Studio: international art (38.1906)

Technical Hints

himself and in colours ground and mixed in his
own studio.

It may be questioned at this point why, if Mr.
MacMonnies’ work in the two arts has so much
unity, did he confine his efforts so long and
so exclusively to sculpture ? Has his pleasure
in painting been of recent growth? It may be
answered that to work profitably in two media at
the same moment is sufficiently difficult, if not
practically impossible, and that Mr. MacMonnies’
original choice of sculpture as against painting was
largely a matter of circumstances. In 1884 he
left Mr. St. Gaudens’ studio in New York, where
he received his first artistic training, and came to
Paris for further study. So talented had been his
drawings and sketches that the older sculptor was
of the opinion that MacMonnies might become
great in both arts. The young man therefore
arrived with letters not only to Falguiere, but also
to Paul Baudry, the painter of the decorations of
the Paris Opera House, and to Mr. John Sargent.
But Paul Baudry lay dying and Mr. Sargent had
left Paris, so his letters to painters were useless.
He then determined to work exclusively on sculp-
ture, and though he had always taken a keen
interest in painting and studied the metier with
persistence, he pursued it merely as recreation. A
series of decorative panels, a few portrait studies,
and some charming random sketches were all the
visible signs of his interest until two or three years
ago. But for a long time he had told his friends
he should some day arrange to turn painter.

And for a long time, too, he has been criticising
younger students’ work in painting as in sculpture.
He has given criticisms in private studios and in
the Academie MacMonnies. Indeed his influence
as a painter has already perceptibly counted. For
his manner of criticising, his power of teaching, is
unusual, is simple and forcible in no ordinary way.
His liking for fact, for reality, prevents him from
ever taking refuge in theorising. Flis remarks have
definitely and forcibly to do with such a canvas
before such an object, with the problem of repro-
ducing the thing actually at the moment seen, not
a thing imagined or guessed at or already partly
formulated by experience.

Mr. MacMonnies’ present endeavour to show
that an artist can be equally apt in painting and in
sculpture, holds naturally the attention of all those
genuinely interested in the affairs of the Arts. It
is undeniably pleasant to watch at work one of the
most trained and distinguished artistic forces of
of the day.

Edith Pettit.

Technical hints from the

DRAWINGS OF PAST MASTERS
OF PAINTING. IX. — SIR
JOSHUA REYNOLDS.

The study for the portrait of Oliver Goldsmith
by Sir Joshua Reynolds, which we reproduce in
our present number, is altogether different in treat-
ment to those which have preceded it in this series.
A water-colour drawing, very carefully made with
a brush in two shades, a grey, probably Indian ink,
and a warm brown, it has been gone over after-
wards with a pen and ink to emphasise and correct
certain points which occurred to the artist upon a
further consideration of his subject. It has been
suggested that it was originally made by artificial
light.

This drawing is very interesting from many
points of view. Sketches of the kind by Reynolds
are not at all commonly met with, although he was
endlessly experimenting with his paintings, and
this is a study of the great poet for the portrait in
oils which Reynolds afterwards painted, and which
hangs in the gallery at Knowle, in Kent. There is
a marked difference between the two, in that there
is far more character in the sketch than in the
painting. Goldsmith was not looked upon by his
contemporaries as a handsome man—far from it!
and here his features are recorded firmly and
without softening. The angular forehead, the snub
nose, the hideous upper lip and weak receding
chin, each is set down, but without suggesting cari-
cature in any way. When, however, Reynolds
came to the painting, he did not hesitate to modify
these points, and to hand down to posterity his
idealized vision of the poet as a less ill-featured
being than he really was.

It is amusing to recall Goldsmith’s epitaph on
Reynolds in Retaliation, as it bears directly on the
point in question :—

“ Here Reynolds is laid, and, to tell you my mind,

He has not left a wiser or better behind ;

His pencil was striking, resistless, and grand,

His manners were gentle, complying, and bland,

Still born to improve us in every part—-
His pencil our faces, his manners our heart.”

It has generally been admitted that Sir Joshua
flattered his lady sitters, but has usually been
thought that in his men’s portraits he was content
to record the full character of his models without
modification. But in the case of Goldsmith it
would seem that his great admiration of the poet
guided his hand when he painted his record of
the man.

324