there was a certain pulsation of new life. And there were also
signs that painting in the Balkans, which hitherto had appeared
only as a reflex of Paris and Munich art, would ere long assume
a definite national character. At this Exhibition Bulgaria
seemed to be the most backward of all, its painters still representing
the manners and customs of their country in the style of
the illustrated papers. Market-places are seen, where women
with golden chains, half-nude boys and old Jews are moving
about; or cemeteries, with orthodox clergy praying and women
sobbing; military pageants, wine harvests and horse fairs, old
men performing the national dance, and topers jesting with
brown-eyed girls. Such are the subjects that Anton Mittoff,
Raymund Ulrich and Jaroslav Vesin paint. More original is
Mvkuicka. In his most important work he represented the late
princess of Bulgaria sitting on a throne, solemn and stately, in
the background mosaics rich in gild, tall slim lilies at her side.
In his other pictures he painted Biblical landscapes, battlefields
wrapped in sulphurous smoke, and old Rabbis—all with a certain
uncouth barbaric power. The Bulgarian painters have not as
yet arrived at the aesthetic phase. One of the best among them,
who paints delicate pale green landscapes, is Charalampi Ilieff;
and Nicholas Michailoff, at Munich, has executed pictures,
representing nymphs, that arrest attention by their delicate tone
and their beautiful colouring.
Quite modern was the effect of the small Croatian-Slavonic Gallery in the Exhibition. Looking at the pictures there, the visitor might imagine himself on the banks of the Seine rather than in the East. The French saying, “Faire des Whistler, faire des Dagnan, faire des Carrière,” is eminently applicable to their work. Vlaho Bukovak, Nicola Masic, Csiks and Medovic all paint very modern pictures, and in excellent taste, only it is surprising to find upon them Croatian and not Parisian signatures.
Precisely the same judgment must be passed with regard to Rumania. Most of the painters live in Paris or Munich, have sought their inspiration at the feet of the advanced masters there, and paint, as pupils of these masters, pictures just as good in taste, just as cosmopolitan and equally devoid of character. Irène Deschly, a pupil of Carrière, illustrates the songs of François Coppée; Verona Gargouromin is devoted to the pale symbolism of Dagnan-Bouveret. Nicolas Grant paints bright landscapes, with apple trees with their pink blossoms, like Darnoye. Nicolas Gropeano appears as the double of Aman-Jean, with his female heads and pictures from fairy tales. Olga Koruca studied under Puvis de Chavannes, and painted Cleopatra quite in the tone of her master. A landscape by A. Segall was the only work that appeared to be really Rumanian, representing thatched huts.
Servia is in striking contrast to Rumania. No trace of modern influence has penetrated to her. There historical painting, such as was in vogue in France and Germany a generation ago, is the order of the day. Risto Voucanovitch paints his scenes from Servian history in brown; Paul Ivanovitch his in greyish plein-air. But in spite of this paté painting, the latter’s works have no modern effect—as little as the sharply-drawn small landscapes of his brother Svatislav Ivanovitch. (R. Mr.)
United States
The history of painting in the United States practically began with the 19th century. The earlier years of the nation were devoted to establishing government, subduing the land and the aborigines, building a commonwealth out of primeval nature; and naturally enough the aesthetic things of life received not too much consideration. In Colonial times the graphic arts existed, to be sure, but in a feeble way. Painting was made up of portraits of prominent people; only an occasional artist was disposed towards historical pictures; but the total result added little to the sum of art or to the tale of history. The first artist of importance was J. S. Copley (1737–1815), with whom painting in America really began. Benjamin West (1738–1820) belongs in the same period, though he spent most of his life in England, and finally became President of the Royal Academy. As a painter he is not to be ranked so high as Copley. In the early part of the 19th century two men, John Trumbull (1756–1843), a historical painter of importance, and Gilbert Stuart (1755–1828), a pre-eminent portrait painter, were the leaders; and after them came John Vanderlyn (1776–1852), Washington Allston (1779–1843), Rembrandt Peale (1787–1860), J. W. Jarvis (1780–1834), Thomas Sully (born in England, 1783–1872)—men of importance in their day. The style of all this early art was modelled upon that of the British school, and indeed most of the men had studied in England under the mastership of West, Lawrence and others. The middle or second period of painting in the United States began with the landscape work of Thomas Doughty (1793–1856) and Thomas Cole (1801–1848). It was not a refined or cultivated work, for the men were in great measure self-taught, but at least it was original and distinctly American. In subject and in spirit it was perhaps too panoramic and pompous; but in the hands of A. B. Durand (1796–1886), J. F. Kensett (1818–1872) and F. E. Church (1826–1900), it was modified in scale and improved in technique.
A group of painters called the Hudson River school finally emerged. To this school some of the strongest landscape painters in the United States owe their inspiration, though in almost every case there has been the modifying influence of foreign study. Contemporary with Cole came the portrait painters Chester Harding (1792–1866), C. L. Elliott (1812–1868), Henry Inman (1801–1846), William Page (1811–1885), G. P. A. Healy (1813–1894), Daniel Huntington and W. S. Mount (1807–1868), one of the earliest genre painters. Foreign art had been followed to good advantage by most of these painters, and as a result some excellent portraits were produced. The excellence of the work was not, however, appreciated by the public generally because art knowledge was not at that time a public possession. Little was required of the portrait painter beyond a recognizable likeness. A little later the teachings of the Düsseldorf school began to have an influence upon American art through Leutze (1816–1868), who was a German pupil of Lessing, and went to America to paint historical scenes from the War of Independence. But the foreign influence of the time to make the most impression came from France in 1855 with two American pupils of Couture—W. M. Hunt (1824–1879) and Thomas Hicks (1823–1890). Hunt had also been a pupil of Millet at Barbizon, and was the real introducer of the Barbizon painters to the American people. After his return to Boston his teaching and example had much weight in moulding artistic opinion. He, more than any other, turned the rising generation of painters towards the Paris schools. Contemporary with Hunt and following him were a number of painters, some self-taught and some schooled in Europe, who brought American art to a high standard of excellence. George Fuller (1822–1884), Eastman Johnson, Elihu Vedder, produced work of much merit; and John La Farge and Winslow Homer were unquestionably the foremost painters in the United States at the opening of the 20th century. In landscape the three strongest men have passed away—A. H. Wyant, George Inness, and Homer Martin. Swain Gifford, Edward Gay, Thomas Moran, Jervis McEntee, Albert Bierstadt, are other landscape painters of note who belonged to the middle period and reflected the traditions of the Hudson River school to some extent. With the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia in 1876 a widespread and momentous movement in American art began to shape itself. The display of pictures at Philadelphia, the national prosperity, and the sudden development of the wealth of the United States had doubtless much to do with it. Many young men from all parts of the country took up the study of art and began going abroad for instruction in the schools at Munich, and, later, at Paris. Before 1880 some of them had returned to the United States and founded schools and societies of art, like the Art Students’ League and the Society of American Artists. The movement spread to the Western cities, and in a few years museums and art schools began to appear in all the prominent towns, and a national interest in art was awakened. After 1870 the predominant influence, as regards technical training, was French. Many students still go to Paris to complete their studies, though there is a large body of accomplished painters teaching in the home schools, with satisfactory results as regards
