North American Review, January 1848.

(Go to summary of review, 'Modern Painters', North American Review, January 1848, pp. 110-45.)

The sole purpose of the book... seems to be to maintain the strange proposition that the old landscape-painters of the seventeenth century were very mean and ordinary artists, and that Mr Turner and certain other modern English painters are immeasurably their superiors. (p. 111)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It has already acquired great popularity, having passed through three editions in England, and been reprinted here. (p. 112)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The 'truth of nature' is the constantly recurring phrase by which the author estimates the value of art. If he had confined his conclusions within as narrow limits as he has his reasons for them, the question would be comparatively of little importance, because this mere fidelity to detail which marks individual nature is of far less value than the other requirements of art... But when, because Claude, Gaspar, and Salvator make the trunks of their trees taper when they should not... and because Mr Turner imitates with marvellous exactness the reflection of a signpost in the water... such distinctions are made the basis of the most sweeping denial of all merit on the one side, and of the most extravagant laudation on the other, the true purpose of art is overlooked; which is not simply to put into gilt frames that which can be seen at any time... by looking out of doors; but to select the finest realities of nature and combine them into one consistent ideal scene... such a scene as possibly might, but certainly never did, exist, but of which nature furnishes the inexhaustible materials.

We are aware that the author in his preface denies that he draws such general conclusions against the old masters from this want of the truth of nature; and this denial is not less discreditable to him from its disingenuousness, than is the error for which it attempts an apology.

Of the old masters I have spoken with far greater freedom; but let it
be remembered that only a portion of the work is now presented to the
public, and it must not be supposed, because in that particular portion,
and with reference to particular excellencies, I have spoken in constant
depreciation, that I have no feeling of other excellencies of which cogni
zance can only be taken in future parts of the work. Let me not be
understood to mean more than I have said, nor be made responsible for
conclusions when I have only stated facts. I have said that the old masters
did not give the truth of Nature; if the reader chooses, thence, to infer that
they were not masters at all, it is his conclusion, not mine.
Go to the passage in Modern Painters I

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Again of those who have been universally allowed to excel all others in rendering the truth of water:-

                                                                                              [T]he water painting of
all the elder landscape painters, excepting a few of the better passages
of Claude and Ruysdael, is so execrable, so beyond all expression
and explanation bad; and Claude's and Ruysdael's best so cold and
valueless, that I do not know how to address those who like such
painting; I do not know what their sensations are respecting sea.
I can perceive nothing in Vandevelde or Backhuysen of the lowest
redeeming merit; no power, no presence of intellect -or evidence
of perception -of any sort or kind ; no resemblance -even the.
feeblest-of anything natural; no invention-even the most sluggish
of anything agreeable[.]
Go to the passage in Modern Painters I

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Of Claude, Salvator, and Gaspar:-

                                                                                      There is no evi-
dence of their ever having gone to nature with any thirst, or
received from her such emotion as could make them, even for an
instant, lose sight of themselves; there is in them neither earnest
ness nor humility ; there is no simple or honest record of any
single truth; none of the plain words nor straight efforts that men
speak and make when they once feel[.]
Go to the passage in Modern Painters I

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Having admitted, by way of prophesying, this power in Ruysdael, when he supposed it had never been exercised, it is amusing to observe the unwilling praise with which he follows up this discovery of it in his last edition:-

There is a sea-piece of Ruysdael's in the Louvre' which, though
nothing very remarkable in any quality of art, is at least forceful,
agreeable, and, as far as it goes, natural; the waves have much
freedom of action, and power of colour; the wind blows hard over
the shore, and the whole picture may be studied with profit as a
proof that the deficiency of colour and everything else in Backhuysen's
works, is no fault of the Dutch sea[.]
Go to the passage in Modern Painters I

He really seems to forget that this Dutch sea was painted by one of those two painters whose best works he still persists in pronouncing so cold and valueless. (p.118)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

We do not propose to remark upon all the merely untenable and extravagant general propositions laid down by the author; but there are two, which he supports by such odd reasons, that we will state them briefly as specimens of the kind of logic which satisfies his mind. He denies the doctrine of Sir Joshua Reynolds... that the truth sought to be expressed by art should be, not particular, but general truth; that is, that a picture should not be a collection of portraits of particular persons or particular things. Now this doctrine is undoubtedly just. (p.127)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Particular truths are more important, and therefore more proper to be painted, than general ones; and he thus reasons it out syllogistically:-

                                                    If I say that all men in China are opium
eaters, I say something interesting, because my subject (all men) is
general. If I say that all men in China eat, I say nothing inter
esting, because my predicate (eat) is general. If I say that all men
in China eat opium, I say something interesting, because my pre
dicate (eat opium) is particular.
Now almost everything which (with reference to a given subject)
a painter has to ask himself whether he shall represent or not, is a
predicate. Hence in art, particular truths are usually more important
than general ones[.]
Go to the passage in Modern Painters I

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Again the author contends that form is more important in painting than colour; and he proves it thus:-

According to Locke, Book ii. chap. 8, there are three sorts of
qualities in bodies : first, the "bulk, figure, number, situation, and
motion or rest of their solid parts : those that are inthem, whether
we perceive them or not." These he calls primary qualities.
Secondly,---the power that is in any body to operate after a pecu
liar manner on any of our senses" (sensible qualities). And thirdly,
"the power that is in any body to make such a change in another
body as that it shall operate on our senses differently from what it
did before : these last being usually called powers."
Hence he proceeds to prove that those which he calls primary
qualities are indeed part of the essence of the body, and charac
teristic of it ; but that the two other kinds of qualities which
together he calls secondary, are neither of them more than powers
of producing on other objects, or in us, certain effects , and sensa
tions. Now a power of influence is always equally characteristic of
two objects-the active and passive; for it is as much necessary
that there should be a power in the object suffering to receive the
impression, as in the object acting, to give the impression. (Com-
pare Locke, Book ii. chap. 21, sect. 2.) For supposing two people,
as is frequently the case, perceive different scents in the same
flower, it is evident that the power in the flower to give this or
that depends on the nature of their nerves, as well as on that of
its own particles ; and that we are as correct in saying it is a
power in us to perceive, as in the object to impress. Every power,
therefore, being characteristic of the nature of two bodies, is im
perfectly and incompletely characteristic of either separately; but the
primary qualities, being characteristic only of the body in which
they are inherent, are the most important truths connected with it.
For the question, what the thing is, must precede, and be of more
importance than the question, what can it do.
Now, by Locke's definition above given, only bulk, figure,
situation, and motion or rest of solid parts, are primary qualities
Hence all truths of colour sink at once into the second rank. He
therefore, who has neglected a truth of form for a truth of colour
has neglected a greater truth for a less one[.]
Go to the passage in Modern Painters I

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If the author had been more faithful to this love of actual and particular nature than to watercolours, he would have done better justice to Constable. (p. 135)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

We have abstained from any remarks on what is said of Mr Turner, because we have no doubt of his excellence... Of his earlier oil paintings we have already expressed our admiration; of his later ones we have nothing to say, because they are to us totally incomprehensible... It would be easy to describe them as ridiculous; but if they are errors, they are those of genius, and the ridicule more properly belongs to those who encourage by pretending to understand them. (p. 145)

CW

Close