NOTHING NEW.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 278, 24 November 1938, Page 5

NOTHING NEW.

PROOF FROM ART. THE OLD AND THE MODERN. MASTERS' ADVANCED WORK. Nothing is new under the sun, thev fray, and those who go to the art exhibition of reproductions of famous masters, old and modern, opened yesterday afternoon in the Art Gallery, will have ample cause to realise the truth of the adage. The works of old and modern painters have been placed side by side, so that | the contrast in styles and treatment may be appreciated; but when one has left two paintings with a firm conviction that styles have changed immeasurably across the centuries, another pair will be seen, the older of which might have been painted yesterday, and the modern might be the work of a hundred years ago. 1 ake for example two paintings of flowers, one by Jan van Huysum, a Flemish master who lived from 1028 to 1749. and the other bv a Frenchman, Kdouard Manet (18:12-188:1). Both have the same breadth of treatment, the same rigorous subordination of detail, which one is apt to call so essentially* modern. Yet one work is that of the'irth century and the other, that of last century. Other Contradictions. This is one contradiction; but there aie otlieis, shown again by other paintings of flowers. Those done by .Tan Brueghel, a Dutchman who lived from 1508 to 1025, might be examined under a microscope, so faithfully is every detail presented. Even the veins in petal and leaf are there. The worknext door, however, is "modern." Here is that breadth of treatment remarked before. Here is no veined leaf or petal, and to appreciate the work one has to stand perhaps a dozen feet away. The latter is by Pierre Auguste Renoir, a I' 1 eiicli painter, who was born in the year after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and died the year after the Great War ended. No better contrast between the orthodox old and new could be seen than that which is shown in two paintings of cities. One was done by Johannes \ ernieer, a Dutchman, who lived in the seventeenth century. It is "A View of Delft, and here is the photographic accuracy, in formal colours—browns and reds. The other is the last word in modernity—".spot" painting by Paul Signac. a French painter who was born in 18(13 and died three years ago. It i* a work of Paris. It is not painting at all. from the old conception, but a i-eries of spots, dalw of paint 011 a large(anxas. A distance is needed to convey any meaning at all to this work, whereas the closer one could get to the other Llie better. Another Kind of Difference. Two other works are interesting for another reason. rhose who disapprove of the ultra-modern will not like the modern work of this pair, but it is extremely likely that when the older work was produced the conservatives of that time recoiled from it in the same way that the modern conservatives recoil from advanced work to-dav.

1 lie model 11 painting was done bv Georges Rounault. who is still living. It is called "A Shrieking Woman." and it needs the title to tell what it is. The other is. a self-portrait by Adriaen Brouwer, whose period was from 1005 to 1038. Here the treatment is not modern; but the subject assuredly is. It is the artist who is deeply exhaling tobacco smoke from his clay pipe, while, to judge from the expression 011 his face and tlie fact that he is clasping what looks like a bottle of square gin, he is also a trifle alcoholic. This advertised self-confession must have been a shock to the sober burghers of the seventeenth century. Added to that, it is a wellknown fact that Brouwer led a dissipated life.

Then there is "Fete Champetre." by Giorgione. an Italian (1477-1510). It is an oil painting of nude women with the convential Venus de Milo figure, against a background of brown trees and grey foliage. Even the women have brown skins. Alongside it is a work by Manet. "Artist's Temerity." Its title is "Dejeuner stir l'Herbe." Here the nude women have modern figures and skins of a natural colour, while the artist lia« had the temerity to show a sinew in one woman's leg! The trees in the background, too, are actually green, as is also the grass. The clothing of the men is the colour that a man might be exjiected to wear. But—and let those who frown 011 modern works notice—when this painting was first exhibited under Napoleon 111. it was considered to be indecent and too realistic. Here in truth is shown how time marches on. And so one could continue, taking a detail from this and another point from that picture to show how paintinsr progresses but cannot be said to change fundamentally. It is # an excellent exhibition, the comparative value of which is immense. The 00 examples of art were lent by the National Gallery. Wellington, to which gallery they were a gift from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The exhibition was opened this morning and will be open daily for the next three weeks.