DOI issue:
No. 157 (April, 1906)
DOI article:Wood, T. Martin: Modern flower painting and its character
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.20714#0220
Modern Flower-Painting
their technique. Certainly this latter is a bias- upon the expression of a stand-point towards them,
phemous performance, and needs little considera- without the environment of another subject or idea
tion at the hands of the critic. It deceives many —provides ground for studying and analysing on a
by its suavity and its conceits, it makes the percep- small plane the development of modern art. The
tion of style difficult, having itself an appearance artist's aims here are isolated, his methods, his
of style. Having a ghastly semblance of effective peculiar vision are brought down to expression
painting, it degrades the art to the level of conjur- as centred round one little flower, an object so
ing, but its crying shame is that it prevents the beautiful as to be capable above most things
ordinary person coming to the real thing. The in life of inspiring beauty, but devoid of interest
impulse in to day's art towards flower-painting, as outside itself and art, except legendary interest, and
witnessed by the recent exhibition of modern divorced from subject.
flower-paintings at the Baillie gallery—where many In finding that flower-painting is so purely a
painters are seen for the first time as flower- modern art, it may well be argued that we deprive
painters—must come as a corrective tendency to such older painters as Van Huysum of any good
the worship of paint as distinct from art, which has reason for painting them. By insisting, it may be
been so derogatory to the development of style in argued, on this point we disregard the fact that
painting in the true and deeper sense of that word, many of them devoted much of their best energy
It is true that one can reduce a flower to so many to the art. It may be answered, that we separate
planes, but there are subtleties of which such a the newer manifestations of the art from the old
treatment ta_tes no cognisance. Flowers bring the through the fact that of the two schools the
painter down to their own delicate, evasive life, moderns try for the higher things. And we say
which is still-life—not different
from any other life to paint. The
portrait-painter, be his technique
never so extravagant, must always
come back to the certain precise
and definite features of his sub-
ject and their modelling. The
same with the painter of animal
life. The painter of inanimate
backgrounds can swagger in his
paint, changing, falsifying even,
with little chance of detection,
embellishing, generalising, and all
this legitimately ; but still-life
claims the same reverence as por-
traiture, for the character of the
flower has to be regarded. A
painter cannot generalise a flower:
he does not succeed in suggesting
its presence effectively unless he
suggests its character.
The history of modernity in art
—the hope of the future—lies
within the recognition of indi-
viduality. For, just as the sum
of life is made from separate indi-
viduals, so also in the artistic
adventures of individualities is
found the history of art. A
frank recognition of this is cer-
tainly our modern possession; and
the painting of flowers—because
it depends almost, if not entirely, <• lilies" by stuaut park
200
their technique. Certainly this latter is a bias- upon the expression of a stand-point towards them,
phemous performance, and needs little considera- without the environment of another subject or idea
tion at the hands of the critic. It deceives many —provides ground for studying and analysing on a
by its suavity and its conceits, it makes the percep- small plane the development of modern art. The
tion of style difficult, having itself an appearance artist's aims here are isolated, his methods, his
of style. Having a ghastly semblance of effective peculiar vision are brought down to expression
painting, it degrades the art to the level of conjur- as centred round one little flower, an object so
ing, but its crying shame is that it prevents the beautiful as to be capable above most things
ordinary person coming to the real thing. The in life of inspiring beauty, but devoid of interest
impulse in to day's art towards flower-painting, as outside itself and art, except legendary interest, and
witnessed by the recent exhibition of modern divorced from subject.
flower-paintings at the Baillie gallery—where many In finding that flower-painting is so purely a
painters are seen for the first time as flower- modern art, it may well be argued that we deprive
painters—must come as a corrective tendency to such older painters as Van Huysum of any good
the worship of paint as distinct from art, which has reason for painting them. By insisting, it may be
been so derogatory to the development of style in argued, on this point we disregard the fact that
painting in the true and deeper sense of that word, many of them devoted much of their best energy
It is true that one can reduce a flower to so many to the art. It may be answered, that we separate
planes, but there are subtleties of which such a the newer manifestations of the art from the old
treatment ta_tes no cognisance. Flowers bring the through the fact that of the two schools the
painter down to their own delicate, evasive life, moderns try for the higher things. And we say
which is still-life—not different
from any other life to paint. The
portrait-painter, be his technique
never so extravagant, must always
come back to the certain precise
and definite features of his sub-
ject and their modelling. The
same with the painter of animal
life. The painter of inanimate
backgrounds can swagger in his
paint, changing, falsifying even,
with little chance of detection,
embellishing, generalising, and all
this legitimately ; but still-life
claims the same reverence as por-
traiture, for the character of the
flower has to be regarded. A
painter cannot generalise a flower:
he does not succeed in suggesting
its presence effectively unless he
suggests its character.
The history of modernity in art
—the hope of the future—lies
within the recognition of indi-
viduality. For, just as the sum
of life is made from separate indi-
viduals, so also in the artistic
adventures of individualities is
found the history of art. A
frank recognition of this is cer-
tainly our modern possession; and
the painting of flowers—because
it depends almost, if not entirely, <• lilies" by stuaut park
200