’79-’83, ’85-’88; Society of Painters in Water-Colours, 1860-’93;
Society of British Artists, 1846, ’59, ’60, ’70, ’73, ’74;
Grosvenor Gallery, 1882, ’87; New Gallery, 1888, ’90; Portland
Gallery, 1854-’56, ’60; Dudley Gallery (Oil), 1872.
WORKS IN PUBLIC GALLERIES: National Gallery; V. and A. Museum
(Water-Colours); Liverpool, Glasgow, and Birmingham Art Galleries.
BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES: “Athenæum,” May 9, 1896;
Catalogue B. F. A. Club’s Exhibition, 1897; “D. N. B.”
(Supplement); “One Way of Art,” by Violet Hunt, “St. George’s
Review,” June 1908.
REPRODUCTIONS: One in “The Old Water-Colour Society” (THE STUDIO
Spring Number, 1905).]
Of all the artists influenced by Ruskin’s propaganda in favour of
Naturalism Alfred William Hunt was probably the most sensitive and the
most poetical. He was as ardent a student of “natural facts” as John
Brett, Holman Hunt, or any other of Ruskin’s protégés, but his work was
never, like so much of theirs, merely literal and tedious. His works
prove to demonstration how little artistic theories count in determining
the value of a work of art. We know Ruskin’s theories of realism were
all wrong, but the sensitiveness of Alfred Hunt’s nerves, the intensity
and rightness of his emotions, redeemed his work and gave it an
inevitable stamp of greatness.
In the absorbingly interesting account of her father’s methods of work
contributed by Miss Violet Hunt to “St. George’s Review” (1908) the
demands made by his art on the nerves and character of the artist are
vividly described. His daughter tells us that she has seen “delicately
stained pieces of Whatman’s Imperial subjected to the most murderous
‘processes,’ and yet come out alive in the end.” Hunt “scrupled not to
‘work on the feelings of the paper,’ as his friend George Boughton used
to tell him, “He severely sponged it into submission; he savagely
scraped it into rawness and a fresh state of smarting receptivity. Yet
some of the drawings that have suffered _peine forte et dure_ are among
the most cherished assets of certain private collectors, such as Mr.
Newall and the late Mr. Humphrey Roberts.”
The “subtle finish and watchfulness of nature” which Ruskin praised in
Hunt’s work was only the raw material of his art. It was the fervour and
energy with which he subdued his facts to a genuinely poetic unity of
feeling and expression that make Hunt’s drawings so significant and
beautiful. To-day Hunt seems to be forgotten by all but a small number
of admirers, but works like his _Durham Misty with Colliery Smoke_,
_Bamborough from the Sands_, _Cloud March at Twilight_, and many others
as poignant and as beautiful, are sufficient guarantees that he will not
always be neglected.
JAMES ABBOTT McNEILL WHISTLER
[Born at Lowell, Massachusetts, July 10, 1834; lived in Russia,
1843-’49; studied at the Military Academy, West Point, 1851-1854;
engaged on United States coast and geodetic survey for about a year;
went to Paris, 1855, and studied in Gleyre’s studio; published set of
thirteen etchings--“The French Set”--1858; settled in London, 1860;
published “The Thames” set of etchings, 1871; libel action against
Ruskin, 1878; bankrupt, 1879; “Ten-o’clock” lecture, 1884; portrait of
Carlyle bought for Glasgow, 1891; “Grand Prix” for painting, and another
for engraving, at Paris exhibition, 1900; died at 74 Cheyne Walk, July
17, 1903.
EXHIBITED: Royal Academy, 1859-’65, ’67, ’70, ’72, ’79; Society of
British Artists, 1884-’87; Grosvenor Gallery, 1877-’79, ’81-’84;
Dudley Gallery (Oil), 1871-’73, ’75; Dudley Gallery (Black and
White), 1872, ’79, ’80; Society of Portrait Painters, 1891-’93;
Royal Scottish Academy, 1899, 1901-’04.
WORKS IN PUBLIC GALLERIES: National Gallery; Glasgow Art Gallery.
BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES: “The Art of Whistler,” by T. R.
Way and G. R. Dennis, 1903; “Life of Whistler,” by E. R. and J.
Pennell, 2 vols., 1908; “Memoirs of Whistler,” by T. R. Way, 1912;
Wedmore’s “Whistler’s Etchings”; “D. N. B.” (Supplement).
REPRODUCTIONS: The “Whistler Portfolio” (THE STUDIO Special
Publication, 1904); the monthly issues of THE STUDIO; in Way’s and
Pennells’ works cited above, etc.]
In Turner’s and Alfred Hunt’s works the multitudinous objects of Nature
are subdued to poetical and decorative purposes chiefly by the influence
of the atmosphere. But though subdued in the final result the facts were
always vividly present to the minds of these artists. With Whistler and
all those who like him were influenced by the theories of Impressionism,
such facts were less considered. They began with the study of values and
tones, and relied almost entirely on the justness with which these were
rendered, being content with a merely slight and grudging suggestion of
the objects which were veiled in their envelopment of atmosphere. The
difference, I admit, is only one of degree. But it accounts, I think,
for the difference between a drawing like Whistler’s water-colour of
_London Bridge_ (reproduced in Mr. Way’s “The Art of James McNeill
Whistler,” p. 96) and, say, Alfred Hunt’s _Coast Scene near Whitby_
(1878).
The advantage of Whistler’s method of approach is that it throws greater
emphasis on the decorative quality of the picture, the tones being
capable of treatment as a unity of colour harmonies--an advantage which
Whistler clearly realized and diligently exploited.
It was not till about 1880 that Whistler took up water-colour painting.
The _London Bridge_ referred to above was done soon after his return
from Venice. He then used this medium for some fine drawings made in the
Channel Islands, and from time to time in various places in England and
abroad, chiefly at St. Ives and Southend. It is almost unnecessary to
say that he used water-colour with the same unerring mastery he
displayed in his etchings and pastels. But the curious will notice the
use he made in nearly all his water-colours of the grey underpainting
which played such an important part in the drawings of the early
topographers. He did not, however, use this grey underpainting, as they
did, merely to establish the broad division of light and shade. In his
bold and skilful hands it did more than this; it formed the unifying
element--the ground tone or harmony--which knit together the lovely
tones and colours which made his works so charming and delightful to the
eye.
The influence of Whistler’s methods and ideals is clearly marked in the
works of men like J. Buxton Knight and C. E. Holloway, two artists who
produced a greater volume of fine work in water-colour than Whistler. We
might have chosen them on this account to take his place in our small
gallery of representative water-colour painters, but the quality of
Whistler’s work seemed to us of more consequence than their quantity.
And though both these men--especially Buxton Knight--urgently demand
fuller recognition than they have yet received, we are bound to admit
that Whistler was a greater genius than either; and that seems to settle
the matter.
(5) THE WORK OF TO-DAY
We have now traced the development in the past of subject-matter and
technique in British landscape painting in water-colour, and we have
surveyed as well as our poor memories would enable us to do so--for the
Museums have long been closed and most private collections are
inaccessible, and it is therefore impossible either to verify or renew
our earlier impressions--the differing aims and diverse achievements of
a few of those who have made our national art so glorious and so
memorable. We have done this because the careful and attentive study of
the history of an art provides the best, and, indeed, the only, means by
which we can educate ourselves to value and appreciate it. Historical
studies enable us to enlarge our sympathies and discipline our tastes,
so that the man who knows best what has been done in the past will be
the first to appreciate the good work which is being done by living
artists. He will also be the most indulgent critic of a young artist’s
shortcomings, and the readiest to help and encourage him in his
difficult struggle toward self-expression and mastery over his
intractable material.
It is not, however, our business on the present occasion to praise the
works with which this volume is enriched. In the first place, to do so
is quite unnecessary, because the works are here to speak for
themselves, or rather such excellent colour-reproductions of them that
almost all their charm and beauty have been preserved; and, in the
second place, to do so would be impertinent, because the fact that these
drawings have been selected by the Editor of THE STUDIO for publication
in this way is a sufficient guarantee of their merit and importance. I
shall, therefore, confine my remarks rather to the general character of
their subject-matter and treatment than to their individual excellences.
In this way the following observations may be taken as an attempt to
continue to the present day the survey of the past which occupied us in
a previous chapter.
In tracing the development of subject-matter in the works of the artists
of the nineteenth century we have seen that they generally gave
prominence to the place represented, with all its historical and
literary associations. Whistler was the chief exception to this
tendency, as in his work the decorative and emotional elements of the
picture itself were most prominent. Whistler’s example has been followed
by many of the living artists. Men like Clausen and Mark Fisher are shy
of any suggestion of what has been called “literary subject” or
“guide-book” interest. But though the works of such artists, from their
absence of topographical interest, seem to claim classification as
poetical landscapes, yet, if we compare them with the earlier poetical
landscapes of men like Lambert, Zuccarelli, George Smith of Chichester,
and the elder Barret, we find they have undergone a very thorough change
of character. The older work owed more to the study and imitation of the
Old Masters than to the study and representation of Nature. In the place
of formulas and motives borrowed from Claude and Poussin the modern men
give us their own interpretations of what they have seen and felt in the
presence of Nature. So that if we take a drawing like Mark Fisher’s
_Landscape_, reproduced in the present volume (Plate VI), we find that
it is, or at any rate that it looks as though it is, the representation
of an actual place, though the place is unnamed and therefore devoid of
any historical or literary interest to the spectator. Such a drawing may
therefore very well be classed as topographical, though the
topographical matter is used in the service of other than strictly
topographical purposes.
However, in the works of other distinguished living artists, like
Matthew Hale, Albert Goodwin--whose _Lincoln_ is here reproduced (Plate
VIII), Hughes-Stanton, Lamorna Birch, Wilson Steer, Rich, Gere, etc., we
often find a similar use of topographical matter for the purposes of
poetical expression, but at the same time they show a marked preference
for the choice of subject-matter enriched by historical and literary
associations.
The majority of drawings here reproduced are the outcome of their
painters’ loving and tireless effort to render the appearances of Nature
in their exact tones and colours. There is little of conscious artifice
or preoccupation with abstract design of form or colour in drawings like
C. M. Gere’s vivid presentment of light--_The Round House_ (Plate VII),
Eyre Walker’s _Pool in the Woods_ (Plate XIII), R. W. Allan’s _Maple in
Autumn_ (Plate XV), George Houston’s _Iona_ (Plate XX), or in Mark
Fisher’s _Landscape_. But though their aims, broadly speaking, are the
same, viz. the truthful rendering of particular effects of light and
particular scenes, yet each work is different from each, and each is
personal and individual, because the artist has painted only what he
liked and knew best.
In other cases, generally in the choice of subject-matter, one is often
reminded of the works of the older men, only to realize as the result
of the comparisons thus provoked the important differences which
distinguish the new treatment and justify the repetition of the same
motives. Sir Ernest Waterlow’s _In Crowhurst Park_ (Plate XIV), for
instance, calls up memories of David Cox, of E. M. Wimperis, Tom Collier
and many others who have delighted in such wide surveys of rolling down
and moving cloud. But Sir Ernest’s work holds its own against all our
historical reminiscences; it is so vivid, so evidently the outcome of
the artist’s experiences, so freely and confidently set up. Robert
Little’s _Tidal Basin_, _Montrose_ (Plate X), Lamorna Birch’s _Environs
of Camborne_ (Plate V), and Murray Smith’s _On the Way to the South
Downs_ (Plate XXII), justify themselves in the same way. How easily,
too, can we imagine Girtin or Cozens painting the scene which Russell
Flint has portrayed so vividly in his _April Evening, Rydal Water_
(Plate XIX). Yet how differently they would have painted it!
In all this one sees the Naturalistic movement begun in the nineteenth
century still at work, with its inevitable tendency towards
Pantheism--its exaltation of Nature at the expense of man and the
individual. Moralists have dwelt upon its dangers in the deadening
effect it is supposed to produce upon the sense of individual
responsibility and freedom of will. But with results like these before
our eyes we are more inclined to dwell upon its advantages, its
enlargement of our sympathies and knowledge.
But the tendency is not altogether in the direction of Pantheism. There
is a group of artists, among whom I will only mention D. Y. Cameron, A.
W. Rich, Albert Goodwin, and C. J. Holmes, which manfully upholds the
supremacy of the artist over Nature. The influence of the art of the
past has counted for more in works like Cameron’s _Autumn in Strath Tay_
(Plate XVIII), Rich’s _Swaledale_ (Plate XI), Goodwin’s _Lincoln_, and
Holmes’s _Near Aisgill_ (Plate IX), than Nature herself. In these
drawings the free-will of the individual triumphantly asserts itself.
They are what they are because their makers loved art and particular
forms of art first of all, and wanted to imitate them. Their inspiration
came from within (from human nature) and not from without (from physical
nature). But this is not to say that they are mere copies of other men’s
works, for obviously they are nothing of the kind. They are at least as
original and individual as any of the other drawings of which we have
spoken. And these artists, too, study Nature just as keenly and as
indefatigably as the realists, only their methods of study are
different. With works like those illustrated in this volume--so
different in aim and method, yet each so virile, sincere and
personal--it is evident that water-colour painting is still a distinctly
living art in this country. The British water-colour painters of to-day
are “keeping their end up” as well as our soldiers, sailors and workers
in other spheres, and, like them, they have earned the right to face the
future with hearts full of confidence and hope.
[Illustration: PLATE V.
“ENVIRONS OF CAMBORNE.” BY S. J. LAMORNA BIRCH, R.W.S.
(_In the possession of the Fine Art Society._)]
[Illustration: PLATE VI.
(_In the possession of Messrs. Ernest Brown & Phillips, the Leicester
Galleries._)
LANDSCAPE. BY MARK FISHER, A.R.A.]
[Illustration: PLATE VII.
“THE ROUND HOUSE.” BY CHARLES M. GERE.]
[Illustration: PLATE VIII.
(_In the possession of E. Weber, Esq._)
“LINCOLN.” BY ALBERT GOODWIN, R.W.S.]
[Illustration: PLATE IX.
“NEAR AISGILL.” BY C. J. HOLMES.
(_In the possession of D. M. Carnegie, Esq._)]
[Illustration: PLATE X.
“TIDAL BASIN, MONTROSE.” BY ROBERT LITTLE, R.W.S., R.S.W.]
[Illustration: PLATE XI.
“SWALEDALE.” BY ALFRED W. RICH.]
[Illustration: PLATE XII.
“CAUGHT IN THE FROZEN PALMS OF SPRING.” BY LIONEL SMYTHE, R.A., R.W.S.
(_In the possession of W. Lawrence Smith, Esq._)]
[Illustration: PLATE XIII.
“A POOL IN THE WOODS.” BY W. EYRE WALKER, R.W.S.]
[Illustration: PLATE XIV.
“IN CROWHURST PARK, SUSSEX.” BY SIR E. A. WATERLOW, R.A., R.W.S.,
H.R.S.W.]
THE DEVELOPMENT OF BRITISH LANDSCAPE PAINTING IN WATER-COLOURS: SCOTTISH
PAINTERS. BY E. A. TAYLOR
To lift the veil enshrouding the past and, though but dimly, recall its
artists’ lives and works may appeal to a few only. The secrets of the
great are already known; their deeds, as modern times desire, will be
more rapidly found tabulated in any biographical dictionary; those whom
chance and fate have less favoured will serve no other purpose than that
of a poor remembrance. Nevertheless to separate those who followed the
ways of art in other than water-colour landscape painting, I must recall
some at least whose influence of mind and work aided to attain in
Scotland the important position it commands to-day. Amongst the first
connected with landscape painting the names of John and Robert Norie
cannot fairly be omitted. Carrying on a business in Edinburgh at the
beginning of the eighteenth century as house painters and decorators, it
was in their decorative schemes that landscape played the most
significant part, a form of decoration of considerable fashion in the
Scottish capital at that time, and applied in various ways to doors,
panels, mantelpieces, etc., of private houses; and apart from their
business, both father and sons painted some landscapes of no mean order.
It was in their workshops, too, that some afterwards notable artists, in
their early life, served as apprentices, famous amongst them being
Alexander Runciman (1736-1785), John Wilson (1774-1855), and James Howe
(1780-1836).
Landscape painting, however, apart from such as was utilized in
decorative schemes, had little or no public appreciators. Portraits and
deeds of tragedy and valour seemed to occupy the artists’ minds; yet,
like the curlew’s haunting note on loch and mountain side, there was an
influence astir towards more peaceful scenes, a call that knew no
limited geography, no definite law. In Ayrshire, Robert Burns
(1759-1796) was weaving his nature songs; while Alexander Nasmyth
(1758-1840), in Midlothian, was preparing his palette to capture similar
themes in paint. But perhaps the greatest impetus given to a wider
public appreciation of the scenery of his own country was the
publication in 1810 of Sir Walter Scott’s “Lady of the Lake,” followed
in 1814 by his more distinguished “Waverley Novels.” Yet previous to
that universal awakening, in 1793 Alexander Nasmyth resigned his
portrait and figure work for that of landscape, and it is from that
period that this branch of painting in oils most vigorously commenced;
while apart from the use of water-colour by topographical artists,
perhaps the first few landscapes of importance were of a slightly
earlier date, by the renowned architect Robert Adam (1728-1792). Not,
however, until the time of Hugh William Williams (1773-1829) did the art
become more pictorially practised. As Nasmyth has been credited with
being the father of Scottish landscape painting in oils, Hugh William
Williams might be more universally noted as, if not the father, at least
one of the principal pioneers of landscape painting in water-colours.
Taking a short extract from a criticism of an exhibition of his work in
that medium opened in Edinburgh in 1822, the writer states: “There is
room for more unqualified praise than in the works of any single artist
in landscape painting to which this country has yet given birth.”
Williams, however, was of Welsh parentage and born on board his father’s
ship when at sea, his early upbringing being entrusted to an Italian
grandfather in Edinburgh, where his name as an exhibitor and
water-colour painter became prominent in 1810. His successes at that
time enabled him to undertake a long sojourn in Italy and Greece, of
which he published an account in 1820 illustrated with engravings and
some of his own drawings, following it up with his exhibition in 1822
almost entirely composed of work done during his continental travels.
Artistically his paintings are distinctly personal, and technically they
are treated with broad simple washes over delicately outlined
compositions. Another artist of the period remembered for his
water-colour work was Andrew Wilson, born in Edinburgh (1780-1848), who,
after a varied art life in Italy and England, occupied the post of
master in the Trustees Academy of his native city in 1818. It was during
this year that the remarkable David Roberts, who is said to have had a
week’s tuition under Wilson, started to exhibit his famed architectural
subjects; while a few years later Andrew Donaldson, whose work in the
style of Prout, and little known beyond Glasgow, contributed in no
slight degree to the advancement of water-colour painting in that city.
It was not, however, until 1832 that the water-colour landscapes of
William Leighton Leitch began to make their public appearance, and
biographical records place this artist and Williams as the two most
prominent water-colour painters in Scotland in those days. From a
Glasgow weaver to house-painter and scene-painter, ultimately
instructing the Queen and other members of the Royal Household, Leitch’s
life was certainly inspiring to young enthusiasts, and his work being of
rather the “pretty” order was undoubtedly popular. But England claimed
the later and more important days of his life.
To revive more distinctly local Scottish memories one must turn to the
name of Thomas Fairbairn (1821-1885). Originally a shop-lad with a firm
of dyers in Glasgow, Fairbairn had no rose-paved road to travel to
attain his desires, and it is by his sketches of old houses and
localities around Glasgow that he at first became known, and latterly by
his literal paintings of forest scenery. Attracted by the wealth of
subject at Cadzow, in Hamilton, it was there that in 1852 he met Sam
Bough, who greatly influenced his further artistic outlook, as the
English borderer did that of many other painters, and who twenty-three
years later was lauded as being one of the most important figures in
Scottish art.