Studio: international art (55.1912)

D. Y. Cameron's Paintings

but miss the individual note of Mr. Sargent, Mr.
Lavery, and Mr. Nicholson. It would be a pity
if the man of genius were called upon to bear the
burden of his imitators and if it were true that the
ability to be imitated is a reflection upon the in-
dividuality of the artist imitated, the one serious
criticism passed upon the greatness of Swinburne
as a poet. A transcription or imitation may be a
true piece of craftsmanship—it is not a work of art.

Except that we find in Mr. Cameron’s work
that strict “ regard for tonal relationship, for what
is called values, and for breadth of unity and
effect,” which Mr. Caw names as the most notable
characteristics of the Glasgow School, there is in
Mr. Cameron’s canvases little in common with
those of his confederates, unless it be in individual
pictures such as The Marble Quarry.* He is at

the very antipodes to William McTaggart,
dramatically opposite in method to Mr. Hornel,
starts from different standpoints to Mr. Walton
and Mr. Whitelaw Hamilton. If he can be grouped
at all, he would be placed with Sir George Reid
and Mr. James Cadenhead. Of his own “ school ”
Mr. W. Y. MacGregor and Mr. Macaulay Stevenson
approximate most to some phases of his vision.
He is seldom so vigorous, powerful, or “ impulsive ”
as the majority of the group. He was never so
purely decorative as Mr. Walton or Mr. Henry,
so experimental as Mr. Paterson, so naturalistic
in his realism as was James Guthrie in his
earlier work. But in comparison with these dis-
tinguished craftsmen, Mr. Cameron’s work always
appeared more determined, more final, more in-
evitable as it were, even though these qualities
were present at the expense of a criticism that
they were attained by a method which was
•obvious.

In Mr. Cameron’s work every line seems
selected and final. So determined, so selective
is Mr. Cameron’s design that one feels on studying
one of his canvases that each note, each line, each
passage possesses an individuality of its own.
There is not a touch of the brush that has not
■what may be called a “ personality ” behind it, and
yet a personality that is strongly gifted with the
corporate sense. To elaborate the metaphor, there
are no vagabond or “ lost sheep ” elements on the
canvas. To the intelligent observer the necessity
of each colour passage is apparent, and is as im-
portant as any other passage. And one feels that
the process of selection and elimination has not
taken place upon the canvas, but in the mind of
.the painter. The original sketch is not on paper,
* Reproduced in The Studio for June 1910.

but in the brain. The experimental work antecedes
the work of the brush. Cold reasoning suffused
by the poetical warmth of the artist completes the
loving labour of the mind, and then, and only then,
does the hand begin to move. It is the scholar
at work. To make such a statement is not to
imply that the most tumultuous canvases, the flair
and whirl of a McTaggart, a Hornel, or a Wilson
Steer, are not achieved in a similar fashion. The
deprecating critic of Cameron’s work might argue
that in his case the method is obvious, while in the
others it is not. Yet in none of these masters
does one feel so markedly the triumph of in-
dividual passages along with a unified success.
And though individual, they possess that
modesty which is the marked characteristic of
the “ scholarly ” painter. They do not come to you
with a shout and a ringing of bells ; they are as sub-
dued and refined as in Maris and Corot, Cazin and
Harpignies. They do not minister to a corporate
expression of high-pitched pictorial passion, to a
Strauss-like fury of artistic speech. They move to
their places like a nocturne of Chopin or a prelude
of Bach. So deliberate, indeed, so restrained are
some of these passages that the observer is left
cold and unresponsive. He admits the superb
craftsmanship, but misses the note of spontaneity
which thrills. But to judge a canvas, you must
judge- the point of view. Anything approaching
anarchy and chaos is hateful to Mr. Cameron.
His social leaning is towards the stability of a
Reign of Law. Nature subdued, controlled in the
immensity and dignity of its own beauty, nature,
in a sense, meditating on its own sublimity, not
kicking its heels in the joy of its own vast poten-
tialities. Earth seems to hold its breath; there is
a pause as if the tremulous fingers of peace were
passing over the bosom of nature; a deep slumbrous
tone seems to pervade the air, veiled in a beau-
teous mystery. This note of control and orderly
arrangement is so marked that the unsympathetic
observer may remark : “ This is style and little
more,” as many literary critics said of the writings
of Mr. Stevenson. In his powerful A Castle in
the Ardennes the carefully placed masses of the
castle, the almost Noah’s-Ark-like houses, the
conventionally grouped figures may seem, on
analysis, to convey little more than a power of
skilfully arranging certain colour-values and
certain well-designed architectural groups, but
you cannot get rid of the fact that the result is
impressive and dignified and that the note is
individual. Everything is reduced to the simplest
phraseology. So simple, indeed, are the terms

263