Year: 1873

[rRoM A SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUSE.l


VIENNA, June 2S.-The artistic power of the
French intellect 10 shown less in direct intuve
general type, marked IN its impresslbilitythe in
stinct ch fastens the salient features OF the sub
ect and fixes them at oncethan In the immense Giver
sity which this intellect shows the selection of it's
themes the multorm genius distinct in Its ideals yet
20 similar in its artistic treatment Of them The worst
OF b that the national character has so little OF the
grander and earnest elements Of poetry in IT, lit
balance Of moral purpose that for the most part 1t
seems willing TO spend itself on folly or accident as
on wisdom or law 1t is asking much TO demand Of
art to always lesson or moral; good art rarely
has either but there IL certain class of truths OF
nature and qualities of man, which contains morality
and wisdom peculiarly the field Of art, and the ex-
precision OF which in artistic language is the nobest
function Of art though by any means necessary to
its existence art The Frenchman is like the Greek in
the organic attribute the temperament which delights
In harmOnies OF art, and in the intuve intellect
which takes what IL catches by the very heart but in
the activity and of that intellect and the health
that temperament there Just the difference be-
tween Greek art and French that there is between
Phdias and Pradier between Plato and Fourier, or
Socrates and Compte not difference OF theological but
OF natural morality, the difference between healthy
robust hfe heroc reverenta serene and rendered
utterly morbid cynical and either gloomy frivolous
blythe modern French method OF existence. This must
be clearly understood in order TO enable to under
stand the difference between Greek art and French,
which is its modern representative. The art is always
the same. is the harmonic rhythmica (musical
was the Greek word-Seongng to the Musel expression
Of the emotions wh On the external Tor imaginatyey
yisbe world excites u.s. and the differences lie in the
greater or nobility OF the inspiring theme. The
Gods only inspired the Greek sum any creature
out Of one may inspire Frenchman; he does not be-
leve in any Gods or anything better than himself by
which to be inspired.


OF this thoroughly Greek of feeling nature with
out Greek nature to feel, however, the nobest and
purest example is Mllet whose art resembles Michael
Angeles the robust but somewhat laborious way in
which II embodies the Greek spirit. Met is painter
Of peasants and peasant life Che is peasant him
self and believes in them Like Iraes, his sympathies
work widely and intensely, but do not aspire. He has
only one picture here-a sower There is single figure
I'm the foreground, and all in shadow under hillside |
with another the distance riding on the harrow and
Just COMING out INTO the light 1t would be difficult TO
hnd perfect expression in rustic form OF the
Greek spirit than is in figure by Millet The entire
subordnaton of the detail to the ensemble Of figure
the concentrated unconscious action Of it, the subtle
sympathy by which the artist puts himself in the work.
his creation. The utter absence Of posepasuque
and freedom from all pretense and captrap either OF
execution color both which elements quite lost
sight Of in bis way Of telling his story, all Greek
traits But they also traits OF all great sincere art
What less usual in the modern art is the curious way
IN which Met works out his pictures apparently with
out reference TO the model, but from perception
intense
clearer and truer the ideal than the model would have
BEEN There is nothing more clear Greek art whether
take the figure the accessory, the nude or the
draperie than that the artists of the great epoch nd
until the decadenee of sculpture began. worked not
from nature but from knowledge of nature that in all
probability they did the least thing directly
from, or with chief reference TO, the facts OF
Turner, Rousseau, and most really great landscape
artists have had this power but in figure 1t is rare.
and Of all living men know whose work is SO
free from the model Mlets 1t is felt even in his
draperes which have indication Of realizaton they
do their duty wrap their figures and yeti do not conceal
them Like Michael Angelo (and the Greeks) they vail
but hide nothing which s needed to tell the story What
Official or Jealousy exists in artisuc minds We
can see by finding Millets sower treading his brown
nelds like antique demigOd, hung up at the top of
the wall in a side room, where anybody but Millet
Deacroix would be lost but where, in spite Of all, it
walks and casts wide its seed Indifferent and supreme
over all the things about II as the Venus Of Milo in
modern sculptors studio


The natural antithess Of Met is Meissonier, the
of detail. of surfaces, and Of poseplastQue, skifu
shallow without sympathies and without poetry, the
very perfection Of painter for public which does not
think feel but only be amused by clever
limitations and dexerous tos de force. do not know


more pitiful symptom OF the nulity Of cotemporary
taste the favor which the pictures OF MeissOner
find Their ideal is that Of c0stumer and furniture
dealer they appeal public fond Of brica brao
than of art Their eminent quality is pre-
cisey that OF Tom Thumb-ittleness. All
other art greater it has larger spaces and forms to
oyercome this greatest when its size is most dminu
tive and smallest Of the group Of pictures which
occupy the place Of honor OF the French is
one OF about three by five inches Within the Limitation
of his habit has certainly astonishing ceverness
of brushwOrk facility Of touch in very small de-
tails which gives the kind Of pleasure and sur
prise as does the carving Of Holy Family a cherry
stone and is really no more legitimate subject of adn


AEafac arfa aofafaOu f1fa
public rests entirely the fact that he paints the
smaest pictures any has been willing 70 paint


IL must be supposed that his pictures not marked
by decided power in other directions. He has breadth
In his little surfaces which few men the French
school have obtained. and purity and freshness Of
color in respects like Mieris, with clean,
rapid execution and freedom Of touch very notable and
like Teniers but there this wide difference, that the
Dutchman painted his figures in fun swing, admirable
in action, while those Of the Frenchman are always
posed or in the few exceptions comparatively failures
such is the Charge at Waterloo, which is the
nj the group In the Salon. The Emperor and his
sta are on the accustomed scale and ben plants in
the background while the curessiers who gaop across
the foreground seem 70 have embarrassed the painter
immensely for the picture long after everything
else had been hung and st unfinished, the horses
being very weak and incomplete as the scale had dis
concerted the painter and the action made his brush
hesitate and sragge. But the moment that be leaves
his small canvassCs he finds himself ryaled in his
class of subjects while in those limited dimensions
Chayet pushes hin very close, with superiority most


marked wherever the figure is in motion, where
in figures Of women II requires that subtlety Of charac
terization by which you may distinguish lady from


eressed grisete. The pictures Of Chavet here 1.-THE
best on the whole a Paris street, do not, TO
my mind come up TO little biniardroom scene which