International studio (16.1902)

T

HE LAY FIGURE ON
IN ART.

The Lay Figure
REALISM

“ You talk of realism,” said the Journalist
to the Critic, “ but, then, what is realism ? Is it,
like the humble art which I follow, a representation
—a truthful representation, let us say—of things
seen broadly and boldly ? ”
“ No,” answered the Critic, “ realism in art is
something more than that. In Shakespeare’s
Oberon and Titania there is as much realism as
you will find in Bottom the Weaver and his
companions. To be sure, it is very different in
kind, but realism it is, for all that. The Weaver
and his comrades belong to the world we live in,
while Oberon and Titania are mythical beings that
Shakespeare enables us to accept as real in their
own way. Even in the glare of the footlights,
and in sharp physical contrast with the uncouth
artizans, we do not think it odd that they
should appear before us in corporeal shape,
and speak such exquisite poetry. Their realism
is a thing of faultless accord between the con-
ception and the representation of their enchanted
humanity.”
“ From that point of view,” said the Man with
a Clay Pipe, “ there is as much realism in a
Raphael Madonna as in a village wench of
Rembrandt’s genius ? ”
“ Certainly,” replied the Critic. “ It is a realism
different in grip, different in aim, in poetic signifi-
cance ; but if Raphael’s Madonna were not radiant
with her motherhood, how could she win her way
into the household heart of every generation ? Her
realism is what Raphael intended it to be, and we
call it idealism only in order that we may denote the
difference between it and sterner kinds of the same
great quality.”
“ Yes,” said the Reviewer, “ but you must not
forget that of realism pure and simple there is not
a trace in the works of men of genius, for men
of genius represent themselves as well as their
subjects—give us their own greatness of spirit
within their subjects. They do not look out upon
life and the world in an impassive, unmoved
manner. They work under the guidance of strong
emotions, and their mental and temperamental
endowments are transforming agencies during the
act of representing the facts of life. This is what
young men of the realistic school forget. They
talk of their realism as though it were an exact
counterpart of something seen. Odd that they
should thus take pride in abasing themselves to the
level of a looking-glass or a camera ! ”
154

the

“Well said!” cried the Man with a Clay P>Pe'
“ I have often felt that all true art must be real
well as ideal, ideal as well as real.”
“You’ll remember, no doubt,” said the CritlC>
“ the quite modern dictum in which Aristo*
sums up the function of the poet, of the imagIlia
tive artist ? That function, he says, is not to
us what actually happened, for that is the rea
business of history; it is to tell us what rnighj
happen, and what is possible according to likelih°°
and necessity.”
“ Likelihood and necessity ? ” queried
Journalist. “The meaning, please.”
“ Perhaps an illustration may bring out
meaning,” returned the other. “ Think of ^
mailed knight in Burne-Jones’s Briar Rose, a11
then ask yourself why he is a failure in art. ^
because that knight achieves something in cornp^
antagonism with his want of character and of m8*'
hood. The delicate creature is not a knight ata
he is a dream-vision, a shade within a suit
armour ; he is not half so capable of mischief aS
thorn guarding the roses. How then can we 1°°
upon this armoured sexless thing as a rnai’f'
chivalrous adventurer ? ”
with3
¥

t¥

“ You exaggerate, I think,” said the Man
Clay Pipe. “Burne-Jones acted wisely when
kept his dramatic effect subservient to his dec0’1

tive impression.
Artists are free

lint-

llSi

Still, I think I catch your p°
to people new worlds f°r
but the actions of their dramatis persona must ^
in strict accordance with their delineated chara1-
and with their physical appearance of strength 1
weakness.”

“ How else
imagination ? ”

can there be illusioh in works

o>

jble 1

the Critic asked. “ It is iniposSl
to look at such a work from the point of v
chosen by the artist, if the work itself is at vaflaI1 ,
with that point of view. The representation vie"
in relation to its subject must be profoundly
sistent, admirably probable, full of verisimihtu i£

Then it matters not if the subject comes t0
from real life, or from such a visionary world 1

Gulliver travels in.” , I
((ip
“I think, then, said the Reviewer,
realism may be best defined as that satis™ ^
consistency which should always exist between
subject chosen and every part of its representati
“ And note,” remarked the Critic, “ that ^
artist who misses that consistency deserves t0^
called eccentric. He makes so many unwarr® ^
calls upon our credulity that we feel incline
jeer at the liberties he takes both with us and "
The Lay

his art.”