Art

ANY amount of discussion about the progress we are making in the way of popularizing art education in this State has not a feather’s weight in comparison with the eloquent and intelligible language of the last exhibition of the drawings shown in Horticultural Hall, examples of work from the various art schools in the commonwealth. The display was like a great open book, chronicling exactly the extent of the advancement of the students under the system of art instruction which has for some years been in practice here. The specimens shown received from the public deserved, if not altogether judicious praise. The avowed intention of the managers of the school has always been to teach solely industrial art, and not in any way to attempt instruction in the purely æsthetic branches, making a distinct division between industrial and artistic education. Indeed, this intention has been so often declared that it is quite superfluous to repeat it here. Without any question the mechanical drawings were the most perfect in execution and best adapted to the purpose for which they were made. Drawings of machinery, nicely finished problems of house and ship architecture, original plans, designs more or less ornamental,— in fact, there was an embarassment of riches in this line. Of the primary steps in the system, which were as far as possible shown in a progressive series, there is little to say. No one will pretend to deny that the mechanism of drawing, the mental operation of constructing a figure with any material, is essentially the same the world over, and is based on the application of simple forms, easily grasped, to assist in the representation of complex form. By the aid of horizontal and perpendicular lines or simple geometrical figures, placed in imagination in reference to the object before him or drawn lightly on the paper as guides to be erased in the finish, every artist makes his drawing. This has always been the alphabet of drawing, and the practical service of such aids is axiomatic. Mr. Walter Smith and his assistants teach, if we understand rightly, by no new rules, but by a carefully systematized scale of progression, trying to lead the beginner by the shortest and most reasonable path to a certain degree of proficiency in the illustration of solid objects, and in original design for whatever purpose his course of study may imply. In the exhibition — the first thoroughly representative one — the work of the young scholars always testified to an earnest training in the precise direction laid out by Mr. Smith ; and this gentleman is to be congratulated on the success of his efforts in securing the undivided attention of a large number of scholars and in awaking general interest in the subject of drawing, rather, we think, than felicitated on the proficiency of his pupils. It is true that there are great difficulties in the way of teaching drawing in the public schools; the benefit of another obligatory course in addition to the now too heavy list of studies is, with reason, doubted. It is also true that this exhibition has had the field all to itself, that the public have had no opportunity of comparing the work done under Mr. Smith’s direction with that performed under other influences. Hence it would be idle to attempt a critical consideration of the examples shown. Not being able to gauge the capabilities of the scholars of the public schools, we have no way of determining whether they are doing as well in drawing as they might do. We can only say that the examples shown in the exhibition were, in comparison with similar drawings produced in other countries and under parallel conditions of age and previous training, by no means wonderful. Nevertheless it was a gratifying display.

Mr. Smith’s method of instruction is popularly called the English system. What his ideas are of the prevailing systems in France and England may be found in the following extract from his report on the art educational section of the Paris Exhibition of 1867 : “ Compared with the English school of art system, the French is deficient in breadth and comprehensiveness, and yet it gets more valuable results than the English does. . . . What we want in England is to engraft upon our system this French plan as to drawing, and then we should have absorbed, as it were, the soul of French art education. It is, I am prepared to allow, a very rough-and-ready method, all the more suitable, therefore, for students who begin their studies with taste and power at zero; but it has, on the other hand, capacity of development to suit the education of the most perfect taste and the maturest power. Some years ago the practice of working light-and-shade drawings with leather and stump as instruments, using chalk or charcoal as a medium, was entirely scouted in English schools of art.

The examination and reports upon the French art schools’ exhibition by inspectors and masters of the English schools, in 1864, drew attention to the excellence of the method, and its adoption was very strongly advocated by at least one master. Since then, both in London and the provinces, several masters have partially adopted the system, and it was well represented in this year’s national competition in London. . . .

“ What I propose to do is to see whether we cannot combine with our English art education the good features by which the French and German educationalists try to develop art feeling among the actual producers of the works.”

We have spoken of the declared intentions of the state director of art education and his corps of teachers in regard to their instruction. One item in the declaration we must protest against, namely, the complete separation of the artistic from the industrial. This is no less than tearing the heart from the body. It would lead one to believe that decoration is mechanical, whereas it is only those decorations which possess the artistic element that are valuable. Imitative decoration, Chinese copying of the originals of others, is in no sense æsthetic; but this cannot be the limit proposed by Mr. Smith’s course of instruction. In the last paragraph quoted above, Mr. Smith testifies to the value of this same artistic element. In France and Germany, artist and artisan study side by side, and often the latter is the better workman, from a mechanical point of view. For the productions which demand only a modicum of artistic feeling, but insist upon at least something in this way, the artisan fills his position exactly as well as the artist in his branch, and the more of an artist the artisan may be, the higher value will be placed on his productions. The greatest decorators have been the greatest artists. The Ducal Palace, the Campo Santo, and the Sistine Chapel, and in modern times the vestibules of the academies of fine arts in Paris and Antwerp and the walls of many public buildings in Europe, are monuments to the truth of this assertion.

The difficulties of introducing any system which should not have immediate practical results of more or less commercial value is well understood. It is possible that the patrons of the schools would object to any instruction that was not pronounced industrial, and since we are to judge altogether by results and only to note intentions for the sake of comparing them with results, we may safely assert that there were a sufficient number of important works shown in the exhibition to prove that it has been impossible to separate the industrial from the artistic, and that the advanced course of study was in the way of artistic education more or less wisely directed, notwithstanding repeated announcements to the contrary. In almost every section of the display there were copies of illustrations, photographs, or drawings, not chosen for the perfection of their execution but for their artistic qualities. To be sure, there were also examples of very painstaking point drawing from the solid object, which could have no other purpose than to train the pupil to precision in executing the mechanical part of the work. Among others, in the section of the normal art school there were a great many drawings from casts, copies in color from examples of recognized merit, and stilllife studies, which could only be decorative, and in this sense industrial to the extent that they were artistic. It is the assimilation of the principles governing the works of the great artist-decorators that would give a decorative value to the examples above cited. Very many of these drawings were quite correct in contour, the oil copies were not without considerable merit, but the general fault of all the black and white studies was the very lack of the decorative element which it is the intention of the school to cultivate. Scarcely one among them gave an impression of the material from which it was studied. Drawings from the cast gave no hint of the appearance of plaster. And yet it would seem to be the first aim of a decorative drawing from a plaster cast to render an impression of the character of the object and its value as a spot of color, as an ornament. In form, also, was there the same lack of decorative quality Illusion by skillfully imitated relief is one of the triumphs of the decorator. In scarcely a single example among the drawings or monochrome paintings is there any intention of relief. It is of no use to try to express solidity on a flat surface unless it is felt. All the rules and appliances in the world will not assist the pupil unless he can be led to appreciate the relief of the object, and thus work it into his drawing. And this sentiment is artistic. It is easy to define exactly where the drawings fell short in their professed purpose. The reason is found, in the majority of cases, in the falsity of the oppositions of tone. The minutest variation in tone will change the apparent form. Most perfect relief is seen in the broad masses of flesh in Titian’s pictures. Analyze the delicate modeling, and it is plain that the refinement of variation in the tone causes the apparent relief. We would not be so exacting as to demand an approach to perfection of relief in the drawings spoken of, but we would have welcomed an echo of a sentiment of this most vital element of the highest branch of industrial art. Any one would have been puzzled to assert what was the color or material of the groups of blocks, the torso from the Vatican, or the mutilated Nike Apteros. He would have been equally at a loss to find the intermediate steps between these performances, and to follow the pupil as he left simple objects and reached the antiques. To be sure, the Normal Art School is established for the training of teachers, but from the works of the teachers we must prophesy results of like stamp from the pupils they are destined to instruct, for no one can teach more than he knows.

In considering this subject of art education, it must not be lost sight of that we have in this country no class of men trained in a way that they may be drawn upon for our art-instructors. But putting a saw in a workman’s hand will not make him a carpenter, and if we are to judge from results before us it would seem to be wiser to trust to a natural growth of men who are proper instructors than to force them injudiciously in an expensive hot-bed. When the Art Museum shall have accomplished one of the best purposes of its establishment, and we see within its walls a body of diligent students all striving to become artists, even if destined to come out artisans, there will be teachers enough for the primary classes. Meanwhile there are scores of American art students at home and abroad, old enough in experience and properly educated to give instruction, who would gladly welcome employment as teachers.