The Press. — London, England, 1857-10-24 00:00:00

1040 Siteratart. Letters on Connoisseurship ; or, the Anatomy of a Picture. With some Remarks on National Galleries, and the Mission of the Modern Artist. By William Noy Wilkins. London : Chapman and Hall. EVERYBODY at some time or other has met with that variety of the class of bores which is known as "the man nith a grievance." Mr. Wilkins is, we are sorry to say, in a literary point of view that which the indi vidual we have indicated is in a social one. He attracts us with a disquisition on art, scientifically distributed and not destitute of merit ; and having baited for us in this man ner, lets us feel in our jaws the sharp hook of his personal grievance—the establishment of artistic schools under the superintendence of the Board of Trade. Most people are painfully aware of the intense ugliness of almost every article of English manufacture, and having heard that they " manage these things better in France" by the help of schools of design and other similar training, are not sorry to learn that Government has turned its attention to the same point, and teaches the science of ornamentation to those who chocse to learn it, for a moderate pay. ment, and under competent instructors. They think, also, that if among the rising genera tion there should perchance be an inglorious Raphael or Turner, he will through these schools be enabled to acquire that preliminary and indispensable teaching which the strug gles of poverty too frequently deny to early and unacknowledged geni:ts. Mr. Wilkins, however, thinks eh.berwise . The Board of Trade, by the establ v-liment of schools of art, where all branches are professed to be taught at the cost of a few pence each lesson, with the chance of re ceiving a mastership, aided by that status which a Govern ment appointment gives in the eyes of the million, has not only put private academies out of all reasonable means of support, but has created hosts of draughtsmen arid non-naturally qualified parsons, who, backed by the Government salary and prestige, thus absorb that patron age which should fall to those who are naturally gifted (or rather cursed) with genius, and who, in their early strug gles for art, have borne the heat and brunt of the day. For it is not only mechanics and the humble who attend these schools, but " ladies" and " gentlemen "—the sons and daughters of physicians and barristers living in our principal squares and terraces—some to learn accomplish ments cheaply, others to swell that very competition which is thrown in the teeth of the rising artist by the very class who take every possible means to increase it. Surely, if the Board of Trade will step out of its course to encourage the practice of art among the people ( who need other instruction) by the reward of a pound a week and a mastership, it should extend its patronage to the struggling painter. But no, "it does not want Nature's artists," though it does its best to grow them ! Yet, when the artist is driven to these schools by a combination of those circumstances to which I have already alluded, he is met with a routine course applicable only to stone masons and doorplate engravers. • • • • Why, then, estimate the poet—the true designer of Nature's making—by the mechanic of trade manufacture ? Why shut out the struggling self-taught painter from all participation in the management of these schools ? I might perhaps answer why ; but I have said enough—not too much, however, for one who has been, and is still, a sufferer in common with others by these academies, as well as through other enactments of a still more arbitrary natnre. We might ask, if the establishment of these schools is so objectionable, wher3 is the con sistency of asking that the " struggling self taught painter," or any one else, should be al -10 wed to manage them? But Mr. Wilkins is too angry to be very logical. The broad principle, on which he never seems to have reflected, is, that schools, academies, and universities are des tined and of use to only the average bulk of mankind. In his preface he says ; No! genius is not so common, though her counterfeit, taot with talent, is; and the " Department of Science and Art " may congratnlate itself if, in twenty years' time, it creates one poet-painter or original designer, even though at the cost of those true ones of Nature's making which its unjust competition will have destroyed. quite a mistake, Mr Wilkins. The " Depart ment of Science and Art" does not expect to create geniuses. Real genius is neither created by a good system nor stilled by a bad one. It may have its path smoothed or roughened according to circumstances; but, if it minuet walk to LUPO) witltout boiling I,ta peas, it is pot genius, THE PRESS, OCTOBER 24, 1857. We have placed Mr. IVilkins's " grievance " in a prominent position, because we are sure that it is the prominent subject in his mind, and because we think it a duty to warn our readers of the querulousness they may en counter as they approach the end of this small, and in other respects tolerably readable, volume. Mr. Wilkins divides the requisites of a work of art into three classes; those which may be called " the mental portion of a picture "—in cluding " the Idea, Detail, Concentration and " Unity, Pictorial Arrangement, and Expres " sion " ; those which relate to the more prac tical part—including " Colour, Style, Form, " and Chiaroscuro " ; and those which belong to the purely mechanical portion, such as pigments, vehicle, varnish, frames, position in galleries, &c. This classification is somewhat similar to that of Aristotle (if Mr. Wilkins will forgive us for alluding to a writer belong ing to " a university education centuries be " hind the wants and feelings of the day," see p. 85.), who divides art into the elements of Theory, Contrivance, and Production ; and to that of Goethe (Rinleitung in (lie Propyliien), who distinguishes in it the Spiritual, Sensuistic, and Mechanical constituents. Admitting, however, that his classification is sound in its outline, we do not understand why " detail," or the faithful imitation of nature, should come under the first of the three heads above enumerated. Detail, as he elsewhere rightly implies, is the mere language of art. To settle what portions of a work require detail and what do not, is one thing ; to he able to execute detail is another. Mr. Wilkins, so far as we can make out from his very cursory treatment of the subject, seems to us to have confused the two. " Concentration or Unity " means that the artist is to keep in view the predominant sentiment in the natural scene before him ; and it is perfectly true that a power of grasp ing this unity belongs to the higher faculties of the higher order of artistic minds. The pictures of David Cox possess this " unity " in a remarkable degree. But we do not un derstand why "Pictorial Arrangement" should be posited as one of the "mental" portions of a picture. Surely it is as capable of being learnt by practice as chiaroscuro, which Mr. Wilkins places among the more " practical " requisites. Indeed, a true feeling for light and shade, like a true feeling for colour, is a much more uncommon thing than the power of arrangement, which may be soon learnt by proper academical training. We have no remarks to make on the manner in which Mr. Wilkins discusses these topics. They seem correct as 'far as they go, but to those who know anything of Ruskin, or of that pleasant and able work, " Leslie's Hand book for Young Painters," they will appear meagre and but little exhaustive of the sub ject. We cannot by any means agree with Mr. Wilkins's reason for this reticence : But as I am not writing for artists or the artistic ama teur in art, but for those who have not hitherto made art or pictures their study, and whose various avocations preclude their forming any other opinion on matters of art than those current among partial critics and interested commercial dealers, what I have said or have to say will, 1 trust, be sufficient ; at least, with the help of the various works on art already extant. When artists write for artists, they sometimes trust to the intuitive perception of the readers. Hence Ruskin's works, which may sometimes puzzle a logician, are yet perfectly intelligible to the artist, to whom expressive writing is of more value than a mathematical demonstra tion in matters of art or pictorial beauty. I may, however, observe that mathematical sequence is not always to be found in Nature, whose laws are never theless fixed. Thus we cannot always demonstrate the precise height to which a given wave will rise, but we can determine the height beyond which it cannot go. And so with art ; it may not be always easy to prove the existenoe of beauty or truth, but we can always tell where they are not. The negative proof is certainly that which is best suited to matters of taste and beauty. We should have expected a work intended for artists only to he short—ono intended for the general public to ho longer and fuller. Rus kin's works are voluminous because addressed to people who know nothing of art, and we have always been given to understand that they are no great favourites with the profes sion. If they puzzle a logician, which it must bo said for them they do not often do, it is because he is not sure under which class of fallacy ho shall rank au occasionally per• verse argument. As to the concluding line of the above extract, it is true enough, not how ever because negative is more " suitable " than positive proof to matters of taste, but because no other can be had in the present state of our knowledge. If Mr. Wilkins can demon strate the beauty of a picture, the world will be very much obliged to him to show it the way. He has, by the way, gone so far as to " de monstrate " the " line of beauty," which he does after the following fashion : Now the forms which are acknowledged by common consent and the criticism of ages to be the most beautiful are those found in a perfect human figure, and the ocean wave. Reduced to its simplest elements, I have found this form in the opposite arcs of two equal circles continued in one line, the arcs being formed from either end of any lino with a radius of one-sixth of the circumscribing circle. This line so formed I regard as the true line of beauty ; it runs through the whole of nature, and will always be found in every object of a beautiful character, speaking of course with reference to beauty of form only—hence its name. You wiil, therefore, do well to note the frequency of this line in a picture; and be assured that where it is not to be found naturally, the ugly (or lumpy) will predominate. This is not expressed with much accuracy, and it would be puzzling to construct the line of beauty from such a description. How can part of a circle, which must necessarily be a curved line, be a radius? and why take one•sixth of the circumference, when bisect ing the diameter would save all the trouble of measurement? What Mr. Wilkins probably means to say is, " the line subtending the arc of " one-sixth of the circumference "—which is a more exact account, but still a circuitous method. However, his diagram on the frontis piece will make the line of beauty, we must not say plain, but intelligible enough. The most valuable part of the book is the portion relating to vehicles and pigments, and wo give some extracts, the information in which may be new to our readers: I shall conclude this letter with a brief detail of the principal substances, permanent and deleterious, which enter into the composition of the majority of modern works of art, affecting their durability and consequent value. The first of these is " permanent white," a finer pre paration of the common white paint of commerce. This being the representative of light in Nature, enters into every colour more or less in a picture; the can vas ground of the picture, also, is usually of this sub stance. Now lead has the property of absorbing carbon and hydrogen from the atmosphere and oil in the painting, so that this preparation from the acetate of lead has the ten dency to return to its metallic base. Hence one chief source of the after-darkening of all works prepared with it. Lead also turns dark when excluded from the light, which retards this darkening ; so that a picture so painted will not admit of being shut up. You may have often noticed the dark patch on a wall painted with lead on which a picture or other object has been placed for some weeks ; this is owing to the same cause. All works, then, painted with lead or its preparations must be fugitive, unless when kept under thick and strong varnish (also objectionable, as I will hereafter show), or in strong light and air perfectly free from carbon or hydro gen, restrictions which obviously exclude such works from our cities and apartments. But supposing the picture to be under the most favour able conditions as regards lead, if it contain a particle of vegetable and animal pigments, such as the lakes, gam boge, indigo, or Indian yellow, common daylight alone will be sufficient to alter it in a few years. Works, then, painted with lead or its preparations, vegetable colours, Prussian blue, and those from copper, can only be valued as scene-paintings ; and any excellence they may possess can, unless under rare and peculiarly favourable circumstances, only be of temporary duration, no matter by whom executed. Those who have seen Turner's later works will recollect how many of them are beginning even now to exhibit the pernicious blackness which results from the uses of these legiti mate vehicles. It is said, indeed, that ho once painted an oil picture in g reat part with body colour, which picture th e unfortunate purchaser was for some reason or other in duced to wash. Of course it was ruined ; but Turner would not repair it, and only Raid, " What business had you to wash my (!j pie " ture ?" If Mr. Wilkins saves any connois seur from being taken in by painters who have Turner's -- well, emoutrieity -- without his genius, ho will have (toile some good servioo,