New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-01-29

which might have kept them nearer TO nature
and freer from the deadening atmosphere OF the
Academy. Canova and the rest Of them worked
in a mechanical vein. They got some learning
and they got some executive facility. Of sort
but their productions were built up from the
outside and never by any chance contained the
breath OF lie. Now this seems TO US an eXtraor-
binary thing. and much more interesting IMAM
Italian art is when We look at it through Mr.
Wizards discriminating glasses To traverse
the long line OF workers from CanoVa down
not only with forbearance but with fabby ad-
miration is to put the subject in the pigeon
hole OF merely colorless things. But 10 recoS-
nize frankly the complete paralysis OF the arts
he instinct In a nation glorious beyond all others
for artistic achievements In the past IL 10 put
ones finger on a tragic and amazing episode In
human history Why was It 50? No writer that
we know OF has offered final explanation
Canova and Camuccini. We have suggested
above explain those who come after them; but
how are We to account for their erection OF
soulless standard in the midst Of public monu-
ments and collections which must have cried
aloud necessarily against their appalling artl-
fciality? That they preferred the classical IDEAL
70 that OF the Renaissance Is comprehensive,
but what we cannot understand is that with
innumerab relics both OF antiquity and OF the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries 10 sho" them
in what great art consisted. they continued IN
the evolution Of paintings and statues which
were abysmally mediocre and nerNeless.
The only hypothesis open to US is that the de
sire for art was unaccOmpanicd, as never before
in the history OF civilization by the faculty TO
produce art. They had masterpieces all around
them and they had too, enthusiasm In fact,
I.glt ffGf-
down to the present day, has been immense.
But with few exceptions, belonging to our own
time they have been like men cropping in the
dark II is in approaching and in dealing win
these exceptions that MIR. Willard fails most
conspicuously to prove himself an adequate
historian Of his subject. He catalogues his men
from the beginning to the end Of the century in
an even strain Of Biographical narration and
Kindly description What he should have done
is 70 have marked of plainly The earlier quite
Ufelcss classicists from the later men who have
sporadcally disclosed admirabl, qualities. His
CHAPTER headings indicate an attempt to do
eorne such thing lust as his grouping OF artists
tonoerauhically implies desire 10 be mlnutely
eye,.p,atic But the manner OF his failure will
lac e~bfhited when W say that on reaching
S-eantinI for example. nc neglects TO give that
painter the great conspicuity that he deserves
He writes Of this remarkable artist with some
appreciation but he ought 70 write about him, If
not with enthusiasn-which Is matter OF
taste-at least with a keener sense OF the man s
novelty and strength. Segantini, In short
exactly illustrates the strange circumstance
which Mr. Willard seems 10 have perceived
dimly il at all We refer 10 the rise within the
present generation Of few Italian artists who
have shown that after centurys barrenness the
nation can stl produce good painting. We had
almost said good sculpture, too; but with the ex-
ception Of Gemito, who has long been incapaci-
tated by a mental malady from executing any
more work. the scuptors OF Italy have for a
hundred years been either laboring In Canova' 6
classical and lfeess vein, along the lines OF
Vela's mediocre naturalsm, or In the shallow
facile key which mas made the cemeteries OF
Italy almost laurhable In their riot OF mindless
| workmanship Turning TO Segantini and those
few Of his contemporaries in Italy who are
worthy Of him We ind them possessing Ideas
the ability 10 embody their thoughts in A
powerful manner, and some highly original
! traits Where did these men get their vitality
and their charm? Again 1t is hard 10 say. Pos
sibI, Fortuny had something to do with it-a
point by the way, Of which Mr.. Willard seems
| to bc ignorant. Investigation OF Italian art or
| the spot has reused the suspicion that some
jealousy Of Fortuny still exists. He and th'
! other Standards who worked, and In some case:
still work in Rome and in the South OF ltaS
attained An eminence which, We are sure has
been discOncerting to the native painters aho j