International studio (27.1905/1906(1906))

Franz von Lenbach

the artist only dares to put it all in his pictures, it
secures for him a type of work that may be taken
for originality. But I deny that the expression of an
eye that has stared into a camera gives a true
reflection of the mind of the sitter. How dif-
ferently the eye appears when looking at the
painter during conversation ! That is the true
eye, in its expression, for representation. But
photography, used in the way Lenbach applied it,
is so comfortable and convenient and worry-saving,
that it weans the artist imperceptibly from the
greater effort of knowing his sitter well, from per-
sonal knowledge, before he allows photography to
mislead him. There is no danger in using photo-
graphy if the painter Starts with a complete know-
ledge of the sitter’s characteristics : no danger if
he can differentiate when the photograph is before
him. To put it in other words, he should see
through the photograph.
But in Lenbach’s case, the artist became more
and more indifferent to this personal knowledge of
his sitter, and judged that sitter’s paintableness
entirely from the photographic results—a habit
that must often lead to caricature. Lenbach’s
“seeing” of the personal characteristics of the
sitter began and ended with the photographic
preamble, and all the noble covering-up in ancient
garments did not eradicate this fact from his work,
even if the garments undoubtedly partook of the
noblest period in portraiture.
We have had many centuries now of portraiture.
and probably all has been said that can be said.
In modern times we have exhausted all new direc-
tions and conceptions. But all the modern efforts,
in breaking through Convention, have only proved
that portraiture cannot be monumental unless it
possesses “ style.” That this style means some-
thing different in different periods is not to be
denied. But it would be a great Stretch of the
imagination to discover in some modern efforts
anything which could fairly be described by such a
term as “ style.” Aggressive sketchiness, and
violent brushwork, can never be monumental. All
that type of work is the result of a mental defect
in the painter, a want of the faculty of continuityin
the biain. Some men make a virtue of it, and
mistake the impatience with a continuous effort for
a special gift, which the irresponsibility of this age
has allowed them to impose on the public. To
throw off, at white heat, a sketch, has been done
by all painters at all times. Sketches are the
gymnastic exercises that give health to the art
faculty, but they remain to the end merely exercises.
I might compare them to the finger exercises of
196

the pianist, who cannot render musically and intel-
lectually the great masters, unless his technique is
continually kept up to the mark by the practice of
finger exercises. But no pianist has yet thought
of giving a concert of these finger exercises ; yet
parallel efforts in painting are to be seen in almost
all modern Continental picture-galleries,
Lenbach’s virtuosity is entirely different from the
modern so-called impressionist’s work. It is pri-
marily full of imagination, of a high mental tone
and dignity. Lenbach has shown how noble an
aspect can be given to the expression of an extremist,
for he also was an extremist. Could he have
done that without that close adherence to the old
masters ? That question brings us to the very
crux of art questions.
It can never be clearly demonstrated how that
noble convention of the great masters came into-
existence. We know it was of slow growth, then
almost suddenly burst into maturity ! The training
of the artist in the past had something to do with
its continuity. The modern idea is to avoid all
past masters, and to go only to nature; first, with a
camera, then to look for “ bits,” or I would say
“ scraps ”—for odd eccentric peculiarities in nature,
to be rendered in telegraphic short phrases. No
room for style in these telegraphic despatches,
because “ word proportion ” means money ; no-
room in the modern art expression for proportion,
because it means labour. It would accordingly be
of distinct advantage for the modern extremist to-
go to the source from which Lenbach drew his
inspiration; but unfortunately he is too indolent,
and at most will resort to that most fatal of all
“tricks,” the imitation of an imitator, and in an art
like Lenbach’s that won’t do at all. Very strong
men generally injure their period, and I think
Lenbach is no exception. Perhaps the most
dangerous of all his original works are those chalk
heads—the most exquisite and delicate of his efforts.
There the pen outline does not offend, andat a dis-
tance the chalk-work blends with the hard outline.
These slight, delicate renderings of beautiful women
have the quality of a fine dry-point etching. When
he adds a little colour it is always done with artistic
taste, the “un-finish” always being masterly. And
there is such a thing as masterly “un-finish,” just
as there is the masterly inactivity of the general
commanding an army in war time. The very
essence of Lenbach’s art is to be seen in these draw-
ings. When I said they were dangerous, I said it
advisedly; because the imitator cannot do as much
as Lenbach with the limited means, and therefore-
must do so much less that the result is worthless.