ART.
THE NEW GALLERY.
THE riches of English private collections of pictures seem to be without limit, and the readiness of the owners to lend
their treasures admirable. While the Academy is showing a first-rate collection of the works of Vandyck, the New Gallery exhibits a fine assemblage of pictures representing the early school of the Netherlands. Besides these there is a room full of the works of Rubens and his shop assistants, and a small collection of English old masters, among which are some first-rate pictures.
The present Exhibition produces a melancholy effect if we compare the state of preservation of the fifteenth- century Netherlands pictures with that of the English work of the eighteenth. This comparison also raises the question as to how modern work will last ; will it crack and blacken like Sir Joshua Reynolds's painting, or will it preserve "the freshness of the early world " ? Neither extreme seems likely, for if we have largely abandoned bitumen, our modern style of painting is not so conducive to permanence as was that of the primitives. When a painter was not bothered by truth to Nature, when there was no search after the minutest difference of relative tone, when gemlike quality was aimed at rather than breadth and force, the methods of the artist were all in favour of permanence. Now the artist has to touch and retouch to arrive at the exact colour or tone he desires, and every resource of impasto or glaring is used to push the expression of his painting to its farthest limits, with the result that the work, when done, has not that homogeneity of surface which so helps its power of lasting. "In short," as Mr. Micawber would say, a smooth, shiny picture does not catch the dirt as does a rough one.
A very fine instance of permanency as well as of beauty of colour, is to be seen in the picture of St. Victor with the Donor (No. 51), attributed to Hugo van der Goes. There is something almost modern in the feeling for the ordinary green fields in the background, and the colour of the saint's dress, with the armour and blue under-garment, is most beautiful, while the red of the shield completes a brilliant colour scheme. As a rule, the works of this school are pictures to look at piece by piece, and are to be enjoyed like some old chronicle, in which we are never quite certain how much of the quaint humour is intentional. This applies to such a picture as The lloly Family (No. 43), by the master of the Death of the Virgin at Munich (as the last fashion in naming pictures has it), with the delightful St. Joseph in a straw hat. In The Holy Women at the Sepulchre (No. 9), by Jan van Eyck, the town and the castle in the background are like a bit of Froissart, and the figures have an odd realism about them in strange contrast to the beautiful and poetic sky. The great altar piece attri- buted to Gheeraert David in three compartments is a noble piece of decoration and the breadth of effect great. There are few things here finer than the figure of the Bishop with red and white robes. Among the portraits, many of which are very interesting, nothing is better than the Mary Tudor (No. 30). This picture of the daughter of Henry VII. is by an unknown artist. The drawing of the face is most beautiful and sensitive, and the colour of the dress and the background rich and harmonious. There is a curious little picture here
which should not be missed—Heads of Jewish Soldiers (No. 90), by Quentin Matsys. It seems as if it were a fragment of a larger work, but it is singularly full of power. Some of the pictures are in their original frames, and they derive great benefit thereby, for these settings are often of great elaboration, like the Shrine of St. Antony of Padua (No. 32) by Gheeraert David.
In the one recorded conversation of Michelangelo, which was written down by the Portuguese, Francesco d'011anda, there is a curious passage about Flemish art :—
" In Flanders, by preference they paint to deceive the sight. Generally draperies, bushes, very green fields shaded by trees, rivers and bridges, what are called landscapes, with many figures here and there. In spite of this producing a good effect to certain eyes, in truth it has neither reason nor art ; no proportion, no symmetry, no care in selection, no grandeur. Altogether this painting is without body and without vigour, and yet they paint worse in other places than in Flanders. If I say so much evil of Flemish painting, it is not because it is entirely bad; but
because it wishes to render with perfection so many things, the importance of one of which would have sufficed, that not one is achieved in a satisfactory manner."
This quotation is interesting as showing how clearly Michel- angelo realised the essential characteristics of the art of the North, with its endless search after expressive detail with but little regard to general effect.
Those who like the whirlwind of form characteristic of Rubens will find in the North Room a number of sketches and pictures by this master. The brilliant sketch of Abraham and Melchisedek (No. 141) is a fine example of the "lusty wine" which this painter poured forth with such a liberal hand. The Landscape (No. 137) is in a much quieter manner. In it Rubens shows true sympathy with moonlit sky, though the stars are curiously impossible. They shine through the thickest clouds, and are quite bright close to the moon. Perhaps they may have been an addition by another hand.
In the South Room there is to be seen P really magnificent portrait by Sir Joshua,—Mrs. Nesbit as Circe (No. 190). So fine is the figure that one easily passes over the strange spherical tiger and the rest of the menagerie. This is a picture which it is not easy to write about, for its appeal is by pure paint- ing. In looking at the splendidly painted dress and head we involuntarily think of Mr. Ruskin's fine saying of the influence of the Venetians over Reynolds, how he rose from their footstools to share their thrones.
Of the many terrible pictures of Lady Hamilton by Romney exhibited of late years perhaps No. 192 is the worst. Deformity can never be beautiful, but a real person with a face as shown here could be nothing but deformed,— the swelled forehead, huge eyes and tiny nose, and smirking month are nothing short of disgusting. The execution, too. is coarse and mechanical. Romney succeeded best when painting people who were not professional beautias, for then he was not tempted to display vulgar charm, with a limited technique. Before leaving this room the two beautiful portraits of Mr. and Mrs. Minet (No. 201 and No. 200) should be noticed. They are fine examples of Gainsborough's subtle art. Nor should the visitor forget the same painter's wonderful little Madame Ciovanna Bacelli (No. 182), with its illusive drawing of movement and diaphonous colour.
H. S.
Previous page
