New-York tribune., 1919-09-14
English Portrait Painting

4 VI
by {. h, l.. Fletcher. Portraits chosen
by Emery Walker. Introduction by
c. F. Bell. Part |. l7oo-lSoo. Part II.
1700-lS50. (Oxford: Clarendon Press.
London: Milford)" is reviewed as fol-
lows in the literary supplement of the
London Times"
English portraiturc from 1900 to 1860.
tor various but simple reasons, is al
most unprospected. For one thing,
most of US assume that there would be
little profit in going deeper into the
question than popular textbooks take
us. We have, therefore, been content
to leave alone the unexplored regions
of our native art and concentrate our
criticism on foreign schools. probing
their minor masters and fossicking
their lowest strata. To our credit be
1t said. we have the names of Gains
borough and Hogarth, Reynolds and
Romney pat enough, and can nearly
always resognize their pictures But
for the painters who preceded them
we arc inclined to trust to luck hoping
that names like Knellcr, Hudson and
Hogarth will serve to fill the gap.
Another reason for our iNcuriosity is
the difficulty of acquaintanceship with
minor English portrait painters. In
deed. but for the accident Of London
auctions or casual visits to the man
sions of the great, We might die
ignorant that England is the richest
portrait storehousc in the world. More
over, by gaining our knowledge at
sales, where diapidated pictures.
/ apeculatively assigned, show to marked
disadvantage III competition with
highly preserved Italian and Dutch
masters. and from the servants halls
and upper landings OF country houses.
We are bound TO uNderrate our painters
We are tempted. therefore. to dismiss
them en- bloc as unworthy OF the stiff
research and scientific study which our
kunstrichter unsparingly devote to
quite the humblest Italian and Dutch
painters.
Then again publications Of portraits
usually contain an immense number of
dull portraits by the bad painters.
Probably celebrities in the first half Of
the eighteenth century, Ike their
present-day successors. were nearly al
ways painted by the duler artists. or
somehow failed 20 stimulate the
brighter to their happiest vein. In
consequence we are not shaken out Of
our belief that nothing but a tag-rag
OF lace painters practised portraiture
in England between 1900 and 1863. THIS
defect in such publications is, perhaps.
inevitable. though none. we fancy.
would complain # now and then point
We're stretched ard some one less
famous possibly than Francis Cherry
We're included in the sel.es FOR the
sake OF his or her beau portrait. Leav-
ing taat. however. we must rot blanc
}.r. Emery Walker if his new series or
historical portraits gives us no fresh
insight into the portrait painters of
the carry eighteenth century. For this
business was to illustrate famous men.
and it is not his fault il they were
painted mainly BY the hack ecademi-
clans Of that date. But MI c. r. Bell,
who in contri buting his introduction
clearly felg az liberty to leave the
famous men alone, might without cx-
. oeeding his terms of reference have
; done something to open up the unex-
plored region between Kneller's de
, cadence and Reynolds s arrival. in which
modern English portraiture was born.
For Mr.. Bell does not Try to correct
= the common view that What we nave
called the modern vei, in English
por-raiture came abruptly into being
witt Hoearth Reynolds and Gains
, borough. 4 nicer criticism would have
I shown that the important aspect Of
] Gainsborough and Reynolds their com
plete emancipation and modernity o.
outlook and intcrpretationw not a
sudden jump, but rather the one more
and, if he likes, the final step in u
long evolution.
Ever since the time Of Hilliard Eng
lish portrait painters showed a quality
Of Interpretation that makes their por-
traits indubitably English. Indeed, the
most slavish English imitators of Lcly
betrayed them selves at times by their
English accent and, let Us fairly add
their insufficient English craftsman
shlp. 50 that we find in the seven
tccnth century and early eighteenth
the same kind of outlook and interpre-
tation that was incomparably better
= expressed by Reynolds. We may
therefore. duly say that Reyndlds's and
ainsborough's revolution was not
mental or temperamcntal. but techni-
cal. Reynolds's place in time, mis- trav-
: els and scholarship. gave him cosmo-
polltan ease Of design and craftsman
ship; but rather than adding to his ma
, tive perception of character his eclect.
icism olunted it. 1t might, in fact, be
said that his technical contribution &c
English painting was more important
than the rotund and rhetorical char
/, acterization which he popularized.
A casual eye will no doubt see i,
Richardson painter who "apcd Knell
- er's manner SO far as his abilities per
, mitted." A keener and more usefu
H.,