Studio: international art (46.1909)

Reviews and Notices

To the sketch club at this school Mr. Nelson Daw-
son, three or four years ago, presented a charming
little badge of silver of his own design, and a
replica of it is given annually by Sir George
Frampton, R.A., to the best student of the year.

The Royal Female School of Art, the origin and
history of which was sketched in these columns in
October, is now merged in the Central School of
Arts and Crafts, as the “Women’s Day Art
Classes,” which are conducted in some of the
upper rooms of the vast new building in South-
ampton Row, instead of in the stately Georgian
houses of Queen Square. The change is not bene-
ficial, nor does there seem to be any good reason why
it was ever made, but although Queen Square is a
thing of the past, the school, so far, is conducted
on almost the old lines by Miss Rose Welby,
assisted by Miss S. R. Canton, Miss I. L. Gloag,
Miss K. M. Wyatt, Miss Isabel Farler and Miss
H. E. Dunnell. Last month the first exhibition of
students’ work was held in the new quarters, an
exhibition that showed no falling off in quality and
included an excellent retrospective group which
represented the school at the Franco-British Exhi-
bition. Prominent among the exhibits was thedesign
for an altar frontal which gained the gold medal
given by the King. This was won by Miss Winifred
Wight, who won also the William Atkinson
Scholarship of ^30. The Queen’s Scholarship of
^50 was taken by Miss Winifred Fison • the prize
for drapery arranged on the living model, by Miss
Jane S. Blaikley, and that for time sketching from
life by Miss Brenda Hughes. Some capital designs
for flowered chintzes were shown by Miss Winifred
Marchant, Miss A. Dorothy Cohen, Miss H.
Knight, Miss Winifred Fison, Miss Phyllis Mead
and Miss Winifred Wight. The prizes in this
section were awarded to Miss Marchant and Miss
Cohen. Miss Hilda Knight gained the prize for
flower studies in preparation for design, and Miss
Edith Livesay and Miss Jessie Humby for figure
studies in line. In the National Art Competition
Miss Annie K. Boyd’s example of book-binding in
oak and leather gained a prize. The commended
students in the national and local competitions
included Miss Beatrice Miller, Miss Mary Bishop,
Miss Georgina C. Levie and Miss Jessie Jacob.
Among the drawings shown by the pupils of Miss
S. R. Canton’s class for black and white were some
clever studies by Miss Lucy E. Pierce, the winner
last summer of the first prize in The Studio com-
petition for pen-and-ink illustrations to a nursery
rhyme. W. T. W.

REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

Modern Art. By Julius Meier-Graefe.
Translated by Florence Simmonds and G. W.
Chrystal. (London: W. Heinemann.) 2 vols.
£2 2S•—This work is a translation from the
German by Miss Florence Simmonds and George
W. Chrystal, and a very admirable one, the swift
conversational style of the author being retained.
Dr. Meier-Graefe believing little in the historico-
biographical methods, has set himself to write
criticism in a newer line. To us the work seems
an attempt to apply the theory of evolution to the
tendencies of art, though we are not told so with
any clearness. The author searches for the vital
element in past traditions, which survives in
work of to-day. The introductory chapters are
particularly interesting, though pessimistic enough.
While admitting that “ If the uses of art change,
art itself must change,” Dr. Meier-Graefe does
not seem hopeful about present conditions. He
presumes, and we think wrongly so, that the
dwelling-house of to-day has lost the formal relation
to its age which would make it the place for modern
art. As to what shall happen to the modern
picture when it is painted, if this state of things
exists, he merely states the problem, and we find
ourselves returning in vain over the chapters for
any hint of a solution on his part. Dr. Meier-
Graefe generalizes with rapidity, and there is a
crudescence of thought on every page, though not
always expressed at its worth in the superficiality
of phrase. He does not concede genius to Dante
Gabriel Rossetti, though it is difficult to know by
what other of the many attributes he accords him,
he could have contrived to express so distinct a
spirit in his painting. One regrets a failure on the
part of the author to be responsive to the mood
served by the best Pre-Raphaelitism. He writes
with a delightful pen of Beardsley, but is unkind in
putting forward in rivalry to his intimate art, the clever
but merely energetic commonplaces of a German
draughtsman. A closing chapter on Young England
has the hurried style of a postscript; and of the young
school rising up, with no small opinion of itself,
from the New English Art Club he does not speak
with overwhelming optimism. There are phases
of German art into which he enters with a sympathy
only permitted to those familiar with the national
temperament. His appreciation of many things
in art apparently opposed to each other, is interesting.
It is possible for an individual of genius to trace
and classify the origin of his sesthetic experiences,
but to attempt a system of classification which will