MR. JOHN'S PORTRAIT OF MR. GEORGE.
The generally favourable opinion of Mr. Augustus John's striking portrait of Mr. Lloyd George is not shared by everybody. The following criticism of the picture has reached us, and as it represents a point of view which, so far as we know, has not found sympathy in the Press opinions which have already appeared, we print it for the edification of the artist, the sitter and any others who may have a few moments to devote to the subject.
I should like to say (writes our correspondent) on behalf of myself and of many worthy members of my congregation that Mr. Augustus John has missed a great opportunity in painting his portrait of our greatest Welshman.
In the first place, surely it lacks dignity. In it Mr. Lloyd George, who is pre-eminently a man capable of looking you straight in the eye, is depicted as looking someone else obliquely in the eye. I would that his strong features had been accompanied by a direct and thoughtful gaze, instead of that petulant side-glance, which to all of us who know the smiling candour of the Minister of Munitions is so foreign an expression.
I cannot speak with authority about the sitter's raiment. At the same time I must register my dislike of these clothes, which appear to have the mud of the golf-links still fresh upon them. Surely the artist should have persuaded Mr. Lloyd George to wear his black coat and vest for the occasion.
Hanging from a cord is something in the nature of an aid to vision. I cannot determine whether it is a pince-nez or a monocle. The uncertainty is irritating. Is it possible that the Minister has taken to wearing a single eye-glass? If so, why has not the artist put it in the sitter's eye? And as to the hair—Heaven forbid that I should cast any reflection upon any man of Mr. Lloyd George's age possessing abundant locks; on the contrary, I congratulate him; but in all my experience I have never yet known a portrait to be taken without the sitter being requested first of all to brush his hair. Why has Mr. Augustus John flown in the face of all precedent by neglecting this simple yet desirable precaution?
I feel very strongly that nothing in the portrait indicates the sitter's nationality, his profession, his love of home, his favourite recreation or his religious convictions. These, I venture to say, are grave omissions. The picture is sadly wanting in suitable accessories. If I had been painting it I should have put a simple yellow daffodil in the Minister's buttonhole, and pictured through an open window a sunlit bed of leeks, with perhaps a goat gambolling among them. I should have represented the Minister of Munitions in his study practising putting with a small bomb. And on the wall should have been a life-size portrait of the Rev. Dr. Clifford.
