DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68796#0192
172
The Work of Art as Significant
PART II
A picture ought not to need an explanatory paragraph.’
‘A painter ought before everything to be a painter, and the
grandest and finest “ subjects ” in the world are not worth
a good piece of painting.’ £ At the Salon, the public is almost
exclusively taken up with the ££ subject ” ; the true art of
the painter becomes an accessory matter.’1
In somewhat similar terms, Mr. Whistler complains that
£ the vast majority of English folk cannot and will not con-
sider a picture as a picture, apart from any story which it
may be supposed to tell.’ 2 Mr. Hole of the Royal Scottish
Academy in a paper read not long ago at an Art Congress
lays it down that £ the function of art is—to be beautiful.
Not necessarily to picture things of beauty; not assuredly
to set before us beautiful literary ideas. It seeks not to
stimulate to lofty deeds, to teach or to preach anything. Its
mission is to be in itself, and for itself alone, beautiful.’ 3
If these and similar statements are meant as correctives
of the silly popular insistence on interest of subject as the
only thing worth attending to in a picture, then they are
both true and well-timed, but if they cover the belief that
the be-all and end-all of a picture is to be materially
pleasing to the eye, they can be met by counter state-
ments from their own authors. For example, in the
same series of aphorisms from which quotations have
already been given, Alfred Stevens remarks of the French
painter of the Napoleonic era, Gericault, whom he greatly
admires, that with a single figure he tells the tale of all the
army of the First Empire.4 Here is a painter praised for
his intellectual grasp of a theme of historical moment, for
his power of creating a type and of delineating the general
1 Paris, 1886, Nos. XV. LXVII. CLXV.
2 The Gentle Art, etc. p. 126.
3 Transactions of the National Association for the Advancement of
Art, Edinburgh, 1889, p. 72. 4 No. LXVIII.
The Work of Art as Significant
PART II
A picture ought not to need an explanatory paragraph.’
‘A painter ought before everything to be a painter, and the
grandest and finest “ subjects ” in the world are not worth
a good piece of painting.’ £ At the Salon, the public is almost
exclusively taken up with the ££ subject ” ; the true art of
the painter becomes an accessory matter.’1
In somewhat similar terms, Mr. Whistler complains that
£ the vast majority of English folk cannot and will not con-
sider a picture as a picture, apart from any story which it
may be supposed to tell.’ 2 Mr. Hole of the Royal Scottish
Academy in a paper read not long ago at an Art Congress
lays it down that £ the function of art is—to be beautiful.
Not necessarily to picture things of beauty; not assuredly
to set before us beautiful literary ideas. It seeks not to
stimulate to lofty deeds, to teach or to preach anything. Its
mission is to be in itself, and for itself alone, beautiful.’ 3
If these and similar statements are meant as correctives
of the silly popular insistence on interest of subject as the
only thing worth attending to in a picture, then they are
both true and well-timed, but if they cover the belief that
the be-all and end-all of a picture is to be materially
pleasing to the eye, they can be met by counter state-
ments from their own authors. For example, in the
same series of aphorisms from which quotations have
already been given, Alfred Stevens remarks of the French
painter of the Napoleonic era, Gericault, whom he greatly
admires, that with a single figure he tells the tale of all the
army of the First Empire.4 Here is a painter praised for
his intellectual grasp of a theme of historical moment, for
his power of creating a type and of delineating the general
1 Paris, 1886, Nos. XV. LXVII. CLXV.
2 The Gentle Art, etc. p. 126.
3 Transactions of the National Association for the Advancement of
Art, Edinburgh, 1889, p. 72. 4 No. LXVIII.