Page:Scottishartrevie01unse.djvu/72

56 HE Town Council of Edinburgh, with a laud- able desire to encourage sculpture in Scotland, invited sixteen Scottisli sculptors to enter the com- petition for this Memorial. A bronze statue of the late Dr. William Chambers, 10 feet 6 inches, on a granite pedestal 15 feet high, cost not to exceed ^1250, was specified in the invitation ; and it was stated that the Town Council would have the aid of an 'artist' in judging the models sent in. It might have been well to call in the ' artist,' not only after the designs came in, but before the invitations were sent out. Had that been done, possibly our good Councillors would have specified less material and more art for their money. As it is, to have the work well done may be cal- culated to involve an actual outlay to whoever under- takes the memorial of about =£"1000. Few eminent sculptors would take in hand a piece of work of such magnitude without meaning to expend on it the best part of a couple of years. ^^125 a year would therefore appear to be soniething like the valuation thus placed on art work that is to stand the criti- cism, not only of to-day, but of the centuries. Yet a leading paper bemoans the character of the work sent in by the six sculptors who competed. ' In the submitted designs,' it says, ' a plentiful lack of invention is displayed.' Inferences are drawn as to ' sculpture — or sculptors in Scotland.' Five of the six models sent in showed the late Dr. Chambers in court dress — which he probably never wore more than once or twice in liis life. The treat- ment thus indicated a timidity, or inability, to leave the beaten path of classical prejudice, and cope with the difficulties of present-day costume. Yet these difficulties are not insuperable, as has been demon- strated by the French in their recent monuments — the new Gambetta, for instance, and in such statues as St. Gaudens' Abraham Lincoln. That which is natural, familiar, and agreeable in everyday life should not, surely, be unfit or unworthy of representation in sculpture. It is an absurd fashion, this of handing down to posterity the image of a plain good man, wrapt in the incidental gown of a Lord Provost, and not in his liabit as he lived and moved among us. The coat and trousers cos- tume, marked by the action of the wearer, is not ineloquent of the character of the form beneath. But it is as difficult to model and treat as the nude itself: nothing short of the highest ability can give living interest to those stiff, dry forms. It has been rightly suggested that ' less material bulk ' would have been vehicle enough for the art in this case. It is preposterous to spend four-fifths of the price of a work of art on mere material and mechanical processes. The frame is important, but it is not the picture. It is more particularly art we invest in when we commission a statue, not blocks of stone or tons of metal. Quantity is not ciuality : and, notwithstanding precedent, we think memorial committees would in future do well to order no more of those huge bronzes, which are rather feats of engineering than creations of fine art. Even as architectural adjuncts statues from ten to thirty feet high are questionable things ; but as portraits of great men they utterly fail to strike that chord of human sympathy and love for which they are produced. It may be observed that when a colossal statue is set up, the people feel that they have discharged their duty to the great departed in a visible form, and all further interest ceases with the unveiling. They do not come again and again to view the lineaments of the liero and liberator, and, considering what manner of man he was, allow his image to play its part in ennobling the common mind. Why ? Because such exaggerated forms are unhumanly big, and unlovable as the face of the Sphinx.

Whatever form municipal connection with art may take, it is right that in all undertakings of this kind the public should get the worth of their money. Such monuments should therefore be examples of the best art that can be got, and nothing less than the best. Thus they would not only commemorate the virtues of our citizens but would also record to posterity the highest level of art in the time and place where they are produced. This can never be the case until our municipalities seek the best art guidance available in all matters connected with public buildings, monuments, and purchases of works of art. But they will never do this unguided. It is the clear duty of artists and those who have knowledge of art, in some practical way to make their influence felt. It is the supineness and lack of public spirit of those who know better that makes possible the triumph of bourgeois ideals of art.