The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-17
Art Demoralized by Progress

Art Demorniized by Progress
Numerous observers Of the worlds af-
fairs have noted the fact that influences
which make for what we call civilization
do not necessarily make for art and that
in this respect the result of the introduce
| tion of progressive influences among
primitive or conservative peoples is apt to
he decentralization. The subject has been
discussed, sometimes humorously, some
times sentimentally, but seldom with any
great seriousness. If. however, artistic
ideals mean anything at all in the life Of
people. and If progress is to be the
watehword of the future, the fact that
progress is inimical in most cases to the
art which is the result of instinct and of
tradition is an important and not very
| agreeable one to contemplate.
The proofs that this is so are legion
and may he discovered in almost any
quarter of the globe in which one hap
pens to be. by the simple process of
intelligent observation. Artistic ideals de-
veloped in music, in architecture, in pot
terry. in weaving. in dress. in embroid-
cries. in every form of art in which print
tive peoples can engage. have been de-
bauched and demoralized by the intro
such "A result may he predicted with prac-
ticaI certainty wherever the conditions ex-
list Not only has the picturesqueness of
peasant life disappeared before the wave
of advancing progress. with the CELEBRITY
of Kansas vegetables attacked 10y
swarm of locusts. but the music, archi-
! lecture and artistic handiwork OF the
peasant has become nondescript thing
unpleasant to contemplate. 1t is time
to enquire why this is so. and what, if
anything can he done to prevent it.
/ When anything is wrong. the first ne
/ cessity is to see that it is wrong; the
second, to understand the cause: the
! third to find the remedy. At present. in
this case. the great majority of the peo-
| Pile of civilized countries have not even
! taken the first step. They have an idea
that this sort of thing is not only nee
essary accompaniment of progress, but
| progress itself, and that it would he
sort Of sacrilege To- interfere with IT.
We have. therefore. first to prove that
| the debauchery of artistic ideals by COM
meccialism is not desirable thing. that
the peasant is artistically worse off for
his contact with progressive influences.
Take, first. the question Of costume
hundred years ago the peasants of every
European country had their distinctive
costume which varied not only with diff
ferent races and nations. but with classes,
with provinces, sometimes even with
towns. Each popularity of bodice or
head-dress had a history. There are a
hundred different fashions of headdress
to be found among French peasant
women, each picturesque and charming,
and having a subtle but decided indi-
| viduality Of its own. Each is peculiarly
suited to the type of face which it frames,
and while the young girl is the more
| charming for her quaint and demure
headgear the harsher features Of the
older women are to painters eye even
more attractive The colors of every
peasant costume are chosen with a sense
of beauty evolved unconsciously through
generations of experiment, and producing
effects as exquisite as those of the plum
age of birds. The brilliant colors' worn
in Italy are entirely different in combi-
nation and tone from those worn in
Sweden Each suits the wearer, with
delicate. unmistakable fitness. More
, over, the peasant costumes are unques-
tionably more hygienic and convenient. in
which could be devised to fit the condi-
tons.
Commercial civilization begins by re-
ducing all this TO a dead level of uni
formity. A recent book of travels in
Spain states that there is none of the pic
turesqueness in the provincial costumes
which one naturally expects TO find in
that land of romance The people might
T.. F..,- Ill h.. -,
dividuaIity there is in their calicoes and
ginghams. The Italian peasant affects
clothing as nearly fashionable in cut as
he can find and looks like second-rate
imitation of gentleman. The German
peasant girl puts on a costume as much
like the Partisan gown Of her mistress as
she can make or buy. and looks tawdry
and self-asscrtive. Both, in their original
costumes, would be picturesque and pos
sibly beautiful objects. The change GER
tainly educates their sense of beauty in
the wrong way, if that is supposed to be
an evil 1t does not cOnduce to economy;
the peasant costume is the cheaper, |
though it may be made elaborate and .
costly II is caused by the desire to be, /
not beautiful. not becomlngly clad, but I
a sernblance of something that one is not. |
There is what might be considered IN !
conscious dishonesty about an ambition /
Of this kind. There is nothing wrong in
a peasants wanting to be a well-educated /
and cultivated man; but there is some |
thing not quite honest about his wanting 4
TO look like one when he is really illlterate |
and Unrehned. In that way there is "A |
moral as well as an artistic evil about !
this thing.
Exactly the same thing is happening in |
other lines Of development. The most
serious Generalization in music which has .
happened in the name of progress has (
taken place among the negroes of /
America II there Is one talent which /
may be said to be innate in the negro II 1
is the talent for music; and this is the !
only race now dwelling in this country |
which has thus far developed anything |
original in the musical line. The Jubilee ,
Singers. and the more recent Tuskegee |
and Hampton singers. have shown what |
can be done with voices thoroughly train
ed to sing the old plantation airs. There |
are no voices sike these, when they sing
their own music, or music of a type some
what similar TO theirs; and the instinct |
of the musician is to be found In some OF
those who are perfectly unframed. IT IS
they, and not the educated negro. who