Read Ebook: Spanish Painting by Beruete Y Moret A De Aureliano Holme C Geoffrey Charles Geoffrey Editor Spence Lewis Translator

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 78 lines and 22696 words, and 2 pages

Editor: Geoffrey Holme

SPANISH PAINTING

TEXT BY A. DE BERUETE Y MORET

EDITED BY GEOFFREY HOLME "THE STUDIO," LTD., LONDON, PARIS, NEW YORK

LIST OF ARTISTS WHOSE WORKS ARE REPRODUCED IN THIS VOLUME

IN COLOURS

IN MONOTONE

SPANISH PAINTING--WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE EXHIBITION AT BURLINGTON HOUSE, LONDON NOVEMBER, 1920 TO JANUARY, 1921

The exhibition of Spanish Painting held in London in the galleries of the Royal Academy from November to January last, excited a lively interest in the English public and inspired numerous articles on the subject in English journals and reviews. If all of these were not in accord on certain issues and critics adopted various points of view, it may still be said that the crowds of visitors which it attracted and the manifold expressions of opinion it evoked supply the clearest evidence that the exhibition aroused the curiosity of the English public, and consequently may be regarded as a triumph for Spanish art and a success for its promoters.

The reasons underlying the interest which Spanish art awakens to-day in enlightened circles are worthy of reflection and may be said to have inspired the Royal Academy's exhibition.

Spain--her life, history, customs, art--is often regarded subjectively as though enveloped in a haze, or through the medium of legend, which, however accommodating it may be to literary expression, is by no means conformable to the facts of history or present realities. Viewed in this picturesque manner and because of the isolation in which the country remained for generations, and perhaps still remains, it has attracted the attention of writers and poets, and even scientists and philosophers, unfamiliar with their theme and dubious in their assertions. Doubtless the typical, the true native spirit has not been misunderstood by the outside world. Thus in the case of Cervantes and Vel?zquez, their names are household words in every land. But the kind of knowledge to which we allude is not usually imparted by such lofty spirits, who speak to humanity from the heights, without distinctions of race or frontier. That which they accomplish is only a part of the national achievement. It is the medium in which it is fashioned, the environment in which it comes into being, its artistic matrix, which determines the precise type of racial endeavour. To its national character the new Spain cleaves, and by its light her ideas will be readjusted, her history interpreted, her present respected as in line with her tradition, which, in the sphere of things artistic, Spaniards regard as a potent factor in the advancement of world art.

It is not easy to state precisely in what this ultimate expression consists, but on general lines it is possible to affirm of Spanish artists that their work is characterised by a decided tendency towards sincerity, simplicity of composition and tonal harmonies in grey. Vel?zquez appears to have fixed the character of the Spanish palette and technique: the scale of very subtle greys, the harmonies of grey and silver, the use of certain carmines and violets, first encountered in the work of Greco, were tested and employed by him, as were those coloured earths especially indigenous to Spain, the earth of Seville and the preparation of animal charcoal, the use of which is noticeable in his canvases. These determined the material elements by the aid of which was developed a method of painting as simple as characteristic. Vel?zquez, like the painters of the great Italian school and the schools of the North, grew tired of conventionalism in colour and perspective, and, employing an exuberant palette and gifted with vision of extraordinary keenness, turned to the natural, and, with the lesson of Greco before him, and by aid of his own gifts of observation, sincerity, and a supreme simplicity, did not employ more than the necessary colours to obtain those gradations of tone which to our eyes appear so natural and present the harmony afforded by reality, the master by choice and temperament inclining to those in which were combined all the shades of grey. He created by his unique palette the true and unmistakable Spanish style. Goya, more than a hundred years after him, during the close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, a period when the national characteristics tended towards insipidity, maintained this traditional spirit and thus saved Spanish painting from becoming confounded with the works of his contemporaries in France and England.

The years which followed those of Goya, the remainder of the nineteenth century, those years of easy communication, of rapid transit, of frequent travelling, of international study and residence abroad, so much more advanced in some respects, were less rich for Spanish painting. Spanish artists, absent from their country, engaged in many departments of work and instruction, lost something of their former qualities. At the present time, in which there seems to have been born into the world a new assertion and exaltation of nationality, Spaniards have regained their ancient spirit, and while aspiring to absolute modernity, remain faithful to a tradition which is peculiarly their own, which makes for national individuality, and has caused them to be regarded with that interest which always accrues to the original, the characteristic, the intelligent, and consequently arouses attention and anticipation.

England has ever followed the progress of Spanish art with enthusiasm and interest. During the nineteenth century, the majority of the works of art which left Spain found a resting place in England. In London within recent years three exhibitions of Spanish painting ante-dated that of 1920--one in the New Gallery , another in the Guildhall , and the last in the Grafton Gallery . All of them were rich in results, more especially the third, which was remarkable for its modern section. The difference in character between the exhibition of 1913 and that of the Royal Academy in 1920 consists more especially in the display of works belonging to English collections, the latter being composed for the most part of examples sent from Spain as an act of homage to the English people, and to assure them once more of the existence of a spiritual bond or tie between the two countries, which with the passage of time aspire to a more intimate relationship.

It was at first the intention of the organisers of the exhibition of 1920 not to send as representative of the older art any except the works of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and a few pictures by Goya, as examples of the golden age of Spanish painting, and especially in view of the exceptional interest in Goya. But it was ultimately decided to furnish an exhibit completely representative of all epochs. At the same time the Spanish Committee recognised that the section devoted to Primitive Art--in which among the many artists represented the most remarkable was Ribera--was lacking in distinction. This it regretted and felt a pleasure in its ability to compensate for the omission by providing a full representation of the greater Spanish painters, and in being able to lend ten Grecos and twenty-one Goyas, preserved in Spain, to Burlington House, a thing until now impossible of accomplishment and which it will not be easy to repeat.

The works of the primitive period placed on view, though all of peculiar interest, and several of striking character, were still inadequate to give a just idea of the development of early art in the Iberian Peninsula. The first essays of Spanish art were indeed lacking in national characteristics. At a time when Italy and Flanders produced painters of distinctive note, Spain, and perhaps the whole Peninsula--for in this connection we must not forget Portugal--filled its churches, monasteries and convents with panels and altarpieces. With the exception of the names of several artists now identified, all of its productions are of doubtful paternity, its style is borrowed and in general is distinguished only by the possession of regional characteristics of a minor kind. Therefore the paintings on panel that it produced are to-day referred to, in order to distinguish them one from another, as belonging to the Castilian, Portuguese, Catalan, Aragonese or Valencian Schools. For this there is an historical reason. The Peninsula, at the time in which its early art was produced, was divided into different kingdoms and states, each absolutely independent and having its own history and traditions. Thus the kingdom of Aragon, with Valencia, was intimately connected with the Mediterranean, and came within the sphere of Italian influence. Castile was more closely related to the states of Flanders and the Rhine, admitting and developing Flemish and German tendencies. Catalonia possessed an art very similar to that of Provence. But I believe that all this work, chaotic, lacking in national expression, and in determinative characteristics, presents a difficult problem for its investigators. Add to this that these panels and altarpieces were often the joint work of several artists, one painting costumes, others specialising in heads and hands, others in drapery, still others in backgrounds, so that the whole resulted frequently in a composition confused and equivocal. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that the production of this time was large, rich and of great merit, so far as that can be attained by a race of colourists who were lacking in discipline and insight.

This manifestation of pictorial art did not obtrude itself in any decided manner until the fourteenth century. To discover its origin we may have to compare it with the miniatures in the manuscripts of San Isidor, or the archaic mural decorations traceable by Byzantine art, and it would seem to possess a greater archaeological than artistic interest.

Spanish art during the last years of the thirteenth century and until two centuries later is so incomplete in its details, presents so many diverse aspects, and the circumstances of its rise and tendency are so vague, that to venture any general opinions regarding it would be unwise. Its study has recently been confined to short monographs by various critics and scholars, both Spanish and foreign, which do not go beyond the discussion of specific works and artists, and the particular investigation of obscure titles and documents exhumed from the archives.

The arrival of Starnina and the Florentine Dello at the Court of Juan I of Castile in the second half of the fourteenth century, appears to have given a very great impetus to that style to which the Spanish painters were growing accustomed. But this Italianism notwithstanding, Flemish influences penetrated, if more lately, still more rapidly into Spain. The early Spaniards pursued and sought a realism in art which they were unable to find in that of Italy, hence their predilection for the style and manner of the Flemish and German painters and those of other countries whom they came to call painters of the North. The appearance of Van Eyck in the Peninsula in 1428, and that of other Flemish painters who arrived there about that time, aroused a true enthusiasm and imparted to Spanish art a tendency to copy faithfully from nature which henceforth came to be one of the characteristics which have never left it. Among these painters of the North it is strange to find, a little before the middle of the fifteenth century, an artist called Jorge Ingl?s , so named, without doubt, from his origin, who did some important work, especially in the hospital of Buitrago, the study of which we heartily commend to the English public and critics. We should like to have sent this work to the exhibition of the Royal Academy, but its enormous dimensions, as well as other circumstances, rendered this impracticable.

Arising at the close of the epoch of national unity, the House of Austria, in the person of its most exalted representative, the Emperor Charles V, commenced to govern the destinies of Spain. The victorious expansion of Spanish arms, both in the Old World and the New, during the first half of the sixteenth century, had but little influence upon artistic effort, and none of the Spanish painters of this period are regarded as the equals of their Italian, Flemish, German or Dutch contemporaries. And our artists, at a time when the entire national fortunes were hazarded in campaign after campaign, had enough to do to maintain an epoch of gestation, to comprehend the laws and trace the spiritual current of the Renaissance which now dawned upon the world of culture. This great movement failed also to take a national direction with Spanish artists, and the few books and treatises on art printed in Spain during this period are poor in conception and lacking in information.

We come now to the reign of the son of Charles V, Philip II, a man whose memory has had to endure much criticism, but to whom, from the point of view of art, his country owes not a few of those works which it treasures most. The portraits of Moro, a wealth of Flemish and Italian paintings and, among others, a very complete collection of Titians, are due to the commands of Philip II, who, before he shut himself up in the Monastery of the Escurial, and during his visits to Italy, Germany and Flanders, was gathering choice examples of the art of that time, and of the period immediately preceding it, installing in the castles of Spain those paintings which are to-day the most important of the foreign collections housed in the Prado Museum.

About the year 1575 there came from Italy to the city of Toledo, a young artist, scarcely thirty years of age, born in the island of Crete, of Greek parents. He was called Domenico Theotocopuli, and was known then, as he is to-day throughout the whole world, as El Greco There was reserved for this man the mission of shaping and, in the course of time, perfecting through the medium of his works, a technique, especially as regards execution, performance and character, which is manifest in all his creations, and the great enthusiasm which the lovers of Spanish Art evince for it is natural and explicable. The fame which the first works of El Greco aroused in Toledo reached the Court, and Philip II commanded him to work in the Monastery of the Escurial on pictures for the Church. They were at issue from time to time, the King and the painter, and do not quite seem to have understood one another. Philip II, used to an Italian and Flemish artistic atmosphere, and an enthusiastic admirer of Titian, was unable to comprehend the work of El Greco, which, though of the Venetian tradition, represented an innovation profound and complete, and to-day, as four centuries ago, it perplexes many people. But lovers of Spain, those who apprehend her true genius and have studied her characteristics and idiosyncrasies, see in El Greco one of the most interesting figures in international art. In the spirit which appears in his works, the genius with which they have been performed, the marvellous technique developed in them, and the workmanship which gives such brilliance and quality to the colour, so that it appears at times to have been executed with enamels, he triumphs, disarming criticism, making us not only forget, but even applaud the extravagances and lack of proportion of which his works are full.

In this collection of his works, as indeed, in all those from the brush of this master, one could study the origin of the greyish tonality characteristic of the Spanish school which he was the first to introduce and give effect to, and to which Vel?zquez, in later years, gave definite form, thus founding a technical characteristic of the school. It may interest those curious regarding such problems of painting that the shadows which abound in the works of El Greco, though intense, are never black, and this lends to them a singular profundity and atmosphere. From this relation of the light and shade, never attaining a pure black or white, there results a wonderful transparency and corporality, and all this is attained with fluid colours, in most instances blurred and rubbed and nearly always rather soft, slight only in the brighter places and in the points of light. He observes and understands that the reproduction of these things in the art of the painter is not due to faithful copying alone. The atmosphere, the light, the reflections, which these objects display to our sight, change according to conditions, and are represented on canvas not as they actually appear, but according to the aspect they present to the vision, modified by external agencies. Only thus is it possible to obtain the impression of truth, of movement, of depth. In the work of the copyist the objects and figures are petrifications, rigid and dead, in one and the same plane, in which, perhaps, the ability of the artist can more readily be appreciated, but which never gives the impression of movement or of life.

Distinctive as a creator, originator and master of technique, statements regarding El Greco's artistic antecedents are debatable, as for example the relationship to other masters of Byzantinism which some profess to be able to discern in his pictures. But it remains clear that in his typical works he is above all the true interpreter of the Spain that was noble, pious and mystical, and the most sympathetic delineator of the spirit of the time in which he lived. We believe that it is correct to regard him as the adopted son of the Spain of his day.

Although his work has been discussed since the times of Philip II, to-day it ought to be regarded as consecrated. It is not only among painters that we should seek the true influence of El Greco. It is more extensive, and embraces diverse manifestations, therefore the causes which animate it are diverse. And so, in the studios of painters, in the studies of the cultured, among wise and refined critics, among literati, we may discover the most fervent and impassioned lovers of El Greco. There exists, without doubt, an invisible bond between this painter and the world of modern intellectualism, and this is owing in great part to the enthusiasm which his works arouse, to the peculiar mystery in which they are enveloped--which we do not find in any other painter--to the suggestive power which he wields, to something which impassions and completely subdues us. It is for this reason that disciples of El Greco, who in past years were scarce, are to-day a legion in number, and their pictures, once unknown and without value, are now celebrated and occupy prominent positions in museums and private collections.

Neither Tristan, nor Mayno, nor Jorge Manuel Theotocopuli are figures sufficiently important to allow us to say that El Greco, their master, founded a school, much less that he formed with them the so-called Toledan school, which, in reality, had no existence and did not give rise to an output from that city possessing those marked characteristics which would place it in the category of a school.

The frequency with which he represented tatterdemalions, beggars, martyrs, saints, scenes of violence, of torture, of asceticism, marks, as everyone knows, the style of Ribera in its more superficial sense, and there is scarcely a scene of horror nor a picture of exaggerated tenebrosity belonging to that period and of Spanish tendency, which has not been attributed to him by persons of slight experience, so typical of him are these qualities, in which, moreover, he has no equal. Quite as exceptional are his vigour, his skilful modelling--which has the appearance of sculpture--and the anatomical construction of his figures, the effects of lighting which he knows how to achieve, and the exact appearance of reality, accentuated, but never repugnant, which he accomplishes. Always in touch with reality, two styles are apparent in his work: one, in which he appears to have revelled in violence of contrast, seeking out scenes of grief, old age or death; and another, less frequent it is true, in which he represents the more serene and placid aspects of reality.

It is a pity that the London exhibition did not have a full and brilliant display of the work of this master, as thereby his fame, which to-day is, in our judgment, less than he merits, for reasons expressed above, might have been securely founded. It is necessary to mention among the Valencians of this period Espinosa and Orrente.

In Seville, as we have said, Pacheco was at the height of his fame, the master of all, the fount of culture. But the technique of this school at that time was under the influence of a man of a perplexing and stubborn genius, little suited by character as a guide for youth, but still animated by the Spanish spirit, subtle in technique and possessing a notable force of expression. The young men followed his style, which was in consonance with the progressive tendency of their years. We refer to Herrera el Viejo one of the most remarkable painters Spain has ever produced. But it is a curious circumstance that those disciples who worked in the atelier of Herrera, unable to get much guidance from the master, soon betook themselves to the house of Pacheco, who, intelligent and comprehensive, did not attempt to misdirect the temperament and the inclinations of his young pupils, but set them to the task of faithfully interpreting nature.

Zurbar?n and Vel?zquez, the most notable by far of all their contemporaries, protested against the conventionalisms of scholasticism. They did not seek to embellish the rude form, which the living model frequently presents to the eyes of the artist in search of a higher ideal, but to copy it as they beheld it, as it was presented to them, without distortion or falsity, was the purpose which they maintained faithfully all their lives. Pacheco appreciated the talent and outlook of these young men, he protected it as much as he could, and above all cultivated those qualities which seemed to him the most striking. Vel?zquez said to him: "I hold to the principle that nature ought to be the chief master and swear neither to draw nor to paint anything which is not before me"; and Pacheco, encouraged by the tendency towards a frankly naturalistic style which his disciple showed, and observing the qualities which he evinced, made Vel?zquez his son-in-law before he had arrived at the age of nineteen.

Among such tendencies the art of Zurbar?n and Vel?zquez was evolved. The works of their youth were almost alike. They are sufficiently distinguished later because, while the first hardly ever left the neighbourhood of Seville, expanding but little, Vel?zquez, as is known, developed a whole pictorial technique.

The distinctive feature of the technique of Zurbar?n is the luminosity rendered by means of strong contrasts of light and shade. High lights without crudity and shadows without blackness are noticeable, as in the works of Ribera. The grey tones are never heavy, and their quality, harmonious in its blending, diminishes the hardness of the lines of profile, suppressing all rigidity. Zurbar?n is, moreover, a painter easily understood, who rarely has recourse to a symbolism more or less appropriate for the expression of thought, and his ideal aspirations always present, in all that refers to form, a manifest passion for reality.

This master was well represented at the Royal Academy. Perhaps there was nothing of great distinction, but the nine works from his brush, all of one kind, were in general very typical and individual, comprising images, saints and figures realistic in character .

A little later, at the command of his King, Vel?zquez went for the first time to Italy. The influence which Italian art exercised upon him has been the subject of discussion. It is not possible in an essay such as this to try to elucidate this point, but it appears manifest that if Italian art was naturally absorbed by his talent, it did not greatly affect his native qualities; and to judge from his subsequent work, it would seem that he showed a constant and single-minded solicitude to achieve an interpretation always actively faithful to nature.

In the exhibition at Burlington House Vel?zquez was not adequately represented. But there were reasons for this. The undoubted pictures from his brush which are privately owned in England, and to some of which we have already alluded, are well-known and have figured in recent exhibitions of Spanish art, so that it was not deemed necessary to expose them again; while of those in Spain, the greater part is housed in the Prado Museum , and those belonging to private persons are very scarce.

Of this last special mention must be made. In our judgment it is an undoubted Vel?zquez and, moreover, a most beautiful example. Every part of the armour, of the legs, of the body, and, above all, the adjustment of the figure and the design are typical of Vel?zquez. How has it come to be regarded in England as a work of Mazo, where the master is so justly esteemed and where, owing, doubtless to enthusiasm for Vel?zquez, nearly all the pictures of Mazo are attributed to Vel?zquez? Or is it that some have arrived at false conclusions concerning Mazo and Vel?zquez, and when they are confronted by an original and undoubted Vel?zquez, are dubious of it because it does not appear sufficiently typical of Mazo? It has not, to the best of our belief, elsewhere been observed that the head of this portrait is somewhat faint and flat.

We must now commence the rather complex study of those paintings which compose the Madrid School. We say complex, because, composed as it was of painters who came from one or the other part of the Peninsula, it does not possess a precise and regional character, but is the resultant of the work of many artists whose names we must not forget, as, for example, Carducho, Caxes and Nardi, of Italian origin, who, or perhaps their fathers, were brought to Spain as decorative painters. It seems natural that they should have had imitators or disciples, as it was precisely in the country of their adoption that artists of this genre were awanting. But, on the contrary, they were absorbed by the environment, and produced and achieved a sober and realistic style, forgetful of the circumstances of their apprenticeship, and, we may say, hispanicised.

Vel?zquez was the chief representative of the Madrid school, its creator, and, more, its prototype, marking the apogee of Spanish painting. His aim was always to simplify, a purpose which is clearly obvious from the methods he employed from his youth to his last work, constantly simplifying his technique and, consequently, his palette. To the study of his palette alone we have dedicated a work of a purely technical character which space does not permit us to reproduce here, but which we take occasion to refer to since the simplification of the palette of this artist, the creator of a school, must be regarded as of exceptional importance, as characteristic of almost all later Spanish artistic achievement, endowing it with great individuality and distinguishing it from all other schools. This circumstance is worthy of recognition by all who wish to arrive at the true significance of Spanish painting, so far as its outward manifestations are concerned.

In alluding to the Sevillean school, we must mention a contemporary of Murillo, though somewhat his junior, of singular talent. His name is little known outside of Spain, and this is doubtless the reason why so few of his pictures have left the country. We believe it a mistake to allude to him, as is sometimes done, as one of those Spanish painters whose work is no longer of interest, such is his expression, his distinctive note, his creative boldness and individuality. We refer to Valdes Leal. His harsh outlook, his frequent inaccuracies, his thought, profound and almost always obscure, and above all, his subjects, at times macabre and bizarre, at times graceful, provide reasons for his unpopularity, no less than the still scanty knowledge we possess regarding this singular man, the circumstances of whose work and life are presented to us almost in a legendary manner, as in the case of his friend and patron, Don Ju?n de Ma?ara, who has been incarnated in the popular imagination as the Don Ju?n of tradition.

In Granada, Alonso Cano, as great a sculptor as painter, maintained, with other artists of lesser note and standing, a flourishing school which had links with that of Seville.

We turn again to Madrid, to the Court where Vel?zquez, as we have indicated, stamped such character on painting and informed it with such excellence that artists flocked from all parts of the Peninsula to the capital. This resulted in the flourishing period of art--ending with the seventeenth century--fruitful and various, which is associated with the School of Madrid. It is not precisely the school of Vel?zquez, although equivocally so called. Vel?zquez had disciples who followed him, imitating and copying him, as his servant Pareja, the mulatto, did. But this notwithstanding, other painters of talent worked during these years in the capital, helping to form the school, even if they did not follow him in any decided manner. Nevertheless, he is its greatest figure, for he it was who gained the title of a school for the work of his contemporaries, and for the generation which followed him. The impulse which he gave by his technique and the composition of his palette, simple and sober, are characteristic of all this period. His son-in-law, Mazo, followed him blindly, and, working in his studio, was constantly impressed by the productions of his master, making use of the same methods--the same canvas, colours, brushes, and, giving rein to an extraordinarily imitative talent, he tried to make, and occasionally produced, actual facsimiles of his master's works. The study of this curious problem of painting, of the distinctive note, the inclination of the time, as shown in the art of father-in-law and son-in-law, has been the subject of several works from our pen. We have not insisted on the point in these, nor have we space to do so in this brief synthesis; but we flatter ourselves that several paintings, especially those which belong to museums, have come to be more correctly attributed to Mazo rather than to Vel?zquez, and that those who are interested in these problems have come to distinguish the external aspect of the work of the one from that of the other, substantial and inimitable. We must remark, however, that Mazo had, besides the mere qualities of an imitator, a talent of his own of singular excellence, that of a landscape painter, which represented a relative novelty in the art of Spain at that period.

The two brothers Rizi, Juan and Francisco, were of Italian origin; both were decorative painters and worked in the style of Carducho and Caxes. Juan, the elder, was a monk, and was one of the prototypes of the School of Madrid, following Vel?zquez in his work, soberly and simply. Francisco seems at times to display the qualities of his Italian origin, and though sufficiently Spanish, gave to his creations a certain quality which may have influenced the Spanish decorative painters of the time. It is a curious problem of influence. In any case this artist, who achieved fame in his time, is an interesting study to-day, and it would seem that the critic must scrutinize the beginnings of the question before he tries to explain its results. Pereda, Collantes and Leonardo are also notable, if lacking the character of their school, which clearly shows them to be among the disciples of Carre?o, among whom, perhaps, the most notable were Cerezo and Cabezalero, who unfortunately died young. Cerezo seems to be the most striking figure of those years, and his brilliant colour and fine style initiated a tendency which made for the enrichment of the Spanish palette, the sobriety of which we admire in the masters, but which degenerates into a certain poverty at times in the hands of their disciples. With Cerezo we should mention Antol?nez, who also died before he reached artistic maturity.

As regards painting, these influences commenced with the arrival at the Court of Lucas Jord?n, who represented the influence of the great Italian decorative artists. Afterwards came Ti?polo, who left many marvellous works, quite inimitable by Spanish artists. The Bourbons introduced Van Loo, Ranc, Houasse and other French representatives of the art of the time; and lastly came Mengs, bringing with him a spirit wholly distinct from that of the French, a style erudite and academic which was not sufficiently powerful to create an artistic output of any importance in Spain, but which possessed much destructive power, although that was limited as regards time to about a century, during which period the national production was weak, despite the number of artists, of whom those most worthy to be mentioned are Maella, the Bayeus and Paret.

Such was the condition of Spanish painting when, without precedent, reason or motive, appeared in the province of Aragon, a region which years afterwards came to typify the resistance to foreign invasion, a figure of great significance in Spanish art, and worthy of comparison with the greatest masters of the preceding centuries--Francisco de Goya.

The long life of Goya coincides with an epoch which divides two ages. The critic is somewhat at a loss how to place his work and personality, to conclude whether he is the last of the old masters or the first of the moderns. His greatness is so obvious, his performance so vast and its gradual evolution so manifest, that we may be justified in holding that the first portion of his effort belongs to the old order of things, while the second must be associated with the origins of modern painting. In his advance, in the manner and development of it, it is noticeable--as we have already said in certain of our works which deal with Goya--that he substituted for the picturesque, agreeable and suggestive note of his younger days, another more intense and more embracive. It would seem that the French invasion of the Peninsula, the horrors of which he experienced and depicted, influenced him profoundly in the alteration of his style. There is a Goya of the eighteenth century and a Goya of the nineteenth. But this is not entirely due to variation in technique, to mere artistic development, it is more justly to be traced to a change in creative outlook, in character, in view-point, which underwent a rude and violent transformation. Compare the subjects of his tapestries or of his festive canvases, joyful and gallant, facile in conception and at times almost trivial, with the tragic and macabre scenes of his old age, and with the drawings of this period and the compositions known as "The Disasters of War."

His spirit was fortified and nourished by the warmth of his imagination, and assisted by an adequate technique, marvellously suited to the expression of his ideas, he produced the colossal art of his later years. If his performance is studied with reference to the vicissitudes and the adventures of which it is eloquent, the influence upon his works of the times in which they were created is obvious. The changes in his life, the transference from those gay and tranquil years to others full of the horrors of blood and fire, of shame and banishment, tended, without doubt, to discipline his spirit and excite his intelligence. His natural bias to the fantastic and his tendency to adapt the world to his visions seized upon the propitious occasion in a time of invasion and war to exalt itself, or, as he himself expressed it, "the dream of reason produces prodigies."

An artist and creator more as regards expression than form, especially in the second phase of his work, unequal in achievement and at times inaccurate, he sacrificed much to divest himself of these faults. He deliberately set himself to discipline his ideas and develop that degree of boldness with which he longed to infuse them. But he was not quite able to subject himself to reality, and, as he was forgetful and indolent, that which naturally dominated him began to show itself in quite other productions of consummate mastery. This art, imaginative in expression and idea, is more striking as regards its individual and original qualities, than for any degree of discipline which it shows.

We do not mean to make any hard and fast assertion that Goya would not have developed in intensity of feeling if he had not personally experienced and suffered the horrors of the invasion, but merely to indicate that it was this which brought about the revulsion within him and powerfully exalted him. His last years in Madrid, and afterwards in Bordeaux, where he died, were always characterized by the note of pessimism, and at times, of horror, as is shown in the paintings which once decorated his house and are now preserved in the Prado Museum. Not a few portraits of these years also show that the artist gained in intensity and in individual style. It is precisely these works, so advanced for their time and so progressive, that provided inspiration to painters like Manet, who achieved such progress in the nineteenth century, and who were enamoured of the visions of Goya, of his technique and his methods, naturalistic, perhaps, but always replete with observation and individual expression.

We must not forget to mention that Goya produced a decorative masterpiece of extraordinary distinction and supreme originality--the mural painting of the Chapel of St. Antonio of Florida, in Madrid. Nor is it less fitting to record his fecundity in the art of etching, in which, as in his painting, it is easy to observe the development of their author from a style gallant and spirited to an interpretation of deep intensity, such as is to be witnessed in the collection of "The Caprices" and "The Follies," if these are compared with the so-called "Proverbs" and especially with "The Disasters of War."

Of portraits of the artist by himself two were exhibited, one small in size painted in his youth , in which the full figure is shown, and the other a head, done in 1815, which gives us a good idea of the expression and temperament of this extraordinary man.

If the eighteenth century was for Spanish painting an epoch of external influences, the nineteenth century, especially its second half, must be characterized as one which sought for foreign direction. During this period the greater number of painters of talent sought for inspiration from foreign masters. This was a grave mistake, not because in Spain there were artists of much ability or even good instructors, but because this exodus of Spanish painters was a sign that they had lost faith and confidence in themselves and were strangers to that native force which in the end triumphs in painting as in everything else. First Paris, then Rome, the two most important centres of the art of this period, were undoubtedly centres of a lamentable distortion of Spanish art.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet