DOI Heft:
No. 229 (April 1912)
DOI Artikel:The lay figure: on the founhdation of art
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.21156#0275
The Lay Figure
THE LAY FIGURE: ON THE
FOUNDATION OF ART.
“ I am very much bewildered by the present
position of affairs in the art world,” said the Plain
Man. “ There seems to be no stability of opinion
or practice, no order, no coherence. Why should
this be ? Is there no fundamental principle by
which art is guided ? ”
“ Why should art be bound and hampered by
rales ? ” cried the Man with the Red Tie. “ I
believe in anarchy; that alone gives the artist free-
dom to express himself. Each man should be a
law unto himself and do whatever he thinks
best.”
“ Hold on a minute,” laughed the Art Critic.
“ Do you really want us to take you seriously ?
Would you go so far as to assert that art should be
without principles and subject to no laws?”
“ I would certainly say that the artist should set
his own individual feeling above all laws and that
he should work as the spirit moves him,” returned
the Man with the Red Tie. “If he is tied down
by all sorts of conventions what hope is there of
progress and what chance is there that he will
sound any new note in his work ?”
“ Oh, is that what you call it ? ” asked the Plain
Man. “ There are quite a number of new notes
being sounded just now, I should say; and I think
they make rather a jangle. A little more harmony
would please me better.”
“ What an old-fashioned mind you have got! ”
scoffed the Man with the Red Tie. “ Harmony,
indeed ! That is only another name for stagna-
tion, and when art stagnates it is in a bad way.”
“ I quite agree with you,” broke in the Critic.
“ Stagnation saps the vitality of art and reduces it
to a condition of dangerous torpidity. But anarchy,
I think, is more dangerous still because it denies
the existence of any fundamental principle and is
subversive of all right discipline. It destroys the
very foundation of art and brings everything to
chaos.”
“ But surely you believe that every artist should
have the fullest possible scope lor the expression
of his individuality ? ” protested the Man with the
Red Tie ; “ and you would not deny that sub-
servience to rules and regulations dulls his intelli-
gence and takes away his power of initiative ? Is
not chaos better than a dead, dull level of
mechanical mediocrity ? ”
“ I do not know which would be the less
objectionable of the two evils,” laughed the Critic,
“ but as the highest type of individual expression
252
is possible without any disregard of essential
principles, the point is hardly worth discussing.
Might I hint, however, that I find quite as much
mediocre effort among the anarchical artists who
work as the spirit moves them as I do among the
men who subject themselves unintelligently to the
laws of art ? The mediocrity of the anarchist is,
perhaps, rather more offensive than that of the
artist who recognises that there is a fundamental
principle but does not know how to apply it.”
“ Do tell me what this principle is,” interrupted
the Plain Man. “ I felt sure there must be one,
though artists in the present day do not seem to
have much respect for it.”
“You can sum it up in one word—decoration,”
replied the Critic. “ The work of art that is
rightly decorative satisfies completely all the main
essentials.”
“ Is that all ? ” gasped the Plain Man. “ But I
always thought that decorative art was the lowest
type of all, the least important, and the least
valued.”
“Just listen to him ! ” sighed the Man with the
Red Tie. “ What are we to do with such a
person ? ”
“ Why, of course, educate him and elevate his
mind,” answered the Critic. “ There is a vast mass
of people who suffer from the same delusion, and
there is a large array of artists who, if we may judge
by their productions, are no better informed. How
can you expect the public to learn great principles
if the artists are unable to teach them ? ”
“ I gather that I have said something very
wrong,” apologised the Plain Man. “ Forgive me,
and lighten my darkness.”
“ My friend, a great artist once defined decora-
tion as the activity, the life of art, its justification
and its social utility, and I think that fairly com-
prehensive summing up should prove to you the
greatness of your mistake,” said the Critic. “ But
there is some excuse for you because so many
artists at the present time do not recognise that
decoration is the very foundation of art; and they
certainly ought to know better. Believe me, it is
simply by its decorative quality, and its sense of
decorative fitness, that a work of art rises from the
level of a mere commonplace representation of
obvious facts to that of an inspired expression of a
great aesthetic conviction. Decoration is what you
were asking for—the fundamental principle by
which art is guided—and quite unconsciously you
were craving for it when you complained of the
incoherence of modern art. 1 here are hopes for
you yet.” The Lay Figure.
THE LAY FIGURE: ON THE
FOUNDATION OF ART.
“ I am very much bewildered by the present
position of affairs in the art world,” said the Plain
Man. “ There seems to be no stability of opinion
or practice, no order, no coherence. Why should
this be ? Is there no fundamental principle by
which art is guided ? ”
“ Why should art be bound and hampered by
rales ? ” cried the Man with the Red Tie. “ I
believe in anarchy; that alone gives the artist free-
dom to express himself. Each man should be a
law unto himself and do whatever he thinks
best.”
“ Hold on a minute,” laughed the Art Critic.
“ Do you really want us to take you seriously ?
Would you go so far as to assert that art should be
without principles and subject to no laws?”
“ I would certainly say that the artist should set
his own individual feeling above all laws and that
he should work as the spirit moves him,” returned
the Man with the Red Tie. “If he is tied down
by all sorts of conventions what hope is there of
progress and what chance is there that he will
sound any new note in his work ?”
“ Oh, is that what you call it ? ” asked the Plain
Man. “ There are quite a number of new notes
being sounded just now, I should say; and I think
they make rather a jangle. A little more harmony
would please me better.”
“ What an old-fashioned mind you have got! ”
scoffed the Man with the Red Tie. “ Harmony,
indeed ! That is only another name for stagna-
tion, and when art stagnates it is in a bad way.”
“ I quite agree with you,” broke in the Critic.
“ Stagnation saps the vitality of art and reduces it
to a condition of dangerous torpidity. But anarchy,
I think, is more dangerous still because it denies
the existence of any fundamental principle and is
subversive of all right discipline. It destroys the
very foundation of art and brings everything to
chaos.”
“ But surely you believe that every artist should
have the fullest possible scope lor the expression
of his individuality ? ” protested the Man with the
Red Tie ; “ and you would not deny that sub-
servience to rules and regulations dulls his intelli-
gence and takes away his power of initiative ? Is
not chaos better than a dead, dull level of
mechanical mediocrity ? ”
“ I do not know which would be the less
objectionable of the two evils,” laughed the Critic,
“ but as the highest type of individual expression
252
is possible without any disregard of essential
principles, the point is hardly worth discussing.
Might I hint, however, that I find quite as much
mediocre effort among the anarchical artists who
work as the spirit moves them as I do among the
men who subject themselves unintelligently to the
laws of art ? The mediocrity of the anarchist is,
perhaps, rather more offensive than that of the
artist who recognises that there is a fundamental
principle but does not know how to apply it.”
“ Do tell me what this principle is,” interrupted
the Plain Man. “ I felt sure there must be one,
though artists in the present day do not seem to
have much respect for it.”
“You can sum it up in one word—decoration,”
replied the Critic. “ The work of art that is
rightly decorative satisfies completely all the main
essentials.”
“ Is that all ? ” gasped the Plain Man. “ But I
always thought that decorative art was the lowest
type of all, the least important, and the least
valued.”
“Just listen to him ! ” sighed the Man with the
Red Tie. “ What are we to do with such a
person ? ”
“ Why, of course, educate him and elevate his
mind,” answered the Critic. “ There is a vast mass
of people who suffer from the same delusion, and
there is a large array of artists who, if we may judge
by their productions, are no better informed. How
can you expect the public to learn great principles
if the artists are unable to teach them ? ”
“ I gather that I have said something very
wrong,” apologised the Plain Man. “ Forgive me,
and lighten my darkness.”
“ My friend, a great artist once defined decora-
tion as the activity, the life of art, its justification
and its social utility, and I think that fairly com-
prehensive summing up should prove to you the
greatness of your mistake,” said the Critic. “ But
there is some excuse for you because so many
artists at the present time do not recognise that
decoration is the very foundation of art; and they
certainly ought to know better. Believe me, it is
simply by its decorative quality, and its sense of
decorative fitness, that a work of art rises from the
level of a mere commonplace representation of
obvious facts to that of an inspired expression of a
great aesthetic conviction. Decoration is what you
were asking for—the fundamental principle by
which art is guided—and quite unconsciously you
were craving for it when you complained of the
incoherence of modern art. 1 here are hopes for
you yet.” The Lay Figure.