TWO VIEWS OF THE PUBLIC.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 63, 11 September 1909, Page 4

TWO VIEWS OF THE PUBLIC.

It is well sometimes for the people to know what the critics think of them ; it is equally well for tho critics to know what the people think of them. At present the dispensation of thought is unequal. The people do not lack judgments on their foibles, but, unhappily, they have not sufficient opportunities to criticise the critics within the hearing of the critics — which is unfortunate foT the critics. iNovJvng is better for the critic than to hear the calm opinions of the criticised about his criticism ; it helps him td make a better one ne'it time, if he is free from spleen, as he should be; otherwise, lie is liable to be merely a mock-critic, a false judge. Thoughts such as these may occur to the reader of a manly confession i»y a well-known painter, fMr. J ( ohn Collier, in the August number of the Nineteenth Century. He ■discourses, with excellent humour, about "the 'Slump' in Modern ATt." He refers to tho sadness of artists who deplore the public's indisposition to support high art, and after a breezy examination of the problem he conclndes that the deficiency is more in the painters than In the public. "The mischief of it all is," he says, "that an everwidening gap is -created between the ertists and the public — a gap that- the critics only succeed in widening still more by endeavouring to cram down our throats the works o* the most extravagant section of ibhe paintere." The people ask .for sustaining bread, and the artists give unintelligible sermons m stones.

In Mr. CollieT's view, which the public will readily recognise as .correct, the people like beauty, especially human beauty, and they- like cheerful pictures, and pictures with the detail well developed. "The public," he contends, "would buy modern pictures if they were less ugly, less coarsely painted, less weirdly unlike nature, less dismal, and, above all, if they were smaller." ' Practically the healthy -Mr. Collier preaches the rank art heresy that a painter should paint to sell — paint to please the public. Does he not ht're '-run counter to the conventional theories? Is life not oxpounding Philistinism? Is it not written in the novels and sentimental short stories that the great artist will starve i on his inspirations rather than "panderto the vulgar herd," and is only induced to paint for popularity by the prayers ot tears of a lover or friends? But what is ait? What is its relation to nature? The difference between a natural scene .and a painting of it is that the picture is the scene plus the painter's individuality, possibly conveyed in a "message," but one may &c& too little scene, and too much individuality < What if the individuality is not worth while? If it Is weird? If it is preposterous? "I am a good deal in sympathy with tho vulgar public," declares Mr. Collier, frankly. •"i think that except in the case of a genius (and artists of real genius are very rare) this personal element is a good deal overdone. I maintain that a somewhat humble attitude .towards nature is mostly a becoming one for us painters; at any rate, by adopting it we should please the public more than by letting our not always interesting personalities sprawl at laxg& over the fair field of nature." The argument is that the % personality should lie in the effort -oo faithfully present Nature's face and not in the artificial, undesirable daubing of a hall-mark patch on the cheek. Artists may thrust their defective personality on a 'much-suffering canvas, and because the public is not interested, they lament and decry the world. But the world is all right. It is the product of evolution, and evolution, it is admitted, has behaved passing well.

This view shows, painters sweeping their brashes over the heads of the public, and spreading the oils in a manner which the- public does not understand, and will not bother to try to understand. The other view, by a quaint coincidence, is given in the same number of the magazine by Mr. W. Pett ißidge, in a treatise on 44 s'Faults5 'Faults of the (Londoner." He speaks of the Londoner's predilection for gaudy, airy stage entertainment in preference to more elevating drama, but he does not melo--dramatically moan about that fact. "Here the Londoner, is not to blame," he submits. "The fault lies with the management. The management, in anxiety to give nothing above the heads of the audience, plays unfairly and (hits below the belt. IThe audience is there, wishing eagerly for better things, and, when these come, giving .enthusiastic signs of gratification; but nothing, apparently, persuades the management that a touch of refinement is welcomed, and week after week the same dreary round is provided." Thus, in one presentment, Mr. Collier wishes to see the painters descending a little to get near the public wiesire, • and in the other Mr. Ridge claims that it is the public wish to have the standard of theatrical entertainment raised. In bc-th. cases the people who work for the public and hope to live by the public,' do not take enough care to look into the heert of the public. "Art for art'fl take," is supposed to bo tho

painter's motto, but whai ie art if the people cannot read a fraction of its message? There is no need for the painters to mark time with the public. (Without sacrificing the dignity of their profession, they can get close to the moving public, and steadily lead the people to advance aj; a quioker pace towards the ideals of the masters. The "superior .attitude" is worthless to this workaday world.