464 SCULPTURE, EDUCATION IN in the northern part where Gothic influence from the Netherlands continued. In the 16th century forms peculiar to Flemish Renaissance mixed with those of the Italian throughout Germany, and in the 17th and 18th centuries the Rococo style of the Romanists shared the field with the bareness of the Protestants. The Netherlands combined Italian with its native style in the 16th century; Austria followed in the wake of Germany; while Spain and England depended upon imported Italian artists, until the 17th century, when native sculptors appeared. In England, N. Stone supplied sculpture for many buildings designed by Inigo Jones, as did G. Gibbons for others by Sir C. Wren. All important English works of the 18th century were executed by Flemish or French sculptors, but toward its close John Flaxman started a home revival by his exquisite reliefs for Wedgwood pottery. Bibliography.- Barstow, C. L., Famous Sculpture (1916); Brown, "The Fine Arts' (1896); Brownell, French Art) (1892); Burckhardt, Jakob, 'Der Cicerone) (Vol. II, new ed., 3 vols., Leipzig 1907); Calvert, A. F., Sculpture in Spain (New York 1911); Lübke, Wilhelm, 'History of Sculpture (Eng. trans., by E. F. Bunnett, 2d ed., 2 vols., London 1878); Marquand and Frothingham, Text-Book of the History of Sculpture) (New York 1911); Murray, 'History of Greek Sculpture) (1890); Perkins, C. C., Tuscan Sculptors) (London 1864); Radcliffe, Schools and Masters of Sculpture (ib. 1894); Short, E. H. History of Sculpture (ib. 1907); Sturgis, R., The Appreciation of Sculpture (New York 1904); Viardot, Louis, 'Les Merveilles de la Sculpture' (Paris 1869). > EDMUND BUCKLEY, Editor of University Lessons on Art. SCULPTURE, Education in. We know little of the education of the sculptor in ancient Greece, and can only guess at the training which produced the greatest sculptors the world has seen. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance education in sculpture proceeded on much the same lines as education in painting, the young sculptor entering the workshop of a master and learning thoroughly all the mechanical parts of the trade before he attempted anything in the way of independent study of nature. To-day the education of the sculptor is organized in the same way as that of the painter and the student has much the same training in the observation of nature and much the same lack of training in the essentials of art. There are, however, certain differences between the conditions under which sculpture and painting are carried on in modern times which seem to favor the education of competent craftsmen in sculpture. The mere bulk and weight of material involved in the creation of heroic statues or groups makes it inevitable that the sculptor should have some assistance, and most prominent sculptors are more like the heads of medieval shops than are almost any modern painters. Apart from the more or less illegitimate employment of what are known as "ghosts" (that is, artists, often, of more ability than the employer, who actually produce the work for which the employer secures the commission and appropriates the rewards), a sculptor may have a corps of perfectly legitimate helpers who vary from the mere studio boy of the caster to the accomplished modeler. Many young sculptors thus pass through the studios of their seniors and gain invaluable experience in the actual production of works of art which is supplemented, either before or afterward, by education in a regular school of art. Such a double training is the best our time has to offer, and is certainly far better than either an apprenticeship or a term of study in an art school taken singly, but it is not yet an ideal training. The technique of sculpture, as far at least as regards the handling of the clay or wax model, is an infinitely simpler thing than that of painting. There are no complicated processes to master, no questions of the chemistry of pigments, of the optical effects of colors on each other or of the different qualities of reflected and transmitted light, such as are involved in the manipulation of paint. Modeling is a matter of knowledge of form and facility of hand, and both the knowledge and the facility might be attained as readily in the school as in the studio, for there is so much rough manual labor to be done in a sculptor's studio that a helper might work there for years without doing much real modeling. And the technique of modeling is, after all, of relatively little importance; for the sculptor, unlike the painter, puts his personal handiwork upon a thing destined to be destroyed and never to be seen by the public. He works in clay or wax while it is the interpretation of his work in inarble or bronze that is set before the world, so that he is almost in the position of the draughtsman upon the wood block, whose work ceases to exist and is replaced by that of another. The sculptor of the Renaissance was either a stone carver or a bronze founder or both, and the craft he practised was the craft of carving or of metal working, the modeling being only a preliminary and being sometimes dispensed with altogether. The modern sculptor tends to become a modeler and to put all his strength into the clay, the final carrying out of his ideas being largely entrusted to others, and his knowledge and invention count for much more than his skill of hand, while the worker in stone or bronze rarely becomes an original artist. Of course the best of our sculptors do not only control and oversee the final carrying out of their work, but actually put hand to it themselves, at times, and even when they do not they must vary the manner of modeling they employ according to the material of the definitive work, and these variations of manner they will teach their assistants. Also there is a great deal to be learned in a sculptor's workshop hardly likely to be picked up elsewhere, were it only the mechanics of setting up great armatures, the processes of pointing and enlarging small models and the rest. Still there is some tendency to a divorce between the original artist and the workman, and it is difficult for the modern sculptor to become a thorough master of his craft, thinking naturally in stone or bronze rather than in clay. There is another respect in which the education afforded by the apprenticeship of the Renaissance was greatly superior to that obtainable in a modern studio. The Renaissance master was often a painter as well as a sculp SCULPTURE OF THE 19TH CENTURY tor and, not infrequently, an architect as well, and the essential unity of the three great arts of design was inevitably impressed upon his pupils. The modern sculptor rarely knows anything of painting or architecture, and his studio assistant has little opportunity even to learn drawing, the foundation of all the arts. If he would learn to draw he must study in an art school, and he is generally encouraged to do so in such time as his necessary work leaves at his own disposal. In the modern art school the students are allowed, or even required, to change from class to class, and their chance of acquiring some notion of the interdependence of the arts, and some breadth of artistic culture, is greater than that of the mere studio assistant. Such interchange of work between drawing or painting and modeling would be of great benefit to the painter also, if he more often took advantage of it, but is hardly as essential to him as to the sculptor. In some measure, then, the schools offer a valuable supplement to the training of the studio, but they do not give nearly all that they might or should give. Of the true meaning of composition, and of the difference between artistic expression and imitation, the school, at its best, can give no such idea as can the studio, where the actual production of a work of art, through all its stages, may be watched. Yet the students might be encouraged and aided in the actual carrying out of original work, taught something of the difference between the use of the model for the attainment of a predetermined result and the mere copying of a set pose, and, possibly, instructed in casting, pointing, marble cutting and even bronze founding and chasing and the production of various patinæ. He should, assuredly, be given a thorough training in ornament and be taught more than he is of the history of art and the development of styles. A thorough mastery of drawing cannot be too much insisted upon. Of course the constant study of modeling from the living figure would continue to be the principal element of training, but it would be well if some study of drapery and costume could be added to it. The graduate of our art schools, either painter or sculptor, generally knows little or nothing of the arrangement of draperies and this is one of his most serious deficiencies. Such a course of instruction as is here sketched has been attempted, but has never been thoroughly worked out in our schools. It could hardly fail to prepare the student for more efficient service in the studio of a master than he is now generally able to give, and to enable him to acquire more surely and rapidly that practical knowledge of real work which no school, however managed, can supply. See ARCHITECTURE, EDUCATION IN; PAINTING, EDUCATION IN. KENYON COx. SCULPTURE OF THE 19TH CENTURY. The beginning of the 19th century found classicism dominant wherever the art of sculpture was practised. Canova, now 43, was the recognized leader and was destined to hold his position as an amiable dictator until his death, 22 years later. Thorwaldsen was already in Rome acquiring the elements of his more virile art. The works of the antiquarian Winckelman had been translated from the German into various languages and with the VOL. 24-30 465 etchings of Piranesi had carried the worship of the antique into distant lands. All Europe was "doing Greek," as it fondly imagined. Simplicity was the watchword; a simplicity which to-day seems as amusingly ostentatious as the theatrical art which it displaced. Canova was followed by a large brood of disciples of whom Giuseppe Fabris alone requires mention. The realistic impulse of the time was represented by Lorenzo Bartolini (1777-1850), whose sculpture, while often literal, revealed a new vitality. Pietro Tenerani also left works of interest. The first really to belong to the 19th century was Giovanni Dupré (1817-82), who was strong enough in personality to put soul into his very realistic works. Giulio Monteverde likewise struggled to express ideality in terms of realistic imitation. Antonio dal Zotto, of Venice, a pupil of Ettore Ferrari of Rome, made many public monuments, among them his vivid Goldoni' of Venice. Vincenzio Vela (182091), whose naturalism was liberally leavened with imagination, is best known to us through the 'Last Days of Napoleon' in the Corcoran Gallery. Of contemporaries, Vincenzo Gemito (b. 1852) is typically Neapolitan, while Ernesto Biondi (b. 1855) has run the gamut of subjects and treatments from "The Saturnalia' to 'Les Recluses Misérables. Most idealistic of all modern Italian sculptors is Lorenzo Bistolfi (b. 1859), of Turin, "the poet of Death," whose Grief Comforted by Memory,) and (Sacrifice' - the latter on the national Victor Emmanuel Memorial at Rome-show forth the beauty of his sculptural thoughts. In France the opening of the 19th century found the great master Houdon at the age of 59 still producing those vivid portraits which have made his fame. His airy (Diana,' the ever admirable Voltaire' and the stately Washington' of Richmond, Va., had been completed, however, a few years earlier. Among the orthodox classicists of the time were Bosio, Cortot, Chaudet, Giraud and Pradier, all men of skill but with little to say. Their art seems to us singularly colorless and anemic. Three names stand pre-eminent in the first half of the 19th century: David d'Angers, Barye and Rude. Pierre Jean David (1789-1856) — called "of Angers to distinguish him from his namesake the painter-is remembered for his hundreds of medallion portraits of contemporaries_and for the austere pedimental group of the Paris Pantheon. Antoine Louis Barye (1796-1875), the great interpreter of animal life, was a patient and perhaps unconscious revolutionary. Coming in a period of convention, no less exacting in matter of themes than in manner of treatment, his novel works were inevitably met with disapproval. Following an untrodden path, he made no mistakes; whatever he touched became true sculpture. Before his death his recognition was complete. The greatest personality of this period was François Rude, who was born at Dijon in 1784 and died in Paris in 1855. Rude imagined himself a classicist and tried to be one; but his art at times transcends schools, and once at least he becomes sublime. "The Departure upon the Arc de Triomphe (1832-35) is the greatest achievement, the most inspired work ever wrought by a French sculptor. Rude's brilliant pupil, Jean Baptiste Carpeaux (1827-75), worked with a feverish touch and threatened to 466 SCULPTURE OF THE 19TH CENTURY set all of the statues of Paris a-whirl on their pedestals. 'Flora' of the Tuileries, 'The Dance,> of the opera, and the crowning group of the Fountain of the Observatory are the most important examples of his restless but fascinating art. Another pupil of Rude to win eminence was his nephew, Emmanuel Frémiet (18241900). Like Barye he was known as an animalist, but he modeled the human figure with complete authority. His various startling tragedies of the jungle are well known, but a more lasting fame will be based upon his equestrian Joan of Arc' and particularly his 'Louis d'Orleans' of Pierrefonds Castle. A great quickening of sculptural activity was destined to follow the modest and almost reticent leadership of Paul Dubois (1829-1905). Chancing to find his métier too late to aspire to the Prix de Rome, he went to Florence for independent study and there was profoundly impressed by the art of the 15th century, especially the works of Donatello and Jacopo della Quercia. In a sense he re-discovered this period to France. He modeled and exhibited in 1865 his Young John the Baptist,' its cordial reception being soon shared by the well-known 'Florentine Singer.' As a result he was entrusted with a very important commission, the tomb of General Lamoricière for the cathedral of Nantes. Completed in 1878, this work received in the exposition of that year the highest honors, and Dubois was recognized as the head of a new movement distinctly inspired by the early Italian Renaissance. Men of like sympathies grouped themselves around him, and the '70s and early '80s saw a succession of notable works from such masters as Henri Chapu ('Joan of Arc'); Ernest Barrias (The First Funeral, The Defense of Paris); Eugène Delaplanche ('L'Aurore,' 'La Musique), and René de Saint-Marceaux (Genius of Death Guarding the Secret of the Tomb'). Alexandre Falguiere constantly oscillated between themes spiritual and themes "frankly carnal." Antonin Mercié, another gifted southron, had sent his 'David' from Rome in 1872 and followed it in 1875 with his 'Gloria Victis,' a distinctly national expression. With these men as leaders and an army of others trained as only French scupltors are trained, the art assumed an unwonted importance, attracting the attention of the world. Some have even claimed that this manifestation was worthy to be called the third of the great historic epochs in the history of sculpture. > Strength is ever followed by decay; virtuosity takes in time the place of inspiration. No advance is ever so successful that it has not an opposition movement in its shadow. Some of these great artists became careless in their work. Some stopped thinking, although their wonder-working hands toiled on. Nearly all of them made regrettably incoherent public monuments in the style of Dalou's dizzy 'Delacroix. Their followers were left in a particularly sad plight with no one to think for them. Between an art of meaningless vehemence on one side and meaningless grace on the other, the unintelligent imitator found himself helpless. It was time for a new leader. Rodin's remarkable nude, 'L'Age d'Arain,' was first seen in 1877, to be followed two years later by the still more unconventional John the Baptist,' a work so intense and so starkly human that it caused many a shudder and many a protest. It was the reaction that had to be. Elegance and carefully composed limbs gave way to as carefully planned crudities. The 'Balzac' and the Burghers of Calais' arose rude and impregnable where erstwhile had reigned the smiling graces. The Gates of Hell, in which their author attempted to picture all the sins of humanity, were never to be completed, but from them poured forth a long series of works culminating in 'The Thinker." The years moved on and the master's hand became impotent, his utterance faltering; yet stranger things, ranging from amorphous puerility to a realism akin to taxidermy, have been brought forth by his imitators. Among these, Boudelle and Maillot are apparently the most virile. A great spirit is Paul Albert Bartholomé, the painter turned sculptor, whose monument Aux Morts' rewards one's visit to the cemetery of Père Lachaise. Carved in broad, simple planes in the Paris limestone, it has been an object lesson to many young sculptors weary of realism or of factitious grace. Among these men of promise-and of fulfilment- are Henri Bouchard, Paul Landowski, François Sicard; Roger Bloche, Jean Boucher and others. > Many of the able sculptors of France leave but a single work of great value. Competition is fierce and opportunity comes but once. With Aubé it was his superb 'Dante' rather than the restless Gambetta monument. Lanson's 'Age de Fer, Massoule's 'Un Ancêtre,' Escoula's 'Le Baton de la Vieillesse, Dampt's 'Le Baiser de l'Aieule,' Longepied's 'L'Immortalité, Gustave Michel's 'La Penseé are among the works which come readily to mind. The animalists were never more numerous than to-day. Fremiet and Cain were followed by a host of whom Georges Gardet is best known. Even more numerous are the modernists led by Chaplain and Roty. Eclecticism guides modern French sculpture. Individualism is supreme. Temperament alone, whether displayed through romanticism or through naturalism, has guided expression. The result is the most varied art the world has yet seen. These French masters represent a living force and their achievements form a splendid contribution to the art of our time. Spanish sculpture remained long out of touch with the modern world. To-day Barcelona and Seville boast a number of skilful men whose works have much in common with recent Italian productions. Augustin Quérol (1863-1909) was popular, but his monuments are extremely flamboyant. His statue of Francesco de Quevedo in Madrid is, however, admirable. Mariano Benlliure made interesting monuments to Martinez Campos and Sagasta, while some of his architectural decorations are very fine. Aniceto Marinas combines with much fluency a truly southern delight in detail, but is surpassed by Ricardo Bellwer who is prodigal in realistic accessories. Much freer from this fault is Miguel Blay, a pupil of Chapu, who has done much good realistic sculpture. An idealist of truly poetic inspiration is José Clara. Modern Belgian sculpture begins with the names of Guillaume, Geefs, De Bay and Simonis, all of whom more or less ably fought against the influence of the then dominant |