February 7, 19 18 
Land & Water 
19 
The Senefelder Club : By Charles Marriott 
THE only thing that is wrong about the Sene- 
felder Club, now holding itseig ith exhibition at the 
Leicester Galleries, is its expressed purpose of 
advancing " artistic " lithography. This use of 
the word " artistic " cannot be too strongly 
condemned. A good lithograph is artistic ; a bad lithograph 
is inartistic ; and there is notliing more to be said. It does 
not make any difference whether the lithograph is an illus- 
tration to a trade catalogue or a picture of " Les Pelerins 
d'Emmaus " — to name one of the most imaginative designs 
in the exhibition. 
It is high time that this abuse of the word " artistic '" were 
left to the shopkeepers who introluced it. Not long ago I 
was in a small stationer's shop when a young woman come 
in to buy a blotting-book. Gi%'en a choice of bindings she 
said : " I'd better have the art shade " — pronounced " shide " 
— •" because it's for the drawing-room." There is nothing to 
choose between this obvious vulgarism and " artistic litho- 
graphy." Its wrongness 
is all the more apparent 
in the light of Mr. Joseph 
Pennell's clear and concise 
description of hthography 
in the catalogue of the ex- 
hibition. He points out 
that the word lithography 
— as indicating that' a 
stone is essential — is mis- 
leading, and that Aloys 
Senefelder, the eighteenth 
century inventor of the 
art, did not use the word. 
Lithography is essentially 
the art of making a 
drawing on a flat surface 
which may be multiphed. 
So that, allowing for the 
fact that it must be done 
with a substance that per- 
mits multiplication, litho- 
graphy is simply drawing. 
Now to speak of "artistic" 
drawing is obviously just 
as bad as to speak of 
" literary " writing. Both 
drawing and writing may 
be good, bad or indifferent; 
but they do not become 
any more or less a' tistic or 
literary according to the 
purpose to which they are 
applied. 
Probably the intention 
of the Senefelder Club is 
to .make a distinction from 
commercial lithography. 
Tiiat is almost worse. 
Putting on one side the 
fact that the lithographs 
produced by the Club 
are articles of commerce, 
in that they are not only 
sold by the artists but 
quickly become the sub- 
jects of speculation on the 
part of dealers and collec- 
tors, it is impossible to 
make a real distinction. 
Irony is lent to the attempt 
by the fact that when 
Shepherd and Shepherdess 
By F.ank Brangwyn, A.R.A, 
wanted to master 
a commercial litho- 
Whistler 
lithography he went and worked with 
grapher, the late Mr. Thomas Way. Not that the work of Mr. 
Way was any the less artistic for being commercial. But, 
and this is the real object of my making, apparently, so much 
tuss about th word, nothing has done more to degrade com- 
merce and hinder the right appreciation of art than the 
attempted distinction. 
Npw, if ever, is the the time to try to abolish it. We want 
to give every workman that joy in his work which is the 
essence of art, and we want to give every artist that sense of 
his place in the community which might help in the regenera- 
tion of lif .'. I wonder, for example, how the Senefelder Club 
would classify Steinlen's cat pictures for the advertisement of 
condensed milk, or the lithographic posters on the Under- 
ground Railways. Would they call them artistic or com- 
mercial lithography ? Is it more artistic to make a picture for 
a collector to put in a portfolio — often merely against a rise 
in its commercial value — than to make a picture that shall- 
brighten the Ijves — the actual lives — of thousands ? 
This question brings up another evil that results from the 
attempited segregation of " art " ; and that is the arbitrary 
limitation of the number of proofs which may be printed of a 
lithograph— or any other form of art which lends itself to 
multiphcation. In so far as it is aimed ^t securing good proofs 
it is just and wise ; but in so far as it is aimed at creating a 
limited supply it is commercial in the very basest meaning 
of the word. It is not less commercial for the superstition 
that there is an artistic virtue in rarity ; and it is safe to say 
that any pleasure a person may take in the possession of a 
unique copy of a work of art designed for multiplication has 
noth ng to do with art but is on the contrary due to the most 
contemptible snobbishness. 
Of course, every artist should get a fair price for his work, 
but the price need not be lowered with quantity — in the case 
o' books it is actually 
raised, since it is usual for 
the writer to get a higher 
royalty above a certain 
number of copies ; and 
a; a matter of fact the 
'■ appreciation " in the 
value of proofs whici> 
results from a limited 
edition is not for the 
benefit of the artist at ail 
but of the dealer or collec- 
tor. What would be 
thought of a man who 
proposed to limit the 
printing of Shakespeare 
lest he should become too 
" common " ? One has 
only to ask the question 
to have it answered in the 
strongest language. 
Nor will the argument , 
that an artificially limited- 
edition enables more 
attention to be given to 
the individual proof bear 
serious consideration. 
Whether or not the artist 
prints his own proofs their 
printing should be a 
matter of purely mechani- 
cal care and skill. There 
should be no variations in 
the proofs except to get 
them more and more true 
to the original drawing. 
Art is not accidents ; and, 
as Mr. Walter Sickert said 
of etchings, a lithograph 
should be capable of being 
printed by Messrs. — well, 
any competent firm of 
commercial printers you 
like to name. The artistic 
merits of a lithograph are 
either limited to the 
original drawing or else 
they persist in any number 
of mechanically good proofs 
that can be printed from 
it. In short, whether as 
regards subject or purpose, method or number, there is no 
distinction between commercial and artistic lithography that 
docs not injure art and encourage the worser meaning of 
commerce. There is no royal road to goodness, artistic or 
otherwise, and the only way to be artistic in lithography is t» 
do your work well. 
Men are generally better than their institutions, and the 
members of the Senefelder Club are much better than their 
advertised aims. One and all they are engaged in the advance- 
ment of lithography, and their works at the Leicester Galleries 
support all that has been said about the possibilities of the art. 
These possibihties are best indicated by the word " auto- 
graphic." As Mr. Pennell points out, lithography is the only 
truly autographic'method of multiplying drawings. In all the 
methods of engraving the actual touch of the artist is com- 
promised by the means of reproduction. " Neither in etching 
or wood engraving are the lines the artist made those that 
