New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1918-02-17

penalty of the man overweightcd by n
borrowed idiom 1t is obvious that he
has approached nature from his
fathers point Of view; that he has
sought, consciously or unconscously,
to produce the same type of picture
Now, he might have done this with per-
feet safety, swapping his fingers at
comparisons, invidious or otherwise, if
he had developed certain elements in
the art Of landscape painting. But of
these he has made very little. We refer
to technical elements, to research into
tree and ground forms, to the really
structural handling Of such factors as
turf and clouds.
Mr.. Inness often produces very
promising picture, especially when he
chooses for his subject luminous and
even brilliant sky. The surface effect
is picturesque and veracious. But it
does not carry. The effect lies too much
seen that the picture is thin and
papery, as though it were painted out
Of rather clever flair instead of VITA
fundamental knowledge. 1t is at this
point that the comparison with his
fathers great ndscapes-forced upon
US, as we have indicated, by the artist
himself-proves most disconcerting
The elder 1nness, to be sure, had weak
nesses of his own, often summarizing
a foreground, for example, with cX-
traordinary indifference to form and
texture, but he put SO much else into
his work, such glorious color and such
sheer genius, that one hardly notices
the omissions. The younger painter
is to emulate his fathers mood and
style in landscape he needs to fortify
his technique at every point, to draw
better, to model his skies more power
fully, to give his trees and grass firmcr
roots, to make his scene altogether a
solder, more organic affair. Style in
his case must come by hard work. 1t
never comes to anybody by the facile
exploitation of an old formula.
1t would be outrageous to disparage
Mr.. George lnness, jr., because George
Inness, ST., painted better pictures.
But it would be equally absurd to test
the one by any other principles than
those which apply to the other The
open to the structures we have passed
upon it if the work of the father had
never been heard Of. The points of
| resemblance, though impossible to
ignore, are not vital. The points that
are vital remain completely in the
painters hands. His art needs to be
rcorganized from within, to be
strengthened all along the line, if he
is to successfully emulate his fathers
ideals. The question of style, for him,
Will then settle itself.
The latest Of the exhibitions made in
that studio in Eighth Street which Mrs.
/ II. ?. Whitney so generously places at
the service of artist and public is per-
1 haps the most entertaining Of all the
shows she has ever organized. 1t is
composed of score of indigenous"
paintings, by which we are to under
stand d series of pictures flung upon
canvases already framed and hung. We
do not know how long the various con-
tributors were occupied upon their
task, but it is to be inferred that every
one was brief and worked without
models or preliminary studies. The re
suits are very gay Few individual
pictures call for detached comment, it
is true. Mr.. Dougherty's interesting
nude is, in fact, the only production
that especially arrests attention. This
is so good that we hope he will by and
by make an exhibition Of his own, pre-
But the broad atmosphere of this
artistic clark" is decidedly engaging.
1t gives us a pleasant sense of vitality,
of clevcrness, of a company Of bright
spirits rising to the occasion with real
ability. Mr.. Arthur Crisp, Mr.. George
Luks, Mr.. Warren Davis, Mr.. Guy Pcne
du Bots, Mr.. w. j. Glackens, Mr.. Blen-
don Campbell and the rest struck each
his familiar note, and struck it we'll.
Just what idea the affair was to illus
trate remains obscure. There was
nothing collaborative about it. The
rooms have no special character into
the hands Ct which the artists might
have been expected to play. Nor have
they, amongst themselves, established
any particular harmony. The exhibit
ton, as an exhibition, is as heterogc-
nous as any ever got up anywhere. But
ii it was intended merely to show that
group of American painters are swift,
resourceful men of their hands, the
show may be characterized as abso-
I lutely successful. From the point of
view Of technical virtuosity it is, as
we have said, uncommonly amusing,
amusing to the point of exhlaration.
Many years ago, as readers of his
impressions and Opinions" are CRATE
fully aware, Mr.. George Moore wrote
a memorable article about Degas. 1t