New-York tribune., 1919-11-16
Group SHOWS OF AMERICAN PICTURES

tion. Ln Fargc's scholarly turn Of
mind, Homer Martins austerity, the
peculiar sylvan note Of Wyant as 1t
develops when we compare it with the
broader scope of Inness, all these
things are accurately and sympathetic
cally noted. But nowhere is Mr.. Van
Dyke quite so pointed and helpful as
in his Introductory chapter, the one
to which we have already alluded.
1t Is written with great .frankness
where frankness Is often evaded. We
have had and we still have painters
whose works specifically constitute
the evidences of our possessing
school. But Mr.. Van Dyke has the
courage to look into this, to inquire
as to just what we have done to found
school. Some of his obse rvations
may be cited here, with the note that
they are made in view of the estab-
llshment of the Society of American
Artists and its influence during the
period covered by the authors survey:
Surely we are not wanting in energy,
III
maps the restraint of these that we
need? Time and patience are very nee
essary factors in all of the arts. Atti-
tude OF mind, sense of proportion-a
style, IN short--cannot be attained in
few years of schooling. To the train
ing of lifetime must be added some
thing that has been more or less in
nerlted: That something handed down
from father to son, from master to
what have called tradition. 1t is not
technique alone, but mcs.tal outlook
added to the body of belief and expert
ence of those who have gone be-
Coming back, therefore. to the men
of the Society of American Artists. we
cannot say that they failed in skill or
were wanting in endeavor, or had no in
telligence. They had all of these. but
unfortunately, they were not of artis
tic descent, and inherited no patri-
mony of style. Instead, they tried to
adopt In few years the long story of
french style, and attained only that
part Of it relating to technique. They
were of the third generation in Amer
lcan art, but each one of these genera
tions had denied and forsworn it's
predecess ssor-had flung its mess of pot
tage, such as it was, out Of the win
dow and had left the ancestral roof.
never to return. The third generation
then had nothing by descent, not even
a pictorial or plastic mind that could
see the world in images. 1t went forth
empty-handed into the highways and
byways of Europe, became proficient in
craftsmanship and relied upon that for
success.
This is not merely figure Of speech,
put statement Of fact None Of the
American painters spoken of IN these
pages, with the exception Of La Fargo,
came from what might be called an ar
t'stlc family or had asthetic antcce-
grown up in the atmosphere Of trade or
dents. They were boys on farm. or
profession. and came to art at twenty
or thereabouts. They then learned the
technlque of painting quickly and with
much facility, but their mental attitude
toward art was unframed and remained
undetermined. Long after they knew
how to paint they knew not what to
paint or how to think. Their point of
view was superficial or commonplace,
or otherwise negligible. have ex-
c9epted La Fargo, for, as we shall see
hereafter, he did have an aesthetic
legend behind him. Is that whv he t.
now placed as the one Olympian of the
period? | would also partly except
lnness, Wyant and Martini who did
know and follow at one time the rather
feeble Hudson River school tradition
ask again, Is that why they remain,
even to this day, the best of our rather
long line of landscape painters?
1t IS IN no carping spirit that Mr..
van Dyke makes these exceedingly per-
tlnent remarks Protesting that the
young men of the Society of American
Artists never felt the spirit and style
OF the traditional, he is, nevertheless.
careful to point out that this is not to
proclaim their work worthless or their
movement inconsequent. "On the CON
trary," he goes on, almost everything
that one generation in art could do was
done. And we'll done They estab-
lished foundation in sound technique.
1t remains to be seen if those who
come after will build upon it or cast
1T down" 1t is in that last sentence