New-York tribune., 1914-11-22
Plastic Art and Racial Traits in France

of ,he familiar Flying Mercury
Plastic Art and Racial Traits in France.
Giovanni da Bologna, coming upon
the scene I'm an age of transition. marks
the final dislocation Of the equilibrium
cited at the outset Of these remarks.
No longer do the various resources of
+bc school flow into one generous and
harmonious stream. Some of them, IN
deed. are dried up. and henceforth. rs
the career of Cellini may in passing
remind us. the very craftsmanship
which was once so spIendidly, because
SO iudciously. exploited, turns upon
its practitioners anc Detrays them INTO
DISPLAYS of manual facility often sadly
sDccious. The same story Is untolded
in France with difference, which is,
indeed. all the difference in the world.
The bust by Germain Pilon, Charles
IN. King of France is a capital Illus
tration of the older tradition north OF
the Pyrenees, very courtly IN its polish.
a thoroughly distinguished portrait.
gulf divides it from certain eighteenth
century pieces in the Altman collection.
wherein technique. glorying in its own
consequence. IS gayly in the saddle.
But i'm France, as 1t happened, this
meant no such renunclatons as II
meant in Italy. Racial character
stcpped in. to restore the balance in its
own way. The French genius, light.
mundane. invented 10 amuse, had only
to call upon its innate decorative fac
ulty TO rebuild the plastic hypothesis
and triumphantly rcadJust 1t TO the
taste of a now regime.
l. is not without some mumur-
, lngs Of the spirit that the school
abandons "thc large utterance OF
the early gods The old inspira
tion fingers. lloudOn. the master OF
them all. still clings 80 the antique
law. Witness the true monumental
character of his "Bathcr," the linear
beauty. both classical and supple, of
that gracious nude. Witness, likewise.
the almost artlcss sweetness Of the
Louise Brougniart,' an impression OF
childhood akin 10 the Renaissance IN ITS
simple truth. Pigalle, too, made ms
sacrifices 10 d nObler muse. Ihe terra
Gotta model here for his famous "Mer-
curry Tying His Sandal IN the Louvre,
,ividly recalls the more serious STRAIN
in French sculpture. But the really
suggestive figures, for our present
ANALYSIS. are Clodlon and FalcOnet. the
former with his "IntoXication of Vine
ana tlc DtCtliNc anu a -HFhlb''f -'tN
latter with his Venus lnstructing Gu
pid." What clan they have, these
sparkling masters of the salon and the
boudoir! How far they carry us from
the masculine sweep Of DonatellO or
the unworldly delicacy Of Mino! To
what different ends are the resources
of technique directed! The difference
spells a loss. no doubt, but 1t is Just
upon the difference, and not upon the
loss. that it is profitable to dwell. The
statuette succeeding TO the statue eN-
poses diminution of creative energy
equivalent to the diminution IN scale.
We do not get as much from the sculpt-
ure designed for the mantelpiece as
from the sculpture designed for the
altar But what we do get is supreme.
in it's way. Again it Is grace. an
earthier grace than that of the Italian.
but with a charm Of its own. Again 1t
is modelling. more superficial than the
Italian. but irresistible in Us dettness.
Again il is beauty that the artist seeks,
and finds. in his own fashion. Why are
the two types-so widely to be sun
dered if we follow q Grass system OF
evaluation- really united in their sue
Cessful appeal TO our sympathies? 1t
Is because both are authentic, both are
rooted in a national way Of thinking
and feeling. both are absolutely sincere.