Let us take another characteristic example — the cubist portrait painter will paint that part of the head, for instance, which is not seen — the back part. And we say to him: "Confine yourself to depicting what that head contains, express its emotion, its inner mind. The masters throughout the ages confined their efforts to this all engrossing task, Holbein; Titian, Antonello de Messme, Rembrandt. David, Goya, Ricard, Carriere, to mention only the most famous. If you are so ardently desire to paint the other side of the head why not take a second canvas and give it for title `the same -- back view.' 0 Therein lies in our opinion the fundamental error of the cubist. The theory of cubism has another serious side. While refusing to enter into a lengthy dis cussion • as to its infantile features it should not be forgotten that the followers of this young school have made their presence felt in all countries to such an extent that an explana tion and exposure of their methods are necessary. A further and very serious danger of the con ception of the cubist is that, desirous of creating what he is pleased to call the "pure" picture, he presents us with something absolutely un intelligible to anyone but himself. His picture is understandable to himself alone; he paints for self, refuses to express in his picture the sentiment of humanity, only touching on such sentimentality in so far as it accords with his own' ideal, -The cubist scorns any suggestion to compare his work with nature. This theory, frankly indefensible, is tantamount to suppress ing the sensitive mind which alone is the exist ing link between the painter and the spectator. Now of these two characters, the painter and the spectator, if the former is not imbued with the same thought as the latter, how it iq possible for them ever to understand each other? To accept the cubist postulate is to gainsay painting, which must forcibly take the objective as the starting point of all syntheses. To proceed otherwise is to steer headlong for the void by sheer sense of an insane pride. It is extremely foolish to desire to be placed on a self-centred pedestal. One should be content with those usages and languages which the rest of the world understand and employ, merely disposing of them whenever possible in a nobler and more beautiful style. The world, the sun, the tree, the flower, the sky, the mountain, the valley are living things worthy of being addressed and portrayed. To substitute the reality of conception for reality of vision is, as we have already stated, equivalent to saying °No" to nature. It should always be borne in mind that nothing can be constructive or imag inative without the aid of nature. The most daring inventions of The Fable, the centaur, the sphinx, the Chimera are all combined with natural elements. °L'Art," has said Nicolas Poussin, en'est pas chose differente de la Nature et ne peut sortir de ses °Art does not differ from Nature and cannot go outside of its limitations." That cubists, by weird and inacceptable de ductions should endeavor to •constitute them selves the ancestors of Paolo Nicello, Breughel le Vieux, Watteau is nothing more or less than the fanciful dream of a humorist's mind. Cubinism then is a topical demonstration of the danger of theorizing to excess, of losing oneself in the research for the absolute. The duty of a critic is to impress on artists °Never allow a reason alone to prevail over feeling and taste; take a just sense of proportion and balance the faculties. The masters of the museums are famous for the very reason that they knew how to co-ordinate the essential qual ities which are necessary to any esthetic crea tion." From this forced movement of cubism, with its rigid sense of discipline and °procustial° conceptions, a certain amount of good will nevertheless result. Already some young arts of real talent, Andre LhOte, LaFremaye, La boureur, Tobeen, Marchand, have been con verted to its ranks in which they have displayed genius of high order. Every effort bears its fruit and it is certainly not on account of any false step — moreover sincere — that the cres cendo and forward march of French pictural art will decline or be impeded.
Sculpture.— From Rude to Rodin, including Carpeaux the three geniuses who represent the entire French sculpture of the 19th cen tury-- much vigorous and delicate talent has been seen. Rude raised the standard of sculp ture, which was very low at the beginning of this century. Rude was the unique artistic expression of the Napoleonic spirit, so unfa vorable to every kind of art. His hauts-reliefs on the Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile are im mortal. Besides Rude, Barye — a powerful animal sculptor — the classicists David d'An gers, Etex and Pradier are conspicuous under the Second Empire, Carpeaux, the sculptor of the group called The Dance,' on the portico of the Opera House and the bas-relief of 'Flora' in the Flora pavilion of the Louvre and of a hundred charming gmaquettes," of masterly execution and refined taste, achieved grandeur through grace, style through fancy. A brilliant
constellation of sculptors was seen in the Third Republic; Falguiere, delicately expressive; Dalou, severe and profound; Paul Dubois, sub tle; Mercii and Trijalbert, who although de clamatory in style are each gifted; and Fremiet, a pupil and nephew of Francois Rude. All these names and those of the and the original genius Camille Claudel, Emile Bourdelle, Desbois and Maillol, were over shadowed by the formidable genius of Auguste Rodin. Rodin (whose recent death we have to deplore) is the third term of this trilogy relat ing to Rude and Carpeaux. At first he was discussed, ridiculed and disowned by the In stitute because he purposely distorted his models so as to better display the intensity of am bient light; he conceived and executed his principal works which are The Age of Brass,' The Bourgeois of Calais,' (Saint Jean Bap tiste,' 20 busts and a hundred groups in marble and in bronze, illustrating the sad poems of love, of nervousness and of revery. He over turned all preconceived rules, going for his inspiration as far away as Assyria and Egypt and the Middle Ages; his Victor Hugo and his Balzac are statues which caused in the artistic world a sensation not as yet defined.
Architecture and Decorative Art— The French Revolution that revived all the institu tions of the ancient regime only apparently influenced the teachings of the arts. At first French architecture was under the yoke of the Greeks and the Romans. Deep study of the chief works of antiquity always inspires earnest artists, such as Percier and Fontaine; Vignon, who built the Madeleine, and Brongniart, who built the Bourse.
Duban, Labrouste and Vaudoyer revolution ized architecture. Viollet le Duc is charged with restoring Notre Dame (1837). With Lassus, who restored Sainte Chapelle, he strug gled romantically against the °Academie des Beaux Arts." Labrouste was the first to util ize iron, which may be seen in the (Biblio theque Sainte Genevieve' ' • Ballard was a bold innovator, who built the (Halles Centrales.' The wonderful inspiration of Charles Gar nier, architect of the Opera House, is typical of the period of the Second Empire. Still not withstanding the modern spirit set forth in the teachings of Viollet le Duc, architecture is not yet emancipated; the ideas of Vignole and of Palladio, who imitated the antique, will dis appear but slowly— with M. Mogue de Baudot and Vaudremer. After all the rationalistic modernism of MM. Plumet, Chedanne, Gen noys, Binet, Bonnier, Perret-Frere, Dervaus, Jaussely, Tony and Gamier has erected monu ments and dwellings commensurate to our needs and to the ideas and customs of our time. See FRENCH ARCHITECTURE.
The revolution in applied art corresponds to that of architecture. The followers of Riesener, Gouthiers and Jacob will be the °furnishers,' such as Galli of Nancy— a cabinet-maker and glass painter, who most always found his mo tives in floral naturalism; carvers and gold smiths with exquisite taste, such as MM. Dampt and Lalique, and lastly the makers of ceramics Carriers and Chaplet, who rediscovered the art of the wonderful Japanese pottery.
French ornament workers during the last 12 years or so have fortunately increased in number and quality. Such artists as Jallot, Gaillard, Follot, Ruhlmann• de Henze, Lucet, Louis Sue, Gustave Jaulmens, have renovated the interior architecture of French homes and excellently counter-balanced the dangerous in fluence of Munich decorative art; brilliant ceramic artists, Delaherche, Decoeur, Le Noble, Methy, Dammouse, Roux-Champion; gold, smiths, carvers, ironworkers, Robert, Nocq, Rivaud, Mangeant, Monot, Herzen; divers ornamental masters such as the lace worker Mezzara, the embroiderers Ory-Robin, Demi hires, Marie le Meilleur, have likewise con tributed. to this renaissance of French applied arts. In addition there is the interesting ex periment in tapestry manufacture, the et ponents of which, Boileau, Gustave Jaulmes, Ottmann and Deltombe, have contributed to the revival of an ancient French handicraft adapting it to the needs of contemporary taste.
In the foregoing is given a very short sum mary of the principles of French art, The 19th century was one of such great fecundity that under normal influences art should take its part in all events, in the great struggle and in the great hopes that agitate humanity in the present day. Let us say in conclusion that art can now, less than ever, be said to be separated from life. French art is no longer, and does not wish to be, a thing apart from or aside from life. It is in itself the expression of life, not only in vague generalities, but in the most contingent phenomena.
Bibliography.— Benoit, < L'art
(1897) ; Brownell.
Louis VAUXceLLES, Member of the Committee of the Auroras Salon; Art Critic of the Pays.