AN ANSWER TO "D. S. M."
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Your art critic having published me as an "awful example" in the Spectator of April 8th, I would like to say a, few words on this criticism. He is a brilliant writer on art and, when he is propounding esoteric art doctrines to the "populace," he is particularly interesting. He is therefore a critic who, to quote himself, "deserves criticism." To be accused of lack of observation by "D. S. M." need be no dis- paragement, as we all know what he means. By one who. holds that all art worthy of the name must evermore consist of beautiful or clever (especially clever) renderings of direct observation, I think I have been let oil fairly well. Smart,. witty, and artistic reporting, with plenty of little familiarities of lighting and accidents of form to convince him of the genuineness, directness, and liveliness of observation, is broadly speaking, the trade-mark he looks for. It must be plumped down "piping hot." It must be alive and fresh out of the street, and as instantaneous as a "snap-shot."
The trained eye and artistic hand of the great billiard- player applied to the production of the art bibelot and the morceau, about covers the ground, for these evidently give him most pleasure. To a large extent I agree with him, for to do anything very well in this art is very difficult ; but it is far too narrow a formula to cover all painting.—'i.e., if it is to rank at all as level with the other arts as a mode of ex- pression. So, when he attempts to coax Michael Angelo and Raphael to come under his restricted formula, his usual sense of humour fails him, and it is not a little like "trying to coax an earthquake with a bun." Subjectivity may be the death of art, but surely illustration is the death of criticism. A spec- tator can nearly always see what he wishes to see in a picture.. "Tell me what you desire, and I will find you the facts to back you."
Art criticism seems to me to consist mostly of two things.. First, a strong reliance upon Truth,—that being the other name for the opinion which is hoped to bring most credit. Secondly, Ingenuity,—which is useful to convince others, so- that it may react on the critics and end in convincing himself. For instance, "D. S. M." says something to the effect that I have elaborated the paint long after there were any facts to report. Why did he not use one of the articles of his creed, and say it was a love of the material and its manipulation for its own sake ? He also praises a coloured piece of modelling by R. A. Bell. Why did he not use another of his formulas, and ask R. A. Bell to stick to his plaster, and not try to turn it into a painting? Why? Because, being assured of his ingenuity, it could be made Truth either way. It is well enough to have the personal impressions of a critic, and especially when that critic is so interesting as D. S. M."; but when he introduces " right " and " wrong " into questions of art, he is no less absurd than other mortals in the same predicament. But to come to his four points categorically. No. 1 he calls by the grand Ruskinian phrase of "The Fallacy of the Imagination ;" but he uses the word in such a very restricted sense, and in a way so peculiar to himself, that it is really difficult to deal with it. If, as "D. S. M." seems to imply, a refined or beautiful sublimation of natural fact is a guarantee of a painter's high creative Imagination, then the "faculty divine" is not so rare as has been fabled, and the country would be fast filling with great creative imaginations. All I can say is, "It is a beautiful idea, and. I hope it is true,"—to quote our critic once more.
It used to be held that imagination was the power to "give to airy nothings a local habitation and a name ;" now the pro- cess is to be reversed, and Miss —, sitting in a local habita- tion (the painter's studio, say), is to be turned into an airy nothing, to prove the gift of the creative Imagination. But does not the critic confound this abstract of observation with creative, conceptive, and constructive imagination ?—an entirely different mental process, and a thing rather of the brain, of temperament, of personality, than of the accident of locality and immediate record of visual impression. That this is "D. S. M.'s" fallacy of imagination is certain, for he says, speaking of Michael Angelo, that "his imagination lay in seeing and seizing the essential trait." In short, that his imagination consisted in the seizing the best means of expres- sion rather than the thing to be expressed,—the thing imagined. Thus may one's limitations be magnified and glori- fiee, and the New English Art Club made the home for lost and strayed imagination. As to No. 2, the Fallacy of Finish— finish, to me, consists in the sensibility displayed by the artist, whether in treating form, colour, surface, or gradation of tone. When the interest and sensibility of the artist fails in those, all further work is mechanical and useless. "D. S. M."
would say that finish stopped when there was no reporting going on. But surface itself, say, can be made something precious by treatment, even by the much-abused stipple, or any other means of obtaining chromatic modulation inside of bounding edges.
As to the Fallacy of Decoration, "D. S. M." adroitly intro- duces decoration in relation to architecture as if that were the only kind of decoration possible. But (to stop ingenuity running out in that direction on my account) I wish to say that my large water-colour " Sleep " was painted in the first instance for a special, definite, set purpose, and whether it was appropriate or not, "D. S. M." cannot tell. While discussing fallacies in connection with Art, I would like to mention the greatest of them all,—viz., the fallacy of art criticism based on principles, whether new or old.—I am, Sir, &c., .10 South Castle Street, Liverpool. ROBERT FOWLER.
Previous page
