The collected works of William Hazlitt, Vol. 01 (of 12)Hazlitt, William
General
The collected works of William Hazlitt, Vol. 01 (of 12)
Hazlitt, William
English essays -- 19th century
The Flemish pictures then, except those of
Rembrandt, were not originally black; they have not faded in proportion
to the length of time they have been painted. All that comes then of the
nickname in the Catalogue is, that the pictures of the old Masters have
lasted longer than those of the present members of the Royal Academy,
and that the latter, it is to be presumed, do not wish their works to
last so long, lest they should be called the _Black Masters_. With
respect to Rembrandt, this epitaph may be literally true. But, we would
ask, whether the style of _chiaroscuro_, in which Rembrandt painted, is
not one fine view of nature and of art? Whether any other painter
carried it to the same height of perfection as he did? Whether any other
painter ever joined the same depth of shadow with the same clearness?
Whether his tones were not as fine as they were true? Whether a more
thorough master of his art ever lived? Whether he deserved for this to
be nicknamed by the Writer of the Catalogue, or to have his works ‘kept
under, or himself held up to derision,’ by the Patrons and Directors of
the British Institution for the support and encouragement of the Fine
Arts?
But we have heard it said by a disciple and commentator on the
Catalogue, (one would think it was hardly possible to descend lower than
the writer himself), that the Directors of the British Institution
assume a consequence to themselves, hostile to the pretensions of modern
professors, out of the reputation of the old Masters, whom they affect
to look upon with wonder, to worship as something preternatural;—that
they consider the bare possession of an old picture as a title to
distinction, and the respect paid to Art as the highest pretension of
the owner. And is this then a subject of complaint with the Academy,
that genius is thus thought of, when its claims are once fully
established? That those high qualities, which are beyond the estimate of
ignorance and selfishness while living, receive their reward from
distant ages? Do they not ‘feel the future in the instant’? Do they not
know, that those qualities which appeal neither to interest nor passion
can only find their level with time, and would they annihilate the only
pretensions they have? Or have they no conscious affinity with true
genius, no claim to the reversion of true fame, no right of succession
to this lasting inheritance and final reward of great exertions, which
they would therefore destroy, to prevent others from enjoying it? Does
all their ambition begin and end in their _patriotic sympathy_ with the
sale of modern works of Art, and have they no fellow-feeling with the
hopes and final destiny of human genius? What poet ever complained of
the respect paid to Homer as derogatory to himself? The envy and
opposition to established fame is peculiar to the race of modern
Artists; and it is to be hoped it will remain so. It is the fault of
their education. It is only by a liberal education that we learn to feel
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account