Landscape-painting mourns the loss of its greatest masters. Amongst all the painters, Death seems to have singled out the paysagistes by preference. Since the last Exhibition how many have gone! Chintreuil, Belly, Corot, Courbet, Daubigny, Millet, Diaz, are no more. A few canvases recall them—the Wave of Courbet, an admirable effect of snow by Daubigny, and four or five pictures by Corot—but one regrets that the illustrious dead have not had the honor of a room apart. The members of the jury have been careful to keep the best places for their own works, while the masterpieces of departed genius have been banished to the top of the walls or half hidden in corners. M. Cabanel and M. Bouguereau fill whole rooms with their pale compositions, and—Millet is absent!
Has the school of French landscape-painting survived these serious losses? We may reply with confidence that it has. This very year, in the Exposition of the Champs Élysées, the Haymaking of M. Bastien Lepage reveals a great painter. At the Champ de Mars there are admirable landscapes by living artists—Hanoteau, who with such masterly power of execution bends and crooks in every direction the knotted branches of his giant oaks; Émile Breton, painter of the melancholy scenes of winter; Harpignies, faithful interpreter of the varying aspects of the valley of the Allier under all the changes of day and season; Eugène Feyen and Feyen-Perrin, who delight us with the sea-coast of Brittany and its fisher-women and bathing-women; Van-Marcke, who is less than the successor, but more than the imitator, of Troyon; and finally, MM. Pelouse and Ségé, representatives of new forces and processes.
Americans are supposed in Paris to prefer highly-finished and elaborate work, like that of Gérôme, but I have seen in America examples of the painter who elaborates least of all, who lays on his colors in the boldest manner—in a word, the painter of general effect, Isabey. It is refreshing to meet again, here, his Wedding-Feast, a delightful repose to the eye, almost wearied with minute perfection of detail.
Before quitting the labyrinth of French art we must not forget a class of painters who have received a great deal of admiration, and who deserve it, whatever rank one may be disposed to assign to their special branch of art. I refer to the painters of still-life. There is Vollon, for instance, whose name suggests those wonderful representations of armor, of rich goldsmith's work, superb tapestries and damascened metal, to say nothing of the equally admirable counterfeits of warming-pans and saucepans, which delight the lover of nature-morte. We find here his famous kettle of red copper, sold at a price which might suggest that it was of solid gold. Amateurs and dealers pronounce Vollon the first of painters in his specialty, though there are some who profess a preference for his rival, Blaise-Desgoffes, of whom there are three examples in the Exposition; and though these are only Venetian glass, Gothic missals, jewel-boxes and the like, there are some of them worth thirty thousand francs at the very least: it will be understood that I speak of the paintings, and not of what they represent. Philippe Rousseau displays not less than a dozen pictures, and the names of their owners, Alexandre Dumas, the baroness de Rothschild, Barbedienne, Édouard Dubufe, etc., show how much he is the mode. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine cheeses more savory, fresher oysters, peaches and vegetables more inviting, and flowers—I had almost said more fragrant, so perfect is the illusion of reality.
But we must tear ourselves from these fascinating galleries, for should we write for ever we shall always be sure to forget some celebrity who deserves to be mentioned. We have said nothing of the scenes from fashionable life; nor of the dogs and horses which MM. Claude and J. Lewis Brown render so capitally; nor of the portraits of Pérignon, Édouard Dubufe and Cot; nor of the flowers of Mademoiselle Escallier. Three great names, Jules Dupré, Rosa Bonheur and Puvis de Chavannes, are absent—one knows not why.
Belgium is next in order—thrifty Belgium, where painting is a commercial industry and its products an important article of exportation. The Belgian display in the Champ de Mars is certainly a considerable one in point of numbers, which will not surprise us when we remember that there are at least twelve art-schools in the country—to say nothing of the great academies of Brussels and Antwerp—where hundreds of young men are daily drilled in the grammar and technique of art. But genius is the gift of Nature, not of schools. All that the latter can bestow is probably here, but we miss the imagination, the variety, the sentiment of the born artist, and it needs no very critical examination of these paintings to show us that the acquired dexterity of the academy, the mere business of the painter, is almost the only characteristic of the Belgian school.
There are some examples of "high art," such as The Pope and the Emperor of Germany at Canossa in 1077, by M. Cluysenaar, a composition as cold as it is vast; some illustrations of the national history by M. Wauters, who reminds us, in some respects, of the great French painter Laurens, though lacking his power; and there are the historico-religious pictures of M. Verlat. But much the best things in the Belgian collection are the numerous works of a painter whose aims are not so high, and who in Brussels seems like an exile from Paris. M. Alfred Stevens draws his inspiration from fashionable life; and no Parisian could surpass the execution of his velvets and laces and the thousand new stuffs which Fashion invents every year—gants de Suède, and faces too of a certain type, the pretty chiffonnées faces of girls of every rank in life. But the pretty faces are, after all, mere accessories in a picture where the principals are the hat and the dress and the parasol, upon which, as any one can see, the artist has bestowed all his loving care. Nothing of his, however, in the Exposition can compare with his Young Mother, which I saw last year in the Academy at Philadelphia.
Next after Stevens, in point of reputation, comes M. Willems, who really belongs to the French school of Gérôme, but who feels himself under obligation, in his character of Fleming, to paint nothing but what Terburg and Metzu painted two centuries before him. The man without a plumed hat and big boots and a great sword at his side has, for M. Willems, no existence. I would not say that he does not paint hat, boots and sword as well as the old Flemish masters themselves did, but while they drew from the life he paints at second hand, and the modern artist who passes his days in the vain effort to revivify the models of his predecessors will always rank below the masters whom he imitates, as M. Willems does, with so many others whom a false public taste encourages in a hopeless pursuit.
There are no landscapes in the Belgian section, if one may be allowed to except the marines of M. Clays, and yet Belgium can boast of at least one excellent paysagiste, M. César de Cock, who, unfortunately, is not represented in the Exposition.
French painters have often been blamed for neglecting the material around them, and for trespassing upon the domain of foreign artists by representing Russian peasants and Italian beggars or selecting subjects from Spain or Japan; but I have looked in vain through the various galleries for any evidence that other countries are a whit less obnoxious to this reproach than our own. Each nation forages in its neighbor's field. Is it too much to hope that modern art may free itself from the bondage of a senseless fashion, and may take to the study of the living types close at hand? Russia and America, for instance, have shown themselves capable of producing a literature distinctively national and characteristic: must they ever remain without a school of art as indigenous to the soil, and shall their painting never have its Tourgueneff and its Bret Harte? The law of development may require that the birth of a nation's art shall succeed that of its letters—though the history of the Renaissance would seem to contradict this theory—but whether this be so or not, it is certain that one does not imagine one's self in Moscow while perambulating the Russian salon in the Champ de Mars, where the best representative of the national art, M. Siemiradski, has chosen for the two paintings which have deservedly won a medal of honor subjects from ancient Rome—the one an amateur hesitating in his choice between two articles of equal value—namely, a chased cup and a female slave—and the other representing a soirée of Nero. The subject of this last is horrible. The tyrant, crowned with flowers and surrounded by women and freedmen, descends from his palace. Attached to long poles and besmeared with pitch, ready for the fatal flame, are the living bodies of wretched Christians which will illumine to-night the gardens of Cæsar. Living Torches is the title of the picture, which is one of the most successful paintings of the Exposition, and has given its author a high rank among contemporary artists.