The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1906-06-14

clIl0E OA tuo tWO i4uo6, duu 1OH6 Cali /
see in his work the fire and mastery Of
the ancient Greek combined with an
execution that would have been, had
he confined himself to the same lines,
equal or superior to any Of the Greek
sculptors
This age is almost wholly productive
Of paintings, which. Fortunately, are
mostly we'll preserved. Michael Angelo
was the only sculptor OF consequence,
and with the decline of the Italian
Renaissance, came. another period Of
partial stagnation, not so marked as in
the former instance, yet enough to sep
arate it from the modern schools. The
modern painter is a different prop
ositior entirely; he still has the artistic
instincts or he would not dabble in III,
but he has other aids that the ancients
never dreamed of. For instance, the.
painter has the air brush, by which he
Ecan throw q spray of color Oh desired
spot, as flmy and light as breath,
and with it can do the most beautiful
shading and toning This, formerly,
had to be done with the brush alone,
and you can readily see who was the
better workman of the two. Then the
modern school differs again, in that the
finest subjects are always outdoor
scenes, woods, lakes, ocean views, etcs.
which makes comparison hard to.
draw. However. think if the ne
Ecessity arose and demanded an
Eartist for some great work, one would
come to the front as always happens
when the right man is needed, It is
indeed hard to say aught against such
painters as Gainsborough and Sir John
Reynolds, for portrait work, and the
great Millet for PASTORAL scenes.
Of the modern school of sculpture,
about the same may be said They
have their pneumatic chlsels which
will do everything but talk, and do it
in one-tenth the time the best chiser
on earth ever made by hand alone.
And they have instruments for en-
larging copy and for getting the
exact proportions, etc. These all were
unknown to our old masters, as they
worked by hand and eye. But do not
let US be too hard on the modern
painter and sculptor, for everyone
knows how coldly critical and super
cilious the world generally is regard
ing the work done by present-day
artists, and more than often the poor
devils starve to death in some back
garret Notwithstanding the fact that
they often turn out work as good as
anybody ever did. But in two or three
hundred years, say about when that
other national monument shall be
completed, the Panama Canal, we
may expect to see them surrounded by
a halo of fame and referred to as
those incompatible clever artists of
the twentieth century. This same
mist of romance and age surrounds
the old masters now, and 1 doubt not,
act as a powerful factor in prejudice
ing us in their favor, even before we
have even seen a piece of their work.
In this connection let me relate the
: best story about the value of criticism
by the average public Il do not mean
by competent critics), that I ever heard
of. A certain noted American painter,
whose work was always on pastoral
subjects, was besieged by requests
-, from friends" to try his hand at por.
trait work, or rather with the human
face for a model. He promised to try
and at his next exhibition, which was
held at Chicago, he showed a copy of a
Rembrandt portrait of one of the
Popes. The public and newspaper
critics, ripped it up, down and cross
wise, saying it was evident at glance
by thesmerest tyro, that it was a very
. modern attempt to equal the old mas
ters; and as usual, dismal failure, etc
They called attention to the fact tha
: in his attempt to make it look ancient
he had sadly oyerdone it; that it was {
dark, dirty blotch, etc. After getting
all these criticisms in writing tn,
I artist came out and showed that tn,
Q picture was one of the few genuin,
d Rembrandts In existence, and he
q knowing what the public would say O.
? any attempt on his part to make /,
Q copy, had borrowed it from the Fiel,
q Museum and put it in modern franz