Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1909 (Heft 26))

in the line of the antique crafts. In regard to painting, which was the topic of
these interviews, Mr. Morgan's interest stops short at the end of the eighteenth
century, and SirPurdon has actually stated, I believe, that it is a branch of art
which he has not specially studied. Yet, even if he made the statements as
reported, without any assumption of expertry, they will have been accepted
as authoritative by a great number of people. Hence their perniciousness.
And what were the statements ? Some of them were casual shots, aimed
here and there, but in general they represented a fusillade against what Sir
Purdon understands by “ impressionism.” Among the former were such choice
bits of self-revelation as the following: “ A Blake (drawing) is not worth the
paper it is printed on”; “ Bierstadt's ‘Rocky Mountains' is the best landscape
in the Museum”; “Millet's ‘The Sower' is only praised because cant and
humbug prevent its admirers from saying what they really think.” He fired
a shot also at the cant of people who talk of the “enjoyment” they derive from
pictures, and at the “humbug of others, who look to a picture for suggestion
rather than direct statement.” And this led him to enlarge upon “ impres-
sionism.”
He objects to it, and his objection is quite intelligible in view of his early
training and his British prepossessions. Both his experience as an architect
and the influence of the Royal Academy traditions explain his preference
for built-up compositions of form, well-defined contours, elaborate detail,
and for the telling of a story that leaves as little as possible unsaid. Naturally,
therefore, he has little sympathy for a picture in which harmony of values
takes the place of harmony of form and only the essentials of the subject are
enforced, the rest being interpreted to the imagination of the spectator by
suggestion.
Many American artists share Sir Purdon's preference for the detailed
picture and his prejudice against impressionism. Many lay students of art
also. They will say that he is quite right. But, granted that, as a private
individual, he is entitled to his own opinion, his own likes and dislikes, does
this justify his circulating them broadcast with the impress of his authority
as the official of a great public institution ? Emphatically no; because, what-
ever he and others may think of impressionism, the latter has been during the
past sixty years the prime impulse of an immense artistic output, not only in
painting, but in sculpture, music, and literature. Yes, even in acting and
dancing, for have we not a Duse and an Isidora Duncan ? Is this great move-
ment that, so far as painting is concerned, had its source in Velasquez
and some of the Dutch artists of the seventeenth century, to be brushed aside
peremptorily by any Gamaliel, who would settle the matter off hand by the
ipse dixit of his own personal prejudice ?
Is not the great audience of uninformed but inquiring minds which Sir
Purdon’s interviews reach, entitled to be told that there is at least very much to
be said on behalf of impressionism ? Shall not Sir Purdon, if he has a con-
science, feel compelled to state both sides of this big question, as a preliminary
to the enunciation of his own preferences ? One would have thought so, but
apparently Sir Purdon does not.

2 3