New-York tribune., 1921-11-13
Our Forefatlers
rhe Mode They Fostered in
Painting

Something was said iii this place
4asy last Sunday apropos OF the
Colonial portraits at the Knoedler gal
Iery. about the influence of the eigh-
teenth-century English tradition upon
our early American school. The sub
ject is brought up again by the collec-
tioa which has been placed on view at
the Union League Club, TO remain &C.
eessibIe until the Gath 60 gentlemen OBJ
aiming cards from members. A note
prsfxed to the catalogue expresses the
thanks of the art committee to "a for
nier chairman" for assembling the ex-
hibition Students of old American
portraits. piercing this anonymity, will
easily recognize the touch of Mr..
Thomas B. Clarke, a connoisseur who
has specialized among Copley, Stuart
and the rest and has peculiarly shown
his gsod Judgment in appreciation of
the lesser lights of the period He has
made on this occasion an exhibition OF
remarkable interest.
It's character will be apprehended the
more thoroughly in proportion to the
sobriety with which the observer looks
at the whole subject. The founders of
the American school were not creative
artists Of the highest type. Even apart
from their obvious Indebtedness to the
English masters of their time, they
had their natural limitations. There
we're moments in which Stuart met his
British exemplars on their own ground
and matched them. Copley, as we have
remarked before, could now and then
rise to imposing heights. Nevertheless
their art was fundame ntally derivative.
Neither they nor their followers were
giants. But, rs cannot be too deeply
emphasized, they are important to us.
They gave American art a direction
Which is precious to this day-if only
It Is studied, and understood for what
IL is worth.
1t is worth much, as we noted last
Sunday, in its insistence upon artistic
good manners. Nor did obedience to
tradition distract these men from the
cultivation of personal force in tech
nique. Witness the beauti ul painting
Ia Gilbert Stuart's Robert Thew with
its passages of fluent brushwork. and
his more polished James Patton Pres
tor" There is, indeed, more than one
reminder in this exhibition OF the fact
that some of our painting forbears
loved their art for its own sake. How
otherwise could Copley have produced
his portrait Of Jeremiah Taylor" a
canvas that could be hung between a
Romney and Sir Joshua and absolutely
hold its own? Most of the old men
were admirably careful of their draw
ing. Consider the beautifully defined
head in John Neagle's portrait of his
aunt, MRS. John Dickson" and regard
the same qualities in Samuel Wsldo's
Rebecca Sandford Barlow" or in
Morse's "Coralie Livingston Barton"
Decidedly they were honest era tsmen
In those days. We stress the point as
>S1tSSibhSikE OA1S VI tlt< PIlIHc siSSS0lo
ef the period. No doubt Morse has
k~~n outmoded No doubt he seems a
little dry to-day. But he had the root
Of the matter in him, high-minded
fidelity to the rectitude OF art. The
portrait of Mrs. Barton is not 8 master
piece. il wants the last touch of the
nlagic OF style, vet it remains not too
distantly akin to portrait by Ingres.
II was. on the whole, good idea to
omit from this exhibition any great
representation Of the 'sgrand style"
The two examples Of Benjamin West
Elizabeth Gordon, Countess of Suth-
sriand," and Elizabeth Bedford :
Countess Of Emngham.r arc respccta-