(_An echo of the Romney cause célèbre_.)
In view of the attacks on their honourable calling by Sir THOMAS JACKSON
and others, in _The Times_ and elsewhere, the Art critics of London
called a public meeting to consolidate their position. The Chair was
taken by Sir WILLIAM RICHMOND, who was supported by Mr. HUMPHRY WARD,
Mr. A.S. TEMPLE, and numerous other gentlemen who know a Romney when
they see it, or who earn an honest livelihood by distributing
adjectives, good or bad, among painters.
Sir WILLIAM RICHMOND, referring to a recent lawsuit, said that it was
monstrous that careful conclusions based upon a long life of study
should be upset by the production of a pencil sketch, and he called for
the removal of Mr. Justice DARLING from the Bench. Art criticism was not
a mere matter of caprice, as people were now pretending, but an exact
science. If a qualified man, not only a theorist but a practical
craftsman, after years of preparation, stated that a picture was by such
and such a painter, it was by him. The mere fact that someone named
OZIAS HUMPHRY had made a small sketch resembling a large oil painting
proved nothing. (Loud cheers.) The speaker said that he was glad to hear
those sounds. But he would go further. The conclusion of the recent case
was described as dramatic. He had a far more dramatic possibility up his
sleeve. Suppose it should be discovered--as it might be, nothing being
impossible--suppose it should be discovered that ROMNEY chose to paint
some of his pictures under the pseudonym of OZIAS HUMPHRY. What then?
(Terrific sensation.) They had all heard of the SHAKSPEARE-BACON
controversy. The ROMNEY-HUMPHRY controversy might be destined to eclipse
that. (Profound excitement.) He, the speaker, personally was not
prepared to let the matter rest where it did. His honour as an Art
critic was at stake.
An even greater sensation was caused at this juncture by a rush of cold
air in the hall, followed by the appearance of a ghostly shape, which
announced itself to be the shade of OZIAS HUMPHRY himself. If anyone
doubted his identity or suggested that he did not paint his own pictures
he should take very prompt action indeed. The art of haunting was by no
means extinct. (Here the Chairman hurriedly left the room.) The shade,
continuing, caused some consternation by stating that the picture which
had led to litigation the other day was by no means the only supposed
Romney that he had painted. He could name several in collections within
a mile or two of the spot where he was then standing. (At this point Mr.
HUMPHRY WARD swooned and was carried out by Mr. ROBERTS.)
Mr. A.S. TEMPLE remarked that no doubt the shade of OZIAS HUMPHRY
attended that meeting in all good faith, but for his part he thought
that he would have shown better taste had he kept away. In fact everyone
would be happier if OZIAS HUMPHRY had never existed. It was not Art
critics that should be pitched into, but painters whose styles resembled
each other. They were the real nuisance. It was the duty of artists to
be distinctive, and it was the duty of Art critics to keep them so. No
doubt, as SHAKSPEARE knew, there was a certain humour to be extracted
from men who were exactly alike, such as the two _Dromios_, but when
painters painted alike there was no fun in it at all.
Mr. JOHN SMITH testified to the fact that he had no interest in a
picture unless he knew who painted it; and even then he was not
interested unless the name of the painter was a familiar one. If Art
critics provided these names, it was obviously desirable that their
services should be retained; but it was confusing if the Art critics
disagreed among themselves. All he asked was that when they thus
disagreed they should all equally fix on well-known names, even though
they were different ones. Names such as REYNOLDS, GAINSBOROUGH, LEADER
and GOETZE were well known and inspired confidence. Strange names merely
irritated. In visiting the Royal Academy, for example, he personally
always bought a catalogue and confined his attention to the pictures of
the more famous artists. In this way he ensured a pleasant afternoon. If
there was still any doubt as to the merit of a picture, he inquired the
price and was guided by the size of that.
Sir FREDERICK WEDMORE said that to decry the value of Art criticism was
absurd. It was only through the efforts of their literary henchmen that
some painters could be known at all. The better the picture the more
words ought to be written about it, at so much a word. It was impossible
to over-estimate the importance of fitting every brush-mark with the
adequate epithet. He himself had devoted a long life to this task and he
intended to continue doing so. (Loud cheers.)
The Editors of the _Sketch_ and _Tatler_, speaking in unison, said that
not only was there too much talk about pictures, but there were far too
many pictures. Artists ought not to be encouraged in the way they are.
The world was never so happy as in the interval between the loss of the
"Monna Lisa" and its recovery. We should apply our enthusiasm to the
stage--to actors and, above all, to actresses.
The Editors of _The Daily Mirror_ and _The Daily Sketch_, also speaking
in unison, said they agreed to a large extent with the last speakers. It
would not really matter if every painting disappeared, so long as the
camera remained. One living photographer was better than a thousand dead
Masters.
Sir CLAUDE PHILLIPS asked how the Masters would ever have been called
Masters had it not been for the critics. Painters merely painted and
left it there; it was the critics who decided whether or not they should
be immortal, and whether their pictures should be worth tens or
thousands.
Mr. MARION SPIELMANN said that no one would deny that the contemplation
of pictures, even those of Saints or Holy Families, had given enormous
pleasure. But why? Not because the crowds that flocked to the galleries
really cared for them, but because gifted writers had for centuries been
setting up hypnotic suggestions that in this way was pleasure to be
obtained. He had often seen men and women standing before a canvas of
REMBRANDT, hating the grubby muddle of it in their hearts, but adoring
it in their heads--all because some well-known critic had told them to.
Their pleasure, however, was real, and therefore it should, in a world
of sadness, be encouraged, and consequently Art critics should be
encouraged.
Mr. ROGER FRY here rose to point out that the test of a picture is not
the pleasure which it imparts, as the last speaker seemed to think, but
the pain. The sooner the public got that fact into its thick head the
better would it be for those artists who were not so clay-souled as to
allow stuffy conventions to interfere with the development of their
personality.
Mr. D.W. GRIFFITH said that he had never heard so much talk about
pictures, with so little reference to himself. It was he who invented
"The Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance," and he was the Picture King,
and as such he wished to tell them that the best Art critic in the world
couldn't hold a candle to a very ordinary Press agent. (Uproar, during
which the meeting broke up.)
* * * * *
[Illustration: _The "Nut" of the Regiment_ (_reading Army order re
dress_). "BY JOVE, MAJOR, THIS IS SERIOUS! SHIRTS, COLLARS AND TIES HAVE
GOT TO BE THE SAME COLOUR AS UNIFORM. IT JOLLY WELL MEANS THAT WE'LL HAVE
TO GET A NEW UNIFORM EVERY TIME WE HAVE A COLLAR WASHED."]
* * * * *