New-York tribune., 1919-05-18
What Is Gained, and Lost, by Conven-
ton

There is a group or half a dozen
landscapes in this exhibition which
serves admirably to illustrate that
period in the history OF the American
school which was dominated by conven-
tion. 1t commentaries the Hudson
River men, the painters whose talents
were formed under the influence of so
strong a tradition that their works
have kind of family likeness. Natur-
ally, the first impulse of those who have
come after them and whose imagina-
tons have been enriched by limitations
of which they knew nothing, is to dis
count all their principles and especi-
ally that traditional family likeness
Does the likeness not speak of conven-
tion? And is not convention, beyond
all peradventure, deadening thing?
See how it has reduced a group of in
divldualities to one common denomina-
tor of dulness These reflections are
natural, as we have said, but they are
not altogether we'll founded Conven-
ton by which we may understand the
accepted habit of group, has brought
some virtues to that group. Consider
the skill with which Sanford Clifford
puts his panoramic view of landscape
together and then trace the same merit
OF composition through the pictures by
Samuel Coleman, William Hart and
James D. Smillie. Look to the ster-
ling thoroughness with which these
painters draw their tree forms, define
textures, and attain, in short, to GER
tain valuable truth. Look, finally, to
the success with which they illuminate
their canvases, filling them with a cool,
dry light Surely the convention which
taught them the necessity of these
things, making them conscientious, thor
oughgoing workmen, is not altogether
to be despised. Moreover, they shared
IN convention Of sentiment, as in
convention of technique, which has its
winning aspect. They were types of a
sort of graceful repose, Of a placidity
which was not without its elegance. A
fairly good case might be made out for
their serene, finished conception of
landscape as against the episodical and
often positively raw transcript which is
nowadays so much more fashionable.
But it is not the business of criticism
to make out "a fairly good case To
attempt to do SO is to confess that there
IS something radically wrong some
where in the subject, and in admitting
the flaw in this one we reach an i'm
portant lesson of the present exhibi-
ton
The failure Of the Hudson River men
to survive among the vitalized ex-
emplars of landscape is not an indict-
ment OF convention, as though con-
venoion were some mysterious and
deleterious compound, warranted to act
like poison on any one imbibng it..
Poussin and Claude painted LANDSCAPES
of conventional order and made mas
terpieces Of them. Failure in this
matter is purely personal. 1t is the
man, not the convention, that gives
out The Hudson River school failed
not because it was composed of good
painters misled, but because it was
composed of uninspired painters-ac-
complished, sincere, capable up to a
certain point, but without the creative
impulse that can withstand what is
lnsldious in convention. Thus the show
uptown enforces the first great element
IN the problem to which we have re-
ferred, the problem of artistic growth.
1t is the element of individuality. The
proof Is only too obvious here. One
has only to turn from the Hudson River
group 30 those painters who are linked
with it in point OF time, but whose
gifts caused them to rise above its
influence. 1t was not by any means be-
cause they were mad against conven-
ton that they rebelled 1t was simply
that they were born to paint where
the others never had that instructive
warrant. The true pioneers of Ameri-
can landscape are Homer Martin. Alex
ander Fl. Wyant and George Inness.
Compare their paintings with those of