International studio (31.1907)

Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh

Such, indeed, are the conditions this year at Pitts-
burgh, with the exception that the poor things one
sees at the Salon seem to have been left out and
only good is offered. But it is possible to have too
much, even of a good thing. There is such a con-
dition as an embarrassment of riches. Thackeray
used to tell in his “Vanity Fair,” how even the
King occasionally, glad to escape the formality and
ceremony of state dinners, liked to sit down now
and then to a leg of mutton and some cabbage!
The longer the critic goes about visiting picture
shows, the more he comes to the conclusion that a
small number of canvases produce greater satis-
faction; that they are more easily digested and give
keener joy in the contemplation. One is almost
.inclined, such is human perversity, to resent what
seems like the very arrogance of wealth that has
made this enormous display possible. Further-
more, one is impressed with the fact that there is a
limit to the human mind and eye which can take
in only just so much and then become, by reason
of overwork, incapable of pursuing their functions.
One may imagine the despair of the jury in
seriously endeavouring, out of these five hundred
canvases, to choose prize winners. Three medals,
three honourable mentions, out of this vast ex-
hibition! Of course, there were many who were
ineligible by reason of previous awards, because of
time limit and, the unbusinesslike methods of
artists being remembered, because of improper
filling out of blanks. Most of the contributors, with
an eye to these distinctions, sent in enormous
canvases. Never has an American exhibition seen
so many big pictures, few of which would be possi-
ble to hang on the walls of the ordinary drawing-
room. The awarding of prizes was no easy task.
When did it ever meet with entire approbation ?
This, perhaps, is not the moment to enter into a
discussion of the subject and so we may tell of the
results of this body of prize givers, which, to be
frank, consisted of a most distinguished lot of men
and women, among the first in the painters,’ craft.
To the Frenchman, Gaston La Touche, then, went
first prize, for his The Bath, a monstrously clever
performance, not over-impressive, somewhat shal-
low, but of a colour scheme that made an un-
mistakeable hole in the wall andmaynot be escaped.
Ffere is a woman putting on a garment. She is
nude and stands beside a Sedan chair near which
are a Satyr and a Cupid. What it all means perhaps
M. La Touche knows—the present reviewer does
not. The man is highly artistic, however, has
attracted great attention in Paris at the various
shows and occasionally rises to high flights of poetry

and colour. We do not think he has done so in this.
The sobriety of Thomas Eakins, winner of the
second prize, stands out in startling contrast. A
critic says of him, “he is long on psychology, but
short on colour,” which is clever and expressive.
It is a portrait of Professor Leslie Miller that
secures this distinction and it is most characteristic
of Eakins, who is a sturdy workman, in deadly


THE MAID OF BY JEAN FRANCOIS
HONOUR RAFFAELLI

C