The Press. — London, England, 1853-07-02 00:00:00

JULY 2, 1853. The landscapes by Wilson are four in number. Some of them have the hazy atmosphere, the ideal scenery, and the coarse manipulation too common in his less careful works. No. 150, the "Cincinuatus," and No. 13t4, the "13auditti," are the best in the col_ lection. in both we have that depth of shadow, that sentiment of solitude, and romantic combination o f the most beautiful features of nature fin• whi c h hi s pictures are remarkable—all harn 1111 l ised by atmo sphere, and enlivened by appropriate ►rod character istic groups of figures. No. 164, " The Tenth Plague of Egypt," by Mr. Turner, is painted in his earlier and happier manner, and the preternatural colouring which he hind already adopted might well seem fitted to represent the mi raculous judgments of God. N 0.169, "'fi►e Temple of 'Jupiter in the Island of Egina," by the same ar tist, has brilliancy of execution and a luminous sky, but the composition is extravagant, and rises in no respect above the ordinary drop-scene of a theatre. (To be continued.) ON THE APPLICATION OF PHOTOGRAPHY TO AltT. So popular has the study of photography become, that, as many of our readers are aware, there has lately been established a society for its cultivation and improvement, which holds periodical meetings and publishes a journal of its proceedings. I low far, indeed, the discoveries of photography are likely to affect the progress of art is a question of much inte rest, which has only of late attracted its due share of attention. At the last meeting of the Photographic Society, whose journal is now lying before us, there took place a discussion on the subject, in the course of which we are surprised to observe sonic of the speakers complain of an " angry" and " party" feeling, which seems to us not to be justified either by the exciting nature of the point in dispute, or by the magnitude of the ditlerence in opinion which exists between the disputants. As is usual in such cases, it will he found, we think, that neither party lime taken the pains to understand the other, or to ascer tain the true limits of the point at issue between them. The contradictions on matters of fact admit of a ready explanation. Wiwi) one ►IIOM oer asserts that photographic views are deficient in aerial perspective, that is to say, " in rendering the exact gradation of tint corresponding with the gradation which we find in a natural view," and upon this is warmly contra, dieted by another member, we believe that neither party is wrong. The fault complained of is common to the majority of sun pictures, but is much amended in the best, and, as the art improves, will he still further corrected. But at no possible point of per fection can a monochrome render the effect which nature produces by the variety and contrast of warm and root tints. When it was also asserted and denied that photo graphic pictures are unfaithful in rendering the middle tint, the Sallie explanation of the contradic tion may be offered. hr all but the best specimens, the picture, though very beautiful in other respects, is divided between high light and deep shado►v, and scarcely presents any middle tint at all. More fidelity to nature in this respect may be expected as the art improves, and we are unwilling to put any limits to its progress. Hut it is idle to deny that the difficul ties to I►e overcome are considerable : certain colours affect the prepared surface more powerfully than others which to the eye we of equal intensity, and thus their relative value is unfaithfully given in the picture. The effect of sunlight is strong, out of all proportion to that of the local colour; thus dark colours illuminated by the sun are too light, and light colours in the shade appear too dark. The time of exposure necessary to give the reflected lights and the details of the shadows is more than is needed to give the lights ; hence either the one will be underdone or the other will be overdone ; and, till means have been found of obviating all these objections, it is no libel on photography to say that it does not give the demi-tint faithfully awl effectively, and that it is a very imperfect guide as to chiaroscuro. In discussing the service which, at the present time, photography may render to painting, it is but fair to consider it, not in its possible perfection, but as exemplified by the average works of its professors. The first and most obvious benefit which it confers on the artist is, that it enables him to transport to his own painting-mom a transcript of nature, perfect as to term, and there to employ it as ho thinks best in the completion of his pictures. 'f he pre-Raphaelite question (as it is called), which was so warmly debated at the last meeting of the Photographic Society, appears to us to be entirely foreign to the subject. Whether the artist goes abroad to seek the details of nature, or whether he brings them to his own study by the aid of this new discovery, the use which he makes of them there will be regulated by his own judgment, taste, and know ledge. Sir W. Newton seems to have given much offence by a proposal to obtain the general effects of objects rather than their atlas by taking liews of THE PRESS. them with a lens purposely thrown " out of focus ;" and the discussion of this point seems to have been ekuTied au with as much eagerness as if the society liossessed but one lens, and were all obliged to adopt the same focus. We admit, indeed, that this is a view Of the subjeet with which photographers, as such, have nothing to do, and Sir William would have done better to address his observations to his brother artists. But if, by this means, he h o pe s t o o bt a i n generalisations which will assist him in his chiar oscuro, let him at least make the trial : the public in all eases will judge only by the r es ult s . if one painter fails to please by an over-minute elabonttieu of details, or another by a eloudy indistinctness 111141 confusion of form, it will be Ho daellVe to .ii y 111111 1114 4 one carefully copied a plattographie facsimile of nature, or that the other faithfully rendered the effect of an ill-adjmited lens. 'Ch, works at' both artists 111114 110 tried by the principles of art, which were settled long before photography was 11 gilt or, and W 1114•11 have 114.1 t in the least been altered by its intro. duction. In the field of art there is, indeed, a witde range between the most sketehy and the most laboured styles, between Rembrandt and Itibumer, Islween iainsborough and %solider Ileyden. Each schtwol of painting seems to have horned some system of its own, to the (perhaps undue) itegleet of others ; but in looking at the works of each the candid critic is disposed to acquiesee for the time in the view it has taken of nature, provided that. view is ably and consistently carried out. And we cannot but regret that the discussi sl hi have been encumbered with such strange efteophollOlN terms as pre-Ratfaellistn, Iteniltranthism, Reynolds ism (p. 75, Photographic Journal), catchwords which only exasperate the spirit of party. and by substi tuting sound for argument perplex the investigation of truth. For the present we decline entering into tuty 41i5 enssion of the prineiples of art : our purpose is simply to ascertain how far and with what caution the labours of the photographer luny be made subservient to the studies of the artist. We have said that the transcript of nature whi c h photography enables the artist to► Wile.; t► his studio is perfect as t► fonn ; but it must be rcmcmlx•rcal it is perfect in form only. There is nothing in it to discriminate the coolness or warmth of the tints and shades which constitute the detail. Tn distinguish► these the painter must trust to his previonsly-acquired knowledge of natural ctlie•ts. And yet on his success in this particular mainly de pend the truth and spirit of his work. Again, till the art of photography ix improved, the ehiaroseuro, as we have already observed, must necessarily lie very imperfect, and is, in fact, inferior t► that of a well executed study in black and white chalk. Ihi the other hand, the mere reduction of the scale will alone produce a generalisation of objects, which will materially assist the student in indicating the infinite complication and intricacy of nature ; while the mode in which the view is stamped on the paper by the pho t,ographie process—the "touch," as it were, of nature'ai own hand—will give him some important hints toguide hint in his manipulation. It is probable that pho tography will promote, both among artists and the public, a taste for arcurate detail—as it eertainly must convince those whom the I hitch masters have not con vinced already that accuracy of detail is not neeemsa lily inconsistent with breadth of effect. Whether this is an unmixed good is not now the question. It will also create a demand for more eerrect drawing ; anal of this the benefit cannot be doubted. In the practice of art we think that photognqthy, properly applied, may he of great service. It cannot supply a sub stitute for the studies which the young artist must make for himself from nature. lint if, ill addition to all the resources now at his command, be adds the facility of taking quickly anal carrying home with him, when time is scarce anal the weather unfavour able, studies of form which he can contemplate and imitate at his leisure, the advantage cannot, be Lou highly rated. The course of the Photographical Society is clear. It should be their aim, lay every mechanical improve ment of their lenses and apparatus, as well as by fresh discoveries in chemistry, to improve the fidelity of their representations of nature, leaning it to the man of taste and the man of science to make what application of their discoveries he may think tit for his own special purposes. We do not mean that it is not desirable they should occasionally discuss these applications; but such discussions are only subsi diary to the main object of the society, and should never be allowed to engender a " party" spirit. It has been much disputed how far it is fair, by touching up either positives or negatives, to render the pictures more pleasing to the eye. The answer, we think, is clear. It ciumot be fair to do so, under any circumstances, without stating what has been alone; and, on the whole, we are disposed to recom mend a discontinuance of the ',malice. In exhibi tions, the object of which is to display the progress made by the art, it. would be desirable thud the defi ciencies of aerial perspective and den►i-tint should 211 not be made good by artificial means. The result of this process, whatever it may be, can only be to mis lead. In views made by the artist to assist his studies, it is advisable that he should not tamper with his own materials; that he should not conceal from him self the imperfection of the copy o f na i nre h e ha s made, nor antieipate the eorreenons win c h, in num,. ferring it to his canvas, he may find it necessary to apply. fly puma. 111 NC ESS'S TH EAT RE. Wr. wish it to be tlistinetly understood that, ahliongh we by no Means atlvocate the sacritieeef titling to the Mere aceessolies of scenery and costume, we are nevertheless of opinion that nine) good will result luau attention to the more minute details, and we differ from those who hold that no attempt should Ise made to render stage decoration an object of any espeeial or lallailiennit inittoliallice. The Keene painter is an artist whose exertion?: am never suffi ciently appreeisited : his works, though of necessity most ephemeral, still require the great and rare qualities of breadth, colour, and atmosphere.; and no hand is so likely as his to improve and instruct the general public, if he lie employed in painting scenery which may have p►etellswns to he considered as it work of art. As Mr. Kean cannot give us good acting we thankfully accept his exertions in behalf of devolution. The general manage ment of his theatre is, in our judgment, entitled to praise ; Mal We think that he has dote much to ad. Vallee the returning taste for dramatic performances, which is one of the most remarkable peculiarities of the present generation. \No 110 not, however, agree with his position -that, until the present moment, it has been impossible to render Sardanaistiout with Proper drallialtic effect, Weallse Until 110 W We have kola( malting of Assyrian architecture and costume. - Ilk reasoning is as hike as his conclusion. With equal truth it might be argued that the works of the great masters of the sixteenth century are neither sublime nor atfisling representations of the seene.4 of sacred writ, because the artists have ill no instance itortrayed the dress, features, or complexion of the Inhabitants of Judaea, but have relied fair their etlret upon their unrivalled ptIWCES Or expression moll comp°. siti4lll. The 4441 Italian toasters cared hill little for correct architecture lutd alaiMiliriaite costinne, and, as we claim for them all incontestable superiority to all after comery, me will readily admit that. in soma 411,404 their ignorance or inattention has led them into mistakes which earned be considered in any other light than as positive defects. Nevertheless, iu matters of comparatively unimportant detail, we may easily be too accurate; ill point of fact, aim chrollimials ill art are only to IN' I.olldentliell in IlrOpOr tioli as they impair the general etlivt ; Mal It (Men N 441001, in works of imarinatitan and tictitai, that the adoption of the costume and scene?, of a more classic or picturesque period than that in which the action happens to he laid is productive of the greatest advantages. Ti, give one instance : 31r. Kean, it his late revival of Morbeth, scents to have gained n o thing by recurrence to the ru d e l'ltstumes and primitive arrhitecture of the days of Edward the Confessor ; and We say, Withollt fear of contradietion, that this great. Slodespeatian tragedy was in every respect better illustrated when brought out lay Mr. Mucready during his lesseeship of Drury - lane Theatre. We think, however, that in his revival of Surflana pahts 111 . . Kean has done tell to avail himself of tho Asst rim' discoveries, which are sufficiently good in point of art to give a striking and characteristic pie • titre. The costumes are gorgeous, and conceived in good taste. If we except the ridiculous positions imitated from the defeetho drawing of the Assyrian artists ) in wide!' some of the subordinate clutractent aro made to stand, the groupings and gutter-al stage arrange ment an. well conceived. The Ilan of N imnard, in the second act, se,emeil to us the best scene in the play ; and, rionigh we could easily find fault with the ex:* cation of the details, it is but fair to admit that the per mit:ilk(' is Irminged with more titan common ability. In other respects the scenery is not deserv ing of much praise. The ri%er Tigris, with Mr. Layard's most, audacious restoration of simr ,„,, r , lutlaco, is apperently the work o f an i n t- o i„ r h al o , and the elaborate attempt at producing the effect of an E as tern sunset it a decided failure. The Tryrotechnie exhibition with which the play concludes rivals the etforts of Vesmitts in 31asaniello, but the Killion &Tame of falling fiats i•; too great, and the smoke stillOcating. A word of praise is elite to Mr. Hatton for the very clever and characteristic music with which he has illustrated the different parts of the tragedy which required the aid of a musical com poser. FRENCH PLAYS. ON TlP' day last a monting performance was given at this theatre, consisting of one act of Corneille's Cinna, one act of Ravine's Andromague, the comedy of