Thoughts About Art
By , Author of “ A Painter’s Camp.” A new Edition, revised by the Author. Roberts Brothers. 1871.
OF all the English writers on art Mr. F. T. Palgrave and Mr. P. G. Hamerton are undoubtedly the two whose writings are now doing the most good. They both possess unusual qualifications for the work, and both hold sound views as to the real nature and function of Art, — that she is neither the handmaid of religion nor science nor medicine nor law nor what not, but that she has a specific aim of her own,—to give the highest possible pleasure to the greatest possible number. We consequently find these two writers treating not only of art in itself, but of its various relations to everyday life, philosophic, literary, domestic, or otherwise.
Whoever takes up Mr. Hamerton’s new book, even if in the most exacting of moods, will read it with profit and pleasure. Hamerton has not Ruskin’s poetical power nor his brilliancy of style. He leans rather to philosophy and scientific analysis. The reader may not accept everything he advances. But it is not the least extravagant to say his book will undoubtedly do as much good in the direct service of art as any book ever written. He is not constantly dropping whatever topic he discusses, and zigzagging off into the realms of space, dilating on all things upon the earth, in the heavens above, or the waters beneath. One does not find him like Ruskin, for instance, making any such prophecy as that we can never have any noble architecture with the material of iron, for the reason that no mention of such a thing is made in the Bible. He probably would see the logical difficulties one would fall into if this style of reasoning were extended to other subjects, — say to the mechanic arts.
The essays in this book fall into four general groups, namely, art in its relations to itself, to society, to philosophy, to literature. And the reader will probably find himself favoring some chapters more than others, according to his individual tastes ; but all will interest, delight, and instruct him. These essays were first published in England, a part in book form, and a part in various periodicals. The Preface tells us that no alterations have been made in the American edition, except in the way of omission. Comparing the English edition with the American, we find most of the erasures are of crudities of style common to young writers ; occasionally there is an exclusion of a crudity of thought. For instance, we find in the English edition the following: “I can he happy without wine, but not without color ; that I must have either in art or nature, and I believe that if I were deprived of it I should die.” He knows very well he would do nothing of the sort. Again, he had said: “ Blinded by no boyish enthusiasm, I knew that to give my energies to its [art’s] advancement was to close forever the paths of ambition, and forfeit the respect of men.” By erasing such silly remarks he shows that he is ready to correct mistakes, and also vastly improves his book.
Perhaps the first chapter—to prove that some artists should write about art — is the least necessary of all. It contains much truth, to be sure, but generally in these days of reading, if one has anything worth saying, and knows how to say it, he is pretty sure of an audience ; and in these days of writing he is pretty sure to say it. In the two chapters following Mr. Hamerton gives to the general reader some insight into the processes of a laborious profession, and to the young artist hints of undoubted usefulness; he analyzes the art of painting from nature, shows the respective difficulties of the various ways, and suggests certain practical plans for overcoming them.
Our author defends landscape painting, and attempts to show its proper relative position among other branches of art,—for example, historical, figure, or genre painting. It is pleasant to see such good blows struck in behalf of a cherished object as are here delivered in behalf of landscape painting. But we doubt if the true position for landscape art is so likely to be won by writing it up as by painting it up. In the time of Michael Angelo there was much disputation as to the relative values of painting and sculpture. Michael Angelo, in a letter to Benedetto Varchi, wrote a valuable truth here in point : “Since, then, the same species of intelligence presides over both sculpture and painting, why not make peace between them, and close those endless disputes, the time consumed in which would be much better employed in producing works of art ? ” Why not apply this truth to the different branches of painting ?
Some popular errors about photography are corrected by Mr. Hamerton. It is not as perfect as a reflection of a scene in a mirror, color alone omitted ; it is not drawing by light, and the word “ photography ” is a misnomer; here too is set forth the difference between the mechanical operations of photography and the aesthetic operations of art, which may encourage those timid souls, if any are still left, who fear photography will ever supplant painting, as printing superseded manuscripts and illumination ; also what things photographs always fail to reproduce ; how limited the scale of pigments is compared with that of nature’s colors ; also the difference between the photographic and the artistic system of light; how painting can obviate many of the difficulties which photography cannot ; the great aid, direct and indirect, of photography to painting ; and much more of real interest.
There is a chapter on some of the differences between the contiguous but distinct realms of literature and painting; another lets us into the secret why many artists, who to all appearance should produce much good work, actually do create so little in proportion to their apparent power ; and other chapters contain the ablest handling of some of the questions relating to the Pre-Raphaelite movement we have ever seen.
The essay on “The Painter in his Relation to Society ” is more applicable of course to England than to America, from the difference in our social structure. His theory that “political power is the real standard of social respectability ” sounds rather odd to us in America, Moreover, we use the word “gentleman ”somewhat differently; and Mr. Hamerton seems a little sore on the social position of artists in England.
This book should be carefully studied by those to whom is intrusted the noble charge of founding and managing our new artmuseums. It contains many suggestions which must be taken into account before art-museums can be placed in the most efficient working order. It is not enough that those who manage art-museums should simply have enthusiasm for art, or patriotism, or knowledge and skill in the science of general education, or business tact, or money. They must also have a clear conception of the real nature of art, its legitimate aims, its capacities and incapacities, its relations to our daily life. Here is a book by a man naturally well qualified to deal with such questions, who has made art a specialty, has given years to practising and thinking about it, and has put into our hands the result of those labors.
Our conclusion is a remark which Mr. Hamerton applies only to England : “It may be doubted whether the national mind has turned to art from the pure love for it. We discovered that for want of artistic counsel and help we were spending our money badly every time we tried either to build a public building, or weave a carpet, or color a ribbon. We found out that the French managed these things better, and with less outlay got handsomer results ; and it appeared that this superiority was due to their artistic education. So we said, ' Let us study Raphael, that we may sell ribbons.”
Let us Americans both sell ribbons and study Raphael, each in the right way.