New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-20
ACADEMY PORTRAITS.
BY RICHMOND, HOLL, LONG, HERKoMER,
SARGENT AND CAROLUS DURAN.

II is remarkable that the Royal Academy Elk
h;h;,;on NJ this year should contain three
portraits of three men so famous and so ex-
trcmely dissnilar as Prince Bismarck, Mr.
Gladstone and Lord Randolph Churchill, and that
all three should resemble each other in one es-
sentjal point: their badness. MIR. w. b Richmond
went to Friedrichsruh to paint the German Cham
celor who gave him sittings, formal and informal.
He had, / suppose, all the chances man could
have TO study his subject The result is Bismarck
In putty Neither blood nor iron has gone TO
the making Of this poor creature: nor even human
flesh. The picture is hopecssly weak. This man
make q German Empire? lie could not run
German hotel Mr.. Richmond has missed all the
greatness, all the force, all the character, all the
dignity, and even the bigncss of the man he has
tried to paint He has made him self-conscious;
made him like an actor trying to initiate the real
Bismarck, and initiating him most badly, and pos
ing for his photograph all the time.
Mr.. Hollis portrait Of Mr. Gladstone is far
better piece of work technically, but his is the
Gladstone of the Tory imagination, full of wicked
ness and evil passion; vindctive, cruel, PASSION
ately selfish and vain / can think OF
but one word, august, which we'll describes Mr..
Gladstone when you see him at his best. There
Is nothing on this canvas to suggest that word
to the beholdcr; nor to suggest any Of the nobler
qualities which belong TO the great Liberal leader
I quoted to you in brief note by cable what
was said by a spectator: that Mr. Hol had made
Mr. Gladstone look like dynamiter-" made
him look like the chief dynamiter' was the exact
phrase and could not be sure whether it was
used jubilantly or Indignantly. When Mr. Rich
mond's portrait was exhibited at the Grosvenor,
a year or two ago, there were Tories who went
about declaring themselves avenged on their
enemy, on the man whom they hideously describe
as the murderer of Gordon. One of them said:
'@ He looks like the murderer he is,' and another
No, like convicted murderer, which he is not
This ferocity Of speech ought not, perhaps, TO be
put into print for any purpose, yet it is part OF
the history of the time, and unless you know
how people of position permit themselves to
talk of Mr.. Gladstone, you can get but faint
notion of the real hatred of him which exists
and is daily and hourly expressed Mr.. Holl, l
believe, went to Hawarden, as Mr.. Richmond
went to FREDERICKSBURG; and his journey has proved
even more disastrous There is power in this
Gladstone portrait, and none in that OF Prince
Bismarck but the most feeble representation
would be better than this hateful caricature.
Mr. Holl is O painter of very considerable ca
pacities, and he can very well afford to hear the
truth when the truth is disagreeable Where
he fails most often is in rendering what is best
in man. He saw the worst in Mr. Gladstone;
saw the wrathful side of him, which certainly
docs exist, and painted him as if convinced that
at the bottom of his anger were ell the worst
motives and passions man could have He has
either suppressed what is noblest or not seen 1t,
end he has not even conveyed the impression OF
dignity which the head gives from no matter
what point of view. In the case Of Lord Spencer,
Mr.. Hollis general success is as marked as his
failure with Mr.. Gladstone Bu5 he has not felt
what / should think every man who meets Lord
Spencer must feel: the chivalrous nature OF the
man and his distinction of character and bearing.
lie has made him older than he is, but that matters
less Perhaps his Sir William Jenner is, after all,
the most perfect of his portraits. lie has given
his bengnant acuteness Of expression to the life.
"Why did Lord Randolph Churchill choose Mr..
Edwin Long to paint his portraitp" quericd more
people than one at yesterdays private view. The
answer is, he did not choose him. This portrait is
present TO the Constitutional Club by Mr. BluEdell
Maple, eminent upholder (old English for up
bolsterer in Tottenham Court Road, and eminent
upholder Of the Constitution Of the realm in the
House of Commons. 1t was Mr.. Blundell Maple
who pitched upon Mr.. Edwin Long as the most
suitable painter to portray the fiery young cham
pion Of Tory Democracy. Was it be-
cause the same artist had failed with
Lady Randolph that he was expected to succeed
Wltn ner husband? lie mas nOb succeeded. ne mas
failed disnally. Posterity will refuse to believe
that this weak-faced young man with eyes drop
ping out of his head led England along the prim-
rose path to democratic beliefs There came past,
as looked, great dignitary Of the Bench; his
name no man shall know; nor woman either. He
said If 1 were Lord Randolph, Damn your eyes
Is what should say to Long" And it would
be well said and other things might be said,
but Mr.. Edwin Long, with his fat hard, poor
painting Of big pictures is not a man to be
criticised with much seriousness. Lord Randolph
has in fact one Of the keenest and strongest of
faces and the London of to-day will not be misled
as to him or his looks by Mr.. Longs feeble pretti
ness
II is an open secret that these three men, Prince
Bismarck Mr.. Gladstone and Lord Randolph
Churchill, do not like each other If you could
make such an effort as 10 imagine the three
present yesterday in the galleries of the Burling
ton House, each might be thought to contemplate
the portrait of the other two with certain
austere assent to the views these painters have
taken Of their several sitters.
Two beautiful women, equally we'll known In
London, have been painted by two very different
artists, Viscountess Hood by Mr.. Richmond, and
Mrs. Arthur Sassoon by Mr.. Herkomer. Lady
Hood has avowedly been posed after a we'll
known picture of Mrs. Siddons,e and the artist
seems really to have tried to present this queen
of society as queen of tragedy also. He has sur
rounded her with accessions which might suit
the drawingroom or the stage equally well,
but the general impression of the whole is, if
not dramatic, theatrical 1t ought to be brill
liant portrait; it is snowy one. Lady Hoods
beauty stood in no need of being set off by all
these voluminous draperies and these flowers,
nor to be seated as if on a throne Mr.. Herl1omer
has tried similar experiment with Mrs Arthur
Sessoon with a result which, plausible at first,
ends by disappointing you The power of the
painting is undeniable, but so is the exaggeration
Of the attitude; so is the strain after effect,
the hot color, the want Of refinement in the
handling. Mr.. Herlzomer is attempting too much