Crome

Crome, who was, in our opinion, a better painter than Constable, was like him a naturalist, and true to his faith. There is an amusing scene in his life, which we will quote. "A brother of the art met Crome in a remote spot of healthy verdure, with a troop of young persons. Not knowing the particular object of the assembly, he ventured to address the Norwich painter thus: ' Why, I thought I had left you in the city engaged in your school,' '1 am in my school,' replied Crome, 'and teaching my scholars from the only true examples. Do you think,' pointing to a lovely distance, 'either you or I can do better than that?'"

Crome has expressed his view of art in the following remarks, which we read in his life:- "The man who would place an animal where the animal would not place itself, would do the same with a tree, a bank, a human figure - with any object, in fact, that might occur in Nature; and therefore such a man may be a good colourist or a good draughtsman, but he is no artist." At the National Gallery is to be seen a very good specimen of his work, and one well worth studying. Vincent, another East Anglian, did some wonderful work, quite equal to Van der Veldes,

Callcott,

Nasmyth,

Muller, and

Maclise.

We now pass over the names of Callcott, Nasmyth, Muller, and Maclise, none masters, though they have been called "great colonists," whatever that may mean. A great colourist should be a true colourist, and Muller is almost chromographic in originality in this respect.

Creswell, Linnell, and Cooke.

Wilkie,

Stansfield,

Mulready,

Leslie,

Landseer, and

Mason.

Wilkie and Landseer.

Mason.

Creswell, Linnell, and Cooke, are names that stand out at this period, and the greatest of them is Cooke; his painting of "Lobster Pots," at South Kensington, being wonderfully fresh and true; but none are poets; they have but little insight into nature, though Linnell at times shows the true feeling. A long list of well-known names follows, such as Hilton, Hay-don, Etty, and Eastlake, but none are masters, and we only mention them to caution against them. Of considerable power were Wilkie, Stansfield, Mulready, Leslie, Land-seer, and Mason, but none of them was really good, although much has been written and said in praise of their works. They are all false in sentiment, and all lack insight into the poetry of nature. In technique Wilkie and Landseer are often strong, and they will always appeal to a certain class of people. Mason's work is a fine example of the folly of introducing the so-called "imaginative" into landscape. Take his "Harvest Moon," when and where did ever men exist

F. Walker with such limbs? the whole picture smacks of the model and of the "stage idealism;" there is no nature there, but a laughable parody of it. The next really great name in English art is that of Frederick Walker, a naturalist, and above all an artist who had a great grip of and insight into nature. But in his work the traditions of the idyllic peasants of the golden age lingers, and we find his ploughman merrily running along with a plough as though it were a toy cart; and what a ploughman! he never saw a field in his life. This is a grave fault, and takes away from the greatness of Walker, yet notwithstanding this his name will always be a landmark in English art. The reader will be able to study one of his works in the National Gallery. The date of Walker's death brings us down to the actual present. Regarding living English painters we will remain discreetly silent. It must be remembered that English art is young, beginning as it practically does in the eighteenth century, for the miniature-painters cannot count for much, and we must therefore not expect too much. Great men, especially great artists, are rare as Koh-i-noors. England can boast of a few, such as Gainsborough, and Constable and Crome. Of American art there is but little to say. No name stands out worthy of record till J. M. Whistler appears, and he, though an American by birth, can hardly be called an American painter, for the life and landscape of his own country he neglects, as also do Sargent and Harrison, two strong painters, both French by education. Whistler's name rises far above any artist living in England, his portrait of his mother and those of Carlyle and Sarasate are works good for all time and worthy to be ranked with the best. Mr. Whistler's influence, too, has been great and good. As a pioneer he led the revolt against ignorant criticism by his attack on Ruskin. Vide "Art and Art Criticism, Whistler v. Ruskin." His life in England has been a long battle for art, and though many do not approve of all his methods, and still less of his brilliant but illogical "Ten o'Clock," his work and influence have been for good. Another great step in advance, introduced by Mr.