La Secretaria de Ambiente del DMQ

temporary celebrities. .

2 His work had been exhibited in Paris and in Munich.

3 James Stanley Little A Cosmopolitan Painter: John La.very in

The Studio XXVII IT0. H 5 October 1902 pp 3-13 and XXVII Ho.116 November 1902 pp 110-120.

4 J.S.Little op.cit. PTovemher 1902 p 115- Little continued to

substantiate his point by citing Lavery’s paintings exhibited in: the national Galleries of Berlin and Brussells; the Modern Gallery, Venice; Pinakothek, Munich; Carnegie Gallery, Pitts­ burgh; Modern Gallery, Philadelphia; the Luxembourg, Paris; 11.S.W.Gallery, Sydney.

5 A.C .R.Carter John Lavery, R .S .A . in Art Journal 1904 PP 6-11.

a further article on Lavery appeared in the same journal, 1908 pp 3-16. Carter’s remarks on the Royal Academy in 1904 should be seen within the context of the Chantrey Bequest House of Lords Inquiry of that year.

6 Lavery had an exhibition of paintings at the Goupil Gallery,

Regent Street, London in June 1908. Selwyn Brinton reviewed Some Recent Paintings by John Lavery R.S.A., R.H.A. in The

Academy and at the time of his Grosvenor Galleries retrospective exhibition in 1914 A.Stodart walker stated that no living artist with the exception of Sargent had been given so much public atten­ tion. lavery’s Diploma Dork, The Vandyck Doom, hi1ton (Plate 66), is a painting of an interior similar to those which Desmond T.'ac-

2

Carthy, in 192p> styled ’portrait interiors ’.

1922 saw the election of two sculptors. The 1830s ’regener­ ation1 of English Sculpture had been described some seven years be­ fore the publication of Spielmann’s book when the Art Journal printed a series of four articles by Edmund Gosse^. According to Gosse

’the central principle of the ITeWp-Sculpture has been a close and obedient following of nature*

a principle which he- traced back.to French sculpture and the work of Francois Ruae^. As representatives of ’the Hew Sculpture’ Ilamo Thornycroft (l88l), Thomas Brock (1883), Alfred Gilbert (1887), • Onslow Ford (l888), Harry Bates (1892), George Frampton (1894) &nd Goscombe John (1899) were elected Associates of the Royal Academy. Henry Pegrarn. Gosse noted was

* one of the earliest to come forward of those who were young enough~to have worked from the very first on the new princ— ' iples. *

1 A.Stodart HaIker (a writer and collector of Scottish and French

works) The Art of John Laver.y R.S.A. , A.R.A. Etc in The Studio LXII Ho.254, June 1914 PP 3-15-

2 Desmond KacCarthy Sir John Lavery’s Portrait Interiors, in

Apollo II Ho. 11, Hoveraber 1925 PP 267-273* HacCarthy was int­ erested in Lavery’s placing of his sitters in rooms, and al­ though The Vandyck Room, Wilton was not intended as a portrait attention is drawn to the figure of a lady reading near the fireplace.

3 See above p 131

4 Edmund Gosse The Hew Sculpture 1879-1894. Art Journal 1894

pp 138-142, 199-202, 277-282 and 306-311.

5 Edmund GossQqp.cit. p 139*

6 . Gosse cited the exhibition of Rude’s Young ITeapolitan Fisherman

at the Paris Salon of 1833.

7 Edmund Gosse op.cit. p 28l. Pegram had been a Royal Academy

Schools contemporary of Bates. Frampton and John.

Fegram had studied at the Royal Academy Schools before spending* four years (l8B7-lS9l) as assistant to Thornycroft. Pegram’s heath Lib­

erating a Prisoner was awarded a bronze medal at the Paris Internat­ ional Exhibition of 1889, and in the same year the Chantrey Bequest acquired Ignis Fatuus. Thereafter Fegram’s reputation grew rapidly^ and he was elected Associate of the Royal Academy .in’1904, the year in which a further work, Sybil la Fatidica, a marble grout.), was '• -• bought by the Chantrey Bequest for £1,390. The artist’s Diploma "Work, The Sculptor's Daughter Olive (Plate 67) lacks the symbolism

of the two Chantrey purchases, but in its directness and honesty subscribes to Gosse’s definition of modern British Sculpture made twenty-eight years previously.

2

Sir Bertram Kackennal had only attended the Royal Academy Schools briefly in 1883, before moving on to Paris and a serious study of sculpture in Italy. The influences of Rodin and of con-

/

temporary French symbolism were'evident in his work before his com­ mission for two large panels in the Parliament House, Melbourne,

3

A

Australia in 1888 . In 1908T The Studio commented upon Kackennal's prominent position among younger sculptors. By the date of The Studio article two of the artist’s works had been bought by the Chantrey Bequest: The Earth and the Elements in 19^7 and Piana in

1908 . After his election as Associate of the Royal Academy in 1909 KacKennal obtained -the commission for the royal portrait on the cor­

onation medal and on the new coinage. ■ Kineton Parkes perceived a bent towards ornamental sculpture^ even in Kackennalfs early work.• and the Great bar provided ample opportunities for Kackennal to work

1 See Id.H. Spielmann on.cit. pp 96-98.

2 Knighted in 1921.

\

3 M.H.Spielmann op.cit. pp 134-135*

4 The Studio XLIV no.186, September 1908 pp 262-267* X.K.Hesb The Sculpture of Bertram Kackennal.

5 The Art Journal, I909 p 71, noted that work by no other artist

had been bought in two successive years. Kineton Parkes, in Sculpture of Today, London 1921, Vol.l p 156, gives the title of the 1908 purchase as Diana Hounded.

on memorials'1’. His Diploma Kork, The Dawn of a Hew A,to (Plate 68). is a poignant attempt to symbolise new resolution turning away from his grief-stricken companion. Unfortunate ly,. the treatment of the group’s base appes-rs somewhat strange in the context of a free-- standing bronze - the marks on the surface are too obviously re­ lented to marbles by Rodin and Kichelangelo.

The two painter Academicians elected in 1922 were Robert Arm­ ing Bell and Kaurice Crieffenhagen. Both had studied at the Royal

2

Academy Schools . Bell had then studied in Paris before establish­ ing himself as a wide-ranging designer^ and associating himself with the Hew English Art Club, The Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, and the Art Horkers Guild. In 1893 Bell was the subject of a Studio article entitled A Hew Treatment of Bas-Reliefs in Coloured Plas-- ...

4

ter . The same journal published an assessment of Bell’s work as a

5

painter in 1910 in which T.kartin Hood concluded

’since Hr Anning Bell is always decorative in his ax*t,. we have written as if decorative and imaginative art were the same, and of course it is true that those things which escape actuality altogether can only be rendered in symbolism. His art will help one to think of symbolism in its wider sense, as embracing the greater realities which begin where a so-called realist would have exhausted his subject.’

Although Hood equated ’the old academic attitude’ to imaginative subjects with

’. . .the constant and hopeless attempt to reconcile the lux­ uriance and extravagance of the imagination with the few studio properties at hand . . .’

it is difficult not to see Bell as an academic artist: he used a

1 These include works in - V/aie'rloo Place, London, Eton College,

and the Houses of Parliament, kackennal was knighted in 1921.

2 Grieffenhagen in I878 and Bell in l88l. Bell had previously

studied at the Uestminster School of Art under Frederick Brown.

3 In Ivho’s Tlho in Art 1927? The Art Trade Press Ltd., London, .

Bell is listed as a ’painter, modeller for coloured- relief, black and white illustrator, designer of stained glass and mosaic.’ Under Recreations the entry continues: ’conversation with C.A.A.Voysey the architect, and gardening.’

4 The Studio I Do.2, Kay 1893 PP 53-*5!>

5 The Studio XLIX Ho.206, Kay 1910 pp 255-262. T.Kartin Hood

Hr Robert Anning Bell’s Work as a Painter.

large number of historical references in his work, and his best known paintings included both religious and mythological subjects. Bell also taught at Glasgow School of Art and at the Hoyal College of Art, wrhere he was Professor of Design 1918-24- The Chantrey Be­ quest bought Bell’s watercolour The Listeners (The Garden of Sweet Soiree)) in 1908, and Kary in the House of Elizabeth in 1918, (see ab­ ove P 97 )* His Diploma work. The women going to the Sepulchre (Plate

69), with its friese-like procession of figures and austere

simplicity, contains references to older traditions of religious painting. So too did Kaurice Grieffenhagen1s Diploma Jork, The Message (Plate 70). Grieffenhagen had studied in the Boyal Academy Schools from 1878. In an article published in 1897^ J.S.Little as­ serted that Grieff enhagen’ s narrow” failure to win the gold medal and travelling scholarship at the Academy was due to the obvious French, influence in his earls' work, an influence which the Council of the day wished to discourage. Little - defined the French characteris­ tics of painting as strong drawing and decorative'naturalism, and

2

some of the illustrations Little used have similarities with work by Toulouse-Lautrec and exponents of Art-IJouveau. Grieff enhagen had worked as a graphic artist and,.while-still a student, had contrib­ uted black and white work to Judy (an illustrated periodical). He was master in charge of the ’Life Department’ at Glasgow School of _ Art from

1906 to 1929- By the-time of his .election as Associate of

the Boyal Academy in 1916 the decorative quality in much of his work :>

had become proncuncedJ. In a later comment uocn The Fessage J.Red-

4

worth stated

'that the beautiful The Kessage has a title is merely a con­ cession to the maker of catalogues; it is as decoration that

The Studio Ia K0 .46. January 1897 PP 235-245 J-Stanley Little

Kaurice Grieffenhagen and his Dork.

2 In particular The Kermaid (p 240) and Portrait of Kamie Bowles (p 241)

3 In Little’s article, on.cit. p 242 the author stated that Grie- ffenhagen ’. . . always has before him the one idea; to paint a decorative picture, a charming addition to a room; something which shall give grace and beauty to a wall, reconcile the caged mortal to his imprisonment and waft back to him his lost Eden days.’ The Chantrey Bequest bought Grieffenhagen’s Jomen by a Lake for £420 in 1914-

the work appeals* whistler understood this when he attempted to eliminate titles, hut the British public, backed by Buskin, were too strong for him. The literary ascendency of* the Vic­

torian age laid the yoke of its own obsession on the purely aesthetic art of painting, hence the decoration of that age was almost negligible. It imposed the narrative interest which is still rampant, and the applause is for the problem picture and the ugly or foolish realism of the unimaginative• Rhen those things have passed away, together with the chaotic phase that produced them, then these works of a true decorator and clear- seeing artist will shine-^froin their wall a link in the great tradition of a great art . ’

The equation of imaginative with, decorative form, of expression with design, is redolent of Symbolist aesthetics.. The Message not only uses a conventional Annunciation iconography, but imposes a Renais­

sance style ’pavement* foreground in front of the.landscape element between the figures. Here again there are reasons for describing certain aspects of Grieffenhagen*s-work ’academic.*

Giles Gilbert Scott had only, been an Associate for four years

2

before he became a Royal Academician . The son and grandson of dis­ tinguished gothic revival architects he had won the competition for the design of Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral in 1902. Host of his other important work'was done after 1914? and he was to be given a knighthood in 1924* Since the designs for Liverpool Cathedral con­ tinued to evolve throughout his career it Is fitting- that his Dip­ loma ITork should be a drawing of Liverpool Cathedral, interior view, East end from South choir aisle. The unfinished cathedral was con­

secrated on July 19th 1924* In that Scott was conservative by nat­ ure, and advocated the use of traditional styles, few contemporaries could have been surprised to see him join the historically eclectic ranks of Royal Academy architects.

The Studio LXaXVIII Ho.378, September 1924 PP 123-129* ¥.Red-

worth The Later work of Maurice Grieffenhagen, R.A.

The Architectural Review vol.43* June 1918 p xx noted that • Scott had 'very special claims' to the honour of being elected Associate, most especially as the architect of ’the largest

and most important ecclesiastical building of modern times.’

duced Senior Academician status in 1918 would have shortened the length of time a member might expect to wait between his. election as Associate and his election as Academician (see Appendix i). In fact there was little difference between the average waiting time during the thirteen years prior to

1918 (9*2 years) and during the thirteen

years from

1918

to

1930 (8

years). Although certain members, like Sir Giles Gilbert Scott^. were promoted relatively swiftly, there was no sudden influx of younger blood into the institution. Glyn Philpot, who was 39 in

1923, was the youngest member to be elected

Academician during this period, and was also younger than the Assoc—

2

rates elected the same year . Philpot had studied under Philip Con- nard^ at the Lambeth Schools in 1900, befcre working at the Academie Julian and under J.P.Laurens in Paris in 1905* Philpot made an im­ pact with his portraiture from

1908 , and his work was the subject

S

6

of an article by J.B.Kanson in The Studio, September 1912 . In it Kanson noted Philpot*s

*. . . power of assimilation of certain features of the work of other masters (which)~has since grown into a- marked character­ istic, almost a fault .'

1 Sir Giles Gilbert Scott was the first Associate elected after-

1917 to obtain the rank of Academician.

2 W.G.de Glehn was 53, G.S.Watson was 5 4, L.Campbell Taylor was

49 and W.C.Green was 48 in 1923*

3 Conuard himself "was no+ elected P.oya] Academician until ?925*

4 When he -exhibited Girl at her Toilet at the Royal Institute of

Oil Painters, and Miss Miles at the old Society of Portrait Painters.

5 James Bolivar Kanson had himself exhibited at the New English

Art Club from 1909 (Philpot exhibited there in 1906, 1907 ana 1909) and was for a time art critic of the Outlook and the Daily Herald before becoming Aitken*s Assistant Keeper at the Tate Gallery. Kanson*s Hours in the Tate Gallery. London, was

published in 1926.

6

The Studio LVI.No.234 September 1912 pp 259-265. J.B.Manson

_.The Paintings of Glvn W.Philnot.

The following year Philpot was awarded a gold medal at the Carnegie

Institute, Pittsburgh, and in 1917 the Chantrey Bequest paid £500

for an oil painting, A Young Breton* Kanson5s article had been ac­ companied by a’ reproduction of one of Philuot’s paintings which con-_{. , 1 ~ - 2 3} tamed certain Spanish references- , and George Sheringham in 1924 was to describe Philpot as an heir to the Spanish tradition* Phil— pot’s Diploma hTork, the Portra.it of a- Young Kan (Plate 7l) confirms this impression.

Bertram Priestman was a Yorkshire painter who had studied at the Slade in 1886. Between 1894 and 1909 he exhibited at the Hew

4

English Art Club • He painted mainly country genre and landscape subjects '(although he did produce a number of city views). As early

5

as 1898 A.L.Baldry, in The Studio wrote appreciatively of Priest—

man5 s . . . . . . ... ...

1. . • preference . . . for pictorial romance, for that view of llature which will allow him scope for fancy without leading him into bombastic exaggeration or theatrical display . . . * Nine years before Priestman5s election as Associate of the Royal

Academy in 1916 it was apparent that his reputation was greater ab­

road than it was in this country. Frederick Tfedmore listed a number of foreign national galleries which had acquired examples of Priests man’s work in an Art Journal article of 19^7 • Nedraore thought

1 Hanoiito. the Circus Boy. Hot only is the subject’s costume

Spanish, but the technique and use of a plain background to the figure invite association with the work of Ka-net and some Span­

ish painters.

2 Sheringham was himself a decorative painter and designer.

3 The Studio LXXX7IIX Ho.376 July 1924 PP 3-8. George Sheringham

Glyn Philpot: Master Craftsman.

4 Listed asr a member in 1896.

5 The Studio XIV Ho.64 July 1898 pp 77-86. A.L.Baldry The Hark

of Bertram Priestman.

6 ibid. p 78.

7 Art Journal 1907 PP 179-185* Frederick Wedmora Bertram Priest—

man. Hedmore cited the bavarian Rational Gallery, the National Gallery at Budapest, and the Hew South Hales National Gallery, Australia.

(open air) subjects in their entirety, rather than to attend to a multiplicity of detail. The artist’s 1923 Diploma Work, Near Warenam, Dorset (Plate 72), despite its lack of cattle^ is repre­

sentative of his best landscapes. 5

Charles Leonard Hartwell was classified as a sculptor of ’the

Lambeth Group' by Kineton Parkes in his 1921 book on modern s c u I d -

2

ture . Hartwell had worked with Onslow Ford and Sir Hamo Thorny­ croft, and had studied at the Royal Academy Schools. His ’official1 successes were already numerous - including a number of commemor­ ative statues'^. Before his election as Associate in 1915 ^De Chan— trey Bequest bought two of Hartwell’s works: A Foul in the Giants’ Race, a bronze of two elephants inter-twining their trunks, for £ 5 2 - 1 0s in 1908; and Dawn, an awakening nude, for £1,100 in 1914-

Seven years after Hartwell’s election as Academician Parkes^ re­ garded Hartwell as one of those ’eminent artists’ upholding, the tra­ ditions and standards of sculpture at the Royal Academy, and called Hartwell's Dawn an outstanding example of its genre. Parkes defined

the sculptural tradition at the Royal Academy as that of the ’point­ ed bust and statue,’ since

’An academy does not postulate progress; at its best it regist­ ers contemporary modes. When there is an advance, it is due to its rebellious members, who frequently succumb at last to academic pressure and cease to function as pioneers. The standard on accepted lines,^however, may be a high one, and is well worth consideration .

1 Wedmore called attention to the fact that Priestman had, in

earlier years, been known as a painter of cattle in landscapes. 3-n The Studio XXXIX N0 .I64 November 1906? the reviewer of the second exhibition of the Society of Twenty-five English Paint­ ers referred to Priestman's treatment of 1 . . a sunny land­ scape effect and cattle with that regard for its idyllic poss­ ibilities which is part of the character of his work.’ (p 15l)-

2 Kineton Parkes- Sculpture of To-day London 1921 Vol.I pp 107-8.

3 Parkes.gives a number of examples, including Colonel Frowde

Walker, Sir Alexander Taylor and Sir Frank Swettenham.

4 Kineton Parkes- The Art of Carved Sculpture, London 1931 Vol.!

pp 90-92.

5 ibid. p 90. Parkes goes on to. consider the advantages and dis­

In document Antenas de telefonía celular "entre el cumplimiento normativo, evaluación ambiental y recepción ciudadana". (página 116-121)