The sun., 1908-12-22
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY.

nelu LOT several seasons. Ihefo are bSS
framed color spots and several hundred
Items In clay. plaster, marble. bronze
and what not; and 1t would be obviously
unfair to say that all these works are
mediocre. They are not. At least @
dozen are not Perhaps more. Men must
paint and women too, and they must by
sheer force Of talent convince jury that
their pictures will decorate the walls oi
the Fine Arts Building The pity Ia when
u man OF genuine ability Is elected to the
seats Of the mighty In eleven cases oui
Of twelve his work shows signs Of deter.
Ioration within two seasons. The general
fashionable hothouse atmosphere under
mines the robustest artistic constitution
People can't live on high art ideals alone.
you are told by certain solemn jowled
wiseaores, 20 the Academy offers them
publicity for their pictures and possibly,
good sales. q.
The guilty hanging committee Of the
present exhibition was composed OF Ken
yon Cox. Edward II. Potthast and Daniel
Chester French. All we'll known names.
Naturally they couldn't hang ell the pic
lures selected by the jury OF twenty-seven,
hence they have been christened guilty. =
They even plead their guilt. The names
OF the jury OF selection may be found In
the catalogue; all well known names.
Indeed, the whole affair Ia familiar sort;
same old painters. same old pictures.
The coalition, the numerous minor 1re-
volts (the best way to be real secession
ist is to secede and not Imply to accept
a few inches OF wall space) have led to
nothing but mediocre show. aThe
Triumph OF Dulness; or, Mediocrity Re
warded" would be telling title for the
entire exhibition.
As We enter the Vanderbilt Gallery we
arc faced by the huge canvas said to have
been experimented upon by a syndicate,
Of Henry Brown Fuller This picture won
the Carnegie prize. 1t 10 named 1Tri-
umph OF Truth Over Error To what
other canvas could the Carnegie benefac-
ton have been awarded2 II. is surely
conventional enough.
Our favorite numbers are 1872, 80 and
2ie. by j. @. Brown. Gilbert Gaul and E. L.
Henry. No fumbling in their work. No
strained symbolism. No seeking after
reconcile messages Subject and treat
ment are clean cut Bright browns,
brilliant umbers and sonorous blacks
the color schemes. Mr. Brown shows
US kiss Your Brother the canine in
timaoy OF which ought to please the
Observation-Disclosures. Gilbert Gauls COM
position pleases us better II might
serve as the first curtain in q war drama.
The dog. the cat, the weeping mother,
the old darky. the departing son. the
deeply moved though manly father
here is all the familiar machinery of melo-
drama set forth with an economy Of means
that is almost miserly in its restraint.
The E. L. Henry tells in neat painted
phrase, with a peptonic concision. of
the petty dear happenings of every
day life II you must portray these
things Mr.. Henry's method is the best
All is stated with clarity; no danger OF
mistaking the gossips for prophets or
the horss for Pegasus. We are re-
freshed by such art, though il dates
back to 1870. Mr.. Van Boskerck, Mr..
Turner. Mr.. F. A. Bridgeman, are quite
modern in comparison. not going further
rearward than. say. 1880. No one, after
these examples, supplemented by few
others, may ask: Where IL the paint Of
yesteryear? II is at the Academy this
season.
The John Sargents are characteristic.
Mrs. Joseph Pulitzer's portrait in the main
gallery is more decorative than her hus-
bands, but 1t lacks the latter's human
interest A brilliant woman brilliantly
attired confronts you. She evokes the
vision Of " oman Triumphant. The Amer
loan woman, neither arrogant nor over
blown. poses simply, realizes her very
palpable personality, and withal is not
unduly conscious The fabric Of her gown.
the Rorgeousiy tinted falbalas, are rem
dered with virtuosity that fears no prob
lem, The left arm falls with a sensible
weight; 1t is real hesh and blood and bone.
The hand lightly poieed, shows the
exact strain. Yet gorgeous as IL the
whole surface. the picture never gets
beyond the eye. II is a scheme OF deco
ration rather than a revelation Of soul.
II you wish 10 see the soul OF a man, Of
race. go into the other gallery and study
the head of Mr.. Joseph Pulitzer. II
must have been finished some time ago;
the hair is neither 80 light rs it onoe was
nor SO gray as It now is in life. weary,
disillusionized face, the features OF the
Semitic type. highly specialized. one
encounters in Austria or Hungary,
seldom in Germany. never in England or
Portugal. The birdlike. tenacious thin
nervously powerful fingers that prop
up the shrewdly modelled head. the
predacious nose. the yelled gaze. these
and hundred details, together with
the cunning manipulation Of paint. prove
Mr.. Sargent when interested in his task
q true Psychologist OF the brush. The
third portrait ia that OF a lady stand
ing, the consideration Of her arrested
attitude and its easy handling being the
chief interests; cool picture, one
without the magnetism inherent in the
Pulitzer portraits. Naturally no prizes
were awarded to Mr.. Sargent.
The Thomas r. Proctor prize was given
to Charles Noel Flagg for the best
portrait. II is that OF Paul Wayland
Bartlett. the sculptor, and the painting
Of his long blond eyelashes is we'll done.
The composition is moro decorative than
strong. 1t tells little OF Mr. Bartlett
beyond his hair. complexion and the well
modelled forms Of his features. A much
more powerful characterization is the
head by j. Alden Weir Of an old fellow
q very interesting head, q oonnoisseur of
good things, old school. testy. but true.
The big machines scattered about, |
Of fnshiouably dressed Iadies |