|
|
Sixty Years' Memories of Art and Artists XVII . BUT the great problem of what to do in art was being solved in a very simple manner perhaps the only natural one that could have been suggested. Preliminary schools of drawing had been established, and from them students went abroad to study in the better ones of Paris and Munich, and thus a great deal of training was obtained, and they were better equipped to struggle with the problem of art. They became skillful in drawing and in the use of colors, and some of them have produced works which in the Salons, have compared favorably with the pictures of the better French painters. But when thus fully equipped with all the knowledge of how to do it, and they have returned home to begin their life work, what has been the result? Simply this. They have not grown since their return. The atmosphere of art in Paris, the surrounding of noble paintings has ceased to interest them, and the nature and characteristics of this country have failed to inspire them. They cannot make French pictures of our scenery and people. A truly American school of art therefore is not possible so long as we can not translate our nature for ourselves, and only see through French eyes and follow all their fads and fashions. There are a few honorable exceptions to this rule, men who have begun to see for themselves, to paint scenes from our own history and render our own scenery in a way not to remind one of Normandy or Brittany or any part of France. We can have no distinctive school here until our own returning students see for themselves, cast off their foreign eyeglasses and imitate no master's work. Manner is not everything. Dashes and daubs of paint do not necessarily make pictures, and if students would forget that technique should only be useful to develop their thought and not diminish it, pictures would be better. One artist may paint on a high key seeking to obtain nature's glowing light, while another may use a more sober palette as more in unison with his feelings. All artists should not run after the same craze, even if it is new and strange. Impression is just as much a conventional thing as any of the older manners and by and by it will have had its day and be superseded perhaps by something still more grotesque, if that be possible, or candid minds will return to their old allegiance or find new ways for themselves. Our modern voting men have too little reverence for the so-called old masters. They forget. what has been achieved by great men in Italy, Spain and Holland. The names of Velasquez, Rembrandt, Titian, Raphael, Correggio, Tintoretto, Vandyke and a host of others are not names to conjure with. The perfection of drawing found in their great pictures is of no consequence to these of a later day. What is the use of study when a few slovenly daubs will make a hand? Vandyke did not do this to be sure, his hands have as much dignity and expression almost as his heads, and the heads themselves would not be complete without such studied accessories. The great masters of the modern French school have all looked up with love and reverence to the works of their older brethren of Italy and the Netherlands. Jules Breton makes this evident in his book. He speaks of Corot as having got his manner of painting by studying the work of Nicholas Poussin adding what his own artistic feeling found necessary to complete an individuality of his own. And when one examines for himself be will find something in Poussin's negative tone of color to bear out this assertion. Ingres, the purist in drawing, was called the second Raphael, but although his drawing was good his color was lifeless. Delacroix founded his style upon that of Rubens, and succeeded in getting some of the dash and enthusiasm of the great Flemish master. Delaroche's work was of a pure academic school, adapted to his wants from his great predecessors, and so on through a long list might be added the illustrious names of those who have profited by the study of past great schools. Millet had the greatest love and admiration for Raphael, and probably his study of nature was modified and made more simple and dignified by his veneration of that master. Since writing the above, there has appeared in Scribner's Magazine some reminiscences of the life and work of Washington Allston by Henry Greenough. Allston shows in his letters and conversation how high his aims were and how great his love for the masters of Italy. He said to a student: "The old masters are our masters, not to imitate but to get means to enable us to see for ourselves, and impress upon canvas our own thoughts and ideas. Individuality in art is what must be sought for. We. must not imitate but look for the means and skill others have used before us, and adapt the methods to our own development." The illustrations to the article, although giving but a faint idea of the original paintings will help the student to get some idea of the loftiness of Allston's conception and the grandeur of his style. Then by visiting the Museum of Art in Boston, the richness of his color will be revealed in the few of his works to be found there. I have not had cause to change my opinion formed many years ago that up to the present time no American artist has equalled Allston in all the qualities that go to make a great painter. But our young men of the present schools scout such an idea, and go on imitating the masters in vogue at present, painting pea-green grass with purple shadows, white cold skies and lovely purple and green trees, with slashing strokes and brush marks-and all this without the least harmony of tones, and every tint cursing its neighbor. This sort of thing has become so common today that we have almost ceased to exclaim when we see it. Surely the very offensive side of this school will disappear, as no normal eye can ever see such things in nature, and our occulists will have to invent something new for the student to enable him to distinguish these newly discovered subtleties. 'Tis true that sometimes it is difficult to find just the tint that will reproduce a certain effect in Nature as all conscientious painters know. As an instance, a number of artists sat down before a group of boulders one day to make close studies of the purple and gray tones broken by brown, green and yellow lichens. This was at North Conway. We were a long distance from our stopping place and had brought our lunches with us. After struggling a long time with our intricate subject we sat down to eat our meal, but our thoughts could not be kept away from the problem before us, and David Johnson of New York exclaimed after a long silence: "It's purple, by thunder! " He had been revolving the thing in his mind, and, as he thought, had solved it now in this burst of feeling. He has shown in later life what such conscientious study may lead to as he has quietly and modestly attained to a very high rank as one of the leading landscapists of New York. And this reminds me that I would like to say a few words about New York artists and incidentally of the Hudson River school, so-called. I bad become acquainted with most of the New York painters of thirty to forty years ago, and my memories of them are very pleasant. Many of them I had known in Paris and Rome. They were an exceedingly jolly and hospitable, but at the same time a thoughtful and studious set of men. Of course, Kensett was more to me than any other for I had known him so intimately, and had struggled with him through want and difficulties abroad. But his talent had been recognized, and his way seemed clear now. His brilliant studies brought back from the Catskills and White Mountains were marvels of clever handling and color. No one seemed able to give the sparkle of sunlight through the depths of the forest, touching on mossy rocks and shaggy treetrunks so well as he. These silvery studies were painted with conscientious care, but also with a poetic free translation of what he felt, for he had a true poetic feeling. Mr. Tom. Appleton of Boston said to me one day that he had yet to meet a more artistic temperament than Kensett's. He became a great favorite in New York both with the public and artists and his success was assured. I know that today his pictures are considered old-fashioned, that they are wanting in solidity and broad massing of forms, but that does not take away from them the lovely feeling of color and crispy touch they possess. At the time of which I speak they possessed more qualities than the work of any other American landscape painter, although he had strong competition in the race for distinction. |
