New-York tribune., 1908-04-29

Ion. In the first place he declares there never
was but one technique of painting until David
famous in the last years of Louis XVrs reign
and during the First Empire. inspired by neo-
Greek ideas, sought to introduce into painting
| what proper only to sculpture He had
observed that the art OF painting in France had
/ lost all its old dignity. 1t had become an
! "aniab bic art" frivolous and often licentious in
its inspiration. and he set about to purify it,
To achieve this he sacrificed color to form He
started a formidable reaction against all the
Old color charm of the eighteenth century. on the
! ground that IL was lacking in seriousness But
! by bantshing all the clarm-al the "ragout' as
Anque'in picturesquely puts ft-of the Frago-
/ narcs, Bouchers Watteaus and Paters who were
thelr immediate predecessors, David and his
J disciples lost the resources OF technique with
which that 'ragout' had been composed. From
David to Insres and onward to the modern
Official school Of French painting was an un-
swerving progression the lines laid down by
David Then came another reaction The dull
Dltuminous effects of the official school We're
condemned and quite rightly. by a number Of
young painters. who. thinking they had dis
covered something by the introduction Of
clear tones and whites, founded Impressionism
But this was merely "the stroke of a sword I'm
the water" The reverse of a mistake is not
necessarily an act of wisdom 1t is no good
I
ceed TO erect something much more hideous In
Its stead. The Impressionist reaction was like
useless revolution which replaces bad govern
ment by anarchy.
The lmpressionists are inferior to David The
portrait of Nine. Recamier. bad as 1t is is su-
PerloF to La Belle Olympia II Manet's pict-
ure had been painted by Fragonard it would
nave hao' IN addition to superior drawing, the
true ragout Of painting. Anquetn having been
at the commencement of his career great ad-
mirer Of Manet's, the reasons for his change of
opinion are interesting for they contain in a
nutshell his whole theory Of technique Manet
he points out, began by reacting against the
official school Of which such painter as Bonnat
is notable adherent. But man who cannot
manipulate his own medium exactly in accord
ance with his wish is the victim of his def
cehcles- Manet hides under appearance OF
strength, great poverty OF 'Tnetier'' and of
knowledge. The poverty consists In this, When.
for instance he wants to paint an eye to fix It
energetically in a face instead Of painting the
eyelid with its shadow. the iris, the white the
eye. IN fact, in its ensemble, and with proper
and natural construction, as the old masters In
Variably did, he splashes blob OF paint upon
his canvas which resembles a trouser button
and the same with the mouth and the rest Of
the features. He thought that he could gain
strength of expression by gross transpositions Of
nature But grossness is not strength, and this
weakness, this impotence, of Manet's was due to
his ambition to paint "du coup" with one stroke
Of the brush, convinced that this was the es-
sence OF the technique. the basis of the method
practsed by Telasquez. Franz HAS Goya and
other great masters. One might think So too
if one did not know the cards The whole secret
Of the technique Of the old masters lay in the
fact that so far from painting "du coup" with
one stroke, they decomposed their work
Franz Halls, for instance. began by very
rapid and brutal preparation. To paint a finger
he took his brush. dipped in white paint,
crushed it at the knuckle of the first Joint ran
It rapidly along the first joint crushed 1t again
at the second knuckle Of the second Joint and
ran it with equal rapidty along the second
joint 10 the tip Of the finger. where he was still
able TO give the impression OF the nail by the
fashion in which he manipulated his brush at
that point That was one temps" one move
ment He had constructed the "ossature." or
approximate skeleton as ii We're Of the finger.
Then. with second temps" second move
ment. he dressed. to speak this preparation
with liquid colors. and completely finished his
work Manet's mistake consisted in believing
that one movement could be made 10 suffice in
stead Of two. When he painted, for instance
the hand of the young man which IS hanging
Lathuile," he painted and repainted 1t a dozen
times at least, hoping get ii right at the last
attempt, which. however. did not bring him
much nearer to the effect he was aiming at than
at the beginning Franz HaIs's one-movenent /
painting was in the preparation. the "dessous"
and he finished with glazes. Paint is a paste
and to manipulate paste at one stroke with the /
needed suppIeness, is impossible. The charac- /
teristic Of the old method. the only true one
was Transparency and fuidity obtained by the /
use OF liquid colors. Modern painting is en-
tirely opaque because the painter employs only /
one movement and because his medium Is uni /
form paste The true technique consists IN .
the decomposition OF the paste from below with .
transparent liquids above. The fact that the
English eighteenth century school was so good
IS due to the fact that ii was not until after
Lawrence's death that English painting became
by French influences. c. l. B.