Say an old gentleman with his wife and two or three daughters come by
mistake into an exhibition with the catalogue of some other exhibition
in their possession. They glance at a picture, and fall into raptures
over it: 'Beautiful, the _feeling_ is delightful. What force of touch,
strength of character! Who is it by? Number So-and-So. Ah! I knew it.'
(The number in the wrong catalogue points to a well-known name.) 'I felt
that I could not be mistaken.' (The old gentleman adjusts his glasses
and looks at the title with triumphant conviction.) 'Odd title, though,
for the subject; eccentricity of genius, I suppose. No matter, it is
splendid. Quite Dutch-like in its subtlety; quite Israely in its
character; delicate, refined, realistic, bold, masterly!'
One of the daughters, blessed with keener vision, has here discovered
another signature on the corner of this masterpiece, a name not in the
fashion, in fact one despised. 'Papa, it isn't by Mr. Smudge, R.A.; it
is by Ernest Tyro.'
'Eh! what? Nonsense! why, the catalogue says Smudge.' The mistake is
discovered, and at once the tune changes. 'Ah! vulgar, coarse,
commonplace. Let us go out before we are contaminated.'
Now, this is the comic part of it, with a dash of the pitiful. What
difference did that signature make in the merit of the picture? If it
was delicate, refined, bold, masterly before, how could it be vulgar,
coarse, or commonplace afterwards?
A man with piles of money to spend and a moderate modicum of brains
gets hauled into the artistic stream, and goes gasping and spluttering
around, spending his money on what he knows nothing about, and never
will while God blesses him with cash, and his tongue can patter cant.
Somebody takes him kindly in hand and educates him, as Buchanan did
James VI.; he raves about the painter he has been taught to consider the
master.
'Look at it! what colour, what masterly brush-marks. Did you ever see
the like of that?'
Never, except in a white-washer with his broad brush, or a scavenger
sweeping a crossing.
In his natural state he may get a picture which he can comprehend,
because the houses are like the houses he sees every day, and the trees
have branches and leaves definitely painted on them; that picture
represented Nature as he saw her, therefore he considered it good. But
under training he is taught to despise this sort of thing, and
obediently despises it; the old love is turned out or with its face to
the wall, and the splashes which have neither form nor finish are doted
upon. Would this man care to have a wife without a nose or with
indefinite features? Would he be charmed with the colour of a mashed-up
bit of flesh? It is all right enough for musicians to rave over the
sweetness of a piece of catgut, but the world wants to hear the whole
tune, and what we as artists know to be good quality is comical
affectation on their part.
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