DOI Heft:
No. 159 (June, 1906)
DOI Artikel:The lay figure: on misdirected effort
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.20715#0115
The Lay Figure
THE LAY FIGURE: ON MIS-
DIRECTED EFFORT.
“Has it ever occurred to you,” asked
the Art Critic, “ that exhibitions are of very
questionable advantage to artists and are decidedly
bad for art ? ”
“ What an extraordinary thing to ask! ” cried
the Popular Painter. “ How can exhibitions
possibly do harm ? Certainly they are not bad
for art; and artists, I am sure, could not do with-
out them.”
“ I thought you would say that,” said the Critic ;
“ but then you have waxed fat on exhibitions and
can scarcely be expected to approach my question
in an impartial spirit of inquiry. I want the
opinion of someone with less bias.”
“ Do you want mine ? ” queried the Man with
the Red Tie. “ Because, if you do, I am quite
ready to give it.”
“Of course you are,” sneered the Popular
Painter; “ and I know well enough what it will
be. You are an artistic anarchist and hate all
established institutions. The fact that exhibitions
are favoured and supported by all rational and
respectable artists is quite enough to make you
argue that these exhibitions are iniquitous absurd-
ities which ought to be suppressed off-hand.”
“But if I think so,” laughed the Man with the
Red Tie, “I am surely entitled to express my
conviction. Even an anarchist may be permitted
to talk sometimes; dynamite is not his only argu-
ment, though, no doubt, it is the most effective
one he can use when he wants to completely
silence his opponents.”
“Would you call it argument?” asked the
Critic. “ I think it could be better described as
destructive criticism. But don’t be quite so
summary with our friend here; I would like to
hear what he has to say in favour of exhibitions,
even though I do know the line he is going to take.”
“ The line I am going to take 1 ” cried the Popular
Painter. “ There is only one line which any reason-
able being could possibly take. Exhibitions are
absolutely necessary to enable artists to appeal to
the public. What should I have done if there had
been no places in which I could exhibit my work;
how should I have made my reputation, and where
would I have found the people who buy my
pictures ? Exhibitions have given me the position
I occupy in the art world, and I am, I flatter
myself, a very definite proof of their value as
means for establishing the right relations between
the artist and his clients.”
94
“You are, in fact, as much an established
institution as any of the exhibitions which you
admire so profoundly,” chuckled the Man with
the Red Tie, “and therefore you ought to be
suppressed with suitable abruptness. But don’t
be alarmed ; I have no designs upon you, though I
do not think that your success is in any way a
proof that exhibitions do good to art.”
“There you touch the point I am seeking to
make,” said the Critic. “ Exhibitions do, I
admit, bring success to this or that individual
artist; but that they raise the standard of art, or
even benefit artists in the aggregate, I am inclined
to deny.”
“But if they bring to the front the men whom
the public like,” replied the Popular Painter, “ they
serve their purpose perfectly, and they have an
unquestionable use as centres of art education.”
“ No, indeed,” declared the Critic ; “ there you
are entirely wrong! The men whom the public
like are not by any means those who are most
likely to-advance the cause of art education. Much
of the work which these men show is absolutely
wrong in idea and intention, utterly misdirected,
and calculated to have a distinctly bad influence.
There is a class of art production which has been
fostered and encouraged by exhibitions—stuff that
shrieks for attention and appeals not by its merit,
but by its aggressive self-assertion. Artists who
are more anxious to secure cheap popularity than
to do good work for its own sake are led away into
evil courses, and out-riot the most riotous of their
predecessors in a mad desire to be notorious at all
costs. The nobler attributes of art, the qualities
which give it life and justify its existence, are dis-
regarded entirely in this noisy competition. The
art-world is becoming like some low market-place
ablaze with flaring lights and echoing with raucous
voices urging the crowd to buy, buy, buy ; and for
this the exhibition is responsible. It taints art
with commercialism; it throws over it the trail of
advertisement; and it demoralises the artists who
under healthier conditions would labour sincerely
and with the highest aims. And, I contend, it
frightens away the really intelligent buyer, the
man who desires to possess the things which charm
him by their reticence rather than those which can
boldly hold their own in the rough-and-tumble of
a gallery crowd. The true collector has no love
for the showy superficiality which pleases the
public; and he is ceasing to pay any attention to
exhibitions because they give him little else.
Surely that is bad for art and worse for artists.”
The Lay Figure.
THE LAY FIGURE: ON MIS-
DIRECTED EFFORT.
“Has it ever occurred to you,” asked
the Art Critic, “ that exhibitions are of very
questionable advantage to artists and are decidedly
bad for art ? ”
“ What an extraordinary thing to ask! ” cried
the Popular Painter. “ How can exhibitions
possibly do harm ? Certainly they are not bad
for art; and artists, I am sure, could not do with-
out them.”
“ I thought you would say that,” said the Critic ;
“ but then you have waxed fat on exhibitions and
can scarcely be expected to approach my question
in an impartial spirit of inquiry. I want the
opinion of someone with less bias.”
“ Do you want mine ? ” queried the Man with
the Red Tie. “ Because, if you do, I am quite
ready to give it.”
“Of course you are,” sneered the Popular
Painter; “ and I know well enough what it will
be. You are an artistic anarchist and hate all
established institutions. The fact that exhibitions
are favoured and supported by all rational and
respectable artists is quite enough to make you
argue that these exhibitions are iniquitous absurd-
ities which ought to be suppressed off-hand.”
“But if I think so,” laughed the Man with the
Red Tie, “I am surely entitled to express my
conviction. Even an anarchist may be permitted
to talk sometimes; dynamite is not his only argu-
ment, though, no doubt, it is the most effective
one he can use when he wants to completely
silence his opponents.”
“Would you call it argument?” asked the
Critic. “ I think it could be better described as
destructive criticism. But don’t be quite so
summary with our friend here; I would like to
hear what he has to say in favour of exhibitions,
even though I do know the line he is going to take.”
“ The line I am going to take 1 ” cried the Popular
Painter. “ There is only one line which any reason-
able being could possibly take. Exhibitions are
absolutely necessary to enable artists to appeal to
the public. What should I have done if there had
been no places in which I could exhibit my work;
how should I have made my reputation, and where
would I have found the people who buy my
pictures ? Exhibitions have given me the position
I occupy in the art world, and I am, I flatter
myself, a very definite proof of their value as
means for establishing the right relations between
the artist and his clients.”
94
“You are, in fact, as much an established
institution as any of the exhibitions which you
admire so profoundly,” chuckled the Man with
the Red Tie, “and therefore you ought to be
suppressed with suitable abruptness. But don’t
be alarmed ; I have no designs upon you, though I
do not think that your success is in any way a
proof that exhibitions do good to art.”
“There you touch the point I am seeking to
make,” said the Critic. “ Exhibitions do, I
admit, bring success to this or that individual
artist; but that they raise the standard of art, or
even benefit artists in the aggregate, I am inclined
to deny.”
“But if they bring to the front the men whom
the public like,” replied the Popular Painter, “ they
serve their purpose perfectly, and they have an
unquestionable use as centres of art education.”
“ No, indeed,” declared the Critic ; “ there you
are entirely wrong! The men whom the public
like are not by any means those who are most
likely to-advance the cause of art education. Much
of the work which these men show is absolutely
wrong in idea and intention, utterly misdirected,
and calculated to have a distinctly bad influence.
There is a class of art production which has been
fostered and encouraged by exhibitions—stuff that
shrieks for attention and appeals not by its merit,
but by its aggressive self-assertion. Artists who
are more anxious to secure cheap popularity than
to do good work for its own sake are led away into
evil courses, and out-riot the most riotous of their
predecessors in a mad desire to be notorious at all
costs. The nobler attributes of art, the qualities
which give it life and justify its existence, are dis-
regarded entirely in this noisy competition. The
art-world is becoming like some low market-place
ablaze with flaring lights and echoing with raucous
voices urging the crowd to buy, buy, buy ; and for
this the exhibition is responsible. It taints art
with commercialism; it throws over it the trail of
advertisement; and it demoralises the artists who
under healthier conditions would labour sincerely
and with the highest aims. And, I contend, it
frightens away the really intelligent buyer, the
man who desires to possess the things which charm
him by their reticence rather than those which can
boldly hold their own in the rough-and-tumble of
a gallery crowd. The true collector has no love
for the showy superficiality which pleases the
public; and he is ceasing to pay any attention to
exhibitions because they give him little else.
Surely that is bad for art and worse for artists.”
The Lay Figure.