It is useless to speculate upon what might have been if Fuller’s

productivity had not been interrupted by those fifteen years upon the

farm; but when he emerged from them it was with a style of painting very

different from his early one. That had been hard in outline, minute and

careful in finish; now it was immersed in atmosphere, tenderly elusive,

quietly luminous, a revery of colour, reticently harmonious. It was no

longer the work of an observation intent upon the outer world, but the

outpouring of his innermost spirit, mellowed, chastened, become

contemplative by time. One may believe that the outer world had become

more and more identified with the necessities of his life, from which he

sought a refuge within himself in his own dreams of spiritual beauty.

For the names of his pictures count as little as the subjects. In all

his best, notably in the “Winifred Dysart,” “Nydia,” “The Quadroon,” and

in “The Romany Girl,” especially that example of the latter owned by J.

J. Enneking, he is not concerned with portraying the individual but a

type, and in giving to it especially a significance of spirit, investing

it in each case with phases of what he had learned to realize as the

spiritual quality of rarest, subtlest beauty. How could the essential

fragrance and indefinable loveliness of maiden innocence as it appealed

to the matured sympathies of his advanced years be expressed otherwise

than he had felt it,--veiled in the romance of shadowed light, a thing

too rarely delicate for sharp, decisive handling? And yet beneath this

tender suggestiveness of method, what strong brush work is discernible!

Not clever, truly, or facile and masterful; rather plodding, ay,

tentative, as of compressed emotion striving patiently for expression.

One has seen a dreamy, tender treatment of the female form, which had no

such staunch underlying structure to support it, work which attracts by

what we hastily style subtlety, and later find to be but an exquisite

veneer to an unstable conception; the artistic affectation of men whose

coarseness of character belies the exquisiteness, and, as one studies

their pictures longer, leaves us unconvinced of their sincerity. But in

the purity of Fuller’s conceptions the man himself and his deliberate,

habitual conviction are embodied.

It is a remarkable feature of Fuller’s development that whereas in age

he belonged to the earlier generation of American painters, he should

have emerged from his fifteen years’ retreat and unaided communing with

himself more truly modern in feeling than the younger men who were then

returning from Paris. By very different ways he had reached an ideal not

dissimilar to Whistler’s; not, to be sure, expressed with the latter’s

inimitable, because so personal, _finesse_, but alike in its devotion to

the abstract and in realization of the correspondence between painting

and music, and not so unlike in its method of expression, so reticent

and mysterious. Fuller also anticipated the motives of the still younger

man, such as Le Sidaner and Duhem, to whom the inherent spirituality of

the landscape or figure is the absorbing search, which they seek to

embody in terms as intangible as possible. Wrapt from all contact with

the distractions of the art world, he had with the prescience of

sincerity put forth his hand toward the most interesting phase of the

latest movements. I mean the search for the significance of things, as

of higher and more abiding value than the things themselves.

Fuller’s life was a romance of more than usual human import,

characterized by a singular unity of purpose. He is not to be

considered, on the one hand as a man, and on the other as an artist,

with qualities, as is not unusual, respectively dissimilar and

conflicting. His art was of himself, truly an ingredient, nourished,

disciplined, chastened, always sweetly wholesome, modest and noble, like

his life. He lived the latter well, and in this high ideal of manhood

realized the ideal of his art.

VIII

HOMER D. MARTIN

Homer D. Martin has been called the first of American

impressionists--doubtless not with reference to his manner of painting,

but to the way in which he formulated his conception of the landscape.

He was not concerned so much with its obvious phenomena as with the

impression that it aroused in his own imagination.

The distinction is a very general one. Everywhere there are those to

whom the obvious appeals with undisturbed frankness; they have an

instinct for facts, and for confronting them singly and directly;

always, too, there are others to whom the facts are but a basis of

suggestion. A lamppost on the sidewalk implies another one beyond, still

others farther on, and on and on; and, by inference, the endless

footsteps in both directions, passing and repassing.

Martin’s earliest study, as a young man at Albany, was with William

Hart, a literalist of very engaging qualities. Hart was faithful to the

forms of nature, as every true landscapist is, and dwelt upon the

details of the scene with a lingering appreciation that did not,

however, prevent him from coördinating them into a very charming

_ensemble_. But his joy in the latter was of the obvious kind, such as

any intelligent lover of the country shares; a joy in the pleasantness

of generous pastures, dotted with cattle, and pervaded with a quiet

prosperity; in the smiling sunshine and grateful shade, in cosey

woodland retreats, that a man might seek in order to bury himself in the

attractions of a book. Always it was the domestic happiness of the

country side that won him, much, indeed, as it won Daubigny; for such

choice of subject is not a consequence of a painter’s particular way of

painting, but of his temperament. The much or little of suggestion that

he receives from the landscape, the quality of personal feeling that he

puts into his pictures, depend upon his character as a man; and the

loyalty with which he follows his own true bias determines very largely

the value of his work. Certainly this is a truism, and yet how often it

is ignored; painters and amateurs establishing, each for himself, some

particular basis of appreciation.

For example, to look for poetic quality in a landscape picture has

become with many an axiom of standard, and they find its expression

chiefly in the manner of tone. So they have no eyes for one of Monet’s

naturalistic studies; its subtle fidelity to a phase of nature does not

interest them. He has found the truth of nature to be enough for his own

enjoyment, and as he has striven to make nature speak direct through his

picture without any promptings to sentiment on his own part, they miss

the suggestion of some special sentiment such as another painter will

enforce, and find Monet unintelligible; much the same, presumably, as

nature itself would be to them a sealed book. The text to them is

unsuggestive; they need a commentator. And how scarce good commentators

are! The vogue of poetic landscape has called into activity many whose

sentiment is merest sentimentality; minor poets of the brush with a

pretty knack of tone and tenderness that passes for poeticalness. It is

necessary to clear the air of any such mild pretence of poetry before

venturing to speak of Homer Martin as essentially the most poetic of all

American landscape painters.

It has been said that there is a Homeric quality in his landscapes.

Clearly this is no attempt to place him in relation to other painters,

as we regard Homer among other poets; but is a reference to the big

significance of his work, to those elemental qualities which we

habitually associate with the poetry of Homer. The bigness of Martin

was principally that of a big intellect. It had its inner shrine, where

he kept to himself the sacredness of his deepest artistic inspiration;

an outer court, wherein he mingled with other men of intellect, and its

sunny entrance steps, where, beyond the shadow of what was to him most

real, he could prove himself to be “a fellow of infinite jest,” a

brilliant _raconteur_, one that all who knew him loved. And the love for

Martin one finds to have been greatest among those who knew him best,

and were most aware of the deeper qualities that underlay his wit and

jollity.

There is, indeed, a rare attractiveness in this combination of depth and

brilliant surface. It is so easy to take life seriously or hilariously,

if one is formed that way; but to be big with seriousness in season, and

big with sportiveness betimes, is the quality of an extra large-souled

man. Of a man, indeed; for the quality is essentially a masculine one,

and rare even among men, particularly in art, so large a portion of

which is feminine in significance. I suppose most of us feel this in

comparing, for example, Tennyson with Browning; and, consciously or

unconsciously, have had a feeling of it in the presence of many

pictures, even by acknowledged masters. Not improbably it is the latent

reason of so much indifference toward pictures in this country by

persons otherwise cultivated. Our past history, as well as the immediate

present, has demanded qualities essentially masculine, and so many

people instinctively suspect the superabundance of the feminine in

painting, or have regarded it merely as a pastime on the part of the

painter, and as suitable chiefly for decorating the walls of a

drawing-room. The one class has ignored the claims of painting; the

other committed itself unreservedly to that kind of picture, which is

least of all the product of intellect, or likely to make any demand upon

the intelligence. They have found it difficult to take a painter and his

work seriously, or would be, perhaps, surprised to find that such an

attitude toward art could ever be expected of them. They would find

incomprehensible the suggestion that a man may be found who puts into a

picture as much mind and force of mind as another man puts into the

upbuilding of a great business; that the qualities of mind expended in

each case may be similar in degree, and not altogether different in

kind; power to forecast the issue, and to labour strenuously for it,

with a capacity for organization, for selecting, rejecting, and

coördinating; a gift of distinguishing between essentials and

non-essentials, and of converting sources of weakness into strength, so

that the issue becomes in each case a monument to the intellect of its

creator. And when one finds, as with Martin, that these big qualities of

mind have been directed to the expression of what is grand in nature,

least transitory, most fundamental, one begins to have that respect for

his art which must precede all true appreciation, and to discover that

it has a close relation to what is noble and most endearing in life--a

deep, abiding reality. During his lifetime comparatively few appreciated

the significance of his work, but it is of the kind that time is

justifying.

A very characteristic example is the “Westchester Hills,” because it is

at once so powerful and so free from any of the small and perfectly

legitimate devices to attract attention; a picture that in its sobriety

of mellow browns and whites (for such, very broadly speaking, is its

colour scheme) makes no bid for popularity; in a gallery might escape

the notice of a careless visitor, and grows upon one’s comprehension

only gradually. In the gathering gloom of twilight we are confronted

with a country road crossed by a thread of water and bounded on the

right by a rough stone wall. The road winds away from us, skirting the

ridge of hill, which slumbers like some vast recumbent beast against the

expanse of fading sky. The dim foreground and shadowed mass

[Illustration:

From the collection of Daniel Guggenheim, Esq.

WESTCHESTER HILLS.

BY HOMER D. MARTIN.]

[Illustration:

From the collection of Louis Marshall, Esq.

THE SUN WORSHIPPERS.

BY HOMER D. MARTIN.]

are grandly modelled; strength, solidity, and bulk, contrasted with the

tremulous throbbing of the light. This contrast of rude, tawny ground

with the vibration of a white sky recalls a favourite theme of the

French painter Pointelin; but one feels that a comparison of his

pictures with the “Westchester Hills” is all in favour of the latter.

Both painters have felt the solemn loneliness of nature folding her

strength in sleep, the mystery of darkening and of the lingering

spirituality above; but Martin is the grander draughtsman of the two,

suggesting with far more convincingness the solid structure of the

earth. So we are made to realize that the phenomenon is not merely one

that he has noted or that we might note, but one that through countless

ages has manifested itself as part of the order of the universe.

Its significance is elemental. We may attribute this to the better

drawing, or, with far more justice, to the superiority of intellect,

that could embrace this larger conception and find the means to express

it. And in studying the means let us not overlook the essential grandeur

of the colour; not of the brave or passionate kind, but sober with a

concentration of subtle meaning, that discovers infinite expression in

the minutest variations of the homely browns and yellows, which in the

shadow yield nothing but their strength and quietude. And, then, what a

wonder of suggestion in the sky! It is not only lighted, but quivering

with light; an elastic fluid that extends as far as one’s imagination

can travel, in height, and breadth, and depth. These limitless skies are

a characteristic of Martin’s pictures. He does not seem to have been

attracted so much by cloud forms or to have been given, as it were, to

building castles in the air; but his imagination loves to free itself in

the far stretches of ether, the circumambient medium through which the

waves of light travel. His skies are brushed in with firm assurance; it

is a pleasure to peer into the canvas and study the sweep and exultation

of the strokes, and then to step back until distance blends them into a

unity of ranging grandeur. And just as Corot said of himself, that he

was “like a lark pulsing forth its songs amid the gray clouds,” and his

skies have the vibrative quality of violin music, so there is music in

these skies of Martin’s, only it is that of the organ and the diapason

stop. True, the note is not always so full and sonorous; as, for

example, in the “View on the Seine” in the Metropolitan Museum, where

the splendid blue and white have a more silvery resonance, which,

however, is less suggestive of songfulness than of the sweep of music

travelling on and on. Indeed, in all his skies, there is less of local

significance than of the suggestion that the ether is a tidal ocean

connecting the fragment of circumstance with infinity.

This landscape also shows that his imagination was not wedded to the

solemn. It is brisk with the _joie de vivre_, and yet not in a merely

sprightly way. In the line of poplars on the right of the picture, each

spiring up into the sky, there is the sense of springing aspiration.

Again, in that beautiful “Adirondack Scenery,” with its waves of

brilliant foliage rolling between the brow, on which we feel ourselves

standing, and the distant cliffs of mountains, what exuberance of

spiritual joy! Spiritual, indeed, for the picture was painted far away

in the West, indoors, and under the affliction of failing health. But

who would guess it from the picture? Martin had so possessed himself of

the sweetness and majesty of the Adirondacks, that he could give out

from himself, drawing upon the treasures of his memory. It was his swan

song, and how characteristic of the essential nobility of the man, that

it breathes such ample serenity, such a boundless sense of beauty, pure,

spacious, and enduring! He never dwelt upon his troubles, as smaller men

do; and this last picture is a grand assertion of the supremacy of mind

over matter,--a poet’s triumphant proof that his dream of beauty was

strong within him to the last.

Martin’s work, like that of other great men, was uneven in quality. But

if it lacks at times perfect intelligibility of construction or of form,

it was not from want of knowledge or ability to draw, as is abundantly

proved by the superlative excellence of these very qualities in his

finest pictures. He had made countless studies, drawn with the greatest

care, revealing a thorough feeling for and comprehension of form. At

times, he may have found a difficulty in translating his knowledge into

paint. His use of the brush, used as he needed to use it to express what

he had in mind, had been necessarily self-acquired, and often it was

rather the subtlety of the effect he desired to express than any

fractiousness of the brush, which caused him to fumble, though, in the

majority of his work, never sufficiently to distress us or to divert

attention from the message that his picture conveys. For always, in his

best pictures, there is this distinction of a message; not a mere

friendly interchange of views between the painter and his friend, or

simple, easy platitude regarding nature’s beauty, but a deep, strong,

personal assertion of some specific truth of beauty, fundamentally and

enduringly true. It is the sort of message that appeals to the depth

and

[Illustration:

From the collection of Samuel Untermeyer, Esq.

OLD CHURCH IN NORMANDY.

BY HOMER D. MARTIN.]

earnestness in ourselves; and with a comprehensiveness that permits each

of us to draw from it what particularly satisfies himself,--qualities

that are the unfailing distinction of the great works of imagination.

Some of his pictures, in which we shall find these qualities

conspicuous, are “Normandy Church” and “Normandy Farm,” painted during

the years that he lived at Villerville and Honfleur, “The Sun

Worshippers,” “Autumn on the Susquehanna,” “Sand Dunes, Lake Ontario,”

and “Headwaters of the Hudson.” Individual preferences count for very

little; but I cannot resist the pleasure of recording a particular

fondness for the “Normandy Church” and “Sand Dunes.” In the former it

will be remembered how the roof and tower of the church, embrowned with

centuries softened by moss and lichen, stand like an embodiment of

stability against the quiet movement of fleecy clouds that cross the

blue sky, like a token of faith and protection to the little cottage on

the left. It is an idyl of the permanence of hope and consolation in a

simple faith. Then what a full-lunged inspiration of rest and vastness

does one draw from the “Sand Dunes”! It is not the vastness of distance,

for the evening sky is wrapping with greenish gray the sand hillocks,

which are separated from us only by a belt of warm green-brown grass

and a strip of golden-brown scrub. But it is the character of the scene

that is vast in suggestion. We do not feel the sky to be a quilt of

softness, but an abyss of tenderness, assuaging the desolation of the

spot,--a desolation that has the feeling of primeval loneliness.

For, at the risk of repetition, I would dwell once more upon the

elemental quality that characterizes all the best work of Homer Martin.

Not only is his theme elevated and serious, clothed moreover in

pictorial language of corresponding significance, but it shuns the

trivial and transitory and attaches itself to what is basic in nature’s

beauty and perennially true. In his masterpieces there is the evidence

of a great mind, for the time being unreservedly consecrated to great

ends, and expressing itself in an imagery of grandeur and enduring

suggestiveness. To recognize these qualities is to rank him highest of

all the poet-painters of American landscape.

IX

GEORGE DE FOREST BRUSH

To many a young student, regretfully turning his back on the few bright

years of study in Paris, has come the question, “What must I do to be

saved?” Hoping all things, believing all things of his single

determination to succeed, he feels within him a capacity; but how shall

he apply it? I fancy there are two classes of such aspirants: those who

look around them for suggestion, and those who look within. Among the

latter seems to have belonged George de Forest Brush.

Knowing him in the light of his later work, we may feel it one of the

anomalies of art that his master in Paris should have been Gérôme. Yet

looking back over our own lives, we realize that it was the element of

character, the presence or lack of it in those with whom we came in

close contact, that determined their influence upon us. And this quality

of character was strong in Gérôme,--of all the more value to Brush

because it was of a kind in many respects so dissimilar to his own. He

is something of a rebel,--I use the word in its most respectable

sense--intellectually independent, prone to dissatisfaction with things

as they are, unconventional, perhaps a little impractical and visionary,

as rebels are apt to be,--qualities, all of them, that are facets of

character. Gérôme, however, a conservative, addicted to rote and rule,

with his scholarly devotion to semi-classicalism or, as some more

severely style it, pseudo-classicalism; a cold precisionist, who would

render the death of a Cæsar as accurately and dispassionately as a

surgeon dissects a corpus--such a character would be a wholesome

make-weight to a young romantic mind.

It would emphasize especially the need of knowledge and mastery of

facts, encouraging the formation of a stable basis on which romance, if

it were minded to push its head into the clouds, might at least have

sure foundation for its feet. Certainly, one accomplishment that Brush

brought back from Paris was a feeling for form, and another was a

faculty of seizing upon the reality of things and of keeping close to

facts. No doubt it is as a painter of ideas that he is significant; but

do not let us overlook the point that all his work, especially the

earlier examples, shows an appreciation of the actual. How much of this

he owes to the influence of Gérôme it would be hard to estimate; but

even if this realization of the mental and artistic value of the actual

is an element in his own character, the contact with this master must

have done much to give it fibre. For the sense of actuality is

communicable, while ideas are not only personal to their author, but

inalienable. And how distressingly elusive, tame, and profitless in

pictures are ideas unbased on actuality--the landscape, for example,

that makes for sentiment without support of drawing and construction. In

pictures of the human figure an inspired control of colour may fill us

with enthusiasm, but cannot wholly stifle our regret if the drawing is

inadequate; for the beauty of nature is the beauty of its forms and of

the coloured raiment that clothes the forms without disguising them,

while in the world of spiritual ideas the beauty depends upon their

association with or analogy to the world of matter.

So let us recognize the value of the master’s influence upon Brush.

There was much that he had to unlearn as he pursued his own evolution,

notably the sleek, hard, and dispassionate method of Gérôme’s painting.

But his brush work every painter of distinguished character must acquire

gradually for himself, just as a writer, if he is an honest craftsman,

will discover his own fashion of words, adjusting his method of

expression to what he is trying to express; the main thing, both for

painter and writer, being to have something to say: something which is a

part of the man’s self and convictions. The method will grow to it.

Leaving Gérôme’s studio, Brush, like other students, stood at the

dividing ways. He might have cast his eye around him, noted what seemed

to be the tendencies of the day in art, the “latest style,” as the

fashion-makers call it, and set to work to reproduce in New York the

impressions aroused in Paris. Then, in time, he would have been among

those who excuse their own lack of initiative with the lament that in

our city there is no “art atmosphere.”

American Masters of Painting Being Brief Appreciations of Some American Painters · 第 5 / 8 段