Evening star., 1937-12-12
Bv Leila MeChLin.

sylvania Museum, under a grant from
the Carnegie Corporation of New
York, and opened in the Phillips Me-
mortal Gallery here last Monday, pro-
vides more material for studious and
pleasurable consideration than the
majority can absorb in single visit.
There are treasures here which invite
repeated inspection-there are oddi-
ties which, to understand at all, must
be looked at from many angles. Fur
thermore, for those who are SYM
pathetic, it is not easy to plunge head
long from one civilization to another
without taking time for readjustment.
Doubtless it was in part the intentions
OF MIR. Benson, In assembling this ex-
hibition, to manifest the oneness of
art and to illustrate by actual ex-
amples the fact that all art Is strung
on the same golden string. But many
dialects are spoken, and of these one
must acquire some comprehension to
follow in fact and in mood.
It has been said that to man the
most engaging exhibit of all is Man,
and surely this is the reason why
portraits make so great and universal
appeal. Mr.. Benson, in his Problems
of Portraiture," which this exhibition
illustrates and amplifies, declares that
the cause of portraiture is not mans
vanity, but his eagerness for i'm
mortality. But If this were SO, all
portraits would not have been so
carefully preserved-we should not
have today material for such a dis
play as is here at this time gathered
together.
THERE are still those who think
that good portrait is one which
clocks like" the sitter, as does a death
mask or other efagy, and, alas, the
world is flooded by portraits in va
rious media which can lay claim to
no other virtue than this, and are
therefore quite as dead as the one
time original. The figure in the wax
works which tricks the eye with real
ity is not, Of course, a work Of art,
but rather an imitation. The real
portrait, as this exhibition shows,
sets forth something from within as
well as without - not something
imagined, but expressed physically as
well as spiritually.
People are very apt to think that
when a portrait has this living quality
the artist has seen beneath the sur
face. in short has read the mind, and
80 fixed his or her sitter's personality
for all time. To an extent this is
true, but the process is visual. Like
the shadows of clouds across a land
scape. the portrait painter, or sculp-
tor, has observed indicative express
sions fitting over the sitter's face
and has. with a pregnant brush and
consummate skill, registered the i'm
preston.
There is in this exhibition a small
portrait by Sargent of Mrs. Charles
Clifford Dyer, lent by the Art Insti-
tute Of Chicago, which carries the
label, "One of the few commissioned
portraits that digs beneath the sur
face fact to the core of character" ;"
This is perfectly true, but does not,
perhaps go quite far enough, for in
this, as in the majority of portraits
by this brilliant artist, the observer
is left personally to determine the YER
1ty OF what the painter has tram
scr1oed. In other words, it is just as
easy to disagree as to the merit and
charm OF one whom Sargent, or Rem
brandt. or any other great por-
traiturist, has set before us. as it
would be were the sitter present in
the flesh.
A ND with what consummate art this
and other of the portraits shown
are rendered! With what "rightness"
each touch is applied! There are, fur
thermore, one discovers, as many right
ways Of doing this as there are paint
ers who have been richly endowed and
equipped. But what contrast there is
between competency and incompe-
tency! How readily the sublime turns
into the ridiculous! And yet some
times under the debris of blundering
ignorance, one may discover the jewel
OF intent-the flash of eager and we'll
directed desire. How strangely in this
exhibition two utterly different inter-
pretations of John Dewey-one in
sculpture by Epstein, the other in mo-
sale by Elsa Schmid-look across at
one another, strangely diverse, and
semi-apologetic is crudity of express
sion. What length there is between
the early American portrait of Eliza
beth Freake and Baby Mary" painted
by an unknown, probably itinerant,
painter, in 1874, naive and simple and
very wooden, and that most lovely and
accomplished portrait of Miss Mott"
by Gainsborough, which has been lent
by Miss Harding! But what makes
the difference? Natural endowment
genius and skill. Both painters went
to Nature as their source but the one
was an infinitely better painter than
the other-not necessarily more sin
cere but better equipped.
The portrait of Miss Mott hangs in
the main gallery, upstairs, in very dis
tinguished company. Here, at the end
Of the gallery, hangs magnificent
portrait by Rembrandt of Hendrickje
Stof1els, so amazingly painted, so vital,
so significant, SO rich in color and with
such detph of transparent shadow, that
It Is almost unbelievable, as q crea-
ton of man with pigment on canvas.
To one side hangs the famous Renoir
OF the Phillips Gallery-an aggrega-
tion of portraits" in very fact. To
the left of this hang Courbet's rather
meticulously painted portrait, less than
life size, of IN. Nodler the Younger"
and beside it Fragonard's portrait of
Hubert Robert, while to the right is a
self-portrait of Van Gogh, very colorful
and frank-an obvious work-and far
less revealing of menta conflict than
some of his less persona, subjects
Near this is to be seen the self-por-
trait by Cezanne belonging to the Phil
lips Memorial Gallery, beside which
has been put photograph of a por-
trait Of Cezanne by Renoir, which gives
such an utterly diverse version that
one wonders which, perchance. was
nearer the truth At the near and of