Studio: international art (14.1898)

Rodins Balzac

For a time all went well; but on the date fixed
for the delivery of the rough models, Rodin was
not ready. As a conscientious artist he preferred
to fail in his promise, rather than to submit work
with which he was not entirely satisfied. In this
he was perfectly right; and no one can blame him
for proclaiming the right of the artist to be treated
otherwise than as a shopkeeper. But a secret
animosity began to arise against him ; rival sculp-
tors insinuated that the statue would never be
finished; that if Rodin had been capable of produc-
ing it, it would have been done in time ; that, after
all, it did not take all that time to turn out a master-
piece ; and further, that Rodin was simply wasting
his time in making useless studies for the work,
which assuredly would never be executed by him.
At intervals rumours would be charitably circulated
to the effect that the sculptor was going mad,
indulging in all sorts of eccentricities, such as
making studies for his statue from the nude, and
going to reside in Touraine in order to examine
on the spot certain types of the inhabitants said to
resemble Balzac closely in point of bulk.

Thus things went on for five years, the artist
still engaged on his work, heedless of all the ill-
natured gossip of which he was the victim. It
would seem as though the hostility manifested
towards him had made him more determined than
ever not to be hurried into putting into his work,
either in conception or in execution, aught save
his own particular ideas; caring nothing for the
clamour, and resolved to triumph in the end over
all this malevolence and bias by dint of honest
and consistent conduct both as artist and as man.

At length the work was produced at the Salon this
year; and then the pent-up storm of fury burst
forth, shouts of laughter mingling with the torrent
of abuse. “ That, Balzac ? ” they cried. “ That, a
man ? A man of genius, too ? That, the creator of
the ‘ Comedie Humaine ’ ? Rodin must be joking ! ”
And with comments such as these the silly crowd
swarmed from morning till night beneath the statue.

In view of all this opposition, the Societe des
Gens de Lettres, with true commercial spirit,
declined to accept the statue, and in an official
announcement, couched in somewhat discourteous
terms, entered a protest against the ebauche, or
rough model, exhibited at the Salon by M. Rodin,
which they “ declined to recognise as a statue of
Balzac.” This summary course seems to have par-
tially appeased the public, who realised that justice
had been done, and that the insult put upon them
by “ that madman, Rodin,” had been wiped out!

But suddenly there appeared on the scene a
108

personage madder even than Rodin himself. M.
Pellerin, a large manufacturer, a man of taste, and
a delicate connoisseur of art to boot, offered to
purchase the statue. Rodin accepted, but only on
the express understanding that he should have the
right to buy it back again, in the event of the fund
opened by his friends reaching the amount given
by M. Pellerin, or should the Conseil Municipal of
Paris agree to find an appropriate site for the statue,
which, according to the original arrangement, was
intended to adorn one of the public squares.

The scoffers were suddenly silenced; or, if they
still felt inclined to laugh, could only do it by
transferring their allegiance to the Rodin camp.

Space is lacking here to prove—as prove one
could—the merit of the great artist’s new work. But
in any case, what would be the use ? What
matters the applause of the one side or the abuse
of the other ? This is not the first time a great
production has been misunderstood. Needless
therefore to grow indignant on that score. Even
if we admit, for the sake of argument, that Rodin
has been misled in his conception and in his
realisation of Balzac, surely the fact is one that
should inspire regret instead of the satisfaction
exhibited by those who seem delighted to have
the chance of finding him at fault for once. But
it is by no means certain that Rodin has erred at
all; quite the contrary; and even now opinion on
the point is undergoing considerable modification.
Let me suggest to the crowd who were in so great
a hurry to pass final judgment on this important
question, that this work may possibly be beyond
their understanding; and that because they may
happen to consider it inferior, it by no means
follows that such is the case. You may not admire
it, but do not hastily condemn it after a five
minutes’ inspection. You have no right to do so.
Your duty is to show respect, at least, for an
artistic manifestation, which at any rate is incon-
testably honest and strong in intent. Instead of
jibing at the mistake—if mistake it should be—
committed by a great artist, whose oft-proved
genius finds fresh demonstration at this very
moment in his group, Le Baiser, displayed face to
face with Balzac himself, be content to judge it in
silence. Remember, moreover—for there are in-
stances many and recent—that all work of genuine
originality has been abused at first; remember you
would probably have been among the first to join
in the chorus of contempt which once greeted the
very productions you cannot extol too highly
now—now they have become sanctified by time !

G. M.