’ , MASTERPIECES OF *
AMERICAN PAINTING

 

MASTERPIECES E

OF AMERICAN PAINTING

A SELECTION OF PHOTOGRAVURES w J

AFTER PAINTINGS EXHIBITED AT -

THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS
BERLIN 1910

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
CHRISTIAN BRINTON, M. A.,
‘ AUTHOR OF “MODERN ARTISTS”

NEW YORK

BERLIN PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPANY
FINE ART PUBLISHERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

ianA-mr\;-,.T‘m .;,,- ,. J.

THE EDITION .OF THIS WORK IS STRICTLY
LIMITED AS ’FOLLOWS: FIFTY COPIES ON
JAPANESE HANDMADE PAPER, NUMBERED

1 TO 50 AND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY -

COPIES ON DUTCH HANDMADE PAPER,
NUMBERED 51 TO 300. BESIDES TEN COPIES
FOR PRESENTATION ONLY-

THIS COPY IS N2 SEE—“‘15: OF THE EDITION
ON DUTCH HANDMADE PAPER V

MAM

 

 

. , .. ”I , . , _;A . .7». .n ,.,_...,5.;..:_ .415; 353*”.

' INTRODUCTION

he day of intellectual and artistic reciprocity is manifestly at hand, and no two

 

nations better illustrate this mo$t enlightened of modern cultural movements

than do Germany and America. The recently established system of exchange pro-
fessors is already producing admirable results, and there is every reason to hope
that a similar situation may obtain in the sensitive and persuasive province of the
fine :arts. In the field of the intellect the equilibrium between the two countries

has been moderately well maintained. The majority of American college professors

have studied and taken. theirdoctorates at various German universities, and Germany
has in turn given the States a brilliant succession of high-minded thinkers as well
as sterling patriots. In matters esthetic, however, the balance has by no means been
so carefully adjusted. For numerous reasons Americans are more conversant with
German art than are Germans with the American product. Many of America’s
foremost painters have been trained either at Dusseldorf or Munich and have taken
back with them Teutonic sympathies and certain scrupulous technical methods which
have not been without influence upon the native school. There has furthermore
been for generations a public eager to possess examples by the leading German
masters of the day, and, in addition, the expositions at Chicago and St. Louis
measurably advanced a knowledge of the subject. All this has nevertheless been
in a sense circumstantial and even accidental. The first conscious and deliberate
move toward establishing artistic reciprocity between these two great "nations, both
so progressive, and so legitimately ambitious, was made last season when there was
held at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, at Copley Hall, Boston, and at
the Art Institute of Chicago a notable display of contemporary German art. It was
this latter event which more, than anything increased current American interest in
TeutOnic achievement, and which, in large measure was responsible for its logical
sequel— the recent exhibition Of American painting in Berlin and Munich, so efficiently
and so successfully organized by Mr. Hugo Reisinger of New York.

~During many arid and dubious years there was no such thing as American art, and
later it was so tentative in quality, and so slender and widely scattered in quantity,
[that its ,very existence was barely recognizable. The geographical isolation 'of the
country, the stern problems of early conquest and self preservation in a new land,
and the long period of enforced provincialism each rendered the evolution of esthetic
expression both difficult and precarious. After painting in the Colonies may be
said to have gained a footing, its leanings were naturally toward the English school,
and subsequent influences save for a brief interlude have been almost exclusively

French. It is impossible rightly to estimate the development of painting in the

United States without some knowledge of the grim and hazardous early struggles
which were its prologue. It is necessary first and last to remember that the country
was, and still is, devoid of artistic formulae. There have never been in the States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

any fixed esthetic standards. There is no such‘ thing as indigenous native art, nor has
the progress of painting in America followed a consistent, logical line of development.
From the outset it has been an arduous battle. Conditions have been the reverse
of propitious, and one circumstance after another has conspired to retard spontaneous
racial expression. Fundamentally, Colonial painting was a transplanted product. The
early limner took nothing from the Indian nor had the Indian of the North much
to offer. The difficulty all along has been the total lack of a substratum of primitive
esthetic tradition. America wasforced to begin at the top instead of starting from
the bottom. Art had to be brought overseas in place of springing fresh,and strong
from the fertile fancy, the deep rooted sympathies, and the deft, patient hands of
simple folk. It arrived brand new and ready made from English or Continental
atelier and academy rather than struggling upward through the ages from wayside
cottage or hut among the hills.

This has clearly been the chief obstacle toward the achievement of a personal, organic,
style. Instead of relying upon her own resources American painting has constantly
\ been forced to [seek assistance from without. And yet althOugh it has taken over
a century to acquire a characteristic artistic physiognomy " there were always gleams
of hope and promise. Behind this or that, foreign mask, beneath accent French or
dialect Bavarian, could be discerned qualities which are to- -day counted as specific
and individual. It is moreover obvious that matters could hardly have progressed
much faster. Manifestly a social expression, American art, like that of Europe, or
the Orient, could not attain national significance until the Ainerican himself had
advanced toward more pronounced definition of type. The history of art» is in;
separably interonen with the history of social evolution, and nowhere is this more
apparent than in a new country such as the United States Whose entire esthetic
programme covers but little over a century of activity and whose art has been so
dependent upon external conditions.

There are few things more absorbing than to note how, in the face of conflicting
currents, with scarce a vestige of inherited basis, and without, even to this day, the
slenderest modicum of official patronage, American painting has yet managed to
achieve its present position. It is important to recall at the outset that the art of
the dependent or Colonial period was entirely English. It was not among the thrifty
Dutch traders of New York, nor the aristocratic cavalier settlers of the South, that
painting secured her first foothold in the new land, but among the Puritans of New
England and the sturdy Quakers of Pennsylvania. The early craftsmen were British
by birth and training, the first of note to cross the water being John Smibert, a
Scotchman, who had been a fellow student of Hogarth in London. It was a world
of personal hardship and moral rigor which confronted these pioheers of the brush
and palette, and they practised their profession with not a little of the forbidding
asperity and lack of grace which characterized their surroundings.

As Smibert, who left behind him a long succession of likenesses of the leading
worthies and divines of the time was the first foreign painter of merit in the Colonies,
' so John Singleton Copley was the earliest native born artist to attain distinction.

Copley was a portrait painter of no small power. His methods were simple, virile,_
and sincere, and his work, before he left Boston to make his home 1n London, forms
the initial chapter, and a significant one it is, in the artistic annals of his country.

'Contemporary with Copley was Benjamin West, who was born in Pennsylvania,

and whose life was so glorified by romance and crowned with honors and Success

 

 

, . r . ._ 7 , r_*'7‘" ~ —‘
__ . H , an . . _-.I._A ”gram. ,_ _ ,1, . , _ . .__ “$5“ Jami. , 7‘37; gnu-9 .9; 1.. MJ.“ mu.mwy:‘,.a§w¥w Winnie-'4‘: J,.“ueg£&®&w’MZ/¢ *HWgfi—w’e “*1, £»-'; , > . V
H ,_ , _ __ K , , . .. . __ ,,_, ._.-»»» m . gun... W ‘4‘: 7,, V .. . “a, .,. a. ‘4. 7 ~-

 

that his example did more than that of any American of the day to turn the eyes
of the young nation toward the appeals of art and the artistic career. Like Copley,
West, too, settled in London, where he became the 'official historical painter to
George III and one of the founders and first Presidents of the Royal Academy.
Earnest and high minded as these men, together with their colleagues Matthew
- Pratt and Charles VVillson Peale, unquestionably were, they cannot be considered
painters of the first rank. One is bound to admit that their hard won triumphs
belong rather to the domain of ethics than to that of esthetics. An unflinching
fidelity to fact characterizes the spirit of COpley’s work, and an uncompromising
resolve to teach some exalted moral lesson, or arouse some lofty sentiment, is equally
manifest in the otherwise vacuous and antiquated canvases of West. They were both
essentially English eighteenth century painters. Copley was a rigid and Puritan Gains:
borough, and West an even more than ordinarily verbose and rhetorical Reynolds.
The first artist worthy the name in the precarious progress /of American painting was
Gilbert Stuart, and even to this day he has remained unsurpassed fOr charm and
spontaniety of manner and freshness of coloring. There was nothing of the prig
or preacher about Stuart. Art, not morality, was his chief preoccupation. He flitted
through the world leaving behind him wherever he went a legacy of debt and
fascination. He was a born painter; he laughed at the pedantic incapacity of West,
and blithely evolved his own technique with its incomparable surety of stroke and
delicately vivacious flesh tints. His art will ever wear the priceless bloom of youth.
He had but one serious ambition, and that was to place upon living record the
features of the Father of his Country, and in orderto accomplish this, he reacrossed
the ocean, settled in Philadelphia, and painted Washington at first hand, thus forever
placing the nation in his debt. Gilbert Stuart left no pupils of promise, and the
secrets of his fresh and spirited palette were soon lost amid the conflicting tendencies
which followed the Revolution and the subsequent decline of the British school.
After the War, whose graphic historian was the irascible and painstaking Trumbull, _
American artists began to look further afield. Allston went to Rome and was '—
forever tormented by the greatness of Raphael and the grandeur of Michelangelo,
and Vanderlyn, the first and one of the foremost figure painters the country has
ever produced, lived and studied for several years in Paris. Yet it was not until
after the War of 1812 that American art finally outgrew the English influence, and
even then its traditions persisted awhile longer in the work of such men as Sully, '
Harding, and Inman. VI '
Although the nation had previously received official baptism, its existence was more
or less problematic until this second and decisive defeat of the British forces on
land and sea. It was then that national consciousness became crystallized, and it
was then, and not till then, that art began to free herself from subserviency and
gather strength for future conquests. Throughout all channels of activity the dawn
of a new era was felt to be at hand. Painters flocked homeward from foreign
lands to enrich the cause with knowledge and taste gleaned abroad. Academies
and schools were founded, and everyone looked forWard to a glorious period of
esthetic as well as political, territorial, and material expansion. Yet as far as art
is concerned, these high hopes were not to be realized. Cut off from the lingering
grace and elegance of loyalist days, and receiving little encouragement from a society ‘
devoted to the sterner problems of eXistence, beauty became a pathetic exile in this
new and aggressive community. . ,. ‘ '

 

 

 

, -; . dif'fifefirfi‘ .__,;‘ , __ ,. Mrflwrm; ~34 _ ,. . {.,.D‘?-nm,.;.“ur~~..; ,, «nu-b“ ‘ -“ ‘-’.‘ -' .2, e»_ a.» ~ -' name”... ,Lnr , .'

 

 

The Colonial period was succeeded by a period of unredeemed provincialism. There
was little or no systematic training to be had. Many of the best talents began as
sign painters, and art was a vagrant craft practised by men who wandered afoot
from town to town over vast stretches of unsettled country. The exalted dreams
of Allston evaporated in the sterility of a New England studio; Vanderlyn died a bitter
and disappointed seeker after that which he could never find, and Chester Harding
remained to the last a crudely equipped backwoodsman., It was not through the
portals of the. grand style, nor from. the gilt frame of portraiture, that the new
manifestation was to emerge, but in a far humbler and more modest manner. Art
cannot be forced, she must be coaxed, and it is precisely this which certain quiet
spirits were already doing. The germ of progress lay not in ambitious projects
whiCh through adequate technique were foredoomed to failure, but in the simple,
reverent love of that which the eye could see and the mind grasp. It was in the
field of landscape that the native painter revealed the first signs of independent
\ vitality, and it is significant to note that landscape remains to-day the crowning
glory of American art. ‘

Just as the early portrait and figure men had begun as house, coach, and sign painters,
so the evolution; of landscape was brought about by men who had been in, their
younger days journeymen engravers. The first in point of priority was Thomas
Doughty; the one whose work displays the most truth and solidity was Asher
B. Durand, and the one who best combined observation and allegory was Thomas
Cole. -By the side of these worked Casilear, Kensett, the brothers Hart, and a host
of others whose names have been beneficently relegated to the limbo of oblivion.
The scenes of their literal and scrupulous transcriptions w‘ere chiefly the Hudson
River, the Catskills, and the White Mountains. Possessing common aims and painting
similar subjects they gradually [developed into a well defined school. A few went
abroad and returned with faint echoes of the divine serenity of Claude, or the
diluted romance of Lessing and Schirmer, but for the most part their work was
wholly American in feeling and technique. The movement achieved its apogee in
Church, Bierstadt, and Moran, who, fired by the midcentury rush toward the Pacific
Coast, shifted the scene to the West and concocted vast panoramic and topographical
compositions revealing the distant wonders of the Rocky Mountains, the Yosemite,
and the Yellowstone. Judged by m'odern standards there was scarcely an artist among
the entire group. Despite the huge dimensions of many of their canvases, their
methods were myopic and constrained. Every detail of rock or foliage was minutely
emphasized. There was no attempt at synthesis. The facts were there but the
transfusing magic of the Spirit was sadly lacking. Cole and Church alone showed
flashes of emotional penetration, but even they evinced more patience than passion.
And yet the vogue of these men was incontestable. They appealed to vague sentiments
of poetic grandeur and national pride. They found ready appreciation with a naive
and uncritical public, and for the moment their prestige totally eclipsed other forms
of artistic endeavor. Still, the fact cannot be overlooked that kindred branches of
painting were being cultivated With no small degree of success. Historical panegyric
found a worthy exponent in the German born Emmanuel Leutze, and native genre
disclosed in Mount and Edmonds men whose canvases radiate rich, warm coloring
and a wholesome, racy sense of observation and character.

. Already there had been hints of further development, of a wider outlook for American
art, and with the advent of Fuller, Hunt, Inness, and La Farge, was ushered in

 

 

, d7 - W » ~ -»~ - -~-r_-'A :» . ”A m _.._.1, ‘-4...u._r,_...z.. .1... .«. . -_‘ s , '-» - ' "r . - » ., ~ : . “Mr“ - "w .7 ' " » . '
,...._,, . . , .-,., . _ _ ‘1, _ _ - .._ . 4mm...m Feud—Wm ”WraraawzhInwvmflzrjtfii;‘b«=;‘.m2ryh ;:*—rmxa_’.'4 rgrmrh .

 

what may be termed the transition period. Like all epochs of the kind it was
marked by hesitation and uncertainty. Promise far outran performance, and yet
these men stand as the heralds of the new movement, the precursors of that art
which forms the basis of present day achievement. They were the true pathfinders.
They all studied abroad, and from the ateliers of Paris and the brown fields of
Barbizon there came,‘vthrough them, the impetus which was so completely to regenerate
American painting and lift it from the narrow confines of an isolated and provincial
product. It Was the Frechmen of 1830 with their profoundly moving fusion of
romance and reality who thrilled. into being the first American art to merit the
name. The eloquent afterglow of . Delacroix as it filtered through the studio of
\ Couture, and the resolute draughtsmanship and homely sincerity of Jean-Francois
Millet, acted like magic upon the awakening sympathies of these young men from
overseas. The first and last of the group — Fuller and La Farge — were fated to fulfil
special functions in the fostering of native taste, while to Hunt and Inness fell the
lion's share in the work of revolution and reform. ’
If Durand and the early landscapists with their explicit and reverent nature worship
suggest the poetry of Bryant, George Fuller is the Hawthorne of American figure
painting. Fuller 1s assuredly one of the most subtly romantic and appealing apparitions
-in the annals of his country’s art. His life was one of renunciation and of triumph
long held in abeyance. Before he had‘ barely started he retired to live upon a
Massachusetts hill farm only to emerge from sixteen years’ seclusion one of the few
masters of form and sentiment his nation has produced. Although out of touch
with his colleagues, he nevertheless kept pace with them and even surpassed them
in the modernity of his caressing, spirit-born technique, and tender, psychic evocation.
The career of William Morris Hunt was vastly difierent from that of the modest,
solitary Fuller. Of commanding, magnetic, personality he was the chosen spokesman
of the new gospel of artistic autonomy. He went abroad young, passing briefly
through the sterilizing exactitude of the Dusseldorf manner and the coloristic romance
of Couture, and reaching therfinal phase of his apprenticeship in his long association
with the sober apostle of the Fontainebleau peasant. It was the spirit of Millet
which he took back with him to New England, and, although he never produced
anything of primary importance, he was a remarkable preceptor and a fruitful source
Of inspiration in others. Hunt'was the first American to appreciate ease and suppleness
of handling. He was the implacable enemy of the metallic touch of his predecessors,
and under his assaults the shackles finally fell from the wrists of American art
leaving her free to attempt whatever she saw fit.
The work which Fuller and Hunt accomplished in the domain of figure painting
was more than duplicated by George Inness in the province of pure landscape.
Inness is the master emotionalist of American art. Into his views of mountain, hill
or meadow, he breathed a poetic exaltation wholly new to his day and generation.
He Was the initial exponent of mood in American landscape. Temperamentally he
offers a curious combination of the logical and the lyrical He began a specialist
in specific observation. He ended a supreme synthesist of nature’ 5 innermost meaning.
There can be no question that Inness owes his artistic insight to the Barbizon masters. '
His work expresses their credo and perpetuates their traditions, yet it 'is not a mere
transplantation, but something which in its higher manifestations becomes individual
and inspirational. No consideration of Inness, however brief, would be complete
WithOut reference to his successors in the field, Homer D. Martin and Alexander

 

 

2‘
i
i4
3-
.3

mas—mg“, n. m...

',..:4A«:1.-» m. LNsnr-J‘ac. ”Vii. . , _

mm... .W_._v,._.~....~ m...

1
‘g
' l

H‘. Wyant, each of whom carried still further the emancipation of American landscape _
from the rigid constriction of the past. Martin is the more powerful and elemental
of the two, Wyant the more intimate, tender, and poignant. With his brOad simplicity
of structure and draughtsmanship, and deep sense of nature’s solemn immensity, Martin
stands as one of the enduring masters in the onward march of the landscape art of ,
his generation. In method, if not manner, he is also one of the early harbingers
of impressionism. \ ‘ -

The serious and austere style of Martin finds its complementirr the lyric quietude
of Wyant whose story is one of constant hardship and suffering, and whose only
surcease was found in his art, the practice of which he began late in life and whose
secrets alternately baffled and inspired him to the end. Like Martin, his color range is
restricted, but out of those yellow golds, soft, rich'browns, and silver greys, he evokes
as few have ever done, the true spirit of place, the sense of a nature portrait at once
permanent and personal. It is these men who raised landscape painting above all other
forms of American art. They began timidly and clumsily, but they started on a sound
and intelligent foundation. ‘Slavish exactitude as well as the panoramic viewpoint
gave place with them to facts seen at close range yet subjectively. They no longer

_ attempted to depict all nature but only such fragments of her as appealed to their
' several moods and temperaments. Together with their comrades abroad they established

for once and all the principle of selection, the validity of individual choice, and in
so doing paved‘the way for all subsequent progress. _

The last of what may be termed the initiators of the new movement, John La Farge,
and the only one who is still living to-day, presents a decidedly more complicated
case than do the others. Of pure French parentage he is not, ethnologically speaking,
an American, though his life has been passed in New York and his work forms
an intregal part of the cultural history of his country. It is important to note that
these transitionists were thinkers and reasoners as well ‘as creators, just as certain

‘of the primitives, notably Fulton and Morse, were men of science and invention.

Inness was an ardent theologian, Martin a remarkable talker, and La Farge indulges
in fine spun speculation regarding the oneness of all esthetic expression. He professes
to believe in the co-ordination of the various arts, and quite inevitably his practice
of them has been marked by asingular and fascinating eclecticism. PossesSing wide
and responsive sympathies, familiar with the work of all landsand all periods, harking
now to the mystic murmur of the Orient and now to the mellow voice of the
Renaissance, he has remained throughout his career an inspired experimentalist.
There is in all he does an incertitude which is at once its chief charm and its chief
defect. This master of many media is a subtle, tantalizing harmonist who stirs the
soul with infinitely complicated strains but who never breaks into clear and ringing
song. In the final analysis of all his efforts whether in mural decoration, stained.
glass, water colors, or oils, he ranks primarily as a colorist. If Hunt gave the
struggling artistic brotherhood of the day freedom of technique, and Inness and
his followers the precious legacy of personal subjectivity, it remained for John La
Farge to instil into their pallid beings the cult of color. It was not color in the ‘\
modern, chromatic sense of the term. It was decorative color, but, judging from
that which was previously in favor, it was a sadly needed element.

There is no further necessity for considering American art retrospectively. The bridge
between past and present has been crossed. The contributions of the men just under
discussion bring the story down to to-day, and the forces which now become operative

19

 

 

 

 

 

are linked with those which obtain throughout the art of the leading European countries.
The period of provincialism has been passed with difficulty, but safely, and American
painting herewith enters the broad avenue of so-called cosmopolitanism. There are,
however, a few such men as Whistler, Winslow Homer, Albert P. Ryder, and
Ralph A. Blakelock, who have remained outside the ordinary channels of development.»
They are the independents, of American art, the solitary and questing individualists
who are, at least, superficially, subject to none of the prevailing rules. It should
be unnecessary to consider in detail the first of these. The persuasive and insinuating

art of James Mc Neill Whistler attained maturity on the Continent, and, in its '—

extemal aspects, is Wholly the fruit of European influences. Its creator flaunted
internationalism inthe face of the public. He. promulgated the insidious theory that
art has no country, yet all the While he was producing work which, psychologically
at least, is the quintessence of the American yspirit. With Whistler painting becomes
the reflex of a highly keyed intellectual organism. While his manner is almost steno—
graphic in in its nervous brevity, at heart the man is a visionary and a transcendentalist.
He rises above the material and m0ves in a dim and appealing kingdom of suggestion,
a. world of half lights, of subtle hints and intimations of infinity. His faintly vibrant

canvases seem actually to live; they are parts of that eternal mystery which pervades

all things. Though the genius of Whistler has many sides and many different
affiliations, when it attains its supreme expression, as in the portrait of his mother,
it is undeniably American. _It has here the economy of statement, the Puritan
restraint, and the spiritual significance which must be associated with the Emersonian
cast of thought. Do not be deceived by the volatile exterior of the man’s personality
and his incessant artistic experiments. Beneath the surface lie a continuity of structure
which is scientific in its precision, and an incomparable esthetic sensitiveness. His
art is an art of nerves and of mind. It is fastidious in its exclusiveness. It represents
the principle of selection carried to an almost perilous extreme.

The complete surrender to the spirit, the ultimate suppression of all the richer and

more robust qualities which stamp the later work of Whistler finds its pronounced.

antithesis in the rugged, home—bred genius of Winslow Homer. Just as one is an
imperiOus assertion of‘the aristocracy of choice and treatment so the other is defiant
in its democracy. If George Fuller suggests Hawthorne, Winslow Homer’s literary
equivalent is surely Walt Whitman. There is in the work of Homer a racy
Americanism, a wholesome, elemental force now rising to heights of positive grandeur
which has no parallel in the entire range of his country's art. Homer is indigenous.
He has never studied abroad, is wholly self taught, and has worked out his' salvation,
alone and unaided. \Winslow Homer’s art must be studied in terms of his own
personal character. Unlike so many of his fellow craftsmen he does not sentimentalize
in paint. He is terse, often brutal in hisvutterance. Although he perhaps gives his
farmer, his huntsman, and his sea faring folk something of the majestic simplicity
of Millet, he is devoid of commiseration and social pity. His art is naturalistic.
He recalls in many ways the bull-necked peasant of Omans. It is Courbet, not
Millet, whom he most resembles. There is no such trenchant and vigorous page
in the annals of American painting as that which has been furnished by the brush
" of Winslow Homer. He is the slave of no school, he exults in his own strength
and scorns that lyric effeminacy from which certain of those about him are by no
means free. Although during a long and active career he has touched a wide variety
of theme, it is in his marines that he reaches his climax. He here shows the bigness

 

 

 

of vision, the breadth of handling, and the fundamental earnestness which make
for really great art. Winslow Homer is to-day an embittered and laconic recluse
living on the storm-lashed coast of Maine. He is one with sky, and wind, and
sea — with those elements which he knows so well and depicts with such masterful
power and certitude. . '

It is a decidedly more remote and fantastic world into which the spirit-haunted
vision of Ryder, and the sumptuous, heavy-toned harmonies of Blakelock lure us. .
In certain respects they are the most pronounced individualists of the group, yet
they each failed to achieve distinguished expression through an insufficient grasp
of technique. They differ as much from one another as from their associates. Ryder
glories in imaginative themes and richness of surface; Blakelock places Monticelli—
like figures under the massive, autumn tinged oaks of Rousseau. Yet such work,
despite its fitful magic, belongs to the by-paths of art, not to those bread channels
of normal development which must ever be kept in mind. ,
We are now familiar with the chief protagonists of American 'painting during its

transitional stage, though it is necessary, in passing, not to neglect the work of

 

 

Eastman Johnson in the field of domestic genre and that of Thomas Eakins in the
domain of the realistic likeness. The landscape art of to-day which spreads. its
beauty and sensibility before the eye in such seeming complexity, divides itself
upon analysis into two distinct phases. It is either tonal or impressionistic in its
proclivities. It is the continuation, on one hand, of the Barbizon tradition, which
had its origin in the English art of the beginning of the last century and the Dutch
school of the seventeenth, and on the other it owes allegiance to the modern disciples
of prismatic color -— to Monet, Pissarro, Renoir, and Sisley. In the province of the
portrait, matters are less complicated, for the leading contemporary American artists
in this line practise the method triumphantly inaugurated by Carolus-Duran, and
' to-day so brilliantly exemplified by'John Sargent and his pendants. The latest
tendencies of American painting, the most significant of which has been the gradual
ascendency of technique, were not, as may well be inferred, the gift of a day.
American art of the present owes its position largely to the unprecedented social,
material, and intellectual advancement of the country at large. Following the Civil
War came the second great quickening of the national consciousness along all lines‘
of activity. The Union had been preserved, prosperity became almost universal
throughout the land, and the mind instinctively turned to higher things. ' The
Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876 and the founding of the Society of
American Artists in New York the following year are the important events of the
period in the chronology of American art.

With the increase in wealth and the improvement in the facilities of transportation,
bands of enthusiastic young men now began to go abroad and storm the foreign
ateliers and schools demanding instruction. The vanguard went to Munich, a few
scattered individuals to Antwerp, Dusseldorf, or London, and another and far larger
contingent chose Paris. They were younger than their predecessors of earlier days
and thus more responsive to the formative influences about them. A few elected to
live and paint abroad. Marr settled in the Bavarian capital, Melchers and Hitchcock
in Holland, Shannon in England, and Dannat, Harrison, and others in France, but .
for the most part they returned after longer orshorter periods to take up the struggle
amid the unpropitious atmosphere of their native country. For a time the Munich
men headed by Chase and Duveneck held the balance of power and exerted the

 

 

 

widest influence. They' were free, brilliant draughtsmen and affected the warm,
dark, tones so beloved by the Bavarians of the day. Although Chase remained
for over a generation the militant figure in American art, the direct influence of
the Munich men was only temporary. It was not long before the Paris trained
talents asserted their supremacy, and from this date onward the gracious stepmother
of American painting has continued to be the city by the Seine. ,

Despite technical and temperamental affiliations with French art, the growth of a
national spirit has year by year gathered strength and decision. At the Paris
Exposition of 1889 it wasthe Americans living and painting abroad who won chief
honors and the larger measure of critical approval. The Exposition of' 1900 witnessed
a reversal of- this situation, for not only did France but the general public recognize
the superior vigor and integrity of native effort. Flattered by their early successes
and not insensible to the leisured ease and charm of their surroundings, the expatriates
have in certain cases proved a disappointment. That they have done excellent work
cannot be denied, but they have lacked the wholesome stimulus of adverse conditions.
It is the men who, after serving their apprenticeship in foreign atelier and academy,
turned homeward to face opposition and hostility who have shaped the destiny of
contemporary American art. . 7
In the field of landscape the oldest of these, including Minor, Tryon, Ranger, Dewey,
Davis, and Murphy, together with certain of younger men such as Crane, Ochtman,
Foster, Dearth, and Dessar group themselves logically among the tonalists. Their art
is a frank appeal to sentiment. It continues, with inevitable variations, the broad
tradition of American landscape which originated with Doughty and Durand, which
was given emotional unity by the Barbizon masters, and which has taken only
enough freshness from the modern palette to save it from anachronism. There is
nothing violent or decisive in the work of these men. It is pacific enough to satisfy
the most shrinking soul. . More elegiaic than lyrical, it celebrates in softly modulated
accents a stretch of autumn wood, the setting of the sun behind a dark rim of hills,

a moist moonrise over' a lonesome bit of moorland, or the purple stillness of a,

twilight snow scene. It is a reverent tribute to the past, this art. It is an attempt
to revive and to keep alive states of consciousness which have long been forgotten
and outgrown. Psychologically it represents a protest against the increasing materialism
of the day, a desire to escape from, rather than boldly to face, the noisy glare and
, ceaseless hurry of contemporary life, and this is perhaps why it enjoys such vogue.
It cannot be denied that these men, though so reminiscent and reposeful, are true
and sincere nature poets. They know and love the themes they so persistently repeat,
and this soothing iteration finally ends in complacent acceptance. A logical pendant
to this group, though specifically belonging to the category of figure painters, is
Horatio Walker, who chooses the primitive appeal of life among the French-Canadian
peasantry. An earnest, self-taught man and a warm, mellow colorist, Walker, in his
scenes of farm and field, continues that pastoral strain which has long enriched art
with its directness of purpose and large, deliberate passivity. There are echoes of Millet,
of Troyon, and of Israels in the work of Walker. His art is assimilative rather than
' creative, but it tells its story with a sincere and determined nobility of statement.

The work of the foregoing men assuredly lacks the vitalizing magic of direct, outdoor
observation. Most of them‘ paint in their studios instead of being surrounded by
the stimulating sparkle of sun and sky. The temptation to overpoetize has not always
been resisted, and in place of wholesome reality they areprone to give us an emotional

 

1:21;» ‘fmzz;_‘-w;”r~

"v.5.

A an... Vflsv‘nnfl...» _.

4..— W.-NW.~._ -M--,<_¢, ,- 0
' pap—r

 

1
l
I
.
»l
i
l

“a...“w,’ . WM... up.-. , ..

 

and pictorial convention. The palette constantly needs cleaning, sentiment must have
its corrective, and this has happily been accomplished by those apostles of impressionism
who studied in Paris during the late seventies and early eighties and returned home
to risk malcomprehension and ridicule in its practice. The first American impressionist,
and in many respects its boldest and most concise disciple, was Theodore Robinson,

whose all too limited contribution remains one of the glories of the new movement.

It is, however, the society known as the Ten American Painters which has' done
most for the cause, and whose members have forced at least a partial acceptance of
their theories upon a none too receptive public. Yet it must not be assumed that
American impressionism is identical with French impressionism. The American painter
has accepted the facts, not the form of statement. He has adapted the prismatic
analysis to local conditions of color, light, and atmosphere, and gradually evolved
an independent technique. Only one American artist, Hassam, has gone as far as
Monet, and he is to-day the complete arbiter of his own beautiful and vibrant color

. appositions. In addition to Hassam the leading exponents of this new and invigorating

gospel of light and air are Weir, an older man who has passed with distinction
through many transitions, Metcalf, the exquisite lyrist of the group, Reid, who has
brilliantly applied the principle to decorative figure composition, and the late John
Twachtman, to whose delicate pink, mauve, and violet improvisations has been
added something of the subtleabstractness of the Japanese manner.

Associated with these men in the general ’aim of giving truth and vitality to the
modern palette, and members of the same society, are the BostOn painters, Tarbell,
Benson, and De Camp. It is to the lamp and firelight reflections and broad outdoor
effects of Besnard that they attach themselves rather than to the tremulous atmospheric
triumphs of the master of Giverny. They are adept, facile workmen, and display
a wide variety of choice. Tarbell gives to his New England interiors something of
the pellucid luminosity of Vermeer, and to his portraits singular verity and freedom
of observation and handling.

Benson’ 5 white frocked young folk bathed 1n full sunlight have that moral inviolability
and fresh, physical attraction which is so appropriately American, and De Camp
pauses midway between the‘ solidity of the Munich manner and the dexterity of the
later Frenchmen. That they display, on the whole, more craftsmanship than conviction,
is not a matter entirely to be deplored, for they have done more than any set of
men toward revealing to the public the possibilities of modern technique and in
proving the necessity for real, painterlike qualities in every branch of their art. To
these names must be added another, that of a woman - Miss Mary Cassatt — who
is to-day the most distinguished American impressionist. Long a resident of Paris,
and a former pupil of Degas, Miss Cassatt composes boldly in broad, flat color spaces
and draws with splendid power and purity of outline. Her art celebrates but one
theme, the endearing beauty and intimacy of motherhood, and 18 unique in its surety,
its sincerity, and its strength.

Although the true distinctions in painting are those of manner and method rather
than subject, yet subject exerts its own particular claims upon manner, and thus the
figure painter belongs in a certain sense to a class apart. It must be confessed at
the outset that the figure, as understood 1n art, has never been thoroughly acclimatized
in America. The nude has always been more or less of an outcast, for the essential
distinction between nudity and nakedness has never been recognized. It' is true that
Vanderlyn’ s“Ariadne" andFitz’s“Reflections" were admirable nudes, but the persistence

 

 

‘of' Puritanism, and its logical corollary, the general self consciousness of the. public:
in the presence of the undraped human farm, have prevented this phase of painting-

- from securing an even reasonable footing in the States. The fault has not been with
the artists. They have nearly all learned to draw the nude, and some to draw it
superbly, in their student days abroad. The blame for this feeble and abortive page
in the history of American painting rests entirely with the public. They accept the
academic abstractions of Kenyon Cox and the adolescent pruriency of Sargent Kendall,
but further than this' they decline to go. '

Despite such limitations there are, nevertheless, figure painters of distinction in
America, among those of established reputation being Abbott H. Thayer, George
de Forest Brush, Thomas Dewing, and John W. Alexander. The first two were
pupils of Gérome, and not a little of the smooth cOmpetence of their master has
clung to their work. Thayer is the official painter of feminine purity enthroned.
He has made a positive cult of chastity, the frank, wide-eyed innocence of young
womanhood being his perpetual theme. .Now she sits in, marble passivity upon a
blue and gold dias, and now wonderingly faces the great world holding by the hand
/ two lesser counterparts of herself. There is no equivocation here. The painter is
reverently and devoutly single minded. This is not demi—virginity, it is virginity
victrix. Just as it is maidenhood that claims the full brush and fine draughtsmanship
of Thayer, so it is motherhood which has enlisted the closer, more constrained
technique of Brush. Brush began by depicting the American Indian with no little
imaginative insight and power. He has to-day left the Wigwam for the domestic
intimacy and serene, elevated spirituality of the family fireside.

The work of Thomas W. Dewing, the third member of the quartette, is the essence
of all that is reserved and supersensitive. In these highly finished, opalescent little
panels has been immured a vastly more complex type of feminity than, the art of
either Thayer or Brush exemplifies. These women are not lacking in aristocratic
sophistication. Generations of culture and of consequent anemia physical and mental

are expressed in their every attitude and the atmosphere they exhale. Dewing’s

work is a subtle mosaicof motives Whistlerian, Japanese, and innately individual. It
manifestly suffers from over refinement. It is exquisite in its mute appeal, but comes
perilously near being esthetic transubstantiation. The delicacy and artistic diffidence
of Dewing takes a broad, decorative sweep in the hands of John W. Alexander whose
beautiful, mundane canvases reveal the magic of modern effectiveness and a superlative
mastery of lihe and tone. Alexander’s work is one of the most personal and
distinguished contributions to contemporary art. It is full of spirited, nervous
pictorialism. It is slender in substance yet supreme in craftsmanship.

While restricted, in the sphere of figure painting, American art in other branches
shows a wholesome diversity of aim. Portraiture is represented by Chase, Beckwith,
Seymour Thomas, Wiles, and Miss Beaux, who more or less closely follow the
dictatorship of Sargent, by Lockwood who remains faithful to his master, La Farge,
and by numerous younger men of more individual temperament such as Robert
Henri and BenaAli Haggin, the former of whom lingers under the spell of Spain,
the latter of whom is working out his own salvation with no little vigor and
confidence. There are also a number of non-resident portrait painters who are in
the habit of visiting the States with more or less frequency. At their head stands
John Sargent, whose masterly brushwork and acute, if summary analysis are familiar
on both sides of the water. More regular in his visits and more popular with the

,xw—m »——.«... ,_.,.. -- _

m ”m—w— “a. fir. 11—;—
a.....»,.“ . . .mg—r‘yfi‘)‘w~ _~«..

 

 

{I
3
l ,
l
i
x

i:
. l
‘i
)
i
z
,.
I
,
l.
i
.

public is J. J. Shannon, who also lives in London,’ and who bears with him across
the sea the gracious tradition of English eighteenth century portraiture modernized
by dashes of Velazquez and also by a personal equation which is always free,
supple, and elegant. .

Of the two leading American painters residing in Germany, Professor Melchers and
Professor Marr, the former has kept in closer accord with the spirit of his native
land, and through his breadth of vision, his power of direct handling, and his clear
and resonant purity of coloring ranks as one of the dominant personalities of the
day. Professor Melchers has passed through many phases. He has painted in Brittany,

in Holland, and in America; he has depicted peasant and the President of a great
‘1 Republic, and has everywhere evinced an assured mastery of his medium which

never fails to command respect and admiration. It is unfortunate that Professor
Marr‘ exhibits so seldom in his native land, for there is need of art such as his,
need of its soundness, its sanity, and its rich and varied c'olor scale. 'As we have
already seen, the Paris men maintain a more intimate relationship with the mother
country than do the American artists who have settled elsewhere. It is true that
Dannat, Harrison, and Hitchcock exhibit only at intervals and with diminishing
frequency, though the younger men such as Gay, McCameron, McEwen, Walden,
Hubbell, and Browne, and the two brilliant and attractive newcomers, Miller and
Frieseke, are more regularly represented. Living abroad as these men do, the themes
which they choose are almost exclusively foreign, and their work, though characte-
ristically flexible and adaptable, is European in flavor.

Admirable as such training is, it is not, however, through cultivating cosmopolitan
sympathies, but through an ever increasing nationalism of subject and treatment, that
American art can achieve ultimate salvation. No'better exponents of this growing
tendency are to be found than Redfield, Schofield, and Dougherty. Redfield clearly
stands at the head of broad, sturdy, American decorative landscape. Schofield is
only a shade less native in his inspiration, and in Daugherty marine painting
possesses a man who should someday rank' beside Winslow Homer. Massive of
physique and positive in their opinions, these men are the young Titans of American
art, rejoicing in their new found strength and triumphantly blazing the pathway of
the future. Yet they by no means furnish the only signs of advancement. There
are various other foci of activity. Dabo aEects impalpable though structurally severe
abstracts of local landscape. Burroughs and Davies cultivate the poetic and symbolical.
Sterner, Glackens, SIOan, and Shinn‘ are apostles of graphic freedom. Bellows paints
river scenes with a mixture of youthful gusto and real artistic sensitiveness, and Luks'
seeks to intensify the picturesque ugliness of street life in the slums. The aim of
certain of these latter men is to offset sentiment by frankly explicit statement. Their
particular deities are Manet, Degas, and after them the shabby Olympians of Mont-
martre. They show undeniable talent but they are inclined to look at American
types and scenes through the spectrum of Paris studio and café days. There are
others who paint now in‘ one manner, now in another, and there are also hints

that, under the aegis of Stieglitz and Steichen, the chromatic and linear experiments

of Henri Matisse may shortly find place.

Such are the main .lines of development which American painting has followed during
the past century, and such are the aims and achievements of certain of its leading
exemplars. There is no denying the cleverness, the ready eclecticism, and the general
excellence of work produced as it has been under conditions always difficult and

 

 

N-.. -:‘;- vz-r ,. _,._,.;.__:__':,,;~'; z._;-«;,;: -v -1 5.: .~';:;:*:.':—::*:;.;_..‘: ‘ .' 7 '....'..:'.':_.12 » '::;..:-.z:u,;_-J man . new a». - ,. . . . , a. H . . . , M - , , . . .. - . ,
v" ,2 v warv ~v v—w- «7«v—vmaquW—‘mw-rsz.flaws»... .zfiwvrnww v..-

often disheartening. There is no disputing the fact that American painting has finally
won place beside that of older and more richly endowed races. It only remains to
be seen whether this Outwardly brilliant and sensitive art expresses the fundamental
significance of American life, scene, and character —- whether, in short, it is national in
the same degree that German art and French art, for example, may be called national. ,
The American is popularly supposed to be, and to all, appearances is, a vigorous,
progressive type. The country is vast in size and rich in native resources. There is
in America every variety of climate and every kind of scenery from the granite-bound,
pinegdotted mountains of Vermont, to the waving palms of Florida, and from the b
leafy glades and rolling hills of Pennsylvania to the luxuriant sub—tropical vegetation '
and azure skies of Southern California. The population is singularly varied and
diverse. There are gigantic forces social and material in constant fermentation
.before the eye, and there is in certain centers a dynamic intensity of life which
cannot be paralleled anywhEre in the world. Nor is the country all new, crude,
and unpoetic. It is not difficult to find spots full of rare and beseeching natural
beauty. The quiescence of years clusters about the white porticoed houses of
Colonial New England, the substantial homes of the Middle State Quaker, and the
spacious mansions of the Virginia landed gentry, and in the daily lives of these families
there remains not a’little old time grace and distinction. American society is to-day
reasonably well crystallized; the American already has his historical background, his
. physical characteristics, and his own personal psychology. In short, those great,

formative influences which at first produced only confusion have worked themselves

out along definite and easily distinguishable lines. There is no question that America

possesses the raw material of art, that it reveals inabundance the facts from which

beauty is fashioned and about which the flame of fancy may play at—will. One has

thus simply to inquire how deeply these elements have entered into the esthetic

consciousness of the people at large, and of the painter in particular. ,

The specific point at issue is whether American art as a whole conveys a satisfying _ -

or even approximate sense of the above conditions, whether or not it translates into '

its own enduring language of form and color, simple and significant truths which

are the common heritage of all. Does American landscape for instance give an _

adequate impression of the intimacy of the East or the majestic spaces of the West.

Are these portraits faithful likenesses of the American woman, and do those represent

the iron-willed captains of industry of which we hear so much. In fine, can one

glean from American art an idea of what American scene and society really are, and

is this .art an accurate and convincing, a consistently decorative, or an imaginatively

eloquent interpretation of actuality. These are serious questions; but they are questions

which .should cross the mind of anyone on viewing a representative collection of

paintings. They are, in the present circumstances, questions which may confidently

be left to the intuitionsof those who turn the pages of this publication.

Christian Brinton.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

., V. r.‘$..._r-*:’;‘:f ’1‘?’j~;:--’*'a r'v axe—w...,..~.. can—u» -;..«,.. m was .y hm .. . .r .,
, . 1.”. (VV, ._._.-» waves.“ w, ..c,_,.,._.- ...-...:.w.. ,- '-v=v7r«<?:»‘- earmrvwnvu» - - —‘:.:—“;—w as... ~

w ' LIST OF ARTISTS ; i T

Alexander, John White

Figure, Portrait, and Mural Painter. Born in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, 1856. Pupil of ’
Prof. Benczur, of the ’Royal Academy in Munich and of Frank Duveneck, Venice and Florence.

Received a Gold Medal at the Paris Exposition in 1900 and many other distinctions in

Europe and America. President of the National Academy of Design, New York; Member

of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts and of the International Society of Sculptors, Painters

and Gravers, London. ' ‘

Beaux, Cecilia ,

Portrait Painter. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Pupil of William Sartain, Philadelphia,
the Académie Julian, and the Académie Lasar, Paris. Received various prizes and honorable
mentions. Member of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts, Paris, also of the National
Academy of Design, New York.

Bellows,’ George L . » . l ’

Landscape and Figure Painter. Born in Columbus, Ohio, 1882. Student at the New York School
of Art under Robert Henri. Associate Member of the National Academy of Design, New York. .

Benson, Frank W. ‘ ’ 1‘ . f

Figure and Portrait Painter. Born in Salem, Massachusetts, 1862.» Pupil of the Boston
Museum of Fine Arts and the Académie Julian, Pa'ris, under Boulanger and .Lefébvre.
Received Medals at the Chicago Exposition in 1893 and elsewhere. Teacher of Drawing
and Painting in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Member of the National Academy of
Design, New York. . - ‘

Blakelock, Ralph A.
Landscape and Figure Painter. Born in New York City 1847. .. '

._. . Mum. -WMMWWNN 4» warm-“s HEM-v!"

Brener, Henry joseph

Landscape Painter.‘ Born in Philadelphia, Pa., 1860. Began his studies in Bufl'alo and
continuedlater in Cincinnati, New York, Paris and London. "

Browne, George Elmer

Figure and Marine Painter. Born in Gloucester, Massachusetts, 1871. Pupil of Benson,
Tarbell and De Camp in Boston, also, of Lefébvre and Robert-Fleury, Paris. '

Brush, George deg Forest .

Figure Painter. Born in Shelbyville: Tennessee, 1855. Pupil-..of the Ecole des ‘Bea/ux-Arts‘
and Géréme, Paris. Received Medals Chicago 1893, Bufialo 1901, and St. Louis 1904. Member
of the National Academy of Design, New York.

19

 

 

 

Kaylee-1‘ C V T ’

- Haun— NV“ .,

 

 

. __.. a- .0; ,.

 

Camp, Joseph De

1

Figure and Portrait Painter. Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, 1858.“ Pupil of Duveneck, the Cincinnati
.Academy, and the Royal Academy, Munich. Teacher of Drawing and Painting. Member of

g the Ten American Painters.

Carlsen, Emil

Still Life, Landscape, and Figure Painter. Born in Copenhagen, Denmark, 1853. Studied in
Copenhagen; pupil of the architectural department of the Royal Academy. Settled in the
United States in 1872. Medal at the St. Louis Exposition 1904. Member of the National

Academy of Design, New York. ,

Chase, William Merritt _

Figure, Landscape, Portrait, and Still Life Painter. Born in Franklin, Indiana, 1849. Pupil of Hayes,
Indianapolis, and Eaton, New York. Went to Munich 1872 and studied there under Wagner
and Piloty. Honorable mention at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia 1876; Gold
Medal of Honor Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts .1895 and many other medals. Teacher at
the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts and the Art Students' League, New York. Member
of the National Academy of Design, of the Ten American Painters, New York, and of the
International Society of Sculptors, Painters and Gravers, London.

Cooper, Colin Campbell ,
Painter of Architectural subjects and Street scenes. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Pupil of
the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, and the Académie Julian, Paris. Gold Medal
Art ClubPhiladelphia 1905. Associate Member of the National Academy of Design, New York.

Dabo, Leon . ,
Landscape Painter. Born in Detroit, Michigan, 1868. Studied (at the Ecole des Arts Décoratifs,
Paris, also in Rome, Florence and Venice and under Daniel Vierge.

Davis, Charles H.

Landscape Painter. Born in Amesbury, Massachusetts, 1856. Pupil of Otto Grundmann
and the Museum of Fine Arts,lBoston, and of Boulanger and Lefébvre, Paris. Gold Medal
American Art Association 1886 and 1887. Member of the Copley Society, Boston, and the
National Academy of Design, New York. He also received a Medal at the Exposition in Paris. 1889.

Dearth, Henry Golden

Landscape and Figure Painter. Born in Bristol, Rhode Island, 1863. Pupil of the Ecole des
’ Beaux-Arts, Paris. Received various medals and honorable mentions. Member of the National

Academy of Design, New York.

Dessar, Louis Paul

Landscape Painter. Born in Indianapolis, Indiana, 1867. Pupil of the National Academy of
Design, New York, of Bouguereau, Robert-Fleury and of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Paris.
Medals: Chicago 1893 and Salon 1901. Member of the National Academy of Design, New York.

Dewing, Thomas W.

Figure Painter. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, 1851. Pupil of Boulanger and Lefébvre, Paris.
Medals: Paris 1889, Buffalo 1901, St. Louis 1904. Member of the National Academy of Design
and of the Ten American Painters, New York.

20

 

 

 

‘Duveneck, Frank _

Figure and Portrait Painter. Born in Covington, Kentucky, 1848. Pupil of Prof. von Dietz,
Munich. Studied also in Venice. Teacher at the Cincinnati Academy of Fine Arts. Medals:
Chicago 1893, Paris 1895, Buffalo 1901. 'Membergof the National Academy of Design, New York.

Famy, Henry F.
Figure Painter. Born in Cincinnati, Ohio. Studied' in Munich.

‘Fuller, George , ‘ a a "

7 Figure Painter. Born in Deerfield, Massachusetts, 1822; died in Boston 1884. Studied with

Henry K. Brown, the sculptor, in Albany and also in Bo$ton, New York, London and various
places on the Continent.

Hnssam, Childe

Landscape and Figure Painter. Born in Boston, 'Massachusetts, 1859. Studied in Boston and _
with Boulanger and Lefébvre in Paris. Received Medals in Munich 1892, Chicago 1893,
and others in Europe and America. Member of the Société Nationale des Beaux—Arts, Paris,
the Ten American Painters and the National Academy of Design, New York.

Harrison, T. Alexander

Marine and Figure Painter. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1853. Pupil of the Pennsylvania
Academy of Fine Arts, of the Ecole des Beaux- Arts, of Bastien-Lepage and Gérome, Paris. ~
Received a Gold Medal at the Paris Exhibition in 1889 and many other distinctions. Member
of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts and the International Society, Paris.

Hitchcock, George

Figure and Landscape Painter. Born in Providence, Rhode Island, 1850. Pupil of Boulanger
and Lefébvre, Paris. and of Mesdag in Holland. Received Medals at the Paris Exposition 1889,
Berlin 1891, Chicago 1893, Dresden 1897, Vienna 1898 and Munich 1899.

Homer, Winslow ' I

Figure and Marine Painter. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, 1836. Pupil of the National
Academy of Design and of F. Rondel, New York. Won First Prize at the Carnegie Institute
in Pittsburgh 1896, Gold Medal at the International Exposition in Paris 1900. Member of
the National Academy of Design, New York.

Hunt, William Morris

Figure, Portrait and Landscape Painter. Born in Brattleboro, Vermont, 1824; died in 1879.
Studied at the Diisseldorf Academy and with Couture in Paris; lived and worked with Millet
in Barbizon. He was a successful teacher in Boston. His mural paintings in the New York
State Capitol, Albany, are well known.

Inness, George ‘

Landscape Painter. Born in ,Newburgh, New York,'1825; died. 1894 at Bridge of Allan,
Scotland. Pupil of Regis Gignoux. Studied in Italy and France. Member of the National
Academy of Design, New York. ,

7 La Farge, John

Figure, Landscape and Mural Painter. Born in New York City 1835. Studied under Couture
in Paris and William Morris Hunt in Boston. Received a Gold Medal at the Pan- American
[Exposition in BuEalo 1901 and many other distinctions.

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mac Cameron, Robert . /
Figure and Portrait Painter. Born in Chicago, Illinois. Studied with W. M. Chase, New York,
'with Géréme and Whistler and at. the Ecole des BeauznArts, Paris. Gold Medals, Paris
Salon 1905 and, hers concours; Paris 1907.

Mac Ewen, Walter
Figure Painter. Born; in Chicago, Illinois, 1860. Pupil of Cormon and Robert-Fleury, Paris.
Received Medals at the IntematiOnal Exposition 1889, Berlin 1891, London 1890, Chicago 1893,
Antwerp 1894, St. Louis 1904. Associate Member of the National Academy of Design, New York.

Martin, Homer D. _ . , ' _ . .
Landscape Painter. Born in Albany, New York, 1836; died 1897. Pupil of William Hart.
Lived and worked many years in France. Member of the Society of American Artists and the
National Academy of Design, New York. ' '

‘Melchers, Gari , 7
Figure andPOrtrait Painter. Born in Detroit, Michigan, 1860. Pupil of Gebhardt, Diisseldorf
Academy, of Boulanger, Lefébvre and at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Received Medals at
the Paris Salon 1886, Munich 1888, Paris 1889 and many other distinctions in Europe and
America. Member of the Royal Academy in Berlin, International Society, London, Société
Nationale des Beaux-Arts, Paris, National-Academy of Design, New'York, and Professor
at the Grand-Ducal Academy of Art in Weimar. , '

Metcalf, Willard Leroy - .
Landscape Painter. Born in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1858. Studied with George L. Brown ‘
in Boston, the Lowell Institute, Boston Normal Art School, and the Boston Museum. Later he
went to Paris. and studied there at the Académie Julian under Boulanger and Lefébvre. Received
Medals at the Chicago Exposition in 1893 and at the Corcoran Art Gallery, Washington,
D. C. 1907. Member of the Ten American Painters. '

Murphy, J. Francis , .
Landscape Painter. Born in Oswego, New York, 1853. Received a Medal at the Chicago
Exposition 1893. Member of the National Academy of Design, New York. . '

. Ranger, Henry W.

Landscape Painter. Born in New York State, 1858. Resided in France, England and Holland
for several years. Received a Silver Medal, at the Pan-American Exposition Buffalo 1901.
Member of the National Academy of Design, New York. ‘ ' v

Redfield, Edward W.
Landscape Painter. Born in Bridgeville, Delaware, 1868. Pupil at the Pennsylvania Academy
of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, and of. Bouguereau and Robert-Fleury, Paris. Received Medals
from the Art Club of Philadelphia in 1896, at the St. LOuis Exposition in 1904, and at the
Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in 1907.

Reid, Robert
Figure, Landscape and Mural Painter. Born in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, 1863. Studied
at the Museum of, Fine Arts, Boston, at. the Art Students’ League, New York, and at the
Académie Julian, Paris, under Boulanger and 'Lefébvre. L

 

 

 

Robinson, Theodore . ‘ , .

Landscape and Figure Painter. Born in Irasburg, Vermont, 1854 and died in New York 1896. . ’
Pupil Of Carolus-Duran and Gérome in Paris. Received a Medal at the Chicago Exposition
in 1893. Member of the Society of American Artists.

, Ryder, Albert P.

Painter of ideal and fantastic subjects. Born in New Bedford, Massachusetts, 1847. Studied
under William E. Marshall and at the National Academy of Design, New York. Received a
Silver Medal at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo 1901. Member of the National
Academy of Design, New York.

“Sargent, john 8.

Portrait, Landscape, Mural, and Figure Painter. Born in Florence, Italy, 1856. Pupil at the
Academy 1n Florence and of Carolus- Duran, Paris. Studied and travelled in Spain. Won the
Grand Prize at the International Exhibition in Paris m 1889 and many other medals. Member
of the Royal Academy of Art, Berlin, the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts, Paris, and the
Royal Academy, London. .

Tarbell, Edmund C.

Figure and Portrait Painter. Born in West Groton, Massachusetts, 1862. Studied with Grundmann
at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and later with Boulanger, Lefébvre and Dannat in Paris.
Received the Gold Medal of Honor at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. Member of the
Ten American Painters and the National Academy of Design, New York. -

Tanner, Henry 0. 7
Figure Painter (principally religious subjects). Born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1859. Pupil
at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, under Thomas Eakins. Was later a
pupil under Laurens and Benjamin- -Constant, Paris. Received Medals at' Buffalo 1901 and
St. Louis 1904. -

Thayer, Abbott H. ‘ '

Figure and Portrait Painter. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, 1849. Studied with Wilmarth and
Morse, Boston, and Géréme and Lehman at the Ecole des Beaux -,Arts Paris. Received a Medal
at the International Exhibition at Paris in 1889. ‘Member of the Academia de San Luca, Rome, \
and the National Academy of Design, New York.

Tryon, Dwight W. .
Landscape Painter. Born in Hartford, Connecticut, 1849. Pupil of Daubigny, Chevreuse
and Harpignies, also studied at the Ecole des Beaux- Arts, Paris. Received Medals at the
Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh, in 1898, Buffalo 1901 and St. Louis 1904. Professor at Smith
College in Massachusetts. Member of the National Academy of Design, New York.

Twachtman, John Henry

Landscape Painter. Born 1n Cincinnati, Ohio, 1853; died in Gloucester, Massachusetts, 1902.
Was a pupil at the Cincinnati School of Design and of Frank Duveneck. Studied later at
the Royal Academy in Munich under Prof. von Lafitz and with Duveneck in Venice. He
then went to Paris' and was there a pupil of Boulanger and Lefébvre. Received various
prizes and honorable mentions.

23

_. $4.”.
.7 _1

 

 

 

 

 

 

. —,r -- .- man. ., .74.... _ -.,~ ,. .- . ‘ . ur- ..' ’
1‘ .4 5. ;.‘. . ‘ z , .«. , 31,,“ , .Afv‘n, ,1 __ 2.. _. .. s, ”An-rem“.- (

Walden, Lionel _ .
Marine and Figure Painter. Born in Norwich, Connecticut, 1862. Studied under Carolus-
Duran'in Paris. Received Medals: London, Paris in 1900, Paris Salon 1903, St. Louis 1904.
Member of .the International Society of Sculptors, Painters and Gravers, London, and the
Society of American Artists, Paris. , ‘ -

Walker, Horatio A
Animal and Figure Painter. Born in Ontario, Canada, 1858. Studied under FraSer, Toronto,
4 and in New York. Received Medals: Chicago 1893, Paris 1889, Buffalo 1901, and St. Louis 1904.
. Member of the Royal Institute of Painters in Water Colors, England, and the National Academy
of Design, New York. . ’ ‘ . _

Weir, J. Alden

Figure, Portrait, and Landscape Painter. Born in West Point, New York, 1852. Studied
under his father, Professor Robert W. Weir, and later with Gérome in Paris. Received Medals:
Paris 1889, Pittsburgh 1897, Buffalo 1901. Member of the Ten American Painters andlthe
'National Academy of Design, New York.

Whistler, James Mc Neill

Figure, Portrait, and Marine Painter; Etcher and Lithographer. Born in Lowell, Massachusetts,
1834; died in London 1903. In 1855 he went to Paris and studied under Gleyre for two
years; in 1859 he went to London., His first much talked of picture, “At'the Piano”, was

exhibited at the Royal Academy, London, in 1860. / He received many medals and honorable ,

mentions. He was president of the Society of British Artists and First President of the

International Society of Sculptors, Painters and lGravers, London; an honorary member of the

Accademia di San Luca, Rome, and the Royal Academy of Art in Munich and a member of
, the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts, Paris.

Wiles, Irving R. , .
Figure and Portrait Painter. Born in Utica, New York, 1861. Pupil of his father, of Chase
and Beckwith’, of the Art Students’ League, New York, and of Lefébvre and Carolus-Duran,

Paris. Received Medals; Chicago 1893, Buffalo 1901, and St. Louis 1904. Member of the
National Academy of Design, New York. Q . '

g Wyant, " Alexander H.

Landscape Painter. Born in Port Washington, Ohio, 1836; died in New York, 1892. Pupil

of George Inness, New York, and Hans Gude, Dusseldorf. Member of the Society of 1

American Artists and the National Academy of Design, New York.

 

u: 2' , b. 7» .

 

 

LISTOF PAINTINGS REPRODUCED

Alexander, John. W.
1. Sunlight.

Bennx, Cecilia . ,
l 2. New England Woman. OWned by the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts,
Philadelphia, Pa. ‘ v ‘ ~ « .

Bellows, George
3. Blackwell’s Bridge.

, Benson, Frank W.

4. .Portrait of the Artist’ 5 Daughters. OWned‘ by the Worcester Art Museum,
Worcester, Mass. - '

Blakelock, R. A. ‘ . p
5. Moonlight. , Owned by Mr. Wm. T. Evans, Montclair, NJ.

Breuer, Henry J.
6. Mount- Brewer in the Sierras: Owned by—Mr. Adolphus Busch, St. Louis, Mo.

Browne, George Elmer
7. ' The Wain Team. Owned by Mr. Wm. T. Evans, Montclair, NJ.

Brush, George de Forest
' 8. Mother and Children. Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts,
Philadelphia, Pa.

Camp, Joseph De 1 ,
9. The Guitar Player. Owned "by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.

Carlsen, Emil —
10. The Panel. * j .

. Chase, William M.

11. Lady with White Shawl. Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts,
Philadelphia, Pa.

Cooper, Colin C.
12. Broadway.

Dabo, Leon ‘
13. Evening on the Hudson. ' l p

25

. ‘— gm;-.-_.~'g._‘m.— ,1“... ’ a: __ a , .. 7-,. . , ' - ;_—:._‘ i»._1—' ‘K'kl‘xm .

 

 

 

 

w

 

 

Davis, Charles H. ‘
14. Landscape. Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Pa.

4

Dearth, Henry G.
15. The Lowlands. ‘ Owned by the heirs of Mr. Peter Schemm, Philadelphia, Pa.

Dessar, Louis Paul ‘ ‘ . .~_
16. Going Home. Owned by Mr. Louis A. Lehmaier, New York.

"Dewing, T hamas W. -
17. Lady playing Violoncello. Owned by the Freer Collection, National Gallery
of the United States, Washington, D. C.

Duveneck, Frank
18.‘ Whistling Boy. Owned by the Cincinnati Museum Association, Cincinnati, 0.

Farny, Henry F.

19. The Song of the talking Wire. Owned by Mr. and Mrs. Charles P. Taft,
Cincinnati, 0. ‘

Fuller, George ‘
20.. Nydia. Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of -Art, New York.

Harrison, T. Alexander ,
21. Marine. Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy /of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Pa.

Hassam, ‘Childe
,22. TheJGreen, New Haven. _

Hitchcock, George
23. The Annunciation.

Homer, 'Winslow
24. The Gulf Stream. Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
25. All's Well. Owned by the Museum of Fine Arts, BostOn, Mass.

Hunt, William Morris ' '
26. Girl with Cap. Owned by the Wm. M. Hunt Estate.

Inness, George ‘ .
27. Autumn Oaks.‘ Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. '

28. Sunshine and Clouds. Owned by Mr. Wm. 1'. Evans, Montclair, NJ.

La Farge, John

, 29. Nicodemus. Owned by the Evans Collection, National Gallery of the United
States, »Washington, D. C.

26/

Mac Cameron, Robert
30. Portrait of President Taft.

Mac Ewen, Walter
31. The Secret.

Martin, Homer D.

32. View of the Seine Valley. Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. \/

Melchers, Gari
33. Madonna.

Metcalf, Willard Leroy
'34. Spring Fields.

Murphy, J. Francis
35. Landscape. Owned by Mr. Hugo Reisinger, New York.

Ranger, Henry W.
36. A Connecticut Pasture. Owned by Mr. B. Mansfield, New Haven, Conn.

Redfield, Edward -W.
37. Landscape in April.

Reid, Robert
38. Meditation. Owned by Mr. Hugo Reisinger, New' York.

Robinson, Theodore
39. Day Dreams. Owned by Mr. Wm. T. Evans, Montclair, N..J

Ryder, Albert P.
40. Death on the Race Track. Owned by Messrs. Cottier 8. Co. ., New York.

Sargent, John S. - , / ‘
41. Portrait of Mr W. Graham Robertson. Owned by Mr. W. Graham Robertson, London.

42. Portrait of Mr. Edward Robinson. Owned by Mr. Edward Robinson, NewYork.

Tanner, Henry 0.
43. Two Disciples at the Tomb. Owned by the Art Institute, Chicago, Ill.

Tarbell, Edmund C. .
44. Girl Reading. Owned by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.

Thayer, Abbott H. ‘
, 45. Robert Louis Stevenson Memorial. Owned by Mr. J J. Albright, Buffalo, N. Y.

 

 

“BMW?”’35:3554ng:I,.jl‘*»i;fi;:.';¢;_ guy-.1;-':..~,--f;,,-;;_\.v,r=r -;g.£f-¢;§)$?3,bfv-§5;s.kux-%, . 1; ,9“; _ .,. “a,” .-. MM“ . . fl ,, 7 _ .. .,
W1 . V,» , r ‘M v.‘ . ’. ,,.,,7. 9., .~_.......,.._ .., , "1' . ...' v “1‘ 7:, "19"”: _ “”4.

   

Trydn, Dwight W. . . , . ., ~ . ,
46. The Farm —- October Night, Owned by Col. Frank J. Hacker, Detroit, Mich.

Twachtnian, John H. ,
47. Landscape in Spring. Owned by Mr. Hugo Reisinger, New York.

Walden, Lionel

48." Summer‘ Evening.

Walker, Horatio
49. The Thresher. Owned by Mrs. A. T.-Sanden, New York.

Weir, J. Alden 1’ .
50. Ploughin'g for Buckwheat.

Whistler, James McNeill
51. Head of a Girl. Owned by Mr. Hugo Reisinger, New York.

~ 52. Nocturne — Blue Silver, The Lagoon. Owned by Mr. Richard A. Canfield, -
New York.

53. The Balcony. Owned by the Freer Collection, National Gallery of the United
States, Washington, D. C. ,

 

 

Wiles, Irving R.
54. A Quiet Corner. Owned byMr. C. J. Billwiller, New York. , _ - I - , j

i , Wyant, Alexander H. \ ’ -
55. Vlew in County Kerry, Ireland. Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I
New York. - ,

 

 

 

28

 

ALL THE PLATES OF THIS BOOK HAVE BEEN , ~ »
PRODUCED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHISCHE
GESELLSCHAFT OF BERLIN AFTER THEIR
\OWN PHOTOGRAPHS

 

LETTERPRESS BY OTIO'VON HOLTEN, BERLIN\

 

 

 

 

 

‘ 31414.7( {imswwin u. u Effll .; 1,

var. : ikrmym

.,

   

a
.n
. .r

 

 

1. JOHN W. ALEXANDER

 

 

Sunlight

 

 

“7;.

 

 

 

 

2. CECILIA BEAUX

New England Woman
Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts,

delphia, Pa.

Philag

5‘,
g

"‘1 wfl w,

 

a

apmr

' Copy/19h)! Harlin Phatvyr

. .w.

a”

 

 

.2: ‘ :,.E- 1.

 

 

0 e .,
L g __
L w
E r
B B .
E )S
O k n
E x
G m __
3.

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

gyafluz Ly!

 
     

m

W

,1

 

  

. . . 4 (A v .. . .
ks . , , , {IV‘EPE‘iotrrbifkuxufi‘ ,
f 44)! J...‘{ I! ‘tll‘lt in; u»

4 . , , .

 

 

Portrait of the Artist’s Daughters
Owned by the Worcester Art-Museum, Worcester, Mass.

FRANK W. BENSON

4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Wm

42%;!“ " H

.i'

was:
. .. ,

 

5. R. A. BLAKELOCK

Moonlight
Owned by Mr. Wm. T. Evans, Montclair, NJ.

 

 

5'4!” V»

 

 

oar-7— ~- » .7 «(5’

 

. m’b
.._,...

5.? bill! (373:5?

‘ var-1&7. [1:1,

 

 

 

 

 

 

,.. , 0. h‘v
M . ”w
.m, x.
u u,
M: . O u
.4 < L .
1. A s 9"
. a m )
,. .m .m M
R S B
e
‘ E h m
U t w
E .m ‘m
R r M
B e
. w r.
J m M
x Y B v. .
R t b '3
N m w
E o m
H M o
. f0. .
. {A
u
. / a

 

 

, Ci}. 1 {.1

$5.}: 4 (I.

uinvfbit€1|Ifi§FJ§KSJs¥¥ 1V .

 

GEORGE ELMER BROWNE
Owned by Mr. Wm. T. Evans, Montclair, NJ.

The Wain Team

7.

 

 

 

 

-_. ““” ‘ ‘2

   

 

 

 

 

 

8. GEORGE DE FOREST BRUSH

Mother and Children
Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philas

delphia, Pa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .
v . ,J.
q J.
fi .
w ‘ _
u‘ . 7
r . fi
._ a .
.a M
. m, n
. 0 \.
. B x
N m) -y
_ A .
. e _
_ . .m .. .
F
H r...
P o ‘
M rm
A ee
C Wu
E Hm
D mum
t
m .mw
.
E Gd . _
m M“
J TO
9. N.
O
‘

 

 

 

EMIL CARLSEN

10.

 

The Panel

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cup ”th Berim P/‘zofuymz/nlzm UP

 

m,

 

 

 

 

7- 359.9%" ’ ,~ 3-» -,,

 

- 11. WILLIAM M. CHASE

Lady with White Shawl .
Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philas
delphia, Pa.

 

‘ I _

 

 
     
   

.03? em

m4........

‘ ‘

~..—-—é—.—... 4...; Aw”;

A,

 

 

 

 

 

COLIN C. COOPER

12.

Broadway

.74 ‘,

 

 

W...“
«

til. i, I, I?

-..!.\...fl.m1.. p.19; .51.“ H”, r‘

 

  

‘, .. 1% wagimaiwvdllflt

JL.IIH.?..!¥¢. fiéirrfl 46%;: ,

 

. ,, v 5.“ '1'» “yuan-«4w .
. T's-mu am};

.1?er

,y

 

 

-m -

 

,ln. Liv-U916

_. i 5
W2.» ...r. 4:!

 

 

 

Evening on the Hudson

LEON DABO

13.

 

é

 

 

 

.

 

J
}

 

 

, M
h.&m_—$J"‘ ww-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARLES H. DAVIS

14

Landscape

ia Academy of Fine Arts, Phila:

Owned by the Pennsylvan

delphia, Pa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

way. ,,

kyg fiat"

192‘

 

f4:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. HENRY G. DEARTH

The Lowlands

Owned by the heirs of Mr. Peter Schemm, Philadelphia, Pa.

 

L’qpyry/‘zz‘ [901171.725 win/Jar {:0

   
   

wag,“

A” ‘

 

“Ag.- 4:

m... wax- 1-x“ , ,_ V

 

 

 

 

 

A .lvxfei‘eh , ., : .

V.‘

1.. .1 E‘E‘i‘ I D. .

«it», w§§n¥k L6 ‘ . , , ”\IIIHI“ .i.s§7

t, .i xéf
V

vvrl V. [.52

 

.m .,
vm
w, .
M .V
a.
R m
A he
S L. ;
mm A
D .m
L L
U er.
mm mm
s hm
m ma
O.ow
L GO
6 I
1 .

 

14w

 

{now-M-

 

 

 

:awug, .~;~J»_;-

 

4-. ..

    

.--«,a ...

 

m»--JA&¥_” 4m “39“.,“

.,...W"‘“ ' ’
Nam . ;

7A..»— ,,

 

.32 a~s~~~~~ : KKK '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. THOMAS W. DEWING

Lady playing Violoncello

Owned by the Freer Collection, National Gallery of the

United States, Washington, D. (‘.

 

A‘.”

 

 

w‘w’m pr:

       

 

 

             

18. FRANK DUVEN ECK

Whistling Boy
Owned by the Cincinnati Museum Association, Cincinnati, 0.

 

 

 

 

..
alrigilliiib‘xiefi... 5:. ‘ {Tynflibybaafllnl‘clxnxlik ‘1?! IE:

.‘Ir. 4. 5.. w. . . ‘ . . mi. 6...» u»!t~zwlu.§.li§5‘ 9.31:. ; , , I\¢ «I Vl4\1)ri V

 

 

 

 

[’gnyrm/zi fizr];rz.“/Lafajra/Dizu LL17

I!

Insult: £3111!» .34.. i

.67 \ \ 3.13.5:
a. ‘ level!!! «ii .
”le e . . ,, Fx3h r. lié} .. _
3%?! Il‘ ‘5‘}! ., J a I

\Vuol‘. .,, Ivln...‘

 

 

 

a.”

 

Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

20. GEORGE FULLER
Nydia

 

,6 .

531:”: ,2
{Rum-1m.

. .l‘ 2». 43h

4,, I .‘Allllla:

 

‘91 Q . 1...? ii...» 2.3:
. g! ,. , ~35 .:.>...\;;.ikl.1an?
at; wail!!!) . 35...! 5; .ll-,

 

1&0... . .. lift... 1 , . ....‘ a . ‘ .. V V .y . . ‘ . z , _ Y. z . . V . , , ‘ . ‘
i x , I , l a fi. 1 . .u
\ . l x \ 4 5’1 :3 x1 , (.5?! t 2. ,\v7 \xa.
» rt 1; I p v, .51 I 112! iv\ :1 x ‘v hit-Illtulv Iv ‘ a (.1 14, .u‘ .. . J:1,J...J..1!§T £0. ‘ . . . .....‘4,.? in}. w . } .;\‘.:;_ J ‘ , ‘41! I I, In, 1 \ .v) .
111413. 1 t‘ll‘l, 1 l \ _ a , I 1‘11}; x',
; f / ‘ 41‘ vitiuézt a?! llrc ! »
x a

a

Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Phila:

delphia, Pa.

T. ALEXANDER HARRISON

Marine

21.

:v

 

41»:
“Ir '

 

 

{‘,»._.a~;.ugs _ m. w _‘~_ yum .

 

1 Jill‘:

. . » JI . wi§Iufi...§ft
.. .r 1‘3 ,. .1 .15:
1,. $1.. 4 , ..,I5::x.\l0.¢»airi
. u . I ..|\»IA.I..|.1 ‘ , ; , y ‘
. :7 It: \1 0.: .1 q ; .ixvslliuil lilting: .. 89. 5 ..
x \11 . . 1 V .

 

 

 

 

 

 

_
W . n ‘
,. e
_ , v w
, V M a
_ H
K x A . ,
. s w
S e d
. I A N m
H __ H ., _.
E m
. , _ D m .
L G
I m
\ . H be , .
, C T . ,. .
_ \ 7m .
,\ 2
z .b x
. s
\, ..
,. ».\
\
\

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,_ \,.
w /_ .
C
., O
w m
c .m ‘
H .m ,
H m a
E u
m m
. 0 e
E h
G T.
3.
2
Aw ..
w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[7,0

1'4 121 Ber/1.11 Pizza rap/2M

w
4/ 0/5/47»

 

z t}:.\ I ‘

2,", .Slllpil 1....» £115....

 

 

 

 

 

. kr
. O
Y
w
e
N
La, . 7
A N
f
o I
m
. u
w '
u ‘
M
n A
R m
E w
wmm .
d
H mM ,
fie ‘
W Sm ;
0 NY
a mg ,.
N em ..
1W1 hw by
To ..,..

24.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31.3‘: it: v .. x . . . s . .

,1 Lilli—v“!!!

2.0,: Winn“! k; sill..- xlltzxn\ 4?

. ilk! 1.}; Rita. ,_ J I.

 

. , . .

.-W

Owned by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.

WINSLOW HOMER
All’s Well

.1
2

 

."T
*3

 

 

 

 

 

11! €5.15 .4: .11}Julhnrr ‘ . . :. ‘ , ‘ . . . . , a.
. ‘. . ‘ ‘ , r .uui ..1.§J.i»25.§5341

 

 

 

 

.1x .rxixwa’ki

 

 

. . ‘1 ISA-it», .3,
4:21.133: 1%? 20:}... I9
:1 1‘1 , .

 

 

 

 

7 _ . . . . ~ ‘ .
. o . c . ‘ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Owned by the Estate of Wm. Morris Hunt

26. WILLIAM MORRIS HUNT
Girl with Cap

E

 

 

 

”hwy.m,.u~- , _.

 

‘ .. . _l 1’...“
, .11 . 1:5. .yS‘isstJusI , I;
. :1 (3-4 x“ .3

i. h

1 I - 4 ; £310.le f. (451191}! i a. ,, ,

 

I, )I.

1 L , ‘ .l. .IV:.IPI,Lv!:y
l),si,3.it.§,3id.x -1333 ‘

 

£5355? 1.3 $0» 1 A

  

 

r, \ . .‘ ‘ u: . .«o .xé.

 

Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

S

S

E

N

N m M,
I a V
E O o
G n A
R m H
O m

E u M
G A o
7. .
2 .

 

 

 

         

i
1
;

 

 

 

 

-4" . .3. Mn nus“;

 

 

 

I -~ ~ can... ”.0 .1
A...“ -

 

 

.1)ng . . YYIIII:I..I,A:.,.|5

‘ E ‘ , l'.ifiapikvfl.$i’illll 411.-

.l,‘ ,. S .. , . , £i5\l&l¢u:i¥f
A .

i... X . - ‘Sliiéiiaififi ..

:5? W. 1.9... i Kg»;

 

 

 

‘
‘ N. .
K r,
m ~
u
n ..
O .
M »
s,
n
a
V
.mE .
$w1
Elm.
NCW
Nd.
I nMr
E my
m .mb
Ohsw
GSO .
0a .
2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AYJKr . Ella... Y. , ‘
i\9§?§.\.y

,, in?“ . Illififqévafia < . ‘ . ‘ V . .. ., 3;.

 

 

 

 

 

 

. e
In
‘ t
n. ~ f
O .
W .
\ e
r, a .
H G ,_,
1m
,v I n
0
.h
a
.‘ N .
n.C
o o
fiD
a .
“D
00
E Cd»
G s.m
M T
_ F dW .
t .
x _ L mm“
,. e S
N ddd
m H mew.
, O imm
. TJ NOU
o
m

 

 

 

. I v.1 w _. 5.11.7... . 1.. 11.11% 11- 11!}. . 2...... 1. . 1. .. 1 . 11 .
:1 11.....‘(11111‘154u541.4!... !1...\,1 irfl...1.1.....-..-1: . . n p. A .1 .. I I .. t. fauflauvt 1&1! J11. . , 1... .1 ,. .1..1. ..snfii. 1..

. 11 “11.17111 1 1....“ 041.}...11.‘ 41...... .: 1513.11.11“: ..1.. . . .. 1 . . 1 ..1., ..1. , .. .1 . .. .3135)... ‘1.’!11|l:'4 1 111.111 1-1.1.1111! 1.3111 1 .11 1.1. ,, . 1 _ 1.0};

..1!. 1.17

.\

1 I . 1. . .1 11 .
. 11 ., , .l 1 1 . . 1 1.1.! 1.13. .. 18.21.1111.» 1.1. .111- s. . 1 111:1. ’
, 1.. \ . .. .. _. .2.. . . ..1 .1 . 91: . .. 111.. . Liflnilf1‘ii _. 1. . . .. h
11 .l. - 11.1Q1 1 1..1!. .4 . 1. 1 . ..
. 1.1.1.1! -. . 1111.15.13 4! .1. . 1r 1
H01. 1 .1951: .1 . 1 1 . 1 .) «W475... .. 41!. 1.1%... ,.
. v . 4. . 11‘ . 11 . .11‘. .

1.. 1 . . 1 .
1 ..1uwsflviaélpfsnw.§wh

7,.

.H
r

. ..LL‘L... .HLI1‘ 11.4111111Wh. .. . . . 1.-.

 

 

 

ROBERT MAC CAMERON

30.

Portrait of President Taft

 

 

’5

P

u. 7» fl,uu¢& .11 Jig)? Nut. 11‘... k .I ,

‘ A ii.) )(I.37}$l|l..,. 11 I.) t

: I t , .1“ :1 ,1, X» 1 u .«H 4‘ V. . s , . .. , ‘ . «C‘Olik: \ «ailfl, i1. .113? l.1l.t.‘llllr1dr.uy ,,
. t: (41.1. , a .1 ‘, 1:1 ta ‘ ‘1 .flfih. . 2 . t x , . . I . . . . . vii-v! VEH: I: y
xxx“. . . 3.11: \IVWf.-I L ,..

 

, .thuf‘ iwfigw,!.uflmu

 

A-IOQ .5 , .ulirf‘.

I?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ g.
..
\_
I .._

 

 

 

 

m. w
w M
C W
A ‘H
M M
t
H 8..
m m m
T
. L
3
L
..
&
“/.
g
. .1

 

 

. “.ng

 

«Mp-A ;.. 7,;ng . A

 

 

 

.« ‘A
. "My-«.1. . ,

 

. ..«~-4

 

 

 

 

32. HOMER D. MARTIN

Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

View of the Seine Valley

 

‘m...~:;m~...wn- ’ ~

“T-
W~
1

~ T‘ “u... m

.. .- ‘4

7-9-4“ w-

» 94.3“ A

, Mr “”7... “.wa

 

 

 

 

 

49v.“ ,1"

W er

 

 

‘»

 

 

 

‘_..._..-...

  

..i.|r}£tsi\lllluxsf‘. . z

I! .IIL‘IIIS\LJ\ . V . , ‘ ‘ . . , ,‘ ‘ all‘r . .
. $0.? L ‘ ‘ I . . . , . ‘ : . , _ 4 . \| .ai¢.{fl31:.,. hawk”? ‘
. ‘ it tr! Sari. It

SJ vii...) €3.11“? lkfiyli ,

 

   

GARI MELCHERS
Madonna

33.

 

 

.§~fi§. ik‘ll‘f : \ , . _, .1. , . w 2 4 .. y . 1 :1...” ‘quii! .. , , ‘ {x i y 1
3&3..th I a ‘ . , I A. {.r .. . ,.:Y\ . 31$! . :1“er A {Titiau 7 ‘5‘ ‘ ,,.. ,, ,1 ., . , to. a! a I. Fri!
\ a . 5|)! .vuVI..vt...tl§nul. C“lvlfh?..ll.}3?161y, l ‘ Viz?! ,f J ‘ . ., . ,2; i. .,

,hqwnmfigf.1§. .. , . 3.3.x»: i. 1;‘.~w:rrhi.4uuifflu«‘n ”nubilhflnfluhxi

 

 

 

 

 

 

1... Z.:, . via. 7

Illa!!!) v‘utc'lo. I it... birth

 

 

. 1 . 4‘11113 .V.-n1~, LII. 1 -.-I.1I-r41 r.‘ 1 u I 3‘. $6 111' I. E. L .. . . . -. 1 1'1». friv. - l»...- . x . 1.2..‘6 :- .i- 2.1:; L, .1- l1...- .-“.- 1.0.!»1Asut-liuft5-CJ \ r. 1r\F,-.L‘ I'lri t1... 1! '1 b . ;..r. i, r l? “rig-rails.» 1.1..
1- 11.--. .. - . . .
a
F
L
. A
C.
_ T
m
Y
O .
R
E
L s
H _ D m -
R .w
A F
L g
L .m
I r
V . S .
4h . _
3 ‘

 

 

3
!_

 

fl...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

       

 

35. J. FRANCIS MURPHY

Landscape .
Owned by Mr. Hugo Reisinger, New York

3

.. m. _....A..m4

“Ham-n”-..

w .
’ 0‘ ”EV-”vwna-w «van-w on..-” _

 

 

 

 

 

.n.....~....,. » -W-‘n‘...~. ~-..‘_.,._ - m. -_‘._... ~~ m...”— 7-4....“-

w». 22*»: «r: .:-:-~, «.7; 6,3,1- ,~ .

 

, . !;.t€llv3.|.:.: y .. it»-.. ,v {9.3% t.1.|b.v.!ux\,..t

. ‘13. 5. cl... . l.‘ : , .quéi... , . . ‘ , ., .. , . . 1
: WIeh-l!“1ii¥n?5£iisi\ 13(2),. (. 1 x. .. . . (k {talk-Err! {siafgzi‘gééa wk“ Ll-

; ,.?e&s,fi§,z... ‘

 

 

 

 

n.
n
O .‘
H C _
n.
e
V
_, "m x,
w f
e u
N
R r
E mM
G ucm
N mm .
A PM .
R MB.
, W. .mr.
. MUM y.
n C
Y ny .
R nb
N aw
E m.
H AO m
6. “v
3

 

Janina-

g »,~‘w

: ,nu‘mg‘ ....

 

 

 

w.
w

'-- '2);

“any: ML”; M._‘ A

«fin—~—

:"

--—"‘~ < -mm , m; ‘~:m~;v—w -“J.

"k- ‘M

 

 

.L‘I.-=: :

, 4. ll Li. .4. ...
y . I : I , . I. v :5 .4 (1". v p, . 4 Alin‘. I, III‘ .Illl‘ I .1- n 'I 1 A :K‘fyl , y I silvpfi J‘h‘: .: n if: \ .WEX‘I'i-‘vi’t’ii‘. v‘LerL . :
. . .. .. in; 3 \1 1. ii: iii??? .. . r. Lgcflsi‘iv! ..\,.I.V viii! ). , . .
‘c-I . . E: .ul ’ a: .
. . . .. ,. . .. 2.2..3:1 :.. :5! .
.f . :r.:..‘..,l§at'i~1!73 .ill.:i!!ha.:|1!lxttlutr;§ . .41.‘ul%ln§l00sgl art... .!. a I . giggle;
15": . §4E; gill-73.51... il: . ‘. . K . .1 . , .. 1:13.11 .

x 3. v7... . . . , v. .. A -

 

:«IK.

s :2. . .. .

7 . A

m-
.7 «g,- mm». '

~

37. EDWARD W. REDFIELD
Landscape in April

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.J-l '
,_ M‘s ‘ - * ‘ ' , ~ ~._ 'E‘étrhyig‘gtw

 

 

 

‘ I ll?
$91.: ,.»...ili2..l 6.21.» :1,‘er..m #

Jail-5.35.!!! .k‘ . 3?

 

 

kr
O
Y .
w .
e U
N p
a.
g
.m
s
.m
R .
mo
D m
I
m r.
nM
T. .mY
R tb
E “10
B “mm
0 ew ..
R Mo
&
3
. &..,
,.. .
..

 

82,... fif.f.\wfi&:fiiz lad): 14x , .,

 

 

‘ gaging?! ‘

,3!" 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEODORE ROBINSON

39.

Day Dreams

Owned by Mr. Wm. T. Evans, Montclair, NJ.

 

:nv

1.. as
:9 we... «15 .. aha-fir};

 

 

 

 

vy .\ ). ._EII.1-9lit,”~lv.?a;

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ . 1:. , , i , |.v\, Irv . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘

 

 

|BI

rill;

 

q.
Lbndon

 

 

 

. m .
w . . mm
« fl . .
w ‘ .mh. _
m o o .
M, RR . .
w... v m “Wm
M . . E ,
M . G me.
M R ..W _ ,
. . , A W n
V S O Y
tb
t N .md .
w H um .
W . ©1th
_ L ;
m 4. . ..
w ‘ .
.V / 5 ‘ , W.
_ ._ .
., . . . .W
,.H.,,., .. W

 

 

 

 

 

 

37"}?

 

alligéziiw; (.0 a , 33:1,?

  

‘ ,“M

 

 

 

V1... 5

l hfgil)-x¢fiirtif

it! . is}.
§.v§|§g}« \ ILEIIID: 4,

,2!

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SARCENT
t of Edward Rob

Owned by Mr.

JOHNS.

.

42

Esq.
New York

inson
inson,

Edward Rob

i

Portra

 

 

“an ‘4 ,A ¢

7 [1,: gum! "v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43. HENRY O. TANNER

Two Disciples at the Tomb
Owned by the Art Institute, Chicago, Ill.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

._—r.3
“ A...

 

up...

..t\.ll.l\:..r!v 19921:. f

 

3]. . v. #1\vJ\
. . ‘ {any}! ‘
A», luAlll/«u Jillnndiluiaxjkvllllli

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M
n,
m
_,, um
,, m
L .m

a F ,
R cm
m
m
. u
C M
ge
D .mm

m mm

M Rd

l m s!

m m w

o ,

Mn. N

 

 

x

., n. . . 4 :;(’&;1..... I. '7‘, . . . >1

4 1 AFN..- l. in}: #6...-” .

.1

 

13111393.!er .
. i3... Li). I -

 

.\ 731$ 1..

, air} a :f. . [Jivqowfilkwt ,. , Qwi, x”4..2,

. 313.3%, 1 \5?‘ run! '53. 1511:: i: .11.; K é... c\ ‘ i) L

9 En... .V. “11.5). n .5. ...Hit.&0.1_ V.u...!f.¢.: .n v
.1,

. .v 4. y 1. x. I . , _ . . V . . . . . .. x .5 . . . . . . .. , . ., .
3......1..;.dfi,y.u.w. . y. l 1”.” ..,/¥Aart4 , v. {flaw} iii 11.95,? .4 , . , . . . . a , , , , ‘. r

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

. , . . z , ,. . .. it!!!" y .. .::kl..vis.aa.\l .i. ., . x:

...,....W -ww m

 

 

 

, a».

,mu.

”Hmwh.

 

”—

II. n 17)}
.1. .| .9li‘1 ( .

 

 

 

 

 

ER

ABBOTT H. THAY

o

45

Robert Louis Stevenson Memorial

Owned by Mr. J. J. Albright, Buffalo, N.Y.

 

mr‘. x .»—,

‘ )ar-c- hr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ca r: it 5min; Wkly/agar [79

:4:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRYON
The Farm — October Night

DWIGHT W.

46.

 

any-,zmarn

Owned by Col. Frank J Hecker, Detroit, Mich.

wayrn ‘Ju‘ ‘5». an .

"1

a ,«—;.....—.«V» ,

 

 

w‘h

«‘9» .....‘_-Mm a; A

'I
I
[l
\
x
‘
>

 

 

    

 

 

‘ W‘w‘ «er. a...—

4;.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Owned by Mr. Hugo Reisinger, New York

Landscape in Spring

47. JOHN H. TWACHTMAN

 

 

['13.

1 .\‘.il\4 7 ..

 

tlJiL ,1

 

 

 

 

 

3 . .xq 4.1.3:.n1114xgg‘1

 

 

 

A 7
H v
.
.. ‘
_
.
m A

: ,19‘10‘5 I... it!» :1, z. , ‘ 21-?)

;‘l€.l‘.i||ll{»l
2\I\ ?

In q “V‘UXfiIiJwH‘E‘Ws . y

N
E
D
M
W
L
E
N
m
L
ca
4

Summer Evening

 

‘77,:sz

, .

   

 

 

 

3‘" “H at v-“"-" ‘

~..._,r‘

 

 

‘
%
\
I
\
\
I |
k
>
I
‘r
7
,
a
" e
- F
.
.
' z
9
i I
‘
I

 

 

; $31.39;}: at! .ff‘ko... V

 

., , llkfr‘M,,«.\aav! gli?:.41lluvwliltlll’n\1\in\
:, 1;. .‘ i”..|;.x. illrxk hula. ‘J.\Iv‘

 

 

Owned by Mrs. A. T. Sanden, New York

49. HORATIO WALKER
The Thresher

 

‘c‘.

“ ,Jo
, ‘ ,.‘

.

«n 1.- wflgm..ezgga.:;m\

’\

 

 

/

 

 

1 . 2 A é /1.'/ m ‘5.

a"

,/,

L Mn; ,

L 9?;

 

_ . .(uu&§~§§.§.§m§1££§w§r§.§fi A iiéfigizé JFK, 9.3%....2 x ..).

 

 

 

 

« , , _ V V «Elr?.é§2:s€§l|l! ..
J u , ‘ t‘ ,. .a .V J, . , . . . .
. . \ Y4 .\. . . . ‘ ‘ y .\.I . 1% :I 1 l 3 lillilléT. -3130... k3. , It‘llfw\.!:k;: \\ ‘11,!“
‘. , I w . K 3 ‘r \nif -.\.. /i2!. I‘l‘qv’lar/ 3.1.11.5U41‘ '{j{0§l 1.11:. . ‘1‘ a A . » l
» { (If; 91;)» ./...Li] Iv." «, ; ‘chnil 1: ..,.. .- ex: . I l ‘ . L.
1 I v : .

Ploughing for Buckwheat

50. J. ALDEN WEIR

 

,flp. .-_ _.

 

_

v-tf‘k. .2.... {VI 151.

.1),

if: 2--........ .3.- .. .. n...unu...-.Mm....,..-..-..W§M.uk ...

.. . . .;-.31.§nyv2\$¥222 TIN-nu? 3n 461.1. ti. .u 4...

 

 

 

 

‘ ,. ; gtix.'§..r1KIl/.

 

 

 

 

 

 

N
“ ¥
...._

h x
R .w,
w w »
T N
m a.
H m
W .m

e
L R
L o w
H w,
N .u H
c G n
M a M
s cm w
E d .w
M w m
M H o
L
5
M.
W m

 

 

 

 

 

52. JAMES M“ NEILL WHISTLER

Nocturne — Blue Silver, The Lagoon
Owned by Mr. Richard A. ‘Canfield, New York

 

A»“»WIA -

M-.-- .... V- .

*--v hv‘ ‘M—«v~<w.~wnu.w‘6 M

  

 

“ “‘R \\ \ _

\

R --
\RR . RR

u.

 

K

 

       
 

‘ ‘ . . g; . fl . ur‘i. cu: .

‘ 1...... I ‘7 M» w». _. _ -~. - ~..~_V R ‘,- V -
A-A 'wmh‘JJiE ~WW-mfiwwflwvmh”§~ra-'\- u avwvw'wu‘m‘: r “mi.

» ,u

       

~~ ”Wm... - N...“ < u _ .
. _ 4-“

 

   

 

53. JAMES Mc NEILL WHISTLER

The Balcony

Owned by the Freer Collection, National Gallery of the
United States, W’ashington, D. C.

reu'v~ '1 '

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

. . 1:, _. lava? m , 0,..qu 4:,,etéamgafsizini”115.3131.“C 1 $1.} Lav; : , ,1. l .. .. Lxu.,?_..rut,.1ny vival‘fimwiusflgefixt, Wu; £311. 1.
S. y r J: \ . _ . ‘
‘ .
_

. e

a

I .f
:

”

~

,_

.

<

_

V
4

_

Q

o

.

I

_

. .

_

 

 

 

 

54. IRVING R. WILES

'A Quiet Corner
Owned by Mr. C. J Billwiller, New York

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

55. ALEXANDER H. WYANT

View in County Kerry, Ireland
Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

 

 

llllllllflflllfllllflllllllll”!lllllllllllllllfllflllflllll

CEIEE§75930