672 MODERN PAINTING 



Buddhist gown afforded the means of liberation from social tram- 

 mels. You may notice that the Kanos always held ecclesiastical 

 titles, that Hokusai had a shaven head. 



It must not be implied that the conditions in the past which gave 

 to both the Italian and the Japanese painters a recognized place in 

 society are to be considered ideal or perfect. I am simply pointing 

 to the fact that the position of art was not at least anomalous, as 

 it is nowadays. The difficulty at the present time is that society has 

 broken the ancient harmony, and offers nothing to replace it. The 

 academy and the institute are poor substitutes for the medieval 

 guilds or the Japanese monasticism, the groups which kept up 

 the traditions and furnished a home for art. 



The modern spirit, in emancipating the man, exiles the artist. 

 The painter of to-day has no recognized function in the social scheme. 

 He may be nearer nature, but is further from humanity. Have we 

 not noticed how intensely human are the pictures of all the great 

 masters? Do we not notice how distant and cold are the modern 

 productions? Art for art's sake is a wail of Bohemia. 



If we look on the surface of things, it would appear as if there 

 were no time in history when art was so honored as it is to-day in 

 Europe or in America. The highest social distinctions are conferred 

 on the successful painter, and the amount of his remuneration is 

 incomparably greater than that given the old master. Yet it is a 

 matter of doubt whether he enjoys the fostering care and the stimu- 

 lating influences which the community and brother-workers accorded 

 him in the past. The very lack of finish and refinement in their 

 work shows the difference between the new and the old. It is signi- 

 ficant that in France, where the relation between the artist and the 

 community is better kept than elsewhere in the West, where tradi- 

 tions are still adhered to by its "Institute," we find the most vital 

 of contemporary achievements. 



Modern art-education is not altogether the blessing that it is gen- 

 erally supposed to be. It is true that the academies and the museum 

 have opened up to all what was once a secret of the trade. It is also 

 true that systematic instruction has enabled one to overcome the 

 apparently unnecessary hardship of apprenticeship. But the art 

 academies cannot impart the benefits of the older method. The 

 grinding of colors and the attendance on the master, however irk- 

 some it mitrht have been, were the means of developing the moral 

 fibre of the artistic mind. The constant contact with the master- 

 worker, and the participation in the details of his work, were the best 

 means of obtaining insight into the entire complexity of production. 

 It is the home-life of art, which no school-life can replace. Art- 

 education, as it is generally conducted, is destructive to individuality. 

 Its systematic nature enforces a uniform rule on all. Again, the very 



