The Press.
London, England, 1858-06-19 00:00:00

r. 4

" Casta Diva," " Hobert, tot que j'aime," tie duct
"Serbanti ognor," from the Semiramide, and the
tenor airs from Lucia and Der Frieachutz. Berlioz'
overture, " Francs Jngett," Weber's " Enrytitithe,'
and the " Priests' Match " from Mendelst,ohn'a
Athalie were very creditably played by the orchestra,
unier the direction of Mr. Mantis.

MUE. SZAHVADY'S third and last Matinee Musicale
will take piaci) at the lianover-square horns, on
Friday next.
_ _

MR. Alma Scmoss's Concert will take place at
the Marylebone Institution, on Monday evening,
June the 28th.

int lrts
ROIAL ACADEMY.

(Seventh Notion.)
THE art of sculpture has been but little affected by
the changes which the last few years have male in
architecture and painting. That it should have
fallen into something like discredit is pretty good
proof that reform is needed. Whatever taltnt and
merit our present sculptors may be allowed b pos
seas, it is impo.-sitile to deny that by the public in
genera! their works are regarded without satisfaction,
and almost without interest. Meanwhile, we are
rejoicing over our restored Gotlic architecture, and
miking steady progress with it ; in painting, we pro
duce year by year %%mks which multitudes crowd to
see, and which we do not shrink from comparing
with those of other nations ; but as for the productions
of our scu'pt.xs, few would care t i have the marbles
rescued from the dim vault to which the Academi-
cians annually consun them, and the bronzes which
from time to time take their places at the corners of
our streets are treated with simple contempt. We
do not admit popularity as a proof of excellence,
but a total want of popularity we look upon as indi-
cating some grave detect. We cannot imagine that
sculpture is likely to remain long in its present posi-
tion ; nor does it seem to us difficult to show some
reason why it has not of late made progress, and to
point out the causes which are likely to bring about
reformation.

Between painting and sculpture there is little con
nection in the present day ; the two arts are not
pursued by the same men, as was often the cus.om
of the earlier artists. And Set we cannot help won-
dering a little that the causes which worked such a
change in the one art should have had so little iffect
upon the other. We must remember that it was
among a small knot of painters that the change
began ; hut even among the painters the new prin-
ciples did not spread without great opposition. We
cannot, therefore, be surprised that from thescuiptors,
another body aitogether, they should receive but
little favour. Doubtless they would prevail in tinm ;
but, the one art exercising no direct influence upon
the other, such progress would he slow.
. But sculpture is almost a part of architecture.
-Row could the one be almost revolutionized and
the other undergo no change ? We must find the
answer in the nature of the revolution. Some thirts
or five and thirty years ago the Renaissance, though
in a state of utter decrepitude, was still the style in
common use for all buildings, both ecclesiastical and
secular. Since that time the case has entirely
altered ; the Gothic is now largely used for dwelling..
houses and public buildings, and for churches exclu-
sively. What brought about this sudden change ?
Did people trouble themselves with discussions as to
the abstract merits of the two styles, and, after
making themselves thoroughly acquainted with the
whole subject, decide in favour of chance? Did a
lew architects put forward new views, and fight their
way gradually and against great opposition, as hap-
pened among the painters? Did not the movement
come from the multitude? Was it not a matter of
feeling rather than of reasoning? Was it not that
the people looked at the wretched structures which
day by day were growing up around them, and then
turned to the old buildings of four centuries before,
until at last, before the partizans of the Renais-
sance could well recover their breath, the restoration
of the Gothic was carried by universal suffrage?
This was a very short and easy way of settling the
matter, but it had its disadvantages. The architects
were told to build churches like these, and not like
those, and they did as they were told ; and so, in-
stean of a Gothic of the nineteenth century, we have
only the Gothic of the fourteenth over again. We
became scrupulously careful to do nothing that had
not been done before. This system has been car-
ried on long enough ; a new step must soon be made.
If we have any faith in Gothic at all, we must give
up thinking that it has been long ago worked out
and brought to a conclusion ; we must make our
Gothic supply the wants and reflect the character
of our own time, or it is as great a piece of affectation
RS our Roman temples and Greek porticos. This
mistaken idea, it seems to us, has withheld from
sculpture the new lift which it should have received
frotn the revival of architecture, and which it must
receive whenever more rational views prevail. Against
all reason we have been building churches and