76 
House &• Garden 
Consider tke sKower tatK 
M edical autKorities tell us 
tKat tke skower is rapidly) 
coming into its own. Starts tke day 
rigkt. Adds zest—pep—kealtk. 
^ Man^? country komes kave no 
running water. Tkey cannot ka^e 
sko\>?er katks. Possiklj) yours is 
one o ftk ese. Ifet a moderate out¬ 
lay 'cx’ill supply a Fairkanks-Morse 
“Tj^pk oon” Water Sj^stem for your 
country kome. A truly v^ortk 
wkile impro'>?ement. Provides water 
in abundance for v? asking, katks, 
lawns, fire protection, poultry), li^e 
stock and ornamental fountains, as 
v?ell as for drinking purpose:^. 
^ ^'Typkoon” Water Systems are 
operated ky tke famous “Z” Engine 
using low-priced kerosene for fuel. 
Tkis insures low operating cost. 
Guaranteed kj) Fairkanks-Morse 
Quality. 
^ See 2?our nearest dealer for fur- 
tker information and prices. 
The Proper Portraits for Rooms 
(Continued from page 74) 
of Betts, Wiles, Jean McLane, Melch- 
ers, Miss Beaux, Miss Emmett and those 
who classify with them is broadly deco¬ 
rative, somewhat after the old English 
manner, painted with full brush strokes 
but not at the sacrifice of sympathetic 
likenesses. However, there is a touch 
of modernism in their work, as ex¬ 
pressed by breadth and color. Those 
who are not inclined to be in sympathy 
w’ith the modern school will probably 
prefer the portraits of De Camp, Fran- 
zen, Speicher, Benson and Olinsky, who 
are inclined toward the more finished 
technique and very faithful in the rep¬ 
resentation of their sitters so far as 
exact and life-like appearance is con¬ 
cerned. Those who like broad char¬ 
acterization—pictures with ‘punch’ in 
them—will, of course, be inclined to 
favor the Luks-Henri-Bellows school. 
“Now, if you don't mind. I’ll just 
show you what I mean.” 
And then the dealer brought out pic¬ 
ture after picture to illustrate the dif¬ 
ferent sorts of portraits American artists 
are capable of painting. 
When he said, in the very beginning, 
to his prospective client, that the best 
portraits in the world are being painted 
in America, he was speaking as a patriot, 
of course, but he was also voicing the 
judgment of many others. 
The old methods of portraiture are 
done in this country. A century ago 
there was an era of splendid decorative 
painting, which was a reflex of the glori¬ 
ous art of London, when Reynolds, 
Raeburn, Romney, Gainsborough and 
Lawrence were at the zenith of their 
careers. The portraits left by Gilbert 
Stuart, Benjamin West and Thomas 
Sully are examples of this style. Th?n 
followed several generations when por¬ 
traiture was in a long twilight—a period 
of dusky brown backgrounds with fea¬ 
tures like photographs looking out from 
their depths, more or less faithfully 
painted, but uninspired and hopeless as 
decorations. Thousands of them sur¬ 
vive, but they have no art value what¬ 
ever. They are merely family docu¬ 
ments. They drew their inspiration 
from Teutonic sources—from Munich 
and Dusseldorf—and they resemble in 
the faithfulness of their physical repre¬ 
sentation the work of the old German 
master Holbein and of his more mod¬ 
ern prototype, Lenbach. 
Hudson River Portraits 
The portraiture of these long years 
was closely akin to the landscape work 
of the so-called Hudson River School, 
which owed its inspiration likewise to 
Munich and Dusseldorf. As the land¬ 
scapists sought, figuratively, to paint 
every leaf on a tree, the portraitists 
apparently endeavored to represent 
every eyelash. The result was pictures 
but not art, for art must impart esthetic 
pleasure. The Hudson River School 
landscapes that once brought thousands 
of dollars in the artists’ studios now 
sell at auction for a hundred or so. 
The portraits are even less desired, ex¬ 
cept as family relics. 
But when the awakening came in 
landscape painting, when Inness, Wyant, 
Martin and Homer began to turn out 
their masterpieces, discontent came to 
portraiture, and the younger artists 
sought greater breadth of handling and 
brighter colors. Once the spell of the 
old tradition was broken, they turned 
for inspiration to various sources, some 
to the old English school, some to 
France, some to the old Dutch masters, 
some to Spain and some to modern 
Impressionism. All of these influences 
are seen in the .American portraits that 
are being produced at the present time, 
and so various are the methods and 
styles that it is possible for any person, 
whatever his tastes, to be pleased. 
Contemporary American portraiture 
has two main characteristics—its ex¬ 
treme vigor and its zest for characteri¬ 
zation. Both of these may be regarded 
as indigenous to the soil, for they are 
in accord with American life and the 
American spirit. 
Sargent’s Influence 
Probably the most outstanding figure 
in American portraiture is John Singer 
Sargent. He has passed the most of 
his career in England, it is true; and 
the word was passed out three or four 
years ago that he had retired as a 
portrait painter in favor of his land¬ 
scape work, but he came to America 
after the outbreak of the war and has 
since executed some notable commis¬ 
sions. Art lovers will remember the 
two inimitable portraits of John D. 
Rockefeller, which were exhibited at the 
Knoedler Galleries, as well as his por¬ 
trait of President '^ilson. Mr. Sar¬ 
gent is an apostle of the broad, strong 
brush stroke and of accentuated char¬ 
acterization, which he has superimposed 
on a foundation gained from Reynolds 
and his 18th Century English contem¬ 
poraries, who treated figures in a grand, 
decorative style. This tendency he has 
passed on to his followers of the newer 
generation. 
There are two other figures in Ameri¬ 
can portraiture who have not been men¬ 
tioned yet, but who are unique. One 
is George DeForest Brush, whose por¬ 
traits reflect the manner of the Italian 
primitives, with exact and minute 
draughtsmanship, very decorative in 
their bright if somewhat hard colors. 
The other is F. Luis Mora, whose man¬ 
ner is that of the Spaniards, particu¬ 
larly that of Goya, with contrasting 
and striking colors, romantically used. 
Placing Portraits 
In placing portraits in the home it 
should be remembered that light keyed 
works can best be placed in Colonial 
rooms, although this rule is not a hard 
and fast one; and that the deeper col¬ 
ored, tonal pictures belong with more 
fitness in old world interiors, being par¬ 
ticularly appropriate to Old English sur¬ 
roundings, and to a less degree in 
French and Italian rooms. Portraits 
painted in bright and crisp colors, as 
well as the impressionistic light keyed 
works, harmonize very well with the 
gray walls of 18th Century French in¬ 
teriors. 
It should be remembered, too, that 
portraits, like people, should not have 
crowded quarters. A big portrait in a 
small room seems out of place, and 
four portraits on a wall that should 
hold only one or two mar the effect. 
A good place for a portrait is above a 
piece of furniture, where it fits unob¬ 
trusively into the decorative scheme. 
Also, they make very appropriate over¬ 
mantels. Large works, where possible, 
should be placed so that they will have 
the advantage of a vista, and then they 
become not only a decoration for a 
room, but for a whole house as well. 
The pleasure derived from landscapes, 
or even from figure subjects, has an 
element of the abstract in it, but por¬ 
traits should rightfully be more inti¬ 
mate and personal in their appeal. 
When they are just right, and when 
they exactly fit in with the decorative 
scheme, they are the most ‘‘livable” sort 
of pictures that can be placed in the 
home. 
