l'Art

IT is interesting to observe that L’Art,¹ that excellent magazine, which has recently completed the eleventh year of its useful and ornamental career, does not by any means conform to what may be termed the prevailing standard of taste in the matter of painting, for example, but is very severe and a little sorrowful in speaking of the turn things are taking just now in France. It is interesting, because, from its serious character and influential position, L’Art might be supposed to have settled down into a complacent conservatism ; for though not very aged, it is so solid and well established, with such an orthodox aspect, even to the handsome blue-gray cover with Michel Angelo’s Moses upon its front, that a radical divergence of views between it and the Parisian powers that be in art is rather startling. Mr. Eugène Véron, the editor, is a very intelligent and keen critic, and when he sounds the note of alarm embodied in the phrase " manifest decadence of the French school,” it is not from a mere desire to create a sensation. It requires courage even in such a strong publication as L’Art to attack M. Bouguereau the perfect, and all the official world of art behind him, — the Salon management and the faculty of the School of Fine Arts ; to expose the defects in a system of education established and believed in by professors of a world-wide reputation ; and to espouse the cause of the “ outs ” as against the “ ins.” Mr. Véron is not wholly wrong in this matter. At all events, painting, in France, is neither what it was formerly nor what it should be. To attribute all the blame to the academic system of Messrs. Bouguereau, Cabanel, Boulanger, and Lefêbvre is to go too far, and to hint that such men as Messrs. Ribot, Vollon, and Henner would do better as professors — whatever estimate may be made of their great talent as painters — is at least hazardous. It is not only to the Academy, where the boys are made to realize that

that Mr. Véron must look for the causes of the demoralization which he deplores. The " monde ” which buys pictures is doubtless doing much towards the perversion of taste; for though it is true that the French are a people of good taste, it is an annoying fact that those who possess the most of that commodity are not invariably wealthy. Finally, France is undergoing a vast change, which, as it affects all else, cannot but affect art. It is a period of political, social, and commercial transition and uncertainty, and in accordance with it it is only natural to find the painters groping and experimenting. Whatever tendencies may be developed next, the attitude of L’Art, revolutionary as it seems at present, may be depended upon to represent the good sense of which, indeed, there is no lack in the French character, and which forms the foundation of all good criticism.

L’Art does not devote its attention solely to painting, though that is “ the art ” in France now, as it evidently was in England when Sir Joshua Reynolds and Hazlitt wrote of it. Many excellent papers appear from time to time upon the related arts of design, — papers of a scholarly sort, some of which might be cited as models of studied clearness, of logic, and of style. It is incontestable that in the matter of art criticism the French are far in advance of other nations. The contributors to L’Art are numerous, and most of their names would be unfamiliar to Americans; but we may mention Paul Leroi, André and Emile Michel, Paul Mantz, Charles Clément, E. Durand-Gréville, Eugène Muntz, René Ménard, E. Chesneau, Charles Diehl, G. Dargenty, Charles Yriarte, as writers well known in their own country and thoroughly informed in their respective specialties. The arts of sculpture, music, architecture, acting, are none of them neglected. Perhaps the occasional “ study ” in archæology, by a learned professor, might seem dry to most readers ; but it is a delicious dryness. Altogether, the literary character of L’Art’s contents is of a high order; and the quality of its illustrations is not less so.

One or two etchings accompany each number, the size of the plates varying from 5×6½ to 15×10 inches, which is almost as large as the page. Naturally, the majority of these are reproductions, and as they are the work of many different etchers they suggest many interesting comparisons in regard to workmanship. There is no risk in assigning to the foremost place Mr. Théophile Chauvel, whose style is marked by a delicacy and brilliancy seldom conjoined, and whose interpretations of the Baroness N. de Rothschild’s luminous water-colors are full of rare, silvery tones. Mr. Léon Gaucherel also is a master in this beautiful art, whose touch can be both firm and fine, and whose intelligence and sensibility are made evident in every plate that he produces : his city streets and river scenes are worthy to be named with those of the lamented Méryon. Among the best of the remaining etchings are those of Messrs. Masson, Bocourt, Klaus, Jasinski, Rohr, Woernle, and Leenhoff, though it must be said that the latter’s work, clever as it is, might as well be cut with the burin, for there is in it very little or none of that quality which makes a true etching superior to any other black-and-white picture. Considering how many of the reproductive etchers, in France as elsewhere, began as steel engravers, it is much to their credit that they have been able to unlearn so much, and it is only just to say that there is very little merely mechanical work to be met with. After the etchings, there come various inferior classes of reproductions: wood engravings, heliogravures, and “ process ” engravings. Wood engraving, however, a branch of the art which has been so remarkably developed in this country, is not a prominent feature; for of course the various mechanical processes based on photography cannot be properly called engraving. In L’Art, of late, reproductions of bronzes, marbles, reliefs, and works of sculpture generally are made by Dujardin’s “heliogravure” process. While photography is in a measure false to form, it is much more false to color, so that its employment in the delineation of sculpture leads to the least unsatisfactory results. Nothing is more gratifying than to be enabled to see such noble works as Mr. Mercié’s Le Souvenir, for instance, reproduced in a late issue, or Mr. Croisy’s immensely spirited group of figures for the monument to the Army of the Loire at Le Mans, both conspicuous and welcome proofs that the demoralization which has been noted does not extend to the sculptors of France. As an instance of what can be done in the way of photoprinting, the picture of one of Ghiberti’s gates,opposite page 120, in the justcompleted volume, is worthy of notice for its perfection of detail. No name is given to the ordinary process by which crayon drawings are reproduced: in these there is no attempt at prettiness or an appearance of finish, nor do they have any particular value as illustrations, except in the sense that they illustrate the touch, the feeling, the personal qualities, of their authors, like an autograph inscribed in an album. And this is in perfect accord with the serious character of the text, which is written for the European world of artists and amateurs, — a world where we like to think every one lives and moves and has his being in a pure atmosphere of art, undisturbed by thoughts of money, without care, absorbed in the ever-delightful study of the beautiful in man and nature; but however real or unreal this fancy may be, it is at least pleasant to know that it is a world sufficiently important and rich to support a periodical like L’Art.

It remains to speak of the gravures dans le texte, which are alternately engraved by hand and “ processed,” in accordance with the character of the subject. The profusion of elaborate borders, head and tail pieces, initial letters, etc., drawn for the most part by Mr. Habert-Dys, is almost too much of a good thing; and the exuberance of this clever draughtsman’s fancy might be somewhat curbed with advantage. More sobriety, severity, simplicity, and less space for Mr. Habert-Dys, would be one of the few improvements possible in L’Art’s appearance. Its paper, of a warm and soft cream color; the careful typography, which makes it a pleasure for the eyes to read it; and the irreproachable taste governing each detail, combine to give the magazine an aspect befitting its literary character as an exponent of the fine arts. The lively little weekly printed by the same publisher, Le Courrier de l’Art, which is sent gratis to all subscribers to L’Art, gives the current news concerning art from all parts of Europe, and is the most practical and useful publication of the kind in existence.