Flemish Art at the Royal AcademySource: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 96, No. 611 (Feb., 1954), p. 35Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/871327 .

Accessed: 07/12/2014 14:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Burlington Magazine.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:44:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE NUMBER 611I VOLUME XCVI FEBRUARY 1954

Editorial FLEMISH ART AT THE ROYAL ACADEMY

ONCE again we must be grateful to the Royal Academy for a splendid winter exhibition. This time there has been some criticism, in which we feel obliged to join, of the selection and

hanging of the pictures. But though these criticisms have to be made, it must not be forgotten that a remarkable number of masterpieces from private collections in this country and museums abroad have been obtained, and that the oppor- tunity of enjoying and studying them in London is unique. Particularly welcome are three of the highest peaks in the whole range of Flemish art: the Master of Flemalle Entomb- ment, of immense historical and artistic importance, the small

Bruegel Flight into Egypt and the Rubens Moonlight Landscape, all lent by Count Seilern. There is no object in listing all the

pictures for which the exhibition is alone worth several visits, but we may mention as outstanding the Bruges Margaret van

Eyck, the Memling triptych from Chatsworth and the Floreins

altarpiece, the Petrus Christus portrait lent by Lord Verulam, the Bruegel Dormition from Upton House, the Antwerp Dulle Griet, and the Rubenses and Van Dycks from the Royal Collection. As a model of selection, presentation, and cata-

loguing must be singled out for special praise the section devoted to manuscripts for which Dr Pacht was responsible. Anyone who wishes to discover how much can be achieved with taste and erudition to bring pleasure to the public and to throw light on an obscure recess of the past, is recom- mended to study Dr Paicht's exhibition technique.

In spite of the inclusion of some fifty pictures of the first importance and of a further Ioo, let us say, of high quality, in spite of the exemplary presentation of the manu-

script section, the exhibition as a whole is not satisfactory. There are fine paintings in every room but a far larger num- ber of indifferent works. The Executive Committee seems to have been more concerned about filling up all blank spaces on the walls than about keeping up the high standard they must originally have set themselves. The younger Teniers is

surely too well represented in Room XI with twenty-three works; and as for the English Van Dycks in Room III, they are hung frame to frame and seem to be crying out for elbow- room. (Although scholars will always be grateful to Mr Millar for his expert selection and cataloguing of the Van Dycks, the question remains whether the scales are not too heavily weighted in favour of the English period, at the expense of earlier periods in his career; as it is, Room III would serve more conveniently as a prelude to a review of British portrait- painting through the ages, than as the hub from which the spokes of Flemish art are supposed to radiate.)

It may be sensibly argued that an art historian ought not to worry if too many pictures, or too many of a certain kind, are shown; that he can learn almost as much from third-rate as from first-rate works; that here is the one chance he will have of finding out something new about the English Van Dyck and about Teniers; that the presence of both good and

bad, both relevant and irrelevant, only helps to sharpen his

powers of discrimination. But we are constantly reminded that exhibitions are organized for the benefit of a public which is not trained to pick and choose in this way. And it

may be pertinent to enquire whether this public can be

expected to profit from the contemplation of so many third- rate Flemish works. It may be true that it proved impossible to obtain, in spite of repeated requests, any further loans of the standard required, and that the remaining blank spaces had regretfully to be filled with the more mechanical pro- ductions of Antwerp studios. If this was the case, would it not have been more sensible to close some of the rooms

altogether - the Large South Room, for example, where the

light is poor - and to space out the pictures in the other

galleries, thus preserving a higher standard of quality throughout the whole exhibition?

The hanging lays itself open to even more severe criticism than the selection. In a large number of cases the meaning of a picture has been sacrificed to its shape. If we go round the rooms without considering the pictures themselves but only the pattern they form on the walls, we may be struck by some ingenious juxtapositions: like postage stamps in a well-

designed stamp album, they satisfy our sense of balance. But

beyond this they have nothing in common. One wall in the Lecture Room is hung with works by Marinus van

Reymerswaele, Snyders, A. Janssens, Bueckelaer, and Fyt. Jordaenses which should have hung together are scattered between Room X and the Lecture Room. The well-lit Room

IX, which one supposes at first to have been planned as a centre for Bruegel and the late sixteenth-century landscape, also contains works by Teniers, Van Dyck, Brouwer, Rubens, and Siberechts.

It is not possible to derive any clear impression of the

development of Flemish art from a tour of the galleries. With a few exceptions the Primitives and Mannerists in the early rooms are adequately arranged. The decision to break the historical sequence in Room III by filling it with seventeenth-

century works was undoubtedly justified. But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Rubens should have shared the honours with Van Dyck. This could have been done if fewer Van Dycks had been selected, and some of the smaller ones

relegated to a later room. To give the English Van Dyck pride of place at Rubens' expense is like honouring Whistler at the expense of Manet in an Impressionist exhibition. Finally it is confusing to a public with no firm grasp of chronology to continue the exhibition, from Room IV on- wards, with the great seventeenth-century masters, and to return to the sixteenth century only on arrival at Room IX (except for some early portraits in Room VII and two paint- ings in Room VIII).

The art critic of a leading newspaper has claimed in a recent article that there are many with a great but un- systemized appetite for painting who will find the 'good old English muddle' at Burlington House by no means uncon- genial. Considering that Burlington House is full of wonderful pictures, this may well be true. But it is wrong to suppose that enjoyment and understanding are two quite separate things. On the contrary, they are closely linked; and had the Flemish exhibition been as thoughtfully selected and dis- played as the Rubens sketches at Rotterdam, the enjoyment of those hungry for art would have been much enhanced.

35

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 14:44:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions