New-York tribune., 1921-02-06

! his hour of triumph-so far as the
auction room could bring it--came at
/ the George A. Hearn sale in 1918. Pic
lures Of his then brought $4,000, $4,000
or $1,000, and one Of them, called
simply Landscape" was bought by
( Senator W. A. Clark for $15,60o. This
made q sensation, and placed Murphy
alongside such men as George Inness
and Winslow Homer as regards the
commercial value of his work.
We speak of these records because,
to tell the truth, there was something
positively dramatic about them and be-
cause they signifed something more
than the growth in commercial value"
to which we have referred. Murphy's
success under the hammer was indica-
tive of the wider and deeper appreci-
alton of American landscape art that
had steadily been going forward. 1t
was representative of a striking move
ment in American taste. 1t IS interest
ing to reflect now on the purely artistic
nature of Murphy's contribution to that
movement. He came to manhood in the
/ '70s, when the rather dry tradition of
the Hudson River school was just be-
ginning to go out, under the influence
of those pioneers who, having genius,
were fitted to make over all its hypothe
ses. He found his point of departure,
therefore, in comparatively free and
naturalistic conception of landscape
bo Of cyeniUG 2
Hardly. He had, at the most, modest
spark of the divine fire. The smallness
Of it is suggested by the fact that his
earlier work never left any very mem
orable impression. 1t disclosed SEN
sitive interpreter of nature, COM
ity, but not enough original force to
excite particular comment, and GER
tainly no distinction of style. In COM
position, for long time, Murphy was
type OF agreeable picture making,
with the wholesome American habit of
avoiding academic formality in design.
In respect to details he was strongest
in the definition of tree forms.
Murphy's trees always had solidity and
character. He was untouched by i'm
nressionism in the ordinary accepta-
ton of that term We can recall moth
ing of his in which light plays the part
that it PLAYS in the works of Monet and
his followers But this did not mean
that he fell back upon the specious uni
formity of studio light, He was too
sincere an observer of life for that, and
as, his art mellowed it was plain that
it's strengthening was due to fine OBJ
servation of authentic phenomenon.
He was slowly transformed from the
maker of agreeable pictures into the
/ painter of canvases having emotional
quality. There persisted in him, how
ever, a trait Distinguishing him from
such masters as Inness and Homer
| Martin. They had the creative passion
which gives 30 each of mans canvases
the beauty of new invention. A dozen
pictures by George Inness will all have
an unmistakable family likeness, but
each one of the twelve commem crates
a discovery, q new leap into the ar
lists world. Murphy went forth as
Inness went forth, with kindling
sense of the magic in the woods and
skies, and he carried that magic with
such feeling into his work that we owe
him heavy debt. Yet all the time we
are aware of the fact that he would go
on looking at his themes through pre-
cisely the same spectacles. The bulk
of the canvas would show us a field or
pasture broadly generalized. To the
left or perhaps nearer to the center of
the composition there wohld be a clump
of trees, their upright trunks master
fully painted. Above the horizon there
would stretch q subtly modelled sky
The whole scene would be expressed in
very reserved terms of color, silvery
grays and greens, with certain deli
cateiy tawny hue prevailing. Murphy S
. honeyed browns became as character
istic of him as his tree trunks, his
vibrating skies, or the logs lying upon
his fields. Now, there is nothing in
trinscally dangerous in painter
choice of one effect, to paint over and
over again. ConSlQer WHEC CoroC ulu
with his tremuIous LEAKAGE. He very
nearly crystalHzed it into d formula
What saved him from this peril was
sheer genius, power of style which
enabled him to repeat himself and
never rub the bloom off his art.
Murphy lacked the same preserva-
tive. We have wondered, sometimes
if greater vigor, more robust mode
of workmanship, would have pulled
him through. Now and then he sug-
gested this possibility. In an exhibi
tion at the Mich gallery only the othe,
day couple of his large and most
Characteristic landscapes conveyed, al
usual, his subtle charm, but there was
little canvas, roughly, almost care
lessly brushed in, which comes back tx
as as having, if anything, richer vi
tality. Therein resides the nubbn O.
the question which Murphy raises. TIL.