CONTENTS
| CHAPTER I | |
| A. STEINLEN | |
| A painter’s painter—His field of operations—The “Chat Noir”—His sympathies and work | Pp. [1–14] |
| CHAPTER II | |
| CARAN D’ACHE | |
| The quality of his humour—His life and military training—His “œuvre” | Pp. [15–21] |
| CHAPTER III | |
| H. DE TOULOUSE LAUTREC | |
| A pathetic life-story—Student days—Comet-like career and sad end | Pp. [22–28] |
| CHAPTER IV | |
| P. BALLURIAU | |
| The modern Boucher | Pp. [29–32] |
| CHAPTER V | |
| F. VALLOTTON | |
| His vigorous technique—The “Enfantillistes” and the strong men—His woodcuts | Pp. [34–39] |
| CHAPTER VI | |
| L. MORIN | |
| A Watteau of our day—His spirituality, and distinction as a writer—The “Chat Noir” shadow plays | Pp. [40–47] |
| CHAPTER VII | |
| C. HUARD | |
| The portrayer of provincials—His insight into character | Pp. [48–56] |
| CHAPTER VIII | |
| J. WÉLY | |
| His grace and “esprit”—The modern choice of medium for drawing for reproduction | Pp. [57–61] |
| CHAPTER IX | |
| L. MALTESTE | |
| Drawing under difficulties—Strong and serious work | Pp. [62–66] |
| CHAPTER X | |
| J. L. FORAIN | |
| Subtlety of technique and forceful caustic wit | Pp. [67–71] |
| CHAPTER XI | |
| C. LÉANDRE | |
| An irresistible caricaturist—The influence of Renouard—His theatre of work | Pp. [72–80] |
| CHAPTER XII | |
| CONCLUSION | |
| Temperament of Montmartre and her Free Lances—Plea for a National Gallery of Black and White Art | Pp. [81–83] |
I
A. STEINLEN
There is no modern illustrator whose work has more completely won the admiration of his fellows of the brush, whatever their predilection in art, than Steinlen. Be the studio in Paris, in London, in Munich, be it even in Timbuctoo, from some discreet corner will be drawn a treasured copy or two of Gil Blas Illustré illustrated by Steinlen—forthwith to be discussed, and as surely lauded without stint.
This is not to imply that Steinlen is what is termed “a painter’s painter” and nothing more; for the artist we are now considering is one of the few who are sufficiently great to have captured the warmest appreciation from the public at large, as well as from the critical ranks of his fellow workers.
The “painters’ painter” is, as a rule, if nothing else, a master of technique, one whose work shows on the face of it the sheer joy evinced in the skilful manipulation of the medium employed—the exceptions to this rule being the men whose work reflects some subtle or involved workings of the brain, and whose great thoughts are felt to outweigh the shortcomings of faulty technique. They are of course styled “painters’ painters” because their work appeals to artists and other highly trained critics; and it is useless to expect any but the most sensitive among the public to appreciate them. In smoothness and “softness” consists the acme of technical perfection in the eyes of the untrained, who, as regards figure subjects, prefer something which appears to the artist to be inane and common-place, and as regards landscape subjects, insipid prettiness is always preferred to greatness or originality of view. In either case an excess of detail is a “sine quâ non,” and such plébiscites as have been taken in England have almost invariably proved that the inferior painters are the most popular.
Yet, occasionally a great artist arises who will upset these canons, and compel the admiration of connoisseur and public alike; such an one is Steinlen.