DOCUMENTO N.9

Dalla prefazione a: J. Hoppner, Oriental Tales Translated into English Verse, London, 1805, cit. in BAILLIO, catalogo, 1982, pp.139-140.

There are very indifferent pictures (and if the public insist on it, they may class all of the English school under this head) that still bear relation to good art; but I have no difficulty in affirming that the works of the present French school do not; and that, whether they be painted by David or Madame Le Brun, in the eye of true taste they are things of no value. (pp.VIII-IX)

Smoothness and finishing, whatever the young connoisseur may think, are not convertible terms! A piece of drapery by the pencil of Rembrant [sic], who was certainly not remarkable for the polish of his surface, differs from the piece in the woollen-draper’s, or in Madame Le Brun’s shop; as much in appearance as in value: the woollen from the shops has its market price; – the representation of it from the study of Rembrant, in the language of painters and critics, is inestimable. (p. X)

Few things have tended to produce more error in judgment passed on pictures, than the imposing quality of smoothness, which is generally conceived to be the effect of successful labour, and close attention to finishing; and appears to have been spread over the works of the insipid, as a kind of snare to catch the ignorant. On the art of spreading these toils, and on a feeble, vulgar, and detailed imitation of articles of furniture and dress, rests the whole of Madame Le Brun’s reputation.

Respecting smoothness, could her admirers see by what simple means, and in how short a time, this appearance may be produced – that the roughest picture, while wet, may, with a soft brush, in five minutes be polished to the surface of marble. I am persuaded that it would lose all its charms, and that they would view with contempt a quality which neither requires the patience of labour, nor the happy exertions of skill, to effect.

To enter into the detail of furniture and dress requires indeed both time and labour, but time and labour are surely misapplied, if they do not enable us to express objects with as much truth as may be effected by a more facile and happy mode of execution. I speak of dexterity, which is the result of science and experience, and which discovers a sure and ready way to express its purpose. On the misunderstanding of this principle rest most of the judicial errors of vulgar criticism. (pp. XI-XII)

All private considerations in matters of this moment must give way to a more imperious duty; and whenever a spurious art appears among us, powerful enough in its patronage, not in its inherent strength, to do mischief, I trust I shall neither want patriotism nor courage openly to meet, and cordially to assist in its defeat and extermination.

Although the age of chivalry is past, it may still be thought that the common laws of gallantry required me to spare the artist, in honor of her sex. But, in her overweening presumption, Madame Le Brun has destroyed distinction, and ostentatiously waived her privilege. She has challenged hostility, when she might have escaped with impunity by falling into the rank which the mediocrity of her talents, and the state of the arts in this country, rendered it decent for her to take. To expose successful impositions is, at all times, a hazardous enterprise, and, unfortunately, personal considerations, in the present case, add a degree of unpopularity to the danger, – but silence might have been mistaken for acquiescence; and the world has nothing more painful to inflict than the imputation of inferiority to such miserable productions. That these are not merely the fretful and interested wailings of personal disappointment, every one the least acquainted with my intercourse in society will, I am persuaded, do me the justice to believe. Were this a fit occasion to enlarge on matters of private concern, or to unbosom myself on such a subject, I could display instances of benefits conferred upon me, in consideration of my professional character, which in the few boastful events of my life, stand as eminently distinguished as do the personages who, in addition to the high respect and veneration due to their rank and talents, have bound me to them by indissoluble ties or the warmest gratitude.

It is no trifling consolation to me, that the few strictures which I have advanced on the expensive trash of this lady,* cannot, by the most prejudiced of her partisans, be attributed to any suggestions of jealousy, which always implies a common aim; which has in view the same excellence to excite ambition – the same powers to invigorate contention. Enthusiasm is sufficiently contagious, but who has ever heard of the attractions of inanity; or what English artist could be warmed with the frigid productions of French art? Where burnish’d beads, silk, satin, laces vie, In leaden lustre with the goosberry eye; Where broadcloth breathes, to talk where cushions strive, And all, but Sir, or Madam, looks alive! (pp. XVI-XIX)

*The world will scarcely believe that Madame Le Brun demands thrice the sum for her labours that Sir Joshua Reynolds received for works, which are a lasting credit to the country, at the latest period of his honourable life!