Studio: international art (14.1898)

Studio-Talk

Pickford Marriott (South Kensington) has a dis-
tinguished design for an oaken, metal-mounted
church door, with a bronze panel, Suffer Little
Children to Come unto Me. Jennie Delahunt
(Manchester) has a pleasant scheme for the side
of a room. A pierced panel, by H. J. Strutt
(Westminster), has carried off a gold medal.
E. W. Horne (Wordsley) has a gracefully deco-
rated panel, with gesso ornament; a lock-plate by
Florence Joyce (Birmingham); a panel for a fire-
place by Gertrude Smith (South Kensington); a
frieze of peacocks by Marian E. Pearson (Wolver-
hampton) ; tiles by Wilfrid Wetherill (Burnley);
and a mirror by Richard Davenport (Burslem), all
uphold the tradition of the schools in varying
degrees. A group of models for cruets and finger
bowls, by W. A. Bennett (Salford), has been allotted
a gold medal; and an ink-pot by Benjamin Dins-
more (Salford) displays merit.

A design for a wall fountain by Katharine M.
Coggin (New Cross) is worthy of being carried out,
to say more is therefore needless; this admirably
gifted student has beaten her record this year. A
frieze in gesso by R. W. Higham (Holloway) is
effective and accomplished; sketch designs for a
painted frieze by W. L. Stamp (Regent Street)
contains much promise. Another for a painted
ceiling by Edwin Evans (Mile End) was awarded
a gold medal: it is a composition of figures filling
a circular space admirably. A capital fire-screen
with decoration in wrought copper by Mary W.
Masters (Bath), a casket by C. A. L. Roberts (Bir-
mingham), delightful medallions in relief for the
decoration of a box by Ruby Levick (South Ken-
sington), are among other excellent works shown
in the round or in relief.

The iron gates of Harold A. Smith (Nottingham)
show knowledge of the material and felicity of inven-
tion ; they will be remembered as a standard with
which to compare later efforts in a like direction.
Other gates by Arthur Manock (Birmingham) and
T. W. Bryan (Bristol) possess peculiar merit. A
capital design for a fender of pierced steel by
Sydney R. Turner (New Cross), a panel in copper
and steel by J. A. Jones, a set of electric-light
fittings by Gamble S. Lemasnie (South Kensing-
ton), are among the best things for metal.

In painted tiles Garnet Glandfield (Plymouth)
showed an excellent panel, recalling some of
Mr. Lewis Day’s refined manner; two sets in
Persian style by R. A. Dawson (South Kensington)
charmed one as much by their delicate washes of
water-colour as by their actual design. A stained-
glass design by C. W. Kelsey (Holloway), and
282

another rather strongly composed by Dorothy M.
Hart (Birmingham), were also good.

In Mosaics a spirited design of horses by Mary
G. Houston (South Kensington), a very boldly
designed and excellent border for a pavement by
W. W. Brown (Fenton), and a somewhat too
naturalistic frieze of ducks by Thomas Cox
(Macclesfield); a design for a fireplace, by E. G.
Perman (Westminster), with a splendidly conven-
tionalised peacock; an effective scheme for a
dining-room by W. H. Pick (Leicester); and a
good overmantel by A. E. F. Jackson (Holloway),
are worthy of mention.

Of the studies for life—and still life—of the
classes for historic ornament, and architectural
drawing, nothing has been said; but to particularise
over twelve hundred and fifty works in a few pages
is impossible.

A retrospect after many visits to the exhibition
supports the first impression that its average is
somewhat higher than in previous years.

G. W.

STUDIO-TALK.

(From our own Correspondents.)

LONDON.—The Select Committee of the
House of Commons, which has for
some time past been occupied with an
investigation of the administration and
cost of the Museums of the Science
and Art Department, has issued a report which
certainly cannot be said to deal in a half-hearted
manner with the questions at issue. The document
is, on the contrary, a remarkable piece of plain
speaking, a commentary on the methods of the
Department which amply justifies the rather free
criticism that has for many years been bestowed
upon the official attitude with regard to art educa-
tion. As an indictment of the system under which
the South Kensington Museum has been robbed of
its efficiency and turned into a kind of playground
for amateur educators, the report is appallingly com-
plete. Its revelations are too significant to be ex-
plained away. The abuses it pillories are too obvious
to admit of discussion, and any attempt to evade its
recommendations, or to ignore the responsibilities
which it fastens upon the heads of the Education
Council, would be a scandalous disregard of the
duty which in these important matters the Govern-
ment owes to the country. The Select Committee
has carried the South Kensington question beyond
the limits of a mere quarrel between experts on
points of administration, and has stamped it once