Evening star., 1935-10-06
Rp Leila Meckkin.

~ terim the art season reopens
~ with revived interest and, cn
n every side. evidence of pleas
urable anticipation. Despite the &C.
preston and the New Deal, the infla-
ton scare and the war clouds in Eu-
rope art goes on. The reopening art
schools, judging from the registration,
will be crowded. innumerable exhibi-
tions are being planned; governmental
activities are bringing more and more
artists to washington and some Of
them are staying. Perhaps, after ali,
Washington may become a great art
center-a place where art of finest
quality Is produced, marketed and dis
played. But one of the bills which did
not pass Congress during the past ses-
sion was that authorizing the estab-
lishment of a national portrait gallery
and providing, for such, a suitable
building. Also our National Gallery Ct
Art is without home and has no ap-
preparation for purchases.
To private muniflcence we owe our
proudest possessions Freer Gal
lery, the Corcoran Gallery, the Phillips
Gallery and the Textile Museum
George Hewitt Myers, to say nothing
of the johnson, Evans, Gellatly and
Ward collections under the roof of the
National Museum. But the city itself
is rapidly fulfilling the dream of its
founders as work of art through tine
development of parks and planting
under expert supervision; the design,
placement and erection of new public
buildings and monuments under the
wise and watchful eye of the Commits
sion of Fine Arts, whose business it is
to safeguard against error. Uncon-
sciously. perhaps, but very. certainly
this civic development is creating an
environment peculiarly congenial to
the growth of art-art that will, when
littlenesses are wiped out and forgot
ten, prove epoch marking.
THE Corcoran Gallery of Art has
recently received and placed on
view in its early American room por-
traits by John Singleton Copley and
Gilbert Stuart, the former of Mary
Turner Sargent, the latter of Mary
Binney Sargent, both owned and lent
by Mrs. Arthur Macarthur of this
city. Both paintings are Of noticeable
interest and merit, but the Copley is
extraordinarily fine. The subject-a
young woman of distinguished ap-
pearance, presumably in the early
twenties-is seen, at three-quarter
length, in green silk, lace-trimmed
evening gown, standing beside wall
fountain in the water of which she
daintily holds sea she'll The set
ting might well have been the cor
ner of formal garden-it is dark and
of no great significance save in so
far as it provides precisely the right
background for the lovely figure the
artist has portrayed. Rarely has
femininity been more charmingly in
terpreted. Mary Turner Sargent was
not beautiful but there is much char
acter in her face, much nobility in
her bearing and with all much lowell
ness. Copley never did finer por-
trait The head and neck and hands
are painted with mastery simplicity;
the gown, with its elaborate trimming,
the lace scarf and ruffles, are the
work of an accomplished craftsman
and one who completely commanded
his medium. How our early American
portrait painters, Copley and those
who came directly after him, acquired
their skill and proficiency it is diff
cult to understand, but that they
managed to attain height rarely
reached since must be admitted. For
one thing they did not know too
much-there was no confusion OF
ideals-they did not begrudge labor
they forgot themselves in their en-
deavor-and they produced to order,
realizing that for their work there
was real demand and reason. All
these things undoubtedly contributed
to, although they by no means explain,
the result. But, of course, it was art
and art can never be explained-as
Whistler once said, it happens"
John Singleton Copley was born in
Boston in 1887. His father died in
the West Indies about the time of his
birth and 10 years later his mother,
an extremely competent woman, mar
ried Peter Pelham, mezzotint en-
graver and something Of painter,
who made speciality Of portraits.
From him young John Copley received
instruction, but he far outstripped his
master. BY the time he was II he
had established himself as an artist
and was earning competence through
his portraits. BY 1867 he had made
q good marriage, acquired home and
IL acres on Beacon Hill and had an
income of about 300 guineas a year,
which in Boston was about the equiva-
lent of 900 guineas in London. Il
am now" he wrote, ''in as good busi-
ness as the poverty of this place will
permit" 1t may have been prospects
of better business" which finally in
duced Copley to leave Boston and go
to London, but more likely it was the
prospect of association with other
painters and opportunity to see and
study the masterpieces Of the Old
World. In any event, he sailed for
England In 1774 and never returned,
his family joining him there the fol-
lowing year. In competition with the
great portrait painters of the British
school, Copley won high honors and
reputation. That he acquired addi-
tional skill and improved his style
some affirm, but that his fame rests
chiefly on the portraits he painted in
Boston during the 10 or more years
before he went to England there seems
to be no doubt. These, while stiff and
not always as vital as they might be,
have individuality and charm all their
own-also they have the barge of
aristocracy. The Sargents were New
Englanders, and this portrait lentcby
Mrs. Macarthur is fully representa-
tive of Copley during his best Boston
period. ANY museum would find 1t
notable acquisition.
Another typical and very fine por-
trait by Copley hangs in the same
room and on the same wall In the
Corcoran Gallery Of Art at present.
This Is a three-ouarter length of