Complete Works of Wilkie Collins (2182 page)

The North Room has been made a new room this year, by hanging pictures in it, instead of architectural drawings; which have been removed to the Octagon Room. By this excellent arrangement, extra and well-lighted space has been gained for the young painters especially; who, with not more than one or two exceptions, have been treated on the present occasion with perfect justice — nay, with extreme liberality in some cases. For example, Mr. Rankley’s “Pharisee and Publican,” and Mr. Solomon’s “Oliver Goldsmith” — the first of which strikes us as a display of sentimental mock piety; and the second, as a clumsy caricature — are so hung as to appear under every possible advantage of position to any spectator who may be able to discover the merit in them, which we cannot discern. In truth, the chief attractions to us, in the North Room, are the land- scapes, which we have yet to notice. We remember nothing which it is necessary to particularise, but two clever animal pictures by Mr. Ansdell, and the “Woodman’s Daughter,” by Mr. Millais. The mention of this last work reminds us that it is now time to offer our promised remarks on, what is called the “new,” or “Pre- Raphael” style.

The characteristics of this style, in the eyes of the general spec- tator, may, we think, be pretty correctly described as follows: — an almost painful minuteness of finish and detail; a disregard of the ordinary rules of composition and colour; and an evident intention of not appealing to any popular predilections on the subject of grace or beauty. The most prominent representatives of this new school are Messrs. Millais, Collins, and Hunt; whose pictures we are now about to notice.

Mr. Collins’s picture, in the Middle Room, is entitled Convent
 
Thoughts and represents a novice standing in a convent garden, with a passion-flower, which she is contemplating, in one hand, and an illuminated missal, open at the crucifixion, in the other. The various flowers and the water-plants in the foreground are painted with the most astonishing minuteness and fidelity to Nature — we have all the fibres in a leaf, all the faintest varieties of bloom in a flower, followed through every gradation. The sentiment conveyed by the figure of the novice is hinted at, rather than developed, with deep poetic feeling — she is pure, thoughtful, and subdued, almost to severity. Briefly, this picture is one which appeals, in its purpose and conception, only to the more refined order of minds — the general spectator will probably discover little more in it, than dexterity of manipulation. Mr. Millais aims less high, and will therefore be more readily understood. He exhibits three pictures. The first represents a girl standing in an attitude of extreme weariness, in the chamber of an ancient mansion. The dress of the figure, the stained glass on the windows, the stool from which she has risen, all display the most dazzling and lustrous richness of colour, combined with high finish of execution. In the second picture, “The return of the Dove to the Ark,” we have only the wives of two of Noah’s sons; one holding the dove, the other caressing it. Here, every stalk of the straw on which the figures are standing, is separately painted; the draperies are studied and arranged, with great skill and power; and the flesh-tints are forcible in an extraordinary degree. The third picture, “The Woodman’s Daughter,” is more remarkable for the landscape than the figures. The woody background of the scene is really marvellous in its truthfulness and elabouration. Mr. Hunt exhibits one work — ” Valentine receiving Silvia from Proteus;” and exceeds, in some respects, even Mr. Collins and Mr. Millais in the intricacies of high finish, and in minute imitation of the minutest objects in nature. “Silvia” is kneeling upon some dry leaves, treated with an elabouration beyond which art cannot go. The drapery, too, of this figure is painted with the most masterly firmness, brilliancy, and power; every inequality of the wooded background is represented with admirable fidelity to nature; and the patches of sunlight falling upon shady places through gaps in the trees above, shine with a dazzling brightness which never once reminds us of the trickeries of the palette — which is the evident result of the most intelligent and the most unflinching study.

Such are some of the most prominent peculiarities of these pic- tures which come within the limits of so brief a notice as this. If we were to characterise, and distinguish between, the three artists who have produced them, in a few words, we should say that Mr. Collins was the superior in refinement, Mr.Millais in brilliancy, and Mr. Hunt in dramatic power. The faults of these painters are common to all three. Their strict attention to detail precludes, at present, any attainment of harmony and singleness of effect. They must be admired bit by bit, as we have reviewed them, or not admired at all. Again, they appear to us to be wanting in one great desideratum of all art — judgment in selection. For instance, all the lines and shapes in Mr. Collins’s convent garden are as straight and formal as possible; but why should he have selected such a garden for representation? Would he have painted less truly and carefully, if he had painted a garden in which some of the accidental sinu- osities of nature were left untouched by the gardener’s spade and shears? Why should not Mr. Millais have sought, as a model for his “Woodman’s Daughter,” a child with some of the bloom, the freshness, the roundness of childhood, instead of the sharp-featured little workhouse-drudge whom we see on his canvas? Would his colour have been less forcible, his drawing less true, if he had con- ceded thus much to public taste? We offer these observations in no hostile spirit : we believe that Messrs. Millais, Collins, and Hunt, have in them the material of painters of first rate ability: we admire sincerely their earnestness of purpose, their originality of thought, their close and reverent study of nature. But we cannot, at the same time, fail to perceive that they are as yet only emerging from the darkness to the true light; that they are at the critical turning point of their career; and that, on the course they are now to take; on their renunciation of certain false principles in their present practice, depends our chance of gladly welcoming them, one day, as masters of their art — as worthy successors of the greatest among their predecessors in the English school.

With these observations, we take our leave of the figure pictures, and proceed to the landscapes.

Mr. Stanfield’s most important picture this year, is the “Battle of Roveredo.” We remember no work by the great landscape painter which better displays his powers than this. The moment taken, is when the troops of the French Republic were crossing the Adige. The stir and confusion of the scene are represented in the most masterly manner. The picturesque buildings in the middle distance, the hills beyond, and the snowy Alps, towering over all, are painted with that remarkable facility in rendering space, distance, and effect, for which Mr. Stanfield is unrivalled. The power of this picture is, indeed, extraordinary — its variety of objects, its brilliant colour and free forcible execution, “tell” upon the eye at almost any distance. There is a Dutch View (No.48), by the same painter, which is especially remarkable for the beautiful modelling of the sky — and a sea-piece (No. 743), which is one of the freshest and finest works of this kind that lie has ever produced.

Mr.Roberts, in the “Interior of the Church of St.Ann, at Bruges,” triumphs as successfully as usual over all architectural com- plications, without ever confusing, or wearying the eye. We notice particularly the painting of the wood-carving running along the wall of the church, as a specimen of that perfect execution which exactly hits the medium between extreme finish and extreme freedom of handling. The “Surprise of the Caravan” (in the Middle Room) by the same artist, is a gorgeous eastern scene, bold and powerful in treatment, and strikingly brilliant in effect.

Mr. Creswick’s pictures this year would amply justify his elec- tion as an Academician — were any such justification wanted. His best work is “The Evening Hour” (No. 147). The effect of fading light on the foliage and water is beautifully conveyed — the whole picture looks, indeed, as if it must have been painted in the open air, so admirable is it us a study of the light, shade, and colour of nature.

Mr. Danby has a “Winter Sunset” (in the Middle Room), in which the frosty stillness of the atmosphere, the solemnity of the clear darkening sky, and the last fiery reflections from the setting sun, are depicted with a grandeur of feeling and a vigour of treat- ment deserving of the highest praise we can accord. Equal to the works of the best Dutch masters in truthfulness, this picture possesses, in our opinion, a poetry and beauty of effect which, with the single exception of Rembrandt, the old painters have never rivalled.

Mr. Lee’s landscapes are too patchy in execution, and too meagre in colour, to please us, this year. “The Market Cart” (No.55) is the best of his productions. Mr. Witherington studies carefully from nature; but his colouring is raw, and he is sadly wanting in sharpness and firmness of touch. Mr. E. W. Cooke has made a great advance on the present occasion. His “Views of Venice (Nos. 539 and 732), are by far the best things he has ever done. They are clear without hardness — brilliant and forcible, without exaggeration of colour — and (we speak from experience) excellent as truthful representations of the scenes they depict. Mr. Linnell is too uniformly yellow and brown, in his “Woodlands “ — we infinitely prefer his smaller picture (in the North Room), which has great breadth and beauty of effect, especially in the sky. Mr. Redgrave’s “Woody Dell” (No. 443), proves to us that he ought, for the future, to confine himself entirely to landscape. As a study of foliage, this picture is the truest and the best in the present exhibition.

Want of space prevents us from doing more than indicating the following landscapes, as well deserving of attention: — In the East Room, Mr. J. D. Harding’s “Bonneville,” Mr. Jutsum’s “Devon- shire Coast,” Mr. E. Lear’s “Town in North Albania,” Mr. Creswick’s “Valley Mill,” and Mr. Middleton’s “Clovelly.” In the Middle Room, Mr. Creswick’s “Over the Sands.” Mr. R. C. Leslie’s “Hermi- tage Rock,” and Mr. Stark’s “Forest Farm.” In the West Room, Mr. G. Stanfield’s “East Tarbet,” Mr. Gudin’s “North East Coast of Scotland,” Mr. Danby’s “Ship on Fire,” Mr. Back’s “ Caerhyh Church,” Mr. Danby’s Summer Sunset, and Mr. Raven’s “Scene in Eridge Park.” In the North Room, Mr. Middleton’s” Fair day in February,” Mr. A. J. Lewis’s “Lane Scene,” Mr. J. Danby’s “Blackrock Castle,” Mr. De Groot’s “Anxious Moment,” and Mr. G. A. Williams’s” Evening of a stormy day.”

Of the portraits this year, taken generally, it would be most charitable to say as little as possible. They are the worst part of the exhibition. The portrait-art of England seems to be declining lower and lower — we look in vain for the simple arrangement and grand colour of the works of our early school. Both are gone; and, in their stead, we have feebly-painted ladies and gentlemen, grinning and attitudinising like so many mountebanks. For in- instance, Mr. Knight paints a portrait of Mr. Barry (No. 85); and, because he happens to be a celebrated architect, thinks it necessary to make him flourish a pair of compasses, with a smile of unutterable triumph. Mr. E. Williams paints a huge portrait — of Moritz Retzch — who, by the way, if this is a good likeness, must be one of the dirtiest of men — and figures him forth, fiercely drawing attention to himself with two of his fingers, as if he was saying :-”Come! look at me! see how my hair wants brushing, how my face wants washing, how my shirt-collars want ironing! — see what a sublimely slovenly man of genius I am!” If this be portrait painting, how preferable are the daguerreotypes in the shop-windows! —
they
show us, at least, what the dignity and simplicity of nature really are.

Among the exceptions to the mass of mediocre portraits exhibited this year, we may especially mention Mr. Herbert’s two children (No.33), a work admirable for truth, simplicity, and power, in spite of a little hardness and quaintness. Again, Mr.Maclise’s portrait of Macready in the character of “Werner,” is a noble reminiscence of the great actor in one of his greatest parts. Mr. Grant, too, has a portrait of Mrs. Livesay (No. 190) full of grace and beauty; but marred by carelessness in drawing and execution. Sir J. Watson Gordon comes nearer to the good old style than any of his contemporaries. His portrait of Sir John Pakenham displays great simplicity and power; but he must beware of a tendency to dinginess and blackness which we observe in some of his other works. Beyond the productions we have now noticed, we remember no mentionable portraits above mediocrity.
Beneath
mediocrity — far beneath it — there are many more that we could particularize; but it would be to no purpose to comment on them here. Most of these pictures are evidently the result of a natural incapacity which no advice could ameliorate, and on which it is therefore unnecessary to dwell. Let us, rather, go down at once to the Sculpture Room — here, at least, the eye will not be repelled by crudities of colour — here it is sure to find refinement and repose.

The best statue this year, is Mr. MacDowell’s “Psyche” — a very beautiful idea, beautifully developed — pure, simple, and poetical, like all the sculptor’s works. In Mr. Legrew’s “Rachel,” the forms have been well studied; the dead child hanging over the mother’s knee is finely imagined — at once impressive and true to nature. Mr. Hun- cock’s “Youth and Joy,” and Mr. Marshall’s “Hebe Rejected” are both works of great merit — the latter especially pleased us, by its refinement and simplicity. The remaining statues — there are com- paratively few in the room, on this occasion — do not appear to possess more than ordinary interest, or to display more than ordinary ability. As for the busts, we must confess that our recollection of them is very confused. We have a general remembrance of heads of ladies with poetical features, and classically-dressed hair, and heads of gentlemen with muscular noses and mouths, and majestic necks and shoulders; but to mention any individual heads among the collection, is beyond our power. We leave the task of criticism here — and in the South Room, where miniatures by hundreds be- wildered us even more than the busts — to our readers; and take our leave of the Royal Academy, our last visit confirming the impression derived from our first, viz. — that, with the single exception of the portraits, this is one of the best exhibitions that has been opened to the public for many years back.