EMPIRE LOAN COLLECTION

Evening Star, Issue 21715, 9 May 1934, Page 3

EMPIRE LOAN COLLECTION

[Written by J.C.D.E., for ilia f ‘ Evening Star.’] No. n. THE “MODERNS.” In turning to tbo paintings the feature most apparent is a lack of that unity which characterises the fine print section. Take,for example, the work of W. R. Sickert to the layman it hardly is believable that ‘ Two Women ’ and ‘ Santa Mam ’ are by the same hand that painted ‘ ’Erisco 1 (No. 214). This and a goodly number of other pictures in the exhibition show characteristics that definitely lead away from “ accepted ” canons- of art. If wo are to have any hope, of understanding several of these works we must appreciate the fact that “they are novel only in comparison with the period against which they represent a reaction.” They draw for inspiration on the basic principles of art, the source of inspiration for all periods of definitely creative art. They are elementary; but their authors declare that simple things in art and in life are often the greatest. And there would appear to be considerable grounds for their contentions. What serious-minded thinker on art subjects cannot see in the primitive Giotto elements that stand for more in art than in the overwhelmingly competent Michael Angelo? To dismiss or ignore such pictures as Roberts’s * Chess Players,’ his ‘ Stockbrokers’ Clerk’ (No. 188)„ Wood’s ‘Harbom-.’ (No. 251), bis ‘ Paris in Snow ’ (No. 250), John Nash’s ‘ The Canal, Bath’ (No. 156), Gertler’s ‘Daffodils’ (No. 73), and Matthew Smith’s ‘ Flowerpiece ’ (No. 220) is worse than futile. An exhibition truly representative of British art from Whistler to the present time is bound to contain such pictures for the simple reason that all thinking artists during that time have shown in a lesser or greater,.degree similar “peculiarities.” Even Orpen in his ‘ Palm Sunday,’ Sims in his allegorical pieces, and John in his portraits—the really important people in the Royal Academy of recent years —have not escaped. -Inevitably artists of the present are taking part in one of the greatest art renaissances the civilised world has ever seen—a movement that has as its impulsive force the urge to get back to something simpler, more fundamental, and more vital. We at this stage cannot pass judgment on a movement introduced into England a mere sixty years ago by Whistler; time and a maturer consideration are needed.

That this renaissance is taking for its form a reaction against the too rigid conservatism and realism of the last century is only natural. The conflict between the academic and the “ modern ” is as old as civilisation itself. Rightly does the more conservative mind counteract the excesses of the radical; no true progress is made by revolution. But what would medicine, science, literature, or any other human activity be without its daring experimentalists? All human effort in this world, in any sphere, must be subject to the evolutionary laws or perish. Fifty_ years ago Whistler’s ‘escapades” in atmospheric nocturnes —‘ Bleu et Vert ’ (No. 242), is a very beautiful and representative example • —were as repugnant, and more so, to the conservative mind than Roberts’s efforts in form and arrangement are in the ‘ Chess Players ’; Whistler’s ‘ Valparaiso ’ (No. 243) was every whit as übvel and disconcerting as Wood’s ‘ Harbour ’ is to-day. - Certain it is that the pendulum has swung too far in .many.cases, and some of the pictures under discussion cannot escape criticism in that respect, but they contain the elements of something great—even of genius if wo only have the wit to discern it. It would indeed be a bold critic who condemned the whole modem movement in art because of the excesses of the minority. And it would be an equally foolish one who completely condemned any ono picture in the exhibition because there are elements in it that are beyond his powers of intellect or knowledge. That the majority of people are willing to find a means of approach to the understanding of “ modern ” pictures is fairly apparent; the most looked at and discussed picture in the whole exhibition is ‘ The Chess Players.’ Its dynamic force must be obvious to everyone who has seen it, but why it possesses such a quality must presuppose on the part of its observer a knowledge of the point of view from which it was painted. To understand we must approach such a picture untrammelled by preconceived ideas on things artistic, and realise that the aims of the artist really are novel and original. Solidity in form and arrangement is the dominant factor in ‘ The Chess Players.’ It is from these successfully achieved elements, together with rich and forceful colour, that the great power of the painting is 'naturally' derived. Solidity in form is obtained by modelling to effect an extraordinary feeling of the third dimension. In arrangement solidity is obtained by the strength of the shapes —each angle is approximating to the right angle, and the relative proportions of shapes are complementing each other in a remarkable degree. The exaggerations and distortions would be preposterous if taken by themselves, but in conjunction with the shapes as a whole they have an essential meaning the maximum amount of rhythm and unity has been obtained just because of them. Alter one single shape or angle and you cannot fail to hurt others. Therein lies the artistic refinement of the picture. Studied in this light “modern” peculiarities become a necessary and integral part of composition. The principles of picture building are to-day not much different from what they were with Leighton or Alma Tadema, except that the “ modernist ” has thrown overboard superficial realism that hamper's him from making the most out of the material at his disposal. In ‘ Sussex Downs ’ (No. 71), by Roger Fry—to many the most intellectual art critic in England to-day—-similar elements of solidity and simplified shapes dominate. Few will deny that it possesses quiet dignity, exquisite colour, and great unity of tone. Tire two paintings by Christopher Wood, while possessing to a certain extent the rhythm of the ‘ Chess Players,’ have for their “ raison d’etre ” vital primitivism—the principle so all pervading in the work of Gaugin; one misses the whole point of such paintings unless one realises that primitivism declares that the artist cannot paint sincerely unless he casts off the artificiality of adult conventions and views the world and his paint “ as with the mind of a child.” That does not reduce art to a farce by making it child’s play. If we approach painting in that frame of mind then our childlike outpourings are as artificial as the adult creations against which primitivism is a protest. The genius of Wood’s ‘ Harbour ’ lies in the fact that ho has achieved childlike essentials sincerely. And that is the explanation of much of the work

of “that man of many controversies,” Jacob Epstein. . The other feature most discernible in the “ moderns ” is the daring use of colour. Smith’s ‘ Flowerpiece ’ (No. 220), so reminiscent of Van Gogh’s 1 Zouave,’ not in technique but in richness and harmony of colour; paint has been used straight from the tube without the admixture of white, giving a remarkable intensity. However, much we may condemn it there can be no question of its success here, and that it is in keeping with the vigour and vitality of the other elements in the picture. Rich in colour, too, are Spencer’s ‘Near Cookhatn ’ (No. 221), Gertler’s ‘ Daffodils,’ and John Nash’s ‘ Canal, Bath.’ And in Pissarro’s ‘ On the Dart,’ Ginner’s ‘ Paysage ’ (No. 78), Gore’s ‘Paysage’ (No. 80), and his ‘ Moruington Crescent ’ (No. 81) we see what these “ modernists ” can do in atmosphere; the unity of colour in these pictures is very beautiful. Other pictures in the exhibition that will repay examination from a “ modern ” point of view are Hyndhara’s ‘ Landscape ’ (No. 252), colour aud pattern, Holfe’s ‘ Mohammed Ben Laitze ’ (No. 249). primitivism in colour Dunlop’s ‘ Still Life ’ (No. 65), vigour of treatment, Gilman’s ‘ Interior,’ colour harmony, and Seabrooke’s ‘ Still Life ’ (No. 207), indicative of Cezanne’s influence.