New-York tribune., 1920-02-15
A Little Salon
OF New Portraits

Tho National Association Of Portrait
Painters 10 holding At the Reinhardt
gallery Its eighth annual exhibition,
showing some thirty-ive or forty
works. Those appearances Of now
fourishing organization have a special
interest. They isolate an important
subject, and in doing so open that sub
]ect to severer tests than 1t is obliged
to meet on any other occasions. The
portraits scattered through tho Win
ter Academy, for example, may or may
not be provocative Of exhaustive discus
sion. When tho portrait painters have
show Of their own we are bound to
take them more seriously. This year,
however, as In other seasons, they leave
US somewhat dubious. Is there an
American school Of portraiture We
doubt 1t. OF course, we are not think
Ing Of school as body Of men sub
scribing with unanimity to given
formula We are thinking Of it rather
as body Of men so experienced, SO
trained in this specific field of art as to
be expert In q definite idiom. Por-
traiture, after all, is an art by Itself,
the art Of giving what we can only
describe as universally in pictorial
terms to the record Of personality
Recall Titian's "Man With the Glove"
or Holbein's "Georg Gisze," or the
"Bertin" Of Ingrss. They remain great
monuments regardless Of tho Identities
they commemorate. Here Is where
American portraituro as 1t is illustrated
In this exhibition breaks down. 1t
breaks down in the transcendently i'm
portant matter Of design. 1t was a
foible Of our figure painters, noted
years ago, to neglect composition for
the sake Of the brilliant technical pas
sage. We have had any number Of
clever men who have not possessed the
staying power for a long inventive
fight, but have been superb in the
execution Of tho "morceau." So it has
often been and 30 1t still Is With the
portrait painter.
What has become Of the Whistlerian
tradition-so closely akin to the Velas-
quez tradition-of placing the figure on
tho canvas with felicity sufficient in
itself to compel admiration? In its
place We have accomplished brush
work. Mr.. George Bellows most con-
spicuously raises tho point In his IN
teresting "Portrait Of Mrs. t." the
portrait Of an old lady attired in gala
dress. 1t Is interesting because as a
technical exercise 1t is so powerful, so
brilliant, but as a composition it has
no interest whatever. All through the
show we are conscious Of this indiffer-
ence to the "ordonnance" of portrait
ure. The canvases scintillate with
manual dexterity. Not once do they
disclose originality Of design, or, in
deed, anything that suggests moro
than rudimentary balance Of form. Per-
haps 1t is state Of things inseparable
from the temper Of our time. When
Mr.. Leopold SeyfYert paints his "Fritz
Kriesler" he makes what Is nothing
more nor less than a snapshot Of his
subject, recording what might be al
most anybody's impression Of the burly
violinist. We note the sturdy model
ing, the crisp drawing, and we are free
to admit that this Is an eloquent char
acterization. But where Is that new
and felicitous placing" to which we
have alluded? Where Is the note of
style? In portraiture, If anywhere in
art, the subject should be heightened
and transmogrihed by the creative
touch. It is not enough to make 1t the
vehicle Of accomplished workmanship.
On the other hand, it may be that, as
we have said, tho present generation
wants nothing moro than workmanship.
OF that there is plenty In this exhi-
bition, and there is with II, we may
add, an abundance Of good taste. 1t
Is with appreciation, too, that we note
tho presence hero Of the fewest posi-
Bile excursions into mere feminine pref
tiness. The portraits Of women have
moro often than not the charming Sc
riousness of Mrs. Rand's "Miss Laura
Scoville" and Mr.. Borie's "The Shade
Hat" The collection is uncommonly
~ooJ ~ WAN