Page:The Building News and Engineering Journal, Volume 22, 1872.djvu/453

 May 31, 1872. THE BUILDING NEWS. 431 be called sensational design, and the majority of examples are decidedly above the commonplace. Seale We are enabled to present our subscribers with two views representing the collection of articles sent by Messrs. Cox to the present International Exhibition. On the right hand of the upper view is the fireplace and chimney breast of which we have given a description ; in front of it is an ingenious lectern ; to the left in the same view is the high cabinet or enclosed bookcase from Mr. Nicholl’s design, and in the centre are a richly-carved Glaston- bury chair and a pretty stand for several pots of flowers. In the lower view, on the left is Mr. Talbert’s altar piece, in front of which is the font by Mr. Nicholl, with cover by Mr. Talbert, and to the right of these is Mr. Moyr Smith’s cabinet, in the centre panels of which are the two paintings by Mr. Rossiter to which we have called especial attention. The other numerous articles must speak for themselves as well as they can upon this small seale, which, we may say, does not do justice to the carefully-wrought detail which distin- guishes most of these works by Messrs. Cox, varied as is their character. —————— THE EXHIBITION OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY. [SECOND NOTICE. ] TX our former notice of the pictures and works of art in the present Exhibition of the Royal Academy, we ventured to remark on the nature of the criticism which greeted the artists as their works annually came before the public. Criticism such as this is little calculated to improve the art or the artist, being for the most part influenced by personal friendship for the painter, or for the clique in which he moves. This makes criticism a very easy task, learnt far more readily even than the connoisseurship of the Vicar of Wakefield’s son’s friend, since he had, besides praising the works of Pietro Perugino, to add, “that the picture would have been better painted had the artist taken more pains;” whereas, the larger the work, and the less the pains taken, the more now is the painter favoured by the critic, and promoted to rank with the great masters Michael Angelo and Raphael. Then, again, there are critics who think their friends are exalted by sacrificing the reputation and skill of everyone else in their fayour, and critics who write in the in- terests of dealers, and solely to uphold these latters’ clients. It is true that the artist in some respects calls for the judgment of the educated public by placing his pictures on the walls of the Exhibition, but so do Messrs. Howell & James by placing their dresses in the windows of their establishment in Water- loo-place; yet it would be thought rather unseemly, if not actionable, were a critic to fulminate his hostile judgment against the tradesman’s taste, and to condemn the un- fortunate modiste to the loss of the sale of his goods, merely to promote some neighbour's interests, merely because the said neigh- bour feasted him with that end in view. But while we thus condemn the critics we must not- blindly praise the painters, nor consider that everything they do is free from blame; and we cannot deny that in this year’s Academy there is a tendency evidently developing to make up in size what is wanting in quality. Quantity is but a poor compensation for true completion and labour rightly bestowed, nor will real genius supply these defects. A painter is bound to give us of his best, and to put us off with what is only scamped work, and to depend upon his known talent and his favour with the public to make up for his whole might, is to act unfairly—to work out an untruth which will not only disappoint the true lovers of good art, but which will rebound with injurious effect upon the painter’s future works. Nothing is easier to get out of than the habit of doing one’s work thoroughly, zealously, and with one’s whole mind. It is also unfair that a yard of canvas occupied with an uninteresting gray background should occupy the space that a_highly- wrought bit of landscape might worthily fill, or that dogs rather larger than life should be placed level with the eye, while the care- fully-laboured head of a full-length portrait should be raised so high to make room for them that the entire detail of the face is invisible. Mr. <Ansdell’s largest “Found” (364); it is also one of his best. He has in this Exhibition the full number of works allowed to an Academician. No. 363, ‘‘A Dream of Fair Women,” by Mr. Armitage, is somewhat stiff, but cer- tainly effective as a decorative picture. This picture here is artist's works err in being too coldly academic. Does not Mr. Armitage make a mistake in numbering Semiramis as one of the women of the Old Testament? Mr. Hodgson is represented by two powerful pictures—(127) ‘‘ Army Reorganisation in Mexico,” in which the different attitudes and postures of the recruits are humorously given, while the varied hues of the garments afford capital scope for rich and juicy bits of colour, and (3855) ‘The Snake Charmer.” Mr. Frith seems to us to be one of those painters who is not working up to his full powers. His picture in the great room, (197) ‘*An Incident in the Life of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu” is poor in subject, and so is (470) ‘‘ Henry VIII. and Anne Boleyn.” It is a curious fact that Mr. Tonnier seems unable to paint a picture with- out its having a cloister in it; it is merely used as a background in “ Recruits of the League” (1007), but still there it is. No. 1031, ‘A Jacobite’s Farewell,” by ‘T. Green, is an original subject capitally carried out. Mr. F. Barwell has made a great step in his art this year. No. 370, ‘‘ A Sister of Mercy,” is good in colour and carefully painted, while the subject, though somewhat painful, is well thought out and arranged. The same painter has a posthumous portrait of Dr. Ainslie (611). Quite a young artist, Mr. W. Onless, has two capital portraits here, evidently excellent as like- nesses, (305) ‘J. Turner, Esq.,” and (366) “ J. Rous, Esq.” Many women are strong in their pictures at the Academy this year. Miss Starr has two portraits and a subject picture (345) ‘Scene from the ‘Merchant of Venice.” She has chosen the moment when Bassanio receives Antonio’s letter, the very subject which Newton de- lineated so beautifully. Notwithstanding this drawback, Miss Starr’s picture is entirely different in treatment, and the story is well told. Another work of merit is that by Mrs. Anderson (444), a boy tickling a little girl with a blade of grass; the determination of the child not to laugh is well done, and the merry twinkle in her eye is capital. On the whole, though meretricious in colour, it isa clever bit of painting,and however slight the subject, the story is well told, andthe expres- sion excellent. Mrs. Ward’s picture (510), ‘¢'The Queen’s Lodge,” is not equal to her last year’s work, though the head of Mrs. Delaney is well drawn. No. 543, ‘* The Pied Piper of Hamelin,” another lady’s work, by Miss A. M. Lea, is also originally treated, though swarms of rats do not suggest pleasant ideas. Miss Wells has chosen a pleasing sub- ject in (615) ‘* Oranges and Lemons,” that pretty child’s game, and if itis a little wanting in strength, it errs at least on the side of delicacy, which cannot be said of all the works we have criticised. The Academy seems this year rather to have avoided hanging pictures by foreign painters, feeling, no doubt, that these latter would be amply represented at the Interna- tional Exhibition, yet, besides three by their own honorary member, Gallait, there are some few of a high order of merit. M. Gallait’s portrait of his little grand-daughter (No. 908) is evidently an exact likeness, painted with a ready brush, and well executed, but with very little feeling for beauty. How unlike the method in which Sir Joshua Reynolds would have treated a similar subject ! He has aiso two large pictures called ‘‘ Peace” (1005), and “ War” (1006), which latter is so very painful that we should be surprised if any one could bear it in the room where he lived. Though both clever works they are rather painty. In ‘Tissot is another foreign painter who has two exceedingly clever pictures here. They are so originally con- ceived and so carefully executed, that they have a peculiar and ready attraction which increases as you look into them. No. 889 ‘*An Interesting Story,” is curiously realistic ; three people are seated round a table ina bow window looking out upon the Thames ; one, a girl in a picturesque mob cap, is listening attentively to a naval man, who is evidently relating his adventures with the aid of amap which is lying upon the table. The same girl reappears as a model again in (644) ‘‘The Farewell,” bidding adieu to her lover at the garden gate in the dusk of the evening. ‘The colour here is quiet, but very truthful, and the dead white of the girl’s dress is most effectively wrought out. No. 973, ‘‘ Age and Infancy,” by J. Israels, is one of this painter’s best works. The grandfather's happy absorption in the game of soldiers he is playing for the sake of his tiny grandchild is well given. The acces- sories are real without intruding upon the eye, and the chubby side face of the- childis charming. Israelsand Faed resemble- one another in their choice of subjects, but the foreigner restrains his palette in order that his colour may not obtrude upon his subject, while Faed, by his rather mere- tricious colouring, sometimes takes away from the interest of his story. It would be useless in our small space to particularise many of the water-colour draw- ings in the present collection, which are evidently far larger in quantity than the- Academy can be said to have proper space for. We noticed one very pleasant bit of colour, a simple subject of some ladies crossing a street in the wet, called ‘A Rainy Sunday,” No. 779, by E. R. Hughes; a very happy bit of landscape, ‘‘ Florizel and Perdita” by Mr. Redgrave ; and (833), a portrait of a child, called ‘“ Flossy,” by J. M. Jopling, which, though evidently suggested by Millais’ por- traits, is a clever bit of painting. These are in the lecture-room, besides some good pictures—as, for instance, Mr. Houghton’s “John the Baptist Rebuking Herod,” three very first-rate original drawings for Punch by Du Maurier, and one or two capital minia- tures. ——>—__—_. BLUNT RAZORS. TWO shave with an oyster knife would be an operation equivalent to that daily im- posed upon architects, who are required to erect structures replete with feeling and art through the medium of incompetent builders. Competence to carry out an architectural work satisfactorily is not to be confounded with integrity and possession of adequate capital and plant. It does not even consist in personal intelligence and ability to compre- hend drawings and instructions. It must certainly comprise all the qualities and matters aforenamed, but many others besides, and not only must the contractor himself be willing and able to do what he is told, but his foremen and workmen must be so likewise. Through experience alone can all this be attained, and architects know full well that not in the course of one work alone, or even of several, can they drill a staff of men into comprehension of what they deem to hea proper character of work. ‘To do so at all, even if themselves equal to the task of direct- ing all the several tradesmen they have to deal with, is no easy task; indeed, it can only be approximately attained. How then, is success