DOI issue:
Nr. 149 (August 1905)
DOI article:Studio-talk
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.20712#0281
Studio-Talk
“PORTUGUESE FISHER BOYS” BY CHARLES W. HAWTHORNE
he has abolished the pride and surprise of per-
formance to finer artistic faculties. His technique
has become quicker, less obtrusive; he prefers to
“ model ” rather than to expound the cleverness of
brush strokes. His colour sense is crude, but mar-
vellously virile. He emphasises, if he does not
aggravate, the savagery of evident contrasts. He
has the audacity to use pure ivory black in his
flesh-tints. Blotches of immaculate vermilion and
permanent blue and chrome-yellow fight for supre-
macy on his canvases. Yet the result is life. The
men he paints are not deficient in red blood cor-
puscles. His fish come actually from the vasty
deep, and his fish-pans shimmering with rebellious
high lights, blood running over brass surfaces,
slimy tables and filthy floors are a veritable
glorification of pictorial dirt.
He knows his own
strength and revels in it,
and does not care whether
a shudder runs through
society as it gazes at his
work. And yet, behind
this ruggedness and bru-
tality (we cannot call it
otherwise) there is, above
it and around it, like an
atmosphere, a vague ele-
ment of tenderness, such as
can only come from abso-
lute frankness and sincerity,
which is felt rather than seen.
But is this sufficient to
counterbalance his angular
and savage style ? There
is a difference of opinion
about it. Nobody denies
that he is endowed with
rare power. Here at last
is a painter who can paint!
But he is lacking in imagi-
nation and the profounder
emotional forces, it is ar-
gued. We must confess
that his art has serious
shortcomings. He can only
paint what he sees. His
technique is his whole com-
position. He admits him-
self that he regards every-
thing as still life. He does
not invent.
But is this really a shortcoming? To paint
things just as they are, without the addition of any
aesthetic formulae whatsoever—the most unassuming
pose will do—to record your observations, nothing
else, and yet to make the picture vibrate with life
—is that really not the highest aim a painter can
put himself? What else have Franz Hals and
Velasquez done ? And was it not that quality in
which Manet excelled? Yes, you may argue, but
these masters painted so well that they put every-
thing which other men only evolve after strenuous
study and experiment, unconsciously, intuitively,
into their work. True enough it takes a great
painter (such as are only born two or three
times in a century) to accomplish the task. But
should we blame a man for striving in the same
direction ?
263
“PORTUGUESE FISHER BOYS” BY CHARLES W. HAWTHORNE
he has abolished the pride and surprise of per-
formance to finer artistic faculties. His technique
has become quicker, less obtrusive; he prefers to
“ model ” rather than to expound the cleverness of
brush strokes. His colour sense is crude, but mar-
vellously virile. He emphasises, if he does not
aggravate, the savagery of evident contrasts. He
has the audacity to use pure ivory black in his
flesh-tints. Blotches of immaculate vermilion and
permanent blue and chrome-yellow fight for supre-
macy on his canvases. Yet the result is life. The
men he paints are not deficient in red blood cor-
puscles. His fish come actually from the vasty
deep, and his fish-pans shimmering with rebellious
high lights, blood running over brass surfaces,
slimy tables and filthy floors are a veritable
glorification of pictorial dirt.
He knows his own
strength and revels in it,
and does not care whether
a shudder runs through
society as it gazes at his
work. And yet, behind
this ruggedness and bru-
tality (we cannot call it
otherwise) there is, above
it and around it, like an
atmosphere, a vague ele-
ment of tenderness, such as
can only come from abso-
lute frankness and sincerity,
which is felt rather than seen.
But is this sufficient to
counterbalance his angular
and savage style ? There
is a difference of opinion
about it. Nobody denies
that he is endowed with
rare power. Here at last
is a painter who can paint!
But he is lacking in imagi-
nation and the profounder
emotional forces, it is ar-
gued. We must confess
that his art has serious
shortcomings. He can only
paint what he sees. His
technique is his whole com-
position. He admits him-
self that he regards every-
thing as still life. He does
not invent.
But is this really a shortcoming? To paint
things just as they are, without the addition of any
aesthetic formulae whatsoever—the most unassuming
pose will do—to record your observations, nothing
else, and yet to make the picture vibrate with life
—is that really not the highest aim a painter can
put himself? What else have Franz Hals and
Velasquez done ? And was it not that quality in
which Manet excelled? Yes, you may argue, but
these masters painted so well that they put every-
thing which other men only evolve after strenuous
study and experiment, unconsciously, intuitively,
into their work. True enough it takes a great
painter (such as are only born two or three
times in a century) to accomplish the task. But
should we blame a man for striving in the same
direction ?
263