Studio: international art (55.1912)

Sir George Reid's Portraits

applied to himself. The same point of view is
evident in The Rev. Dr. Mitchell, in Dr. Walter
Smith, and Thomas Graham Murray. Indeed,
in his presentation of Church dignitaries he paints
them as members of a Church Militant. Behind
his Scottish divines stands the full defiance of the
Solemn League and Covenant and the Thirty-nine
Articles. When you look into their faces you
think of Drumclog and Airds Moss, of John Knox
and Andrew Melville.

Sir George Reid’s Scotsmen could never be any-
thing else than men of the Don and the Dee, the
Clyde and the Forth. They carry their country on
their shoulders, in the conscious independence of
the eyes, in the ruggedness of the cheek. Sir
James Guthrie’s men of the north are not em-
phatically Scottish. Always full of character, they
do not bear their sign-manual of nationality so
characteristically as do those of his predecessor.
If Guthrie had painted Thomas Carlyle, he would

have seen him with the eyes of Whistler, upon which
vision he would have superimposed his own insight
into the spiritual significance of his sitter. If Sir
George Reid had painted the Chelsea sage, he
would have presented him as the Thunderer full
armed against the battalions of sham and humbug,
and the Lowland Scot in him would have called to
you with the murmur of the Tweed and the war-cry
of the Border riever.

The decorative principles as practised by Whistler
and the members of the Glasgow and other modern
schools are not to be sought for in a portrait by
Reid. He does not use his sitter merely as the
centre for a scheme of colour. At his worst—which
is never bad—the background is a negligible
quantity ; at his best—which is superlatively fine—
it does not share with any sense of equality in the
importance of the general design. This design is
never complex. Its very simplicity has led some
to belittle the artistic achievement. But we are
convinced that the simplicity of the
design is intentional as directing the eye
to the character of the person presented
more than to the decorative quality of
the canvas. The critics of Sir George
Reid who find the first virtue in com-
plete tonality hasten to compare one of
his portraits with those of men who are
enthusiasts for tonal decoration in por-
traiture. Whether such a comparison is
relevant is another matter. It all de-
pends on the object aimed at by the
painter. Sir George Reid might argue
that what is called the decorative school
is apt to belittle the sitter at the expense
of the general scheme. This criticism
might apply to such a master as Mr.
William Nicholson, not by any means
always, but occasionally, and it applies
here and there to his gifted colleague,
Mr. Orpen. If objection can be taken
to Sir George Reid’s direct and forceful
method, it is that the portrait is apt to
give the impression of being quickly laid
down on the canvas, and not, as it were,
growing slowly out of the paint into
superb life, as is the case with the best
examples of Sir James Guthrie and Mr.
Walton. This was more evident in
some early portraits, but in his later
successes, such as the Tom Morris and
The Earl of Halsbury, the painter seems
to have had a fuller consciousness of the
need of a more uniform pictorial method.

173

EARL LOREBURN, LORD CHANCELLOR BY SIR GEORGE REID