Page:Scottishartrevie01unse.djvu/352

304 The Banquet of the Royal Scottish Academy, given on the eve of the opening of the Exhibition of 1889, was distinguished above all others in recent years by the delivery of two addresses. These addresses were strikingly unlike in tone, and strikingly unlike also in the evidence they gave of the relation of the speakers to the intellectual and artistic movements of the time. One of the speakers was not an artist, but was a distinguished layman, who has perhaps done as much as any one man in recent years to foster the cultivation of art in Scotland ; and the other was an artist—the President of the Royal Scottish Academy. The speech of the first was brimful of broad and generous views, taking note of the moving of the dry bones both in universities and academies, and hopeful that if only they gathered round them what was best in the literature, science, 'and art of the time,' these institutions would come out of the ordeal triumphantly. The speech of the other—in response, be it noted, to a toast proposed in that of the first—was that of a bigoted guild brother who had lost all sense of the real function of his guild, and who viewed it only as an institution for enabling its members 'to look after themselves.' Coming as it did in reply to the enlightened speech of Dr. J. Forbes White, the address of the President, Sir William Fettes Douglas, was a distinct challenge on the part of reaction. It explicitly ignored not alone a growing body of public opinion, but even ignored a growing body of opinion which is known to exist inside the Academy itself. No more crass a position could possibly be assumed by the responsible head of a public body than that assumed by the President of the Academy. ' We lie under no obligations to the public' 'Our Royal Charter has no serious value.' Changes may be made, he said, but the changes that will be made will be those originated within the Academy—not those suggested from without—a somewhat futile threat, meaning that what is asked for shall not be done, not because it were ill to do it, but because it is asked for. His position is in effect exactly the opposite of that of Dr. White. Let us, he would say, get on as best we can, but save us from the contamination of contact with what is 'best in the literature, science, and art of the time.' At this moment, when to every seeing eye there is a great revivification of interest in art in Scotland, it would be lamentable, if it were not amusing, to see the head of the representative artistic body in the country, the President of the Royal Scottish Academy, attempting to cut it out from all the influences of the time, attempting, in short, to lock its door and keep the key in his pocket. It is amusing, because it is an old story. The pressure of events has opened many doors, not from the inside but from without; and the lesson which reactionaries have over and over again had to learn is this, that in a contest between fossilisation and life, life on the whole has the best of it. The President's address suggests a few special queries. Does he speak the opinion of the bulk of the members and associates of the Academy, or does he utter merely his own private opinion? The place and the time of the address would lead the public to believe that he spoke ex cathedral; if he did not, it is for the Academicians who disagree with his point of view to express their disagreement. Other queries might be put, like these: Is the Royal Scottish Academy a national institution, or is it a Princes Street one? Is it a private association for the public maintenance of a small body of artists, or is it a national Academy for the promotion of art? Sir William Douglas was so explicit in his statements that he left no doubt as to his opinion. He repudiated all connection with the Royal Association for the Promotion of the Fine Arts in such a way as to suggest that he had no sympathy with so Utopian an idea as the promotion of art. He disclaimed on the part of the R. S. A. any connection with the Board of Manufactures, implying probably that the Academy had as little effect on the art of the country as the Board of Manufactures had on the industry. He condescended to pretend that, so far as he could make out, extension of the Academy would mean admission of every claimant who thought himself fit — as if fitness were now always a test at the election of an Academician, and as if he had not as President of the Academy been made officially fully aware of the reforms suggested by the 'outsiders.' He stooped to refer to rivalry in art between Glasgow and Edinburgh, as if such rivalry were a case of commercial competition in which the Edinburgh monopolists were entitled to protect themselves against the intrusion of foreign wares. He referred to the limitation of the numbers of the Academy, as if mere limitation were a source of distinction, and as if the possession of the magic letters R. S. A. could constitute, in the eyes of those who were really discriminating, a distinction which the artist had not already conferred upon himself by his work. But we have assumed that the President was serious. This cannot have been, the whole speech was really a piece of subtle raillery. He chaffed the Academicians for 'looking after themselves’; he assumed the existence of a rival in another city which should seriously compete with the Academy in Edinburgh for the honour of representing the art of Scotland. His conservatism is only after all the gracious conservatism of the Arch-bishop in Gil Bias, 'We are old enough to walk alone, — and we'll do it!' Even the reference to the Board of Manufactures had perhaps a sly allusion to the dexterity of certain painters, and the uniformity of their works. But it was too bad of Sir William to joke about so serious a business as the Royal Charter. It is alleged, we know not with what truth, that this charter, so unimportant to the Academy, is perhaps important enough to the public. Royal Charters are not wont to be given without a quid pro quo; and the airy observation of the President that the Charter was a name and nothing more might perhaps require explanation if the public made up its mind one day to demand the quid. We may return to the Academy at a more convenient season. Meantime it may be said generally that what is needed is a better method of election, both of members and associates, a less restricted plan of arranging the annual exhibition, and very considerable reform in the educational department. The Academy is in Princes Street, but not of it. It belongs to the West as much as to the East. There is no rivalry but the legitimate rivalry for the production of the best works. The Academy has a past of which we are all proud, and it has a future of which we do not despair. But the President should himself have supplied a key to his over-varnished jokes.

The renaissance of public mural decoration is now making notable progress. In Glasgow the Town Council have received a deputation from the Ruskin Society, urging on them the desirability of completing the new Municipal Buildings by a series of paintings worthy of the city; while at the recent meeting of the Glasgow Art Club it was resolved that a similar representation should be made. The Glasgow daily press, too, speaks favourably of the project, and there is no doubt that public opinion is now ready to support and approve of continued public spirit on the part of the municipality. That so serious and important a task should not be lightly intrusted to any one individual is obvious ; but we have before us notable examples, such as the Manchester Town Hall, to which, as to the recent Manchester Exhibition, Mr. Ford Madox Brown has contributed so many important mural paintings. As the recent Glasgow Exhibition showed, we have also among us artists able and willing to do such work, and whose powers, technical and imaginative, would develop as they proceeded; for of course no one would begin with the most important hall, but would work from minor panels onwards towards a climax. It is unfortunate that our annual exhibition contains no example of designs for mural decoration ; but the more far-seeing painters are doubtless already gathering their sketches, materials, and planning many a symbolic and historic scheme.

The vacancies in the roll of Academicians caused by the deaths of Robert Herdman and Norman Macbeth have been filled by the election of Messrs. William B. Hole and Robert Macgregor.

The New English Art Club has arranged to hold an exhibition of works of art at the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly. Works are to be submitted to the selecting jury, Friday, April 5th. There is every promise that this collection will be of superior excellence to any it has yet shown. Among the successful candidates at the recent election to membership of the society were M. Maurice Lobre, and M. Hellev, whose pictures attracted such attention at the recent Pastel Exhibition.

Edinburgh: T. and A, Constable, Printers to Her Majesty,