o t so fantastic as y o u w o u l d s u p p o s e — t h a t Gains­

b o r o u g h is m o r e interested in the faces of his sitters t h a n in their bodies, in expression rather than f o r m . T h i s is true even of m o d e r n artists furthest re­

m o v e d f r o m a n y G o t h i c inspiration ; n o t e the portrait of Lord Roberts b y Charles F u r s e , that of a beloved servant of his g o v e r n m e n t r a t h e r t h a n an ideal general. H o w true even is it of Watts, the torch­bearer of tradition, the Italian tradition in E n g l i s h p a i n t i n g ! T h i s was a p p a r e n t at the N e w Gallery recently, w h e r e his picture h u n g be­

side the Latin t r i u m p h s of F r a n c e . Here, he is in a n entirely G o t h i c e n v i r o n m e n t a n d seems Latin e n o u g h by c o m p a r i s o n . It is easy to u n d e r s t a n d w h y the F r e n c h a d m i r e L a w r e n c e so m u c h m o r e t h a n we d o ourselves; w h y we underrate, a n d w h y they possibly overrate h i m . Verlaine o n c e ob­

served in the course of a lecture that we were still G o t h i c in o u r art, o u r literature a n d o u r life, while F r a n c e h a d p u t the Middle Ages away tenderly in a m u s e u m . E v e n S. P a u l ' s — o u t w a r d l y a Renais­

s a n c e building, if ever there was o n e — i s c o n ­ structed on G o t h i c principles, a n d the p e d i m e n t of t h e facade is, I a m assured, only a gable.

It m u s t be r e m e m b e r e d that the p r o g r a m m e for E n g l i s h p a i n t i n g p r o m u l g a t e d by R e y n o l d s in his ' D i s c o u r s e s ' was never carried out seriously ; all his r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s were either i g n o r e d or actually reversed in practice ; he hardly took t h e trouble to carry all of t h e m out himself. H e im­

p l o r e d the s t u d e n t s to g o to Italy a n d copy Old Masters ; they stayed at h o m e a n d copied h i m ; o r they took G a i n s b o r o u g h as their m o d e l a n d studied their own scenery as the N o r w i c h painters did. T h e valuable Latin element in o u r art, s u c h as it is, c o m e s d o w n , however, t h r o u g h R e y n o l d s ; b u t it is a Latinism that has suffered a considerable sea c h a n g e . It m u s t be accepted that the E n g l i s h School h a s n o Ingres, n o A n d r e a del Sarto. T h o s e c o n s c i e n t i o u s painters w h o tried to carry out the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of the great President failed d i s m a l l y : they were splendidly null w i t h o u t b e i n g icily regular ; of t h e m there are happily few or n o examples at S h e p h e r d ' s Bush, so far as the eigh­

teenth c e n t u r y is c o n c e r n e d . B u t if portraiture is s u p e r b l y represented b y H o g a r t h , Reynolds, H o p p n e r a n d R o m n e y , a n d o t h e r painters, the by n o m e a n s lesser glory of E n g l i s h l a n d s c a p e is h a r d l y allowed to shine. An entirely E n g l i s h l a n d s c a p e b y T u r n e r w o u l d have been m o r e apposite t h a n the beautiful Mercury and Herse or even t h a n the n o b l e Quillebceuf. T h e large picture ascribed to C o t m a n , t h e authenticity of w h i c h was canvassed w h e n it was s h o w n at B u r l i n g t o n H o u s e s o m e years ago, is h u n g too high for e x a m i n a t i o n . T h e Moonlight Scene given to old C r o m e is by his

son, John Berney Crome.1 T h e r e is, however, a fine W i l s o n belonging to Mr. H a r l a n d Peck a n d a particularly excellent Ibbetson, w h o , in the a b s e n c e of striking rivals, a s s u m e s greater i m p o r t a n c e than w e s h o u l d a c c o r d him. T h e Barker of B a t h is unusually p o o r ; an o p p o r t u n i t y has been lost for rehabilitating an undeservedly neglected Old Master. T h o u g h the large Dedham Vale will have a particular interest for F r e n c h artists ( w h o owe, traditionally, so m u c h to a painter of w h o s e tech­

n i q u e they m u s t have hazy notions, if they e x a m i n e t h e average Paris Constable), it was a pity to in­

c l u d e two smaller works o n e of w h i c h is by a well­

k n o w n imitator, a n d the other, apparently, by a m e m b e r of the N o r w i c h S c h o o l .

If the Canterbury Pilgrims, by William Blake, was g o i n g to be h u n g at all, it s h o u l d not have been skied. T h e r e are reasons, indeed, for placing it a m o n g the Preraphaelites as a kind of link or key to t h e school w h i c h owed s o m e t h i n g to the artist's inspiration. B u t it is, after all, an eighteenth­

c e n t u r y criticism of mediaevalism, t h o u g h painted in 1810, a n d Blake belongs to that c e n t u r y a s m u c h as t h e poet Gray. H e was simply a G o t h w h o w o k e u p before the others ; a n d his was n o t a r u n ­ away k n o c k at Strawberry Hill in the sense that C h a t t e r t o n ' s u n d o u b t e d l y was. The Pilgtims should have been h u n g beside t h e G a i n s b o r o u g h s a n d Reynoldses by way of contrast, in order to e m p h a ­ size the i m p o r t a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e that the E n g l i s h School is always o n e of surprises c o n c e r n e d with side issues ; anarchic, individual, a n d attracting genius into by­paths w i t h o u t unity of aim.

T h e m o s t c o n s p i c u o u s things in the P r e ­ raphaelite r o o m are, symbolically e n o u g h , an e m e r g e n c y exit ( o c c u p y i n g the place of h o n o u r ) a n d the Golden Stairs of Burne­Jones, w h i c h seems a gracious a n d gentle ladder by w h i c h we can d e s c e n d into the arena of c o n t e m p o r a r y art. B u t before we clutch the bannister let us pay h o m a g e to certain w o r k s —L e Chant d'Amonr of B u r n e ­ J o n e s , the g o r g e o u s Autumn Leaves of Millais, the radiant Work of M a d o x B r o w n , a n d (pretend­

ing n o t to see The Blessed Damosel) the Mariana a n d Bower Meadoiv of R o s s e t t i — t h o u g h neither of t h e m can be r e c k o n e d a m o n g the artist's master­

pieces. T h e rare a n d delightful Queen Guinevere

1 Mr. Ross's conclusion is natural enough, for the open texture of the painting, as well as the subject, may s e e m at first sight to be more in the manner of John Berney Crome than of his father. Yet many of those w h o have followed the career of the father and son with attention will feel that the superb painting of the orb of the m o o n and the mills in front of it has just that quality which the older man obtains in his happiest moments, but of which the son w a s never able to produce more than a rough imitation. T h e loose handling of the unfinished trees and foreground illustrates Crome's study of Gainsborough, w h o s e influence is seen in Crome's sketches more frequently than in his pictures, which were usually worked up to the current ideals of finish. It may be permissible, therefore, to see in this Moonlight a noble unfinished study by John Crome, in spite of its external resemblance to the facile night pieces of his far less gifted s o n .—E D .

of William Morris is s h a m e f u l l y h u n g too high.

It is o n e of the few pictures Morris ever painted, a n d technically it has a particular interest because the h a n d l i n g has n o t a n y a p p a r e n t relation to Rossetti or M a d o x B r o w n . In its very dryness it is m o r e mediaeval than a n y of their pictures, o r that of the other Preraphaelites, save the early Magi b y B u r n e ­ J o n e s . T h o u g h (to use a hateful w o r d p r e g n a n t with possible error) it is entirely decorative, it has n o n e of the falsehoods with w h i c h decoration, in its p r o p e r sense, m u s t alone c o n c e r n itself. Still, it is perfectly pictorial with all the wealth of accessory you find in a picture b y Carpaccio or s o m e F l e m i n g .

T h e Greeks very nearly solved in marble, assisted with colour, the p r o b l e m of u n i f y i n g t r u t h a n d pattern w h i c h Morris has here a t t e m p t e d in oil : w e are often deceived b y the verisimilitude of their bas­relief; b u t their sense of style provoked the necessary a n d in­

valuable lie of isocephaly, by w h i c h even t h e y o u t h s a n d the horses of the P a r t h e n o n have n o actuality. P e r g a m e n e realism, an u n c o n s c i o u s l o n g i n g for p h o t o g r a p h y , b r o u g h t a n t i q u e art to a n e n d l o n g b e f o r e its destruction by R o m a n connoisseurs. H e n c e the errors of Renaissance sculptors, w h o were deceived, partly by the a n t i q u e s of a rather late date, a n d partly, a l o n g with t h e painters, by the still dimly u n d e r s t o o d aesthetics of Aristotle. A t r u t h in decoration m u s t be a pictorial fib; o r you relapse into a d m i r a t i o n of views of t o w n s o n the m o r e atrocious W o r c e s t e r ware, T i n t e r n A b b e y o n the coal­scuttle, a n d other examples of ' n a t u r e in art.' Morris c a m e to believe that all pictures as separate entities were a mistake. In Qneen Guinevere h e seems to have been trying to effect a c o m p r o m i s e by p a i n t i n g an isolated piece of decoration, w h i c h in a n o t h e r sense every picture becomes, if it be a g o o d o n e . Yet it is a d a n g e r o u s experiment, a n d its repetition b e c a m e later o n a s t u m b l i n g block to the E n g l i s h School, t h o u g h few will d e n y that Morris has succeeded delightfully. So­called d e c o r a t h e pictures painted w i t h o u t a n y relation to s o m e definite place they are destined to o c c u p y are usually dismal p e r f o r m a n c e s , even w h e n the a r c h a i s m a n d the c o n v e n t i o n a l i s m are n o t excuses f o r i n c o m p e t e n c e . U n u s u a l l y well represented is a n o t h e r freak of t h e E n g l i s h School, Simeon S o l o m o n , w h o m B u r n e ­ J o n e s is said to have appraised as the ' greatest artist of us all.' O n e of his best pictures, The Mother of Moses (badly h u n g ) , belonging to Mr. W . G. Rawlinson, w h e n exhibited in the A c a d e m y called forth in the ' C o r n h i l l ' the a d m i r a t i o n of T h a c k e r a y , a surpris­

ing c h a m p i o n . T h e Love in Winter, t h o u g h weakly d r a w n , is also a beautiful example. T o o m a n y people only k n o w of S o l o m o n ' s h i d e o u s chalk drawings, which, executed w h e n he was s u n k in the lowest d e p t h s of d r i n k a n d misery, have no

197

*

The Franco-British Exhibition

artistic significance or interest. His early pictures go far to justify Burne-Jones's opinion of him.

Though conveniently grouped with the Pre- raphaelites he is remote from the principles as practised by the brothers or as laid down for them by Ruskin ; nor did he follow the advice of the poet in the ' Bab Ballads' who took ' nature for his only guide.'

An everyday tragedy in England is that other people manage your business better than you can yourself. That is why we are a God-fearing and interfering nation. Even the Preraphaelite man

­ ner was carried to greater perfection by those who were never members of the brotherhood. You could not find a better or more typical portrait of the school than the Mrs. Stephen Lewis of Frederick Sandys, an artist who must be seen in small quan­

tities. A number of his works recently brought together showed that he never fulfilled his early promise ; and his recent work, like Solomon's, was detestable : he is seemingly ill at ease with his pig­

ment, though his pen drawings are unsurpassable.

That he was a Norwich painter gives him an historical importance of peculiar interest.

The marvellous Val d'Aosta of Brett is in some ways the most remarkable picture in the room.

Hardly with exaggeration it may be called the most astonishing landscape in the English School.

It violates with breezy vigour every canon of land­

scape, and was obviously painted on the eloquent prescription of Ruskin. Everything is there:

nothing is suggested, nothing but the sleeping child in the foreground is composed. It treats the spectacle of mountain and meadow like a section of the human frame in a book on anatomy; it might be a surgeon's note of his summer holiday; or the frontispiece for a tract on the prevention of cruelty to landscape. Human ingenuity in paint could hardly go any further ; though art has often done so. At the same time, if we cannot accept it as a model of what landscape ought to be, let us recognize its beauty and pay a tribute to the painter for his perfect success in what he attempted. He has tried what primitives tried charmingly enough in the backgrounds of their pictures — more especially the Flemings. But Brett's success seems to show the futility of the emprise ; he does not give us the same aesthetic pleasure that we derive from the stammering failures of the Old Masters ; this is art in its second childhood.

Moreover, Brett, it must be noted, never followed up this daring tour de force ; or that of the more beautiful Stonebreaker, or the only less clever sea­

scape, Britannia's

shown here. He became the commonplace deli­

neator of sham realistic sea views. Truth, how­

ever, he undoubtedly achieved, coming nearer to that combination of a truth in art and a truth in nature than almost any other English landscape

198

painter. The great landscape painters willingly or unwillingly adjust the balance, faking one or the other scale. Wilson, Turner, Cotman and Crome and Constable selected, suppressed or emphasized.

The artist's unalterable prerogative, of which Brett refused to avail himself, must not be confused with the doctrine of the Impressionists : the error of their critics, who complain of their lack of finish, or the error of their defenders who, maintain that there is nothing more to see or to be recorded.

When a youthful enthusiast confessed to Ruskin that he thought the Val d'Aosta was better than Titian he was corrected by the sage, who replied, ' Different from Titian.' We should compare it with such pictures as Crossing the Brook, by Turner, and others, where great distances are superbly rendered, or with such miserable productions as

different from them as from Titian.

William Dyce's George Herbert at Betnerton is another interesting work by an unassociated Pre­

raphaelite, wrought with greater skill than the originators sometimes commanded, always except­

ing Millais, that great amphibian, who was half artist, half academician from his birth.

No example of Edward Calvert—like his master Blake, a side issue in the English school—is to be found at Shepherd's Bush. One of his largest and most important pictures is at the Luxembourg, but he is unknown at the Tate or the National Gallery. French critics see in him, with all his defects of draughtsmanship, an interesting mani­

festation of English art synchronizing with their own—Fantin Latour and Puvis, whose work he could never have seen. He is more Graeco­Latin than any Englishman. Again you lament the absence of George Richmond, the first English­

man who could handle religious and historical sub­

jects in oil (Blake never succeeded in that medium) without the insipidity characteristic of post­Refor­

mation art. Alfred Stevens, our great, perhaps our only great, draughtsman, is also unrepresented.

Since Whistler is included in the Black and White section of an exhibition where Mr. Pennell and Mr. Sargent are both exhibitors, why are there none of his pictures, which have so profoundly influenced the younger generation ? This parti­

cular omission is inexcusable.

In the water­colour rooms, where you would have thought the committee might have roused itself to justify almost the only artistic reputa­

tion we have in France, the display is quite

deplorable. Some brilliant Rossettis (notably

by Burne­Jones illuminate one wall ; and others

by J. F. Lewis and Ruskin are all worth careful

study. But the famous early English water­colour

school to which Britons are patriotically attached

( a n d generally spoil with gold m o u n t s ) like U n c l e A d a m in Stevenson's story m a k e ' an a w f u l p o o r appearance.' T h e r e is n o t h i n g absolutely dazzling by T u r n e r ; the J o h n Robert Cozens is a w r e t c h e d specimen ; C o t m a n is absent ; a n d there is only o n e Girtin. W e can only g o o d h u m o u r e d l y e c h o the hearty laughter of the F r e n c h visitors over this particular section on a day w h e n there was n o t h i n g m u c h to laugh a t . H o w m u c h better if all the pictures h a d been chosen by Mr. Marion S p i e l m a n n , w h o s e taste is obvious in such excel­

lent choice as there is ; or to a n y O N E m e m b e r of the committee, however m u c h y o u m i g h t have deprecated his selection.

T h e c h a r m i n g Renaissance of Venus by Mr.

W a l t e r C r a n e is a fair haven f r o m w h i c h to e m b a r k on a rapid survey of the m o d e r n section of British painting. T h i s was first exhibited in 1877 a n d b e c a m e the p r o p e r t y of Watts, w h o particularly a d m i r e d it. T h e year was a n event­

ful one, because it saw the o p e n i n g of the G r o s ­ venor Gallery, w h i c h was destined to be the focus of m u c h ridicule, a n d for m a n y years the h o m e of pictures c o n d e m n e d by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s a t B u r l i n g t o n H o u s e , a l t h o u g h the G u e l p h s often h u n g side b y side with Ghibellines, a n d the wise a n d foolish virgins lit their l a m p s at the s a m e hospitable shrine.

T h e Preraphaelites were settling d o w n to a languid aestheticism ; Rossetti was never a n exhibitor ; a n d the Impressionists were m a k i n g their first p u b l i c m a n i f e s t o in L o n d o n . T h e m o r e particularly esteemed pictures f r o m these schools belong per­

h a p s to an earlier date ; but, apart f r o m this, it is i n f o r m i n g to glance at the catalogue a n d to realize the artists w h o m Sir Coutts L i n d s a y o n his o w n initiative was able to muster. T h e gallery c o n ­ tained n o less t h a n seven Whistlers (including the Henry Irving), t w o masterpieces by WTatts (The Hon. Mrs. Percy Wyndham a n d Love and Deatli), three Albert Moores, eight B u r n e ­ J o n e s e s (includ­

ing Merlin, The Days of Creation, a n d Venus's Mirror), f o u r H o l m a n H u n t s , a n d other works b y artists n o w seen in S h e p h e r d ' s B u s h . A n d this w a s n o retrospective exhibition ; Venus, indeed, h a d risen f r o m the sea ! It will, of course, be u r g e d that we c a n n o t replace the i m m o r t a l dead.

B u t I believe that it w o u l d have been perfectly possible to have filled the galleries at S h e p h e r d ' s B u s h with an exhibition of living artists quite as remarkable as the G r o s v e n o r of 1877.

W i t h all respect to a much­advertised tea, I refuse to believe that the leaves of thirty years ago are m o r e delicious t h a n those of to­day. O n l y the selection m u s t n o t be m a d e by a committee, or art politics will interfere. W h y has Mr. MacColl's only water c o l o u r been placed on a level with t h e visitor's boots ? W h y is Professor T o n k s repre­

sented by only o n e small picture, w h i c h is skied ? As an official, quite apart f r o m his u n i q u e position as an artist w h o s e vigorous influence has p r o d u c e d

s u c h noble results, he was entitled to m o r e h o n o u r . W h e r e are the Strolling Players a n d Rosamund and the Purple Jar? W h e r e is Mr. W i l s o n Steer's Hydrangeas a n d Nidderdale ? a n d where, indeed, is Mr. Steer's picture at all ? In the catalogue it is well n a m e d That's for Thoughts. T h e Doll's House of Mr. Rothenstein has lost n o n e of its s o m b r e power, a n d is o n e of the fine things possible to see.

T w o characteristic a n d beautiful pictures, the Delia of Mr. Charles S h a n n o n a n d Supper Time of Air. Strang, are so ingeniously placed as to b e quite invisible.

E v e n the A c a d e m i c i a n s are n o t too well repre­

sented, with the exception of Mr. Sargent, Sir L a u r e n c e Alma T a d e m a , Mr Alfred E a s t a n d Sir E d w a r d P o y n t e r . F r o m the President's point of view, w h i c h m a y n o t be precisely that of the a d v a n c e d critic or artist, his portrait of Mrs.

Murray Guthrie is a singularly beautiful picture, to w h i c h the m o d e l has c o n t r i b u t e d n o small share. T h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t of the p a i n t i n g is, as they say, a lesson for all of us. A n d if Atalanta's Race be a trifle e m p t y for its length, w e m a y learn f r o m it w h y t h e A c a d e m y has s o m e t i m e s lost time by s t o p p i n g to pick u p the apples discarded by those w h o are m a k i n g for t h e goal. F r o m Sir William R i c h m o n d s h o u l d have been extracted the splendid Bismarck, or, if that w a s inappropriate for an exhibition i n t e n d e d to dazzle the F r e n c h , his portrait of William Morris a n d A Memory of Sparta, the m o s t poetical of all his paintings. Neither the Borgia n o r a n y others s h o w n by Mr. O r c h a r d s o n betray his p o w e r for c o n j u r i n g incident into the d i m e n s i o n s of p a i n t ; they w o u l d hardly explain to a practical F r e n c h visitor his deseived a n d recent t r i u m p h s in the auction r o o m . T h e w o n d e r f u l precision of Sir A l m a T a d e m a is, however, a d m i r a b l y presented, a n d Mr. Alfred East, w h o never seems quite satisfied with his a c a d e m i c flag, by a fascinating landscape, The Shepherd's Walk at Windermere. It is pleasant to see the Derby Day of Mr. F r i t h in its present sur­

r o u n d i n g s . T h i s is essentially a picture for a p o p u ­ lar exhibition, a national treasure like the Crystal Palace or O s b o r n e . A m o n g artists a m o r b i d reaction in its favour has very properly b e g u n . T h o u g h it can never o c c u p y the s a m e position in the heads of the E n g l i s h critics that it does in the hearts of E n g ­ lish landladies, it is impossible n o t to a d m i r e t h e invention a n d skill of a painting that is m o s t certainly a d o c u m e n t in the social, if n o t the artistic history of E n g l a n d . T h e articulation of gesture, the variety of attitude in the figures, the a b s e n c e of m o n o t o n y , m a k e it a real t r i u m p h , n o t exactly of art b u t of E n g l i s h painting. Intrinsically h o w far m o r e artistic it is t h a n m a n y so­called classic a n d idealistic pictures of the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y — those of L e i g h t o n for example, or rather n o t for example but for instance ! Mr. F r i t h ' s directness a n d materialism are ever so m u c h m o r e valuable

199

The Franco-British Exhibition

than the false subtleties of fancy painting such as y o u get in Pinwell a n d Walker, with their E v a n­ gelical aestheticism a n d w o b b l y execution. N o w o n d e r s o m e of the y o u n g e r m e n , such as Mr.

O r p e n a n d Mr. M c E v o y , seem to derive m o r e f r o m Mr. F r i t h than f r o m the theatrical properties of the pseudo­romantics, the heavy­weights in the E n g l i s h School of signed artist proofs. M r . O r p e n is seen to advantage in The Valuers ; t h o u g h his work in Mr. Lane's Irish Gallery o u g h t not to be missed, w h e r e m a y also be seen Mr. Gerald Kelly's strik­

ing portrait of the d r a m a t i c sensation, Mr. Somerset M a u g h a m , a n d the lovely pictures of Mr. Charles S h a n n o n (Mrs. Patrick Campbell a n d the Hermes).

Of those w h o in spite of all t e m p t a t i o n s r e m a i n E n g l i s h , Mr. A u g u s t u s J o h n m a y be congratulated o n the finest portrait, Professor Mackay, in the w h o l e of the m o d e r n section. It is m o r e likely to convert w a v e r e r s t o a belief in the artist's g e n i u s than the wilful a n d w a y w a r d Seraphita, w h o , h o w ­ ever, s h o u l d have been here because of the interest she w o u l d have h a d for o u r F r e n c h critics with their stagey ideas of the E n g l i s h ' M i s s ' a n d the o r d i n a r y Alpine climber en route for Switzerland.

H e r e at all events is an artist to w h o m we m a y p o i n t w h e n foreigners r e m i n d us that Mr. Sargent is a n American trained in Paris a n d that E n g l i s h painters c a n n o t d r a w . H o w e v e r glad we m a y be to see Isabella and the Pot of Basil by M r . H o l m a n Hunt,77/<? Strayed Sheep or The Hire­

ling Shepherd should have been secured because of their i m p o r t a n c e in m o d e r n E n g l i s h landscape, of w h i c h they were, in o n e sense, pioneers. T h e treatment of s h a d o w in The Hireling Shepherd was w i t h o u t precedent in E n g l i s h painting. T h o u g h the Scotch d o themselves fairly well, Mr. H o r n e l has been m u c h too m o d e s t ; it would have been agree­

able to see again The Druids a n d Among the Wild Hyacinths s h o w n in that last sensational death­bed confession of the G r o s v e n o r Gallery. T h e cor­

poration of Liverpool contributes the f a m o u s Idyll of Mr. G r e i f e n h a g e n ; a n d a n o t h e r picture w h i c h o u g h t never to have been h u n g in the limited space at the disposal of the c o m m i t t e e ; it is a m o n s t r o u s work in b o t h senses of the word.

T h e section devoted to m o d e r n watercolour can only be described as unrepresentative, a n d that to black­and­white as ingeniously misrepre­

sentative. T h e r e are, however, g o o d things by Mr. Pennell, Mr. M u i r h e a d B o n e , Miss Airy a n d two atrociously f r a m e d A u b r e y Beardsleys.

If E n g l i s h artists are neglected o n the c o n t i n e n t o r at h o m e , they always take it o u t of sculpture, o n the principle of the child w h o , itself in disgrace, p u n i s h e s its doll. T h e images at S h e p h e r d ' s B u s h are all arranged on the lines of M a d a m e T u s s a u d . F r e n c h a n d American visitors will, of course, a d m i r e Mr. H a r v a r d T h o m a s ' s Tenerum Lycidan quo calct juvenlus nunc omnis, a n d a b o u t w h o m the A c a d e m y was tepid. T h e strange, archaistic

beauty of this work c a n n o t be seen to advantage in its present position, b u t its stylistic qualities irresistibly recall the great p r e ­ P h e i d i a n masters—

the b o d y a n d shoulders the primitive ' S t r a n g f o r d ' or ' O m p h a l o s ' Apollos. T h e r e are several delight­

ful statues by Mr. Gotto, w h o s e Slinger, however, seems to have b o r r o w e d t h e feet of a R o d i n ; Tigers, by Mr. Swan ; a n d by Mr. W . B. F a g a n there is a pretty little h e a d (No. 1,274), easy to n n c* because it is near a d o o r . W i t h few exceptions, ' d e g l i altri fia laudabile il tacerci ' i n the w o r d s of the m o s t s c u l p t u r e s q u e of poets.

R O B E R T R O S S .

N O T E S O N T H E A P P L I E D A R T S AMONG the significant events w h i c h remain in the p o p u l a r m i n d as landmarks, the Great Exhibition of 1851 has secured a f a m e c o m p a r a b l e to that of the Battle of W a t e r l o o ; n o r is that f a m e undeserved.

T h e exhibition was a real l a n d m a r k , a n d that in m o r e w o r l d s t h a n one. I n the world of politics it was the c u l m i n a t i n g point of the era of opti­

m i s m w h i c h grew u p with the peace of E u r o p e after the fall of the first Napoleon, w h i c h w a s shaken b y three great Continental wars, a n d w h i c h only the g l o o m y close of the nineteenth c e n t u r y could effectually dissipate. In the world of art the exhibition w a s n o less m e m o r a b l e . It m a r k e d the climax of a particular phase of ostentatious vulgarity, of a pride in m e r e elaborate m e c h a n ­ ism that b r o u g h t a b o u t the great reaction w h i c h in painting we associate with the Preraphaelites, in criticism with Ruskin, a n d in the field of the applied arts with W i l l i a m Morris.

T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of the applied arts in F r a n c e a n d E n g l a n d has, however, been c o n d u c t e d o n separate a n d divergent lines, as an inspection of the ' Palaces ' of E n g l i s h a n d F r e n c h Applied a n d Decorative Arts at the F r a n c o ­ B r i t i s h E x h i b i t i o n will prove. It m a y be said at o n c e that the display is neither as fine n o r as striking as m i g h t have been expected, a n d that it is almost wholly c o m m e r c i a l in character, while the lateness of the date at w h i c h the F r e n c h sections were ready for examination p u t a serious difficulty in the w a y of c o m p a r i s o n . Several of the exhibitors, especially a m o n g the goldsmiths a n d silversmiths, have m a d e the mistake of trying to s h o w too m u c h , a n d loading their stalls a n d w i n d o w s with a mass of u n r e m a r k a b l e objects, where o n e or two interesting pieces w o u l d both have attracted m o r e attention a n d testified m o r e eloquently to the quality of the work d o n e by the firms in question. A m i d m u c h that is uninteresting a n d s o m e things that are u n w o r t h y of a place in a n y t h i n g b u t an o r d i n a r y s h o p w i n d o w , it is possible, however, to f o r m s o m e idea of t h e c o n d i t i o n of the applied arts in the two countries, a n d to trace the different influences w h i c h a c c o u n t for the divergence.

I n t e r n a t i o n a l exhibitions of a n y kind d o not,

2 0 0

n

L 7

/ T ' - -

Ps

flSr

35

4

u as

g s

3 s=

5 g

6 o

4*