New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-08
ART EXHIBITIONS.
uARR1s. HoLBRooK AND FLAKES
LEE COLLECTIONS

Uavri
pr' d., ~ New-York. have been private COL
HolorooN. wis Of art Mr. T. ]. Blakeslee has
lec'o -, we'll known as a dealer IN pictures III
lone ,,, The consolidation Of their three cohec-
'n's t. che galleries of the American Art Assoeia-
lions IN ~. these rooms varied and interesting
no" Old naintings OF the English and continental
efec'. GU '..ornnanied by works from modern
schoo,s .,.,s and men of own day. The three
PREM" 80 wisely RETAINED from grouping their
o"...,ons separately. The exhioltion mas oeeIl al
posi- &c though II were of one collection Ihere
rane'u ain novelty about IT. Examples OF the
j. . cainters are seldom seen IN such numbers
eei"' .hts occasion. That the intrinsic value
ss w. IA masters included is on a par with their
OF ,ool strength could hardly be maintained
n,-,inos by Sir Joshua and Van Dyke Tor exam
80 ohsolutely major significance are none TOO
Pc - the market anywhere. and the hrst-rate
o. o.. from their hands that reach our SHORES are
'hHessorilv few. But painting Of the last century
bs0' -. ,redecessor often reached respectable
OF - while missing the highest. and many OF
- old portrats in the present exhipluoh are
'.,,orious enough TO he received with h'eiy III
H., ~ not with the enthusiasm. reserved Tor
masterpieces. .,..s ,rsoed aDropos
.,is exhibition that nowhere is temperate ana
,,,o,s method OF criticism more essentai IMAM
long the old masters They are not sacrosanc'
a, old master is not. as matter OF course
,.acla Of art. Neither. on the other Manu. IL an
afvfi
.narA favorably with the gems OF the Louvre
70 Prado There is great mass OF work dis
,,rtsd among the public and private galleries or
--one and conspicuous from time TO ume III
- auction room. which has been emoalmed by
~ accident of time and has besides some valuable
,or,,es 1t IS not great. but II Illustrates more
lass the traditions OF great men, great epochs.
"a the world does not willingly let II die. Claudio
Gallo. for instance (who. by the way. is not to be
,.a With Alfonso Sanchez Coelo), Is not. AT
- ,est a painter OF renown. But he is extremely
,.,esting as an exemplar OF the kind or art mat
~, before and after the apogee OF Velasquez leo
.nonslous existence In Spain, denying IN It's
u quality the noble breadth and abounding
.y,,, ~ that supreme painter. but commanding
. ndubltable vogue through its couruy pohsh
~ dignity There two portraits by him IN
.,is exhibition In neither of them is there SO
rch az a breadth OF inspiration or OF Individuality
whatever emotions the painter may have felt when
:. ras pajnting were CONCEALED by the rightly OF
~. scheme II seems not unnatural that dlns!'
,..lses tone should characterize the face IN a
p.,r,c,an Lady: the costume was plainly the hrsI
,hisct OF the artists solicitude. While there Is
more animation IN the painting OF tho features IN
che Don Fernando Of Austria" the first thins mere
sea,, IS the dress But in both cases tho dress Is
ehsrming 1t is all very hard, formal even rather
,,-al when you consider that the wearers or these
s,mptuous garments were. after all. human beings
With PASSIONS like unto those Of the rest OF man
Wind. but we cannot blame Coello for not oelng
.orething which he never meant TO be; we can
o,lv smile with quiet pleasure over MS archalc
~o-ssousness Character sometimes Is disclosed IN
go old nroducts OF berufed society and an
inmobile art. There is something beyond quaint
,onreption Of design in the portrait OF a Ienue-
man" bv Mierevelt. a work wherein the brush loi-
laws With the utmost precision. and with little
.uhtletv the obscurer elements in the physiognomy
r. the subject But the quality that counts most
IN iris and in the other portraits by Mierevelt
IN the examples of Van Ravesteyn Mytens ana
pourbus is the quality OF a skilfully decorated
surface the souls Of these painters could not rise
m lofty issues. but their fingers were deft they
ralnted their stters rather splendid lay hgures
,bey left US portraits which. II sadly hollow at
any rate make brave show on wall which Is
hung near by perhaps with ancient tapestries II
q greater dignity may be attributed 10 any OF the
portraits in this category II would be 10 the tan
princess Palatine" OF PETER Codde. There Is
stately simplicity about this fine canvas whch
gives It a frmer hold on the memory than many OF
the old pictures in the show can boast. There is
some interesting technique in II, and 1t has trace
Of Individuality, a hint of distinction. Among the
mora important OF the old paintings we regret 10
ssy that there too many hints and not as many
complete revelations OF genius as we would wish
No one could be much concerned over the deficiency
0. the Portrait of Dutch Lady and Child" by
Cornelius de Vos in the clear. keen quality which
rharacterizes the best works by that master. De
vos is not a greatly moving painter under any cir
pumstances But there other cases which are
approached In a exacting spirit.
As We have suggested above. must not expect
too much Of an old master Yet the chiefs in that
Immortal company bound to be tested by their
tappiest achievements. One never see un-
satisfactory works attributed to them without feel
Ing sensation Of regret that cannot be extin-
sushed by the most voluminous proofs OF
authenticity Both the portraits given to Van Dyke
" bfa E4.40 h1or he IOpn
neither in the Earl of Arundel" nor In the Lord
Dudley" do the virtues present atone for the lack
Q. that final excellence which makes thoroughly
Characteristic work by the great Fleming one Of
The treasures OF art Van Dyke has his bad pas
tages, Of course. and some very brilliant works by
him exist which unevenly painted but the
master hand is always obviously In control-the
good points outweigh the bad. In the Lord Dud-
ley" there Is nothing except the fluent modelling TO
speak Of the true Van Dyke. and the Earl Of
Arundel" while admirable in the work about the
fare and about the right hand, is. as a whole.
without the resonance OF color. the beauty of
nyls. which every close student OF the painter in
syitaby demands. Van Dyke OF the few
artists Of the low countries to whom beauty meant
great deal that was refined and noble. He had
en- in,omparabe elegance, which gave to his por-
traits OF men almost as much charm as VIII be
found in his portraits OF women. Then his color
was often superb The trouble with the Earl Of
Arundel is that in execution II lacks elasticity.
and in tone II lacks the pure beauty which In
variably belongs to a Van Dyke Of commanding
character. II is a fine portrait-fner than anything
In that group to which we have referred with mild
approval above-but we repeat. hint OF distinc-
ton is enough in Mytens Claudio Coello. When
Van Dyke. prince among painters, is in question,
we are dissatisfied with anything save the artists
Richest and best. OF Sir Joshua may speak in
much the way. The two small portraits.
LADY Mary Nugent Temple" and Lady Char
'otte tombstone" pleasing examples. but in
very minor vein. and the huge Frederick, Duke Of
York IS not saved by its origin from being cold
and even ugly canvas. aggressive in the morbidity
OF It's colors. Romney also Is badly represented.
On the other hand, one OF the three Lawrences.