X.

In drawing to a conclusion I come now to refer to a subject which is

naturally embraced in an address intended to review the progress of

culture in this country, and that is what should have, perhaps, been

spoken of before, the condition of Art in the Dominion. As our public

libraries[63] are small compared with those in the neighbouring union,

and confined to three or four cities--Montreal being in some respects

behind Toronto--so our public and private art galleries are very few

in number and insignificant as respects the value and the greatness

of the paintings. Even in the House of Commons, not long since,

regret was expressed at the smallness of the Dominion contribution,

one thousand dollars only, for the support of a so-called National

Art Gallery at Ottawa, and the greater part of this paltry sum, it

appeared, went to pay, not the addition of good paintings, but actually

the current expenses of keeping it up. Hopes were thrown out by more

than one member of the government, in the course of the discussion

on the subject, that ere long a much larger amount would be annually

voted to make the gallery more representative of the best Canadian

art, and it was very properly suggested that it should be the rule

to purchase a number of Canadian pictures regularly every year, and

in this way stimulate the talent of our artists. Montreal at present

has one fairly good museum of art, thanks to the liberality of two

or three of her rich men, but so public spirited a city as Toronto,

which numbers among its citizens a number of artists of undoubted

merit, is conspicuous for its dearth of good pictures even in private

collections, and for the entire absence of any public gallery. In

Montreal there are also some very valuable and representative paintings

of foreign artists in the residences of her wealthy men of business;

but whilst it is necessary that we should have brought to this country

from time to time such examples of artistic genius to educate our

own people for better things, it is still desirable that Canadian

millionaires and men of means and taste should encourage the best

efforts of our own artists. It is said sometimes--and there is some

truth in the remark--that Canadian art hitherto has been imitative

rather than creative; but while we have pictures like those of L. R.

O'Brien, W. Brymner, F. A. Verner, O. R. Jacobi, George Reid, F. M.

Bell-Smith, Homer Watson, W. Raphael, Robert Harris, C. M. Manly, J. W.

L. Forster, A. D. Patterson, Miss Bell, Miss Muntz, J. Pinhey, J. C.

Forbes, Paul Peel--a young man of great promise too soon cut off--and

of other excellent painters,[64][G] native born or adopted Canadians,

illustrating in many cases, as do those of Mr. O'Brien notably, the

charm and picturesqueness of Canadian scenery, it would seem that

only sufficient encouragement is needed to develop a higher order of

artistic performance among us. The Marquess of Lorne and the Princess

Louise, during their too short residence in the Dominion, did something

to stimulate a larger and better taste for art by the establishment of

a Canadian Academy and the holding of several exhibitions; but such

things can be of little practical utility if Canadians do not encourage

the artists who are to contribute. It is to be hoped that the same

spirit of generosity which is yearly building commodious science halls,

and otherwise giving our universities additional opportunities for

usefulness, will also ere long establish at least one fine art gallery

in each of the older provinces, to illustrate not simply English

and Foreign art, but the most original and highly executed work of

Canadians themselves. Such galleries are so many object lessons--like

that wondrous "White City" which has arisen by a western lake as

suddenly as the palaces of eastern story--to educate the eye, form the

taste and develop the higher faculties of our nature amid the material

surroundings of our daily life. No doubt the creative and imaginative

faculties of our people have not yet been developed to any noteworthy

extent; the poems and paintings of native Canadians too frequently

lack, and the little fiction so far written is entirely destitute of

the essential elements of successful and permanent work in art and

literature. But the deficiency in this respect has arisen not from

the poverty of Canadian intellect, but rather from the absence of

that general distribution of wealth on which art can alone thrive, the

consequent want of galleries to cultivate a taste among the people for

the best artistic productions, and above all from the existence of that

spirit of intellectual self-depreciation which is essentially colonial,

and leads not a few to believe that no good work of this kind can be

done in mere dependencies.

The exhibition of American art at the world's fair is remarkable on

the whole for individual expression, excellent colour and effective

composition. It proves to a demonstration that the tendency is

progressive, and that it is not too much to expect that a few decades

hence this continent will produce a Corot, a Daubigny, a Bonnat, a

Bouguereau or a Millais. Not the least gratifying feature of the

exhibition has been the revelation to the foreign world--and probably

to many Canadians as well--that there is already some artistic

performance of a much higher order than was believed to exist in

Canada, and that it has been adjudged worthy of special mention among

the masterpieces that surround the paintings of our artists. This

success, very moderate as it is, must stimulate Canadian painters to

still greater efforts in the future, and should help to create a wider

interest in their work among our own people, heretofore too indifferent

to the labours of men and women, whose rewards have been small in

comparison with the conscientiousness and earnestness they have given

to the prosecution of their art.

The opportunities which Canadian artists have had of comparing their

own work with that of the most artistic examples at the exhibition

should be beneficial if they have made of them the best possible

use. American and French art was particularly well represented at

the exhibition, and was probably most interesting from a Canadian

point of view, since our artists would naturally make comparisons

with their fellow-workers on this continent, and at the same time

closely study the illustrations of those French schools which now

attract the greater number of students from this country, and have

largely influenced--perhaps too much so at times--the later efforts of

some well-known painters among us. A writer in the New York _Nation_

has made some comparisons between the best works of the artists of

France and the United States, which are supported by the testimony

of critics who are able to speak with authority on the subject. The

French notably excel "in seriousness of purpose and general excellence

of work from a technical point of view, especially in the thorough

knowledge of construction in both the figure and landscape pictures."

On the other hand, the artists of the United States "show more

diversity of aim and individuality of expression, as well as colour

feeling." Some two or three Canadian artists give examples of those

very qualities--especially in their landscapes--which, according to

the New York critic, distinguish the illustrations of the art of the

United States. As a rule, however, there is a want of individuality

of expression, and of perfection of finish, in the work of Canadian

artists, as even their relatively imperfect representation at Chicago

has shown. The tendency to be imitative rather than creative is too

obvious. Canadian painters show even a readiness to leave their own

beautiful and varied scenery that they may portray that of other

countries, and in doing so they have ceased in many cases to be

original. But despite these defects, there is much hope in the general

performance of Canadians even without that encouragement and sympathy

which the artists of the United States have in a larger measure

been able to receive in a country of greater wealth, population and

intellectual culture.

Not only does the exhibition of paintings in the world's fair make one

very hopeful of the future artistic development of this continent,

but the beauty of the architectural design of the noble buildings

which contain the treasures of art and industry, and of the decorative

figures and groups of statuary that embellish these buildings and the

surrounding grounds, is a remarkable illustration of the artistic

genius that has produced so exquisite an effect in general, whatever

defects there may be in minor details. A critic in the July number

of the 'Quarterly Review,' while writing "in the presence of these

lovely temples, domes, and colonnades under the burning American sky

which adds a light and a transparency to all it rests upon," cannot

help echoing the regret that this vision of beauty is but for a

season, and expressing the hope that some one of the American money

kings "may perpetuate his name on marble, by restoring, on the edge

of this immense capital, amid parks and waters, that great central

square which, were it only built of enduring materials, would stand

without a rival in modern architecture." Perhaps the fine arts in the

Dominion--where sculpture would be hardly heard of were it not for the

French Canadian Hébert--may themselves even gain some stimulus from the

examples of a higher conception of artistic achievement that is shown

by this exhibition to exist in a country where a spirit of materialism

has obtained the mastery so long. Canadian architecture hitherto has

not been distinguished for originality of design--much more than art

it has been imitative. In Montreal and Quebec the old buildings which

represent the past have no architectural beauty, however interesting

they may be to the antiquarian or the historian, and however well many

of them harmonize with the heights of picturesque Quebec. Montreal

is assuredly the most interesting city from an architectural point

of view in Canada, simply for the reason that its architects have,

as a rule, studied that effect of solidity and simplicity of design

most in keeping with the grand mountain and the natural scenery that

give such picturesqueness to an exceptionally noble site. While we

see all over Canada--from Victoria on the Pacific to Halifax on the

Atlantic[64_a_][H]--the evidences of greater comfort, taste and wealth

in our private and public buildings, while we see many elaborate

specimens of ecclesiastical art, stately piles of legislative halls,

excellent specimens of Gothic and Tudor art in our colleges, expensive

commercial and financial structures, and even civic palaces, yet

they are often illustrative of certain well defined and prevalent

types of architecture in the eastern and western cities of the United

States. It cannot be said that Canada has produced an architect of

original genius like Henry Hobson Richardson, who was cut off in the

commencement of his career, but not before he had given the continent

some admirable specimens of architectural art, in which his study of

the Romanesque was specially conspicuous, and probably led the way to a

higher ideal which has reached some realization in the city which must

too soon disappear like the fabric of a vision, though one can well

believe that, unlike a dream, it will leave a permanent impress on the

intellectual development of the people who have conceived an exhibition

so creditable from a purely artistic point of view.

[Footnote G: Some extended notes on the artists of Canada and their

work appear in the Appendix, note 64.]

[Footnote H: See in Appendix 64_a_ references to our notable public

edifices.]