The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-06-03

fore no surprise TO learn that In 1874 Monet
gave the nam leo variously abused) TO
the entire movement when he exhibited g
water piece on the Boulevard des Capucines
entitled Impression: Soleil Levant." That
title became a catchword usually employed
In q derisive amer Manet earlier had
resented the intrusion Of a man with a name
30 like his, but succumbed TO b influence
Of Monet. One thing can nc longer be con-
troverted-Claude Monet is the greatest
landscape and marine painter OF the second
half OF the last century. Perhaps time may
remove this limit clause.
In his very valuable contribution to the
history Of the cause Theodore Duret, the
b~iographer and friend Of Whistler and
Manet, has in his Les Peintres Impression
istes" (recently published) held the scales
very much in favor Of Manet's priority in
the deld over Monet. 1t is true that in 1888
Manet had drawn upon his head the thun-
derous wrath Of Paris by exhibiting his
1Dejeuner sur pHerbe' and 'Olympe'-
the latter Is now in the Louvre and is by
no means a representative effort OF the
painters genius, despite it's diabolio clever
ness. Qt reveals a profound study OF
Tizisno and G~iorRione.) But his vision
was in reality synthetic, not analytic; he
was a primitive; he belongs to the family
Of V~elasquez, Ribera, Goya. He initiated
Hals-and with what glorious results in
l. Bon Book! He manipulated paint
like an "old MASTER and did astounding
things with the higher tones OF tire color
scale He wa not an impressionist until
he met Monet. Then in audacity he out
stripped his associates. Discouraged by
critical attacks, his courage had been re-
vived by the greatest art critic France had
thus far produced, Charles Baudelaire, who
fought for Richard Wagner as well as for
Poe and Manet. To the painter the poet
~scornfully wrote You complain about
attacks? But are you the first to endure
them? Have you more genius h Cha
teaubriand and Wagner? They we're not
killed by derision. And In order not TO
make you too proud l must tell you that
they are models, each in his wi way and
in a very rich world, while you are only the
first in the decrepitude Of your art Sinister
and disquieting that last phrase, and for
those who see in impressionism the de-
cadence OF painting because Of the pre-
dominance given to the parts over the
whole 1t Is a phrase prophetic.
Manet Is a classic. His genuine power
technically speaking-lies in his broad,
sabrelike strokes Of his brush and not in the
often niggling tdehes OF the impressionists
of which the reductio dd dbsurdum Is
pointiHisme. He lays on his pigments in
sweeping strokes and his divisions are large
His significance for US does not alone reside
in his consummate mastery OF forms and
colors. but in his fortnight expression of
the life that hummed about him. He Is as
actual as Halls. Study that boy With the
Sword at the Metropolitan Museums
there anything impressionistic about 1t? 1t
is Spanish. the Spain OF Velasquez. in its
beautiful thin. clear. fat painting, its sober
handling OF values. The truth is that Manet
dearly loved a fight, and being chef d'ecoie
he naturally drifted to the impressionists'
camp. And it is significant that Duret does
not give this virile spirit q place in his new
volume, confirming the estimate Of his genius
to the preface. Mauclair, on the contrary,
includes Manet's name in his more oompre-
hensive and more scientific study. as he
also includes the name OF Edgar Degas
-Degas, who was a latter day Ingres, plus
color and psychology.
The title Of impressionism has been a
misleading one. II Degas is an impress
sionist. pray what then is Monet? Pissaro,
Sisley, Cezanne are impressionists, and in
America there is no improperly in attach
ing the handle to the works of T~wachtmann,
Alden Weir, w. L. Metcalf, Childe Hassam,
Robert Reid. Ernest Lawson. Paul Cor
meyer. Colin Cooper Campbell and others. But
Manet. Degas! 1t would have been a hap
pier invention to have called the 1877 group
independents; independent they were, each
man pursuing his own rainbow. We may
note an identical confusion in the mind OF
the public regarding the Barbizon school.
Never was a group composed Of such dis
spirits. Yet people talk about Mil
let and Breton, Corot and Daubigny. Rous-
seau and Dupre. They still say Goethe
and Schiller, Beethoven and Mozart, Byron
and Shelley! 1t is mental inertia, this
coupling Of such widely disparate tempera-
ments.
That uncritical bull In the culture shop,
Max Nordau, has demonstrated to his own
dissatisfaction that the votariee Of impress
suffer from diseased eyesight.
Nevertheless, divided tones and screaming"
palette do not always a picture make.
Mediocrity loves TO mask itself behind
artistic innovations, For the world at
large im~pressionism spells Improvisation
easy going, slatternly, down at the heels
process, facile as well as Fictitious. Albert
Wolff thought these things when he sat for
his portrait to Manet. His surprise was
great when the artist demanded as many
sittings as would lave the painstaking
Whistler shocked Ruskin when he |
confessed to having painted a nocturne in
days, but with a lifetime experience
in each stroke Of the brush Whistler was
a swift worker, and while he claimed the
OF being the originator Of impress
sionism-didn't he originate Velasquez?
he really belonged to the preceding gen.
He was impressionistic, IL you
will, yet not an impressionist, He was
Japanese and Spanish, never Vatican,
Monticello, Turner or Monet.
Mr.. MacCol has pointed out the weak
ness Of the scientific side OF impressionism. |
Its values are strictly aesthetic; attempts
to paint on a purely scientific basis have !
proved both monotonous and ludicrous. |
The experiments Of the neo-impressionists
the 1885 group, Of Signao, Seurat. were
not very convincing. Van Rhysselberge, |
one of the few painters to-day who prao-
Use pointillisme, or the system Of dots,