Rise of European Schools

Biographies—Muntz, Leonardo da Vinci (1899), Raphael (1900) ; Venturi, Raffaello Hourticq, La jeunesse de Titien (1919) ; Fiocco, Veronese (1928) ;Bercken and Mayer, Tintoretta (1923) ; Weal and Brockwell, The Van Eycks and their art (1912) ; Colomier, Diirer (1927); Glaser, Hans Holbein der Aeltere (1908) ; Davies, Hans Hol bein the Younger (1903) ; Correo, El Greco (1908): Stevenson, Velazquez (1899) ; Beruete, Goya (1928) ; E. Michel Rubens (1900) ; Rooes, Van Dyck (1902) ; E. Michel, Rembrandt (1893) ; Pilon, Watteau (1912) ; Greuze (1912) ; A. Michel, Boucher (1908) ; Nolhac, Fragonard (1918) ; Armstrong, Reynolds (1901) ; Gower, Gains borough (1900) ; Langridge, William Blake (1905) ; Moreau-Nelaton, Corot (1924), Millet (1921) ; Daubigny (1925). (X.) The first twenty-five years of the loth century have been marked by an extraordinary ebullition in art. Formerly, art move ments, even in France, progressed in a more or less leisurely way, reaching a logical conclusion. They attained their zenith and de clined as their interest waned, as stimulus was lost and the prin ciples they practised degenerated into mere formulae. This was followed by a reaction and a new movement came into being.

The classicism of David and his disciples was succeeded by the romanticism of Delacroix, Gericault, Delaroche, etc., and in land scape by the Barbizon School (q.v.) of plein air with Corot, Rous seau, Daubigny, etc. At the same time the Realist movement with Courbet at its head, was developing. With Courbet were Daumier and Millet; or the latter may be said to have belonged to both groups, as it was not always possible to separate completely one from the other.

The school of Corot developed, under the impulse of certain discoveries made by Chevreuil concerning the simultaneous con trast of colours, into the Impressionist movement (see IMPRES SIONISM) with Monet, Monet, Pissarro, Sisley and others as the chief exponents. This movement had a very influence on modern art, as it introduced a fundamental change in colour perception, in the treatment of light and atmosphere, and changed the point of view of painters in regard to art and nature.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the direct influence of Im pressionism as a creative force of a marked character was on the decline. Its true influence had been absorbed and was no longer a separate activity. In the hands of painters like Maufra, Moret and Loiseau it had degenerated into a formula, not without I charm, but no longer life-giving or inspiring.

Neo-Impressionism had proved itself in the hands of Georges Seurat, a sensitive and even flexible medium for the expression of minute truth of atmospheric and light effects not only in landscape but even in groups of figures on a large scale. It appears to have been a highly personal method which ended with Seurat, who was its greatest and most perfect exponent. As practised by Paul Signac it degenerated into a formal and almost mechanical use of a fantastic and unrealistic nature and far removed from its original purpose which was the realization of the exact truth of natural conditions at a given moment.

There were other painters who practised pointillism more or less incidentally, such as Maximillian Luce, Theo van Rysselbergh and even Camille Pissarro employed it, with beautiful effect on a few canvases.

Although Ernest Laurent, La Sidaner and Henri Martin adopted a variation of the method for pictorial purposes, theirs was not a true pointillism and the end was no longer inevitably related to the means.

Influence of Cezanne.

The true development of Impression ism was quietly proceeding in another direction through the work of Paul Cezanne, who had been a pupil of Camille Pissarro, from whom he had learnt the principles of Impressionism in their strictest form. Cezanne died in 1906 but he, even more than any other painter, has influenced the art of the present day; not only in his own country but throughout Europe and America.

Cezanne gradually discovered what was the inherent weakness of Impressionist art ; its lack of solidity and, frequently, of de sign. His determination to give to art—meaning—"Impressionist art as he felt it"—"The solidity and enduring quality of ancient art"—"Of the art of the museums" has been often quoted. His principles have been usually misunderstood and misapplied. The path that angels fear to tread has been trampled by the feet of most of the younger artists of the day.

Cezanne approached his solidarity by way of the most subtle and refined colour analysis and he produced pictures of land scapes and figures, interiors and portraits, of a rare beauty in which the perception of colour is almost incredibly sensitive and profound. His imitators have produced ugly pictures, coarsely treated, in which the colour approximates, as nearly as possible, to that of mud. They have, on occasion made a method of his mannerisms—as has happened so often before in every branch of art. If Cezanne used a blue outline to correct or recover his drawing then the canvases of his imitators were covered with blue outlines.

The twentieth century opened, then, with the waning influence of Impressionism and the growing influence of Cezanne, the child of Impressionism, who had but recently, and late in his life, received recognition.

Development in France.

Modern art in all countries is essentially French. All the movements, great or small, have origi nated in France. France is like a great central fire sending sparks all over the world which fall on a variety of fuel and burn with varying force and character. It is therefore but logical to con sider France----the home of strange-isms—before other countries. The demand for something new on the part of young artists is natural and inevitable. The old is no longer stimulating or exciting. But the new has no intrinsic value as such. No work of art has survived merely or mainly because it was new in its time. Novelty has a value, a different value—it may lead to some thing that is fundamentally and universally important. Usually it does not. But at least it keeps art alive and excites interest, which is not bad for art. But posterity, or should it be eternity, demands something more.

The first twenty-eight years of the twentieth century have been remarkable for the number of new movements that have arisen. Some have sunk and left no traces, others have modified or changed the direction of art to some extent. But it must be re membered that art—the essential art—goes on inevitably. Velaz quez and El Greco may be the chief or only survivors of the Spanish art of the r6th and 17th centuries, but there were hosts of other painters and no doubt movements, ebullitions, -isms. The essential art is what is finally and permanently distilled.

So it is, too, with modern art. That which seems so important to the inventors of and participators in, new movements may be forgotten possibly as quickly as the movements have arisen. (See