DOI Heft:
No. 206 (April, 1914)
DOI Artikel:B. Nelson, W. H. de: A six-man show in Philadelphia
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43455#0419
A Six-man Show in Philadelphia
SEPTEMBER AFTERNOON BY GUSTAVE CIMIOTTI, JR.
the mercy of jury and hanging committee. He
may be accepted or rejected, no matter how good,
bad or indifferent, his submitted work; having
passed the jury, he still runs the gauntlet of
chance; his picture may be skied, or may be
poorly lighted or be killed by the colour of its
neighbours. All these adverse conditions disap-
peared, and the merest glance round the handsome
gallery of the Art Club convinced one that he had
to do with the best kind of impressionism, fresh,
spontaneous, out-of-door work, performed by men
who have attained success and in whom accept-
ance by juries of academies has ceased to produce
strange and unaccustomed thrills.
It was perhaps a misnomer to style their exhibi-
tion one of paintings and statuary, for of statuary
in its real significance there was none. It was an
instance of lucus a non lucendo. What took the
place of statuary, however, were some exquisite
little bronzes by W. D. Paddock, which, owing to
their Lilliputian dimensions, had to be discovered.
It might have been better to have grouped them
in a case. In all other respects arrangements and
hanging could not have been improved upon.
Facing the entrance was the largest canvas on
view, a nude by Howard Giles, a young girl stand-
ing boldly in sunlight, pose and colour well studied
and achieved with no accessories to detract the
eye from the dominant figure. Several out-of-
door subjects by the same artist, especially Holi-
days and Five O'Clock, attest his freedom with
colour sanely applied and his power of elimination
of all unnecessary detail. It is seldom that an
illustrator has climbed into the higher places of
painting with such success as Howard Giles.
Much to be praised, especially the nocturnes, is
the work of W. J. Beauley. The picture we
reproduce is a good bit of sunlit architecture rep-
resenting St. Bartholomew’s porch. Colour, de-
sign and draughtsmanship are his strength, figures
his weakness. Arthur Schneider is at times a
little crude with his palette, as might be seen in
his Canyon Quarry, but his Golden Hillside and
Forbes Bridge were good, sound subjects, nicely
handled. A portrait of Sousa by H. F. Waltman
shows strong characterization and restraint. His
LXII
SEPTEMBER AFTERNOON BY GUSTAVE CIMIOTTI, JR.
the mercy of jury and hanging committee. He
may be accepted or rejected, no matter how good,
bad or indifferent, his submitted work; having
passed the jury, he still runs the gauntlet of
chance; his picture may be skied, or may be
poorly lighted or be killed by the colour of its
neighbours. All these adverse conditions disap-
peared, and the merest glance round the handsome
gallery of the Art Club convinced one that he had
to do with the best kind of impressionism, fresh,
spontaneous, out-of-door work, performed by men
who have attained success and in whom accept-
ance by juries of academies has ceased to produce
strange and unaccustomed thrills.
It was perhaps a misnomer to style their exhibi-
tion one of paintings and statuary, for of statuary
in its real significance there was none. It was an
instance of lucus a non lucendo. What took the
place of statuary, however, were some exquisite
little bronzes by W. D. Paddock, which, owing to
their Lilliputian dimensions, had to be discovered.
It might have been better to have grouped them
in a case. In all other respects arrangements and
hanging could not have been improved upon.
Facing the entrance was the largest canvas on
view, a nude by Howard Giles, a young girl stand-
ing boldly in sunlight, pose and colour well studied
and achieved with no accessories to detract the
eye from the dominant figure. Several out-of-
door subjects by the same artist, especially Holi-
days and Five O'Clock, attest his freedom with
colour sanely applied and his power of elimination
of all unnecessary detail. It is seldom that an
illustrator has climbed into the higher places of
painting with such success as Howard Giles.
Much to be praised, especially the nocturnes, is
the work of W. J. Beauley. The picture we
reproduce is a good bit of sunlit architecture rep-
resenting St. Bartholomew’s porch. Colour, de-
sign and draughtsmanship are his strength, figures
his weakness. Arthur Schneider is at times a
little crude with his palette, as might be seen in
his Canyon Quarry, but his Golden Hillside and
Forbes Bridge were good, sound subjects, nicely
handled. A portrait of Sousa by H. F. Waltman
shows strong characterization and restraint. His
LXII