Cotmania. Vol. IX. 1933-4

[Kiston note]
Sunday Times, Oct 29 33

/

[Article]

ALLUSION IN ART, PAINTERS AS BORROWERS, THE CRIME OF BERTRAM NICHOLLS, By Frank Rutter

It is an extraordinary thing that whereas in the sister art of literature it is universally recognised that enjoyment of an author is heightened by subtle allusion to or apt quotation from the classics, in painting and sculpture any clear reference to the work of a great predecessor is generally tabooed. What is accounted a virtue, a token of scholarship, in poetry or prose, is regarded in any practitioner of the Fine Arts as a sign of depravity. To-day there is no surer or swifter way of damning an artist than to declare roundly he is not " original."
Yet what exactly do we mean by this much-abused word, original? In one of his Discourses Reynolds has told us: —

Raphael began by imitating implicitly the manner of Pietro Perugino, under whom he studied, hence his first works are scarcely to be distinguished from his master's.

Sir Joshua then describes how Raphael went on to imitate the grand outline of Michelangelo and the colour of Leonardo; and he concludes his tribute to this serene genius by saying that Raphael was 44 always imitating and always original." I am sorely tempted to apply this striking phrase to Mr. Bertram Nicholls, whose first exhibition of water-colours has just opened at the Fine Art Society. For in his own eminently distinguished way Mr. Bertram Nicholls has evolved a personal style by diligent study of our eighteenth-century masters.
That Mr. Nicholls's pure water-colours are noble in conception and magistral in craftsmanship can hardly be denied ; yet many who admit their beauty may feel a little guilty in so doing, fearing lest superior wisdom may pronounce this sensitive scholar to be an artist " not entirely original."

ORIGINALITY

Listen ! There is not, and never has been, an entirely original painter. All artists are borrowers ; but some conceal their pilfering. It is less easy to detect an act of looting from catacomb paintings (Matisse), or negro sculpture of uncertain date (Picasso), than in the work of one who helps himself openly to the treasures of the classics. The crime of Bertram Nicholls is not that he has borrowed, but that he has taken his cash from an unfashionable till.
Twenty years ago I was greatly attracted by Gauguin's phrase. "In art there are : only revolutionists or plagiarists." Now that I am older—and I hope a little wiser —I see that in the last thousand years at least there have been no revolutionists in art. All painters and sculptors are plagiarists, and the only difference between them j is whether they build their own particular style on an older or newer tradition.
Gauguin's newness consisted in his reversion to an older style, and he would have been nearer the truth had he said. " In art there are only reactionaries and progressives." He himself, of course, was a reactionary, just as to-day Stanley Spencer and Matisse are reactionaries while Steer and Bonnard are progressives. I assume, if there be any difference at all between reactionaries and progressives, that the progressive painter is a man who builds on a newer tradition in preference to an older one; and old as the principles of impressionism are, it is at least a newer tradition than that bequeathed by the primitives. It, is the height of folly to jump to the conclusion that a painter must be good
because he follows one particular tradition. It is no more meritorious to paint in the style of Cezanne than in the style of Titian, except, perhaps, that it is infinitely more diflicult to do the latter with success. It can be done, however, as Delacroix proved.
Excellence in painting is not so much a question of kind as of degree. The fatal error made by so many contemporary painters is believing that the way to salvation is to follow the tradition most in vogue at the moment. They confuse an ephemera! fashion with eternal excellence.

STYLE

Some traditions are certainly better than others, but the important thing is what the artist makes for himself out of the tradition of his choice. Picasso achieved some admirable early paintings by fusing the traditions of Goya, Daumier, and Lautrec. Braque has produced meritorious paintings under the influence of Picasso's later work ; but these paintings are good, not because they are in a semi-cubist style, but because Braque is a good craftsman in pigment, has a nice taste in colour, and considerable skill in decorative design. These are the qualities which give Braque's works such value as they possess ; and these qualities would be present in whatever style he painted. The quality of a wine is revealed by its bouquet and flavour ; not by the shape of the flask in which it is served. Style is only a container, and the things inside it are the things that matter.
These things being so, it does not matter very much whether you are progressive or reactionary. Progress—if you believe in the thing more than Dean Inge and I do -possibly has its own reward. The justification for reaction, of course, is reculer pour mieux sauter. If you choose to retire before you leap, it is not certain you can jump further forward the farther you go back. Each artist must judge his own distance.
It might be thought that if you are an English painter, you could do worse than go back to a fine old English tradition. That is what Mr. Bertram Nicholls has done, he has gone back to Richard Wilson (9, 14. 18), Cozens (10, 24), and to Cotman (13, 42), as we may see by his water- colours at the Fine Art Society.
That is a very dangerous thing to have done. It is many years since much attention was paid to English painting in the best English circles. Foreign goods are preferred. As for our eighteenth-century art, it is only esteemed by hopelessly old- fashioned people who persist in liking (Chippendale and Sheraton better than brand-new steel furniture. What Goths!
However good your work may be—and nobody capable of recognising fine craftsmanship, noble design, integrity of drawing and soft, mellow colour, can deny the beauty of Mr. Nicholls's water-colours—yet to worship reverently at the shrine of Wilson, Reynolds, Cozens, and Cotman is tantamount to contradicting the opinions of all the best advertised professors of the Fine! Arts. To go back to English painting of the | eighteenth century, and worse still, to make a good job of it, I fear will be regarded as an unpardonable sin in that sanctuary of culture, the Courtauld Institute. I even doubt whether Bertram Nicholls can hope to be elected a member of the London Group. He must be content to remain the President of the Royal Society of British Artists and go down to posterity with his predecessor Hurlstone and other good men who knew how to paint, but never realised the importance of publicity.