We artists always learn too little, and if we have recourse to books it
is only cursorily, and without a system, as though we held a solid
education to be quite unnecessary for the development of our talents. It
must be allowed that herein lies one of the principal, if not the chief,
reasons why art in its fuller and more complete development is checked,
and has not yet succeeded in throwing off its hitherto thankless part of
serving only as the pliable and pleasing companion to society, and in
taking the lead, not merely in the æsthetic, but essentially also in the
more important psychological development of mankind. While in all other
regions of intellectual life it is admitted that new ideas arise, and
with these the means of realizing and perfecting them, yet, in art,
especially in sculpture and painting, and to a degree also in music, the
old phrase still asserts itself—“The great masters have done thus, and
therefore must we also do the same.” In the handling of every subject,
an advance in thought may be remarked. Our view of the world is far from
being what it was a few centuries ago; our handiwork itself, in its
execution, has changed and improved. Under such circumstances one would
think that in the region of art—for instance in painting—either a new
idea or a more truthful and natural style might be possible. But no! One
is always met by the same assertion—that, “Not only in the perfect
construction of their pictures, but also in the sublimity of conception,
the old masters stand on an unapproachable height, and we can only
strive after them.”
The culture of the individual, as well as of society itself, has far
overstepped its former level. On the one hand science and literature, on
the other improved means of communication, have disclosed a new horizon,
have presented new problems to artists. These ought also to have
stimulated to some new efforts. But, again the same assertion blocks the
way—“The old masters have done thus, and therefore....”
* * * * *
In the art of painting, this excessive veneration and imitation show
themselves to a certain degree in representations of the nude and in
portraits, for both these branches of art reached a high stage of
development among the old masters. But, even here, we are struck by the
one-sidedness in the execution—the effect is always one and the same: a
very bright light on a very dark and sometimes black ground—an effect
often startling, but artificially produced, unnatural, and untrue.
Painters’ studios were formerly, it is true, small and, owing to the
costliness of gas, dimly lighted. But close to these studios there were
courtyards, gardens, and fields, with a beautiful background, and an
abundance and variety of light, which would have been as effective, and
would have made the black tones clearer and less monotonous.
We know that the darkness of the ground in old portraits is only partly
attributable to the influence of age, and that in most cases it is
intentional. On studying a series of old portraits one can only regret
that so much technical ability in representing the body, face, clothes,
lace, jewels, etc., should have been harmonized, not with the light,
airy shadows of a summer’s day as we all sufficiently know and see it,
but with a thick artificial black. Undoubtedly the new school of
painters will render a service to art by taking men out of the darkness
of attics and cellars into the clear light of gardens. It is
indisputable that the monotonous early style, which showed everything in
the same light of the studio, spares the artist many difficulties and
embarrassments; but in art there ought to be even less hesitation than
in anything else in the face of technical difficulties.
* * * * *
Turning to historical pictures, we are struck by the more thoroughly
intellectual and characteristic handling of the subject at the present
time. History is certainly still illustrated more or less by amusing
anecdotes, and artists content themselves by depicting that which
science has established, instead of contributing the results of their
own researches; but even now there is a very marked advance on the usual
adulation and the uncritical traditions, legends, and assertions of the
old school.
If painters were to study history, not in a fragmentary way from this to
that page, if they would understand that the imitation of dramatic
exaggeration on canvas has become obsolete, they would begin to arouse
the interest of society in the past quite in a different way from that
which is possible by means of anecdote, picturesque costumes, and types
that are for the most part fables of history. It is a fact, that
hitherto the treatment of memorable events by artists has been of a
nature to draw a smile from the educated. But by changing the sunny
holiday of the historical picture into a more acceptable workday, truth
and simplicity would certainly be the gainers.
It seems superfluous to mention the extraordinary advance made at the
present day in landscape painting, an advance due to very many causes,
but chiefly, of course, to the development of natural science. It is not
too much to say that the landscapes of the old masters are mere childish
essays, as compared with the works of the leading living artists in this
field. And it is really difficult to understand how and in what
direction landscape painting can be brought to greater perfection.
* * * * *
In the so-called religious painting, imitation of the old masters is
nearly as great as in portraits. But this is fully explained by the
gradual disappearance of religious perception, and the consequent
preference for an old ideal, rather than the creation of a new one
without the strong faith of olden times.
Nevertheless, the new school finds it not only possible, but even
necessary, to reject inherited ideas, though hallowed by time and
custom, when they evidently contradict the artistic eye and feeling of
our time. First: the manner of placing God and the Saints on clouds, as
though these were chairs and stools, and not substances whose physical
condition is well known to us. Second: the custom of representing Christ
and the holy men and women as a Roman patrician surrounded by his
slaves. Third: the representation of God in the style of our kings, in
robes of state, seated on a throne of gold, silver, and precious stones,
with a crown on his head and a sceptre in his hand, all suspended in
clouds. Fourth: the representation of the Virgin Mary in the costly robe
of a lady of high rank covered with jewels. Possibly religious painting
will not now rise to a second _renaissance_, but it may nevertheless be
assumed that the advance in technical knowledge may even be useful in
Church paintings, if the painter, in his representation of the Deity and
the Saints in their manifestations in heaven or upon earth, would
replace the dim, poor, and monotonous light of the studio by a
brilliant, clear, sunny atmosphere, and delicate, transparent, airy
shadows.
* * * * *
In order to explain our meaning, we will cite some of the famous
religious works of the old masters as examples: for instance, the
well-known pictures by Titian in Venice, and Rubens in Antwerp,
representing the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. We are not going to
speak of the great excellence of those two pictures, recognized all the
world over, and by no means valued too highly. If it be also beyond
doubt that these pictures have in course of time become darker, it must
nevertheless be understood that they were executed within four walls,
and produced by the traditional contrast of very strong light and very
deep shadow. Now, we ask, whence could these black shadows have come? If
the Assumption of the Virgin Mary had perchance taken place in a grotto,
or in some dark, artificially-illumined space, these shadows would be
intelligible, but in such case the strong lights would be inexplicable.
Now it was accomplished in free air, and we may be allowed to suppose
that a beautiful sunny day was chosen by God for so sublime and solemn
an event. So much the brighter should the pictures have been painted,
both on account of the direct and reflected sunlight. Whence then, we
may ask, came these black tones? Well, they were simply due to the fact
that the lights as well as the shadows were not derived from
observation, but invented, as artists say, “by the head,” and were
therefore from beginning to end false. But, can it be supposed that
great painters like Titian and Rubens should not themselves have
recognized such defects? Of course this can be as little understood as
that the great Leonardo da Vinci should not have remarked the false
light in his celebrated picture of beauty, _La Joconde_, when he painted
her in free air, with hard, metallic tones on the face, and an
impossible landscape in the background. Had he, then, no presentiment of
the wonderfully tender lights and half lights, shadows and half shadows,
wafted over the face of a lovely woman by the air?—how everything out of
doors has quite another appearance about it than within four walls?
We will not digress too far with our investigations, and only venture to
ask whether it occurred to no one at that time to demand so much from
the artist? No; they were not asked. But these niceties, are they not
required in these days from the artist? Yes, they are.... Then the
advance is evident.
In like manner, we cannot suppose that another shortcoming in the
artistic conception of such masters could have escaped their acuteness.
For instance, in the representations of the Apostles, whose
personalities are so clear and convincing in the Gospels, we recognize
in their forms, faces, and attitudes—particularly in Titian’s
pictures—not modest, humble fishermen, but fine Italian models of
athletic appearance. This error was evidently acknowledged even then by
the artists themselves, with their usual tact and good sense; and
Rembrandt went so far as to introduce into his religious subjects Dutch
market-figures. But there is still a long stride from this to the true
rendering of the types and costumes recognized at the present day as
indispensable. Is this not an advance? Certainly it is. We deny that
study has ever yet created talent; but, on the other hand, we do not for
a moment doubt that it stimulates it.
As regards time and place, the worshippers of the earlier style of
painting go to such lengths in their imitation, that they not only work
with the same colours and in the same manner as their adored masters,
but also aim at lending to their pictures that peculiar tint which time
has produced on the canvas. They cover their pictures with some dark
shiny colour, in order to give an appearance of age, as if they were
painted one, two, or three centuries ago. This tendency is even taught
in many modern schools, and individual artists have gained great
reputation as colourists merely because they can impart to their
productions a resemblance to those of Rubens, Van Dyck, Rembrandt, or
Velasquez. Let us hope that the new school will go to work with greater
deliberation, not only as regards the conception of their subject, but
also in colouring; for it is impossible to treat this aright by
imitating, with a quantity of varnish, a canvas which has become
yellowish or reddish through time. The young school will make it a
strict rule to bring every event into harmony with the time, place, and
light selected, in order to benefit by all the modern acquisitions of
science, in relation to the characteristics, costumes, and every
psychological and ethnographical detail.
A scene which takes place in heaven or on earth should positively not be
painted within four walls, but in the true light of morning or mid-day,
evening or night. The illusion and effect produced by the picture cannot
but gain by this, and the language of painting will become more
expressive and intelligible.
Perhaps the same might be said, with little variation, of sculpture, and
even of music. All the arts are now, more than ever, brothers and
sisters, and long ago should have been united in one temple of taste,
intellect, and talent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------