Page:Scottishartrevie01unse.djvu/178

146

O those who can recollect the condition of Glasgow some twenty years ago, the advance which has been made since then, both with regard to the production of works of art and their appre- ciation, must warrant reflection.

It has long been generally accepted that Edin- burgh is the centre of culture in Scotland, Glasgow being supposed to rest content with its cotton-mills, shipbuilding yards, and philanthropic efforts, leaving the capital to monopolise what of literature, music, and the arts of design Scotland could boast. Never entirely true, this charge, as time goes on, loses all significance. It is unnecessary to claim that Edinburgh is, barring the climate, one of the most charming cities in Europe, — this is universally granted ; but that smoky Glasgow has other attrac- tions, and that its citizens have other pursuits than money-making, is still in need of demonstration. The change, which is undoubted, is shared more or less by other large provincial cities ; the causes to which it is due, however, do not come within the scope of our present purpose. The reproach that Glasgow as a city is absolutely non-productive in the region of the iine arts may still be often advanced ; and it is our aim to dispel this delusion, and to point out, in the cosmopolitan collection of pictures now open to the public at the Exhibition, certain works which worthily hold a place as good art, even when compared with the acknowledged masterpieces among which they are hung.

In the nine galleries which contain the Art Section of the present Glasgow International Exhibition (we omit that devoted to examples of the various photo- graphic processes), a fair opportunity is granted for the study of the painters in the West of Scotland, past and present. More might have been done, however, with the material available ; in many cases artists are inadequately represented, and the educa- tional value of the collection would liave been increased tenfold had the so-called local works been grouped in something like historical sequence. It would seem that art did not exist in Glasgow before the early days of this century, or that examples of sufficient merit could not be secured. Horatio Macculloch (1806-1867), J. Milne-Donald (1819- 1866), J. Graham-Gilbert (1794-1866), Sir Daniel Macnee (1806-1882), are undoubtedly the outstand- ing, if not the only local names whose reputation has stood the test of time. Their successors, and more or less their followers, J. Docharty (1829- 1878), Joseph Henderson, J. A. Aitken, Robert Greenlees, David Murray, A. K. Brown, William Young, and others, have yet for the most part to pass through the crucible of endurance. There are grave difficulties and disadvantages in endeavouring to estimate calmly the comparative qualities of con- temporary art. We are tempted either to under- value or to overpraise, its limitations as well as its attainments being to a lai-ge extent a reflection of our own. The landscape painters already alluded to were all mainly self-taught men, who, lacking the opportunity of any regular training, were disposed to minimise its advantages for others. They knew little of, and cared less for, the work of the masters, and deprecated their influence in forming the style of modern painters. It is impossible to ignore the fact that of late years a very great change has taken place with regard to the aims and tendencies of a