New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-08-21

Tic AEt Association, III us ey&ntn an
nual exhibition, shows a group of
thirty-six paintings, most of which
will not fail to interest the art pub
lie. One might not think this was
colony" show, for the colony idea ia
kept in the background The pictures
are hung in the assembly hall of the
Mystic High School. The show is pre-
scented strictly on its merits, and the
picturesque charm associated with ar
fists sketching by the sea is not limited
at. There is such wide diversity OF
motif and method and each exhibitor is
so evidently working along his own
lines that altogether the effect we get
here is that we are in one of the rooms
in city exhibition in the winter.
While Mystic might make itself felt
more forcibly in the art world if
enough Of her men saw and painted
nature with sufficient similarity to
make people think Of mystic School"
the very independence of her shows is
one of its main attractions. We feel
that these men would dare to paint
anything. They do not think they
have to paint looking away from the
sun or toward the moon. One cannot
imagine them saying of some unusual
landscape effect: Eyes, that's nice, but
it isn't paintable." If a Mystic man
sees anything beautiful the chances
hot ho se 81
Similaritics and Contrasts
Observed in Mystic Annual
II there are any two men of this
colony who resemble each other they
are J. Elliot Epneking and G. Albert
Thompson. Both have the same deli
cacy Of feeling and an uninvolved sim
cerity Of method. Both are at their
best when there is house in their
landscape, as there is in Thompson's
"The Old Red House," which seems his
most pleasing offering this year.
Charles H. Davis, man who is ever
enamored of the clouds, has a large
canvas, four-ffths of it sky, which he
calls wind Driven" There is motion
in his cumulus masses. but more than
that Is expected of him. His other
picture, "Serenity-Moon1ight," is, on
the other hand, satisfying. In it there
is his accustomed depth, but his masses
are not so evident. It is poetical, but
not overinterpreted.
Strongly ccntrasted with Davis's
method is that of Walter Griffin.
Davis's canvases have large areas of
enc color, relieved Of monotonv BY
toning, while every inch of Grifin's
things contain fiex of dozen or more
contrasting pigments. Griffith needs
greater distance than most men to b.s
appreciated; and while going the rounds
of the gallery one is apt not to see h.rl
a. his best.
When you are so far fronsshis pic
hardly more than blurs his are star
ting in their reality. In his Gan
Autumn Day" he is fortunate in his
color and his feeling of mass. If we
strong" when applied to a picture we
would point to this one. The motif of
his "Venice, Bridge of Treviso" is reni
niscent of Gedney Bunce, though the
picture is Enthusiastically Griffin.
Outdoor Painting
Shows Strong Point
Peter Marcus has some good and Wig
orous notes in "Queensboro Bridge"
done with little regard for the con-
ventionalities Of composition. Howard
Giles in his wood interiors evinces
much richness of color and good lines,
but the color fails to convince. Ernest
H. Barnes deserves mention for an ex-
ceptionally well done landscape, early
Autumn" 1t is painted somewhat ac-
cording to the vibratory school-ex-
empli6ed by Griffin. Barnes uses this
style in, way that seems just suited
to a crisp fall day, when every leaf
sparkles. His sense of mass and dis
lance saves him from the charge of
erring on the side of extreme delicacy
The portraits and figures this year
may be as good as usual, but in COM
parison with the outdoor work do not
stand out so favorably as in the past.
Joseph De Camp has two excellent
figures, and George Bellows a simply
executed little girl portrait that has
a subtle appeal. Four glass panels by
Frances D. Davis show good workman
ship and a fine sense of color and
design. The exhibition closes on
August "a.