Studio: international art (19.1900)

Reviews

PRAGUE.—In December of last year was
held in Prague the first exhibition of the
so-called "Jednota umelcu vytvarnych."
This association, the latest to be formed
by artists of Czech nationality, had its origin in the
long-felt need for an occasional exhibition of a
collection of the work of all Czech artists whether
resident at home or abroad. Only by such means
can a just estimate be formed of Czech art as a
whole, and the shows also afford the general
public interested in the progress of art an oppor-
tunity of giving practical expression to their interest.
The aim of the members of the newly-founded
association is first and foremost to bring into pro-
minence the marked individuality and character of
Czech art, and to spread far and wide amongst
every rank of society, from the highest to the lowest,
a genuine appreciation of good work. As a matter of
course, however, the encouragement of cosmopolitan
art is quite outside the province of the Jednota
Society. In addition to the main object of the
association, already described, its members have very
much at heart the preservation of the old-world char-
acter of their beloved city of Prague, and by word
and deed they strive with all their might to achieve
the task they have set themselves to perform.
Readers of the Studio are already familiar with the
names and work of three members of the Jednota
—Hans Schwaiger, Ludek Marold, and Alphonse
Mucha, the last of whom lives in Paris, who are
all acknowledged masters. Moreover, the sculpture
exhibited on various occasions in Germany and in
Austria by the Prague professors of that branch of
art, Myslbeck and J. Mauder have been spoken of
by art critics in laudatory terms. Professors Hynais,
Brozik, Ales, Jenewein, Liska, Pirner, Fr. Ondrusek,
Slaby^ and Marak take high rank amongst painters
of Czech nationality, and we hope ere long to be
able to give examples of their work as well as their
names. In Austria, at St. Petersburg, and at
Moscow, Czech artists gave proof in the summer of
1899, as well as in their own special show, of more
recent date of what it is in them to do.

M. G.

GHENT.—The thirty-seventh exhibition
organised by the Royal Society for
the Encouragement of the Fine
Arts was held here some little time
ago, and its success was in all respects note-
worthy. Thanks to the discrimination of the
various committees, many different forms of art
could be studied there side by side; and the
pictures were most carefully and successfully hung.

70

Foreign painters, among whom the British held
their own easily, were very well represented. Let
me note at haphazard the drawings of Pennell,
the engravings of Nicholson, and the varied works
of Sauter, Gould, Lavery, R. Macaulay Stevenson,
George Pirie, J. Da Costa, A. K. Brown, and Miss
Bessie MacNicol. Fantin-Latour, Menard, Cottet,
La Touche, Pointelin, Alexander, Simon, Thaulow,
Segantini, Mesdag, Henri Martin, also attracted
much attention ; and among the Belgian painters
remarkable successes were won by Laermans,
Claus, Struys, and Frederic. As to our Belgian
sculpture, its honour was safe in the strong hands
of Meunier, Rombaux, Lambeaux, Samuel, the
younger Van Bisbrock, and Je Lalaing.

For the rest, the exhibition attracted many
visitors, among whom I would mention the King,
and Monsieur Benedite of the Musee du Luxem-
bourg, who made many careful notes as he passed
through the galleries. Last of all, it has been
announced that the city of Ghent has purchased
for the Communal Museum two of the works
of art that were exhibited at our Salon here,
a picture by Struys and a piece of sculpture by
the young artist, Rombaux. This is how we en-
courage real talent. In Brussels too, thanks to
the sound judgment of M. Verlant, Director of
Fine Arts, the Government has bought for the
Museum four drawings by Mertens and several
good things by Marcette, Meyers, Segantini, Thau-
low, Verhaeren, Claus, Cottet, Fantin-Latour,
Menard, Sauter, Paterson, and Lavery. R. V.

REVIEWS.

Gothic Architecture. By Chari.es H. Moore.
(London and New York: The Macmillan Com-
pany.) Price j&s. net.—In this interesting and
particularly well-illustrated volume — the second
edition (enlarged and to a considerable extent re-
written) of a work first published some ten years
ago—Mr. C. H. Moore presents himself to us with
further and fuller evidence in support of conclu-
sions only too likely, as he himself says, to prove
unwelcome to many English students of architec-
ture. From his definition of the term Gothic Archi-
tecture there is little need to differ, nor, as a matter
of fact, is it so new as he would seem to imagine.
There have been other writers on the subject since
Rickman, Whewell, Willis and Sharpe, whose
somewhat antiquated views are cited by Mr. Moore
as representative, and the superficial definition of
Gothic work as that depending on the substitution