DOI issue:
Nr. 107 (January, 1906)
DOI article:The Whipple school of art
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26961#0386
The Whipple School of Art
ambition. At any rate to throw open the doors to
the public, usually all too indifferent, and close
them upon the devotees would be as curious as
ditficult. So the museum often produces the art
school. Frequently this intermediate Step is avoided
by the gift of a school direct. One of the disad-
vantages in this event is that the gift is too often a
bequest, the person niost interested being dead
before the cornerstone is laid. There may occa-
sionally be considerations to minimise this rnisfor-
tune. But this only emphasizes the unimportance
of personality in the first stages of the institutional
school, whether it be founded by the public or
founded for the public. The tendencies in later
growth are natural ly conservative. The school may
work along the lines of some particular, rather
than an eclectic, theory, though if so it is likely to be
a theory of Standing rather than a new one.
The typical school, however, is not a democratic
affair in such senses of the word. It is neither a
public founclation nor an independent Organisa-
tion. The master and his group of disciples is as
old as the wisdom of the East or the philosophy of
Greece. In Europe of the Middle Ages a great man
could no more dispense with followers than Sam-
son with his hair. And in art instruction in particu-
lar the tradition has continued. The gentleman in
Proverbs who taught with his fingers had the correct
idea. No governing board or advisory Committee
can supply the authority of the master’s finger,
levelled instantly at the fault in line, or the grasp
of the crayon to add the lacking touch. It is the
visit from easel to easel, the spread
of the contagion of ambition, that
makes it worth while to gather into
schools. The master is more than
the b.oard.
But in this country we are only
beginning with the old tradition. If
a lawyer foregoes his practise to
serve in the President^ cabinet the
whole country applauds his conde-
scension. At any rate if he declines
no one wonders. In this city some
architects are giving part of valu-
able time to Columbia University.
This is so new as still to be rather
surprising. In Paris an artist is
hardly content with his lot tili he
has won the dignity of pupils. And
the difference between our fashion
and the ways of far earlier da.ys—
for Paris itself is not quite medi-
awa.l—is almost reversing the Situa-
tion. The institutional schoolaffords
the individual touch; with this dif-
ference, however, that it affords a
group of individual influences
brought to play under the protect-
ing shadow of an academic record.
It still remains true that for the
direct, unmixed gift of personal tu-
torship we must turn to the in-
dividual artist.
We have before called attention
to some schools of this dass, begun
and carried on by an individual in-
fluence. But those we have so far
mentioned have been schools of
some years Standing. It is inter-
MRS. NELSON A. MILES PORTRAIT BY CHARLES
AYER WHIPPLE
LXXIV
ambition. At any rate to throw open the doors to
the public, usually all too indifferent, and close
them upon the devotees would be as curious as
ditficult. So the museum often produces the art
school. Frequently this intermediate Step is avoided
by the gift of a school direct. One of the disad-
vantages in this event is that the gift is too often a
bequest, the person niost interested being dead
before the cornerstone is laid. There may occa-
sionally be considerations to minimise this rnisfor-
tune. But this only emphasizes the unimportance
of personality in the first stages of the institutional
school, whether it be founded by the public or
founded for the public. The tendencies in later
growth are natural ly conservative. The school may
work along the lines of some particular, rather
than an eclectic, theory, though if so it is likely to be
a theory of Standing rather than a new one.
The typical school, however, is not a democratic
affair in such senses of the word. It is neither a
public founclation nor an independent Organisa-
tion. The master and his group of disciples is as
old as the wisdom of the East or the philosophy of
Greece. In Europe of the Middle Ages a great man
could no more dispense with followers than Sam-
son with his hair. And in art instruction in particu-
lar the tradition has continued. The gentleman in
Proverbs who taught with his fingers had the correct
idea. No governing board or advisory Committee
can supply the authority of the master’s finger,
levelled instantly at the fault in line, or the grasp
of the crayon to add the lacking touch. It is the
visit from easel to easel, the spread
of the contagion of ambition, that
makes it worth while to gather into
schools. The master is more than
the b.oard.
But in this country we are only
beginning with the old tradition. If
a lawyer foregoes his practise to
serve in the President^ cabinet the
whole country applauds his conde-
scension. At any rate if he declines
no one wonders. In this city some
architects are giving part of valu-
able time to Columbia University.
This is so new as still to be rather
surprising. In Paris an artist is
hardly content with his lot tili he
has won the dignity of pupils. And
the difference between our fashion
and the ways of far earlier da.ys—
for Paris itself is not quite medi-
awa.l—is almost reversing the Situa-
tion. The institutional schoolaffords
the individual touch; with this dif-
ference, however, that it affords a
group of individual influences
brought to play under the protect-
ing shadow of an academic record.
It still remains true that for the
direct, unmixed gift of personal tu-
torship we must turn to the in-
dividual artist.
We have before called attention
to some schools of this dass, begun
and carried on by an individual in-
fluence. But those we have so far
mentioned have been schools of
some years Standing. It is inter-
MRS. NELSON A. MILES PORTRAIT BY CHARLES
AYER WHIPPLE
LXXIV