Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1912 (Heft 37))

adaptation or a new combination of old formulae—old thoughts in new
forms or old forms disguising new ideas.
There is no artist who never reminds us of others. If we compare St.
Gaudens and Thorwaldsen for instance (one example will do as well as
another), I believe the general verdict will be that the American was original
and the Norseman imitative. I believe they both possessed a limited amount
of originality. St. Gaudens as far as he understood, aimed to translate the
prose of modern male garb into some kind of formal beauty. Many sculptors
have tried the same problem but few have solved it as satisfactorily. Thor-
waldsen, on the other hand—no longer considered original, as he followed
the classic standards of beauty—possessed originality in poetic and spiritual
imagination which the constructor of the Shaw monument never dreamt of.
St. Gaudens was very one-sided, in reality nothing but a conscientious work-
man of the French school with a shrewd perception and insight into the reality
of things. While Thorwaldsen had a fulness of comprehension and vision
which, in a way, condoned for the lack of technical innovation. He added a
new note of moral and mental severity to the physical splendors of antique
form. Not every prospector in the art domain can be one of the great path-
finders or road builders. Both these men filled their place and were repre-
sentative of their time. St. Gaudens is more closely related to our generation,
but it is doubtful whether he will ever mean as much to us as Thorwaldsen
to the Danish people.
This surely proves that originality is not necessarily the main factor in
the attainment of mastery. It is merely an adjunct, necessary but not more
important than many other faculties.
We can see this misinterpretation of originality even more plainly in the
case of Whitman and Carpenter. The admirers of Whitman are sure to call
Carpenter an imitator, while the admirers of Carpenter (and there is quite
a cult) invariably concede that the singer of “Libertad Forever” possessed
unusual faculties. This proves better than any argument that Whitman is
the greater personality, but it does not mean that Carpenter is devoid of
all these qualities that lift a man above mediocrity. Many can say but little,
but if they say it well, they surely perform their duty as adequately as the
more richly endowed. Besides, the imitation of a style of diction, which in
itself is not new, does not constitute lack of originality. It is with Carpenter—
even as with Whitman—merely a method of self expression.
Every connoisseur of versification knows that two poets may write
in exactly the same metre, adhering most vigorously to the formulae of
grouping, accent and number of consecutive feet (viz. “The Ancient
Mariner” and “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”—Nietzsche and Zoroaster,
etc.) and yet display a noticeable difference in the very selection of
syllables and construction of lines, independent of the meaning of the
words. This is what may be called the under-rhythm, which reveals
the character of the poet more definitely than any other quality. And
this under-rhythm is the beginning of all originality. It is some-
thing that can not be imitated. It may express itself haltingly; more

20