New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-11-25
The Mind and the Hand

for the devotee to conceive Of him as
suddenly overshadowing with his ag-
gressive style the numerous contempt
raries who had next to no style with
which 70 bless themselves. But it is
more profitable to consider him side by
side with the one really superior artist
then in the French school, Paul Dubois.
With Robins work in mind, consider
the two small figures with which Du-
bois opened his career in the sixties,
his Youthful st. John" and the Flor
entine Singer" Pass then to the SYM
bolical figures guarding the tomb Of
General Lamoriciere, at Nantes, and go
from them TO the Jeanne dare" at
Rheims. Remember, finally, the noblest
of his portraits, the bust of Paul
Baudry. You find, presently, that you
are not so sure of Rodin as you we're,
and the first impulse set in motion by
the discovery is one directed at that
question Of the point of view which we
brought up in the beginning. Is it pos
sible that there was something lacking
in Robins point of view? 1t bears
heavily, as stated above, on obseva-
tion Of life and trained fingers. These
alone are not enough TO make great
sculpture, nor are they sufficient for
the exercise of truly benefcent in
fuence. Dubois had them, in as rich
measure as Rodin. Amongst all of the
latter's busts there is not one to sur
pass the Baudry. But Dubois had
something else, too, and that is why he
wakes no doubts at all. 1t is because
in the supreme matter of style he is so
simple, so strong, so true, so instantly
convincing. His observation and his
skill are tinctured with a very fine, very
elevating, quality That it is that
lifts him above the Academy to which
he belonged and allies him with the
great schools Of the past. And that il
is which stirs us TO determination Of
Robins point of view. We are content
with it so long as we are content with
his two solid principles. We grow
restless when we begin to test the quail
ity that tinctures them.
Beneath the surface traits Of every
authentic school of sculpture you feel
working certain elements Of immense
Importance, like the determining fac
tors in the solution of a chemical prob
lem. The Greek master, secure in an
exhaustive knowledge OF form and in
a consummate technique, simplifies and
eeneralizes his material in the light Of
a pure and lofty ideal OF beauty. He
is nothing if not a type of intellectual
and aesthetic distinction. The drop
from him to the Roman sculptor
is like the drop from Athens 10
the Empire, from refinement and
the things of the mind to gross
ness and brute force. When sculpt-
ure was renewed by the men Of genius
in the Renaissance, by men Of the
stamp of Verrocchio, Donatello and
Michael Angelo, it failed to recapture
the serene perfection Of the Greeks, but
it escaped the meretricious qualities OF
the Roman epoch. They kept close to
the racy substance Of life. And in their
sincerity. in their freedom from Roman
rhetoric, they developed simple force
worthy of the ancient Greek. They, too
served a fine ideal. Their modelling
has beauty, it has style. Also, 1t Is pro-
foundly personal. The lesson OF the
Renaissance is peculiarly the lesson OF
the man OF genius, whose individual ac-
cent supplies the last and most potent
/ ingredient TO the point OF view, the
little personal spark which decides an
artists rank in the world, whether ne
is 70 take Us captive forever or is TO
leave US cold or doubtful. Character Is
the issue. II is difficult for some art
lists 10 admit IL, but, after all, the
quality bestowed upon them by the
Creator is what decides their fate. A
master is triumphant or not according
as God made him. We talk about his
ideas, his technique, but what we want
first and last to know about Is his soul
as tho philosopher would put it, his
quality, as we say in the jargon 81
criticism.
Il is on that rock that the case OF
Rodin must ultimately be wrecked or
saved II is tho question OF his quality
that sooner or later is bound to assert
itself We want TO know not simply
what he did with his abilities. but what
subtler traits were implicit in them
From the sxpertness Of his hand. which
I. 20 be taken for granted. we turn In.
sv,.sbly 70 the nature Of his mind. The
nyoblem 10 not IS simple as IL might
s..m. There is q Rodin legend. which
/, confusing. He was, ~ has been In
A,.ss.d. O willing tslksr. and from the