International studio (81.1925)

mceRHACioriAL

scroll©

"Madonna and Child" by Cimabue
Frescoes of the Life oj St. Francis by Giotto
"Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci
"Last Judgment" by Michelangelo
"Spring" by Botticelli
"Pieta" by EI Greco
"Toledo" by EI Greco
"The Crucifixion" by Tintoretto
"Portrait of Saskia" by Rembrandt
"Men Playing Cards" by Cezanne

"Justinian and Theodora" Mosaics at Ravenna

* * * * *

Now. None of these four critics would pretend
for a moment that his list represents all of the
pictures he considers great, or that there are not
others, not on the list, which he might consider
greater than some of those he has included. They
are merely those pictures which at the time the
question was asked each recalled with greatest
pleasure. Nevertheless all of these men are stu-
dents of art and, with the possible exception of
the newspaper critic, who maintains that esthetics
are of no importance, because of their study and
appreciation their opinions have more than aver-
age value.

The lists are in some ways quite surprising.
That of the American critic, supposedly the most
radical of the four, contains only one picture by
an artist later than Rembrandt, whereas the more
conservative Englishman includes four by "mod-
ern" men. The literary critic, also a radical, has
the largest number of moderns, five, or less than
half of his list. There are none on the list of the
newspaper man. Botticelli is the only artist whose
works appear on all lists; Cezanne appears on
three; El Greco, Leonardo, Velasquez, Rembrandt,
Michelangelo, Cimabue, Giotto and the Byzan-
tine mosaics have been given places on two. So
that, making a new list, we have the works of ten
painters about which at least two of the critics
agree. Seventeen paintings by these ten are given.

As technicians, that is to say for skill in the
handling of their materials, it would be impossible
to say that these men have never been equaled
and quite possible to say that some of them,
Cimabue, Cezanne and the Byzantines particu-
larly, have been surpassed. Technique, therefore,
cannot be the reason for which these paintings
were chosen.

The subject matter of these paintings presents

nothing that is unusual in art. There is none of
them which cannot be either exactly duplicated
or closely approximated in dozens of other pic-
tures. So these cannot have been chosen for their
subjects.

Unquestionably the "Last Judgment" and the
"Pieta" are intensely dramatic; the "Life of St.
Francis" tells the story of the saint's life with a
simplicity which is at the same time adequate,
almost unique in art. But there are as good, or
better, "stories in paint" than any of the others.
Not even supreme narrative skill, then, would
seem essential to the artist.

If we could determine one attribute common
even to these seventeen paintings we should come
quite close to a definition of what art is. That
there is some such attribute we are quite sure;
that it defies definition is almost equally certain.
For an esthetic sense is based on emotion and we
have no emotional, only an intellectual, vocabu-
lary. Beyond Clive Bell's statement that works
of art are objects which provoke an esthetic
emotion, no one, not even Mr. Bell himself, has
penetrated. He has given the attribute a name,
but so have many other speculators. So long,
however, as we are certain of its existence the lack
of a handle need not greatly trouble us.

No matter what the fashion, either among
conservative or modern, we can go about shearing
the non-essential elements from paintings, and
establishing on whatever is left our own theories
of esthetics. We can be quite sure that a picture
of which the only value is representation, senti-
mentality, price, history, age, narrative or attribu-
tion is, from an esthetic standard, of no impor-
tance. We can know that, although there are
many pictures in which we delight because they
are amusing or record interesting events, that they
have nothing to do with art. We can be sure,
further, that the insensitive historian of art, the
patient gatherer of facts, the man who despises
esthetics (although few historians are so eager to
display their ignorance) are parasitical growths
on the stem of art. We can be certain that, with-
out the occasional artist who creates works of art
the thousands who paint pictures would either
starve or become in name what they are in fact,
illustrators. We can clarify our own judgments
and come to know pictures for what they are,
giving each its due.

AUGUST I925

three eighty-nine