yet quite run their riotous course. That may be predicted with quiet
confidence, without any being taught by the future of another.
A great philosophical doctrine is deducible from these facts. All
development—including that of art, which is a part of nature and a part
of human nature, and obeys the common laws of nature—all development
is constant, and will be diverted from its logical course by no power.
Its great procession always goes through a main street, and sudden
turnings aside branch off only into blind alleys. Extreme forms have
no stability; they remain individual monstrosities without issue.
The strenuous life is always making efforts back towards the typical
constitution of the species. In art this law may be found deplorable
up to a certain point; for it is inimical to strong individualities,
even to honest and justifiable ones, and favourable to the indifferent
average, whilst in art the absolutely untypical individualities are
full of charm. But, as things are, it is the iron law of development
which no living thing can escape.
It is not easy to oppose successfully the opportunistic criticism which
always professes to see, even in the maddest and silliest things, at
any rate, “germs of artistic development”; but it is, nevertheless, a
duty of subjective morality to do so. My verdict on many notabilities
of fashion stands in sharp contrast to that which one generally
hears and reads about them nowadays. He who does not suffer from the
delusion of greatness, or a morbid distemper of contradiction, feels a
position of this kind painfully. I have earnestly and conscientiously
tried whether my adversaries were justified in demanding that I, as
an individual, should submit to their huge majority. Well, I cannot
concede this right to them. In dozens of instances, I have too closely
observed how the unanimity of contemporary opinion about an artist
arises. It is enough for an artist to invent a whim and obstinately
cling to it, without letting himself be put out by indifference,
vexation, or scorn. Very soon some ass of a critic will come and
explain this whim as an inspiration of genius. This he will do out of
vanity, affectation of originality, or an itch for sensation. He will
do it to give the impression that he is of more brilliant intellect
than the common herd, and that he alone can appreciate a beauty which
the Philistines stupidly pass by. If the humbug of a critic has some
skill in coining phrases, a little perseverance, and a fairly sonorous
pulpit, he will infallibly, in course of time, collect a congregation
around him; for it is easy to gain adherents to a chapel which one
designates as a place of worship for the intellectual _élite_, men of
fine feelings, and those gifted with understanding. Provided that this
sham lasts only a few years, it must needs triumph over all opposition.
A young generation grows up which takes it for granted. No one puts to
the test what has come into his possession, but takes it as a matter
of course. It attains iron permanence. What was a paradox yesterday
has attained the rights of dogma to-day by mere lapse of time. Busy
pens now vie in outbidding each other in the elegance and wittiness
of the phrases with which they express the prescribed admiration for
the great man. If an independent person steps forward, and shows
the worthlessness of the puffed up celebrity, the devotees of the
little chapel, which has grown into a great church, feel an honest
indignation against the heretic. “How does this man dare to doubt, when
we, who are certainly better and cleverer than he, piously believe.”
That is the history of every religion: when it is organised it becomes
intolerant and endeavours to assert itself by means of violence. But,
to the honour of mankind, there are, nevertheless, always independent
spirits who will not let themselves be intimidated, and on whom
authority does not impose. They test the dogma, and kick it away if it
is not firmly based. The stake has not protected religion from these
independent critics; still less can the Corybants of art-reporting
guard a fashionable idol from them.
The right of criticising the views even of the most overwhelming
majority must be maintained. A final proof in disputed questions
regarding æsthetics is, I admit, not to be supplied. All artistic
influence rests on suggestion. The work of art, itself and, originally,
exercises the suggestion on a minority endowed with delicate
sensibilities. On the great majority an opinion of others, delivered
with firmness does so. The great majority of people admire one who
is praised because it is suggested to them by his trumpeters that
it is their duty to admire him. As a matter of fact, they feel the
admiration, without being conscious that not the work of art has
inspired them with it, but the enthusiastic gossip which they have
read and heard about it. These people refuse to believe me when I tell
them that they are admiring something which is an aberration. The
prior suggestion prevents them from tolerating a fresh suggestion from
me. No one, however, can contest this so far as he is quite certain
only of his own feelings. In art, effect is an infallible criterion,
even if of only subjective value. If a man feels definitely as regards
certain pictures that they are valueless and unmeaning, he has a right
to express it as strongly and honestly as he feels it, even if millions
declare that they discover all kinds of loveliness and depth of meaning
in them. One will perhaps fail to convince a single creature, and will,
as likely as not, long remain a preacher in the wilderness. But perhaps
not for ever. The inventors of a fashionable _culte_, whom their
selfishness obliges to stand up for their own work, will not remain in
arms for ever and live. Those who worship after them have not the same
strong, effective grounds, the originator’s vanity, for defending that
_culte_ desperately. The snobs who thronged to it because it was the
singularity and they were the exceptions, necessarily abandon it as
it becomes commonplace and they find themselves in a vulgar majority.
Then the uninfluenced art-conscience again faces the work; it becomes
susceptible to the warning of him who was, up to then, “the one voice
crying in the wilderness,” and in a short time all lips murmur: “That
was indeed a swindle.”
FOOTNOTES
[Footnote 1: In the department of Doubs.]
[Footnote 2: Ps. xc. 10 in Luther’s version.]
[Footnote 3: _Tchin_ is Russian official _noblesse_.]
[Footnote 4: _I.e._, of joy or suffering.]
[Footnote 5: Faust: II. Theil; _sub fin._]
INDEX
Æsthetes, School of, 32
Alexander, John W., 217-8
Aman-Jean, 218-20
Angelo, Michael, 23
Art, emancipation of, 16-22
“—— for art’s sake,” criticism of, 1-5, 12-5
——, future of, 27-9
——, prettiness in, 227-9
——, religious, 296-7
——, utilitarianism in, 11-2
Artist, psychology of the, 5-9
Artists, influence of the Byzantine, 59
Balzac Memorial, 285-8
Barbizon, School of, 97-8
Bartholdi, 299
Bartholomé, 294-307
Baudelaire, 162
Besnard, Albert, 220-3
Böcklin, 326
Boilly, 81
Boldini, Jean, 154, 223-5
Bonheur, Rosa, 92-3
Botticelli, 220, 275
Bouchot, Henri, 57
Bouguereau, William, 225-30
Bourdichon, 58
Brangwyn, Frank, 230-6, 274
Bruniquel, 4
Caillebotte Room, 93
Carpeaux, 278
Carrière, Eugène, 166-84
Carriès, Jean, 308-19
Castiglione’s “Cortegiano,” 24
Catholics, New, 307
Cellini, Benvenuto, 23, 33
Century Exhibition, 70-81, 93-4
Cézanne, Paul, 236-9, 259
Charonton, Enguerrand, 67
Chassériau, 83-4
Chauchard, 91
Chauvinism, 11
Chavannes, Puvis de, 185-200, 343
Cimabue, 60, 121, 339
Clouet, 67-8
Cone, Jacques, 67
Conti, 145
Corneille of Lyons, 67
Corot, 100-3, 131
Cottet, Charles, 201-16
Courbet, 91-2
Couture, 122
Criticism, opportunism in, 336-9
Dante, 18
Daubigny, 104
Daumier, 88-9, 265
Degas, 119
Delacroix, 84-6, 104-5
Delisle, Leopold, 57
Della Robbia, 319
Donner, 299
Drolling, 79
Dupré, 340
Dürer, Albrecht, 188
Enamels, Carriès’, 318
Exhibition, the Century, 70-95
Fountains, 298-9
Fouquet, Jehan, 67-8
Fragonard, 74-5
Frédéric, Léon, 239-244
Froment, Nicolas, 64
_Genre_ painting, 16-7
Gérard, 79
Géricault, 98
Giotto, 60, 121, 339
Girard of Orleans, 60
Gleyre, 148
Gorki, Maxim, 261
Gretchen, 193
Greuze, 74-6
Gross, Baron, 98
Hals, Franz, 209
Hebbel, Friedrich, 144
Höllen-Breughel, 265-6
Huddleston, Judge, 150
Hundred Years’ War, Effects of, 56
Icons, Russian, 59
_Inferno_, Dante’s, 277
John of Orleans, 63-4
Kipling, Rudyard, 93
Lafenestre, George, 57
La Tours, 168
Landscape, literary, 136-7
——, lyrical, 137-9
——, optical, 139-40
Laurens, Jean Paul, 244-6
Leempoels, Jef, 246-50
Leonardo, 188
Lessing, a remark of, 145
Lieberman, Max, 120
Lorrain, Claude, 327
Maeterlinck, 109
Mallarmé, 275
Malouel, Jean, 67
Manet, Eduard, 105, 108, 112, 121, 123, 327-8
Mantegna, 15
Martin, Henri, 250-6
Meissonier, 105
Meunier, Constantin, 33, 34-40
Mignot, Jean, 67
Millet, 89-91, 103-4, 333
Monet, Claude, 105-8, 112, 115-9, 121, 123
Montenard, 256
Moreau, Gustave, 93-4, 155-65
Mouthe, caves of, 3
Museum, the Luxembourg, 110-1
Nietzsche, 275
“Open Air” movement, 93, 100, 102
Palissy, Bernard de, 319
Pavilion de Marsan, 56
Père Lachaise, “Resurrection” at, 300-7
Perréal, Jean, 66-7
Pissarro, Camille, 132-144
Plane, mediæval, 49-51
Poussin, 132
Præ-Raphaelites, 324
Prudhon, 77
Raffaelli, Jean, 114, 119, 256-8
Redon, Odilon, 258
Renaissance, 15, 23-4, 297-9
Renoir, Pierre Auguste, 120-1, 259
Renouard, 123
Reuter, Fritz, 290
Ribera, 209
Ribot, 209
Riesener, 79
Rodin, Auguste, 275-93
Roll, Alfred, 260-2
Rops, Félicien, 154, 266
Rubens, 268
Rude, 278
Ruskin, 149-50
Scheffer, Ary, 86
Sculpture in early Middle Ages, 65
“Secession,” 334
Simon, Lucien, 262-4
Sisley, Alfred, 123-30
Sluter, 299
Solutré, 4
Stuck, Prof. Franz, 320-1
Sweden, rock pictures in, 4
Thiéry, 96-7
—— Salon, 101
Thoma, Hans, 326
Trutat, 81-3
Van Eyck, the brothers, 60-2
Veber, Jean, 264-8
Velasquez, 209
Vernet, Horace, 87
Vigée-Lebrun, 74, 76-7
Watteau, 74-5, 261
Wéry, Emil, 269
Whistler, James, 144-54
Wierz, 155
Wilczek, Count, 68
Worms, Jules, 272
Zorn, Anders, 120, 154, 270-1
Zuloaga, Ignacio, 270-4
Printed at
The Edinburgh Press,
9 and 11 Young Street.