On the Old Road, Vol. 2 | Page 7

130. Chairman. Do you not consider that it is rather prejudicial to art
that there should be a Gallery notoriously containing no first-rate works
of art, but second-rate or third-rate works?--No; I think it rather
valuable as an expression of the means of education, that there should
be early lessons in art--that there should be this sort of art selected
especially for first studies, and also that there should be a recognition
of the exceeding preciousness of some other art. I think that portions of
it should be set aside as interesting, but not unreplaceable; but that
other portions should be set aside as being things as to which the
function of the nation was, chiefly, to take care of those things, not for
itself merely, but for all its descendants, and setting the example of
taking care of them for ever.
You do not think, then, that there would be any danger in the studying
or the copying of works which notoriously were not the best
works?--On the contrary, I think it would be better that works not
altogether the best should be first submitted. I never should think of
giving the best work myself to a student to copy--it is hopeless; he
would not feel its beauties--he would merely blunder over it. I am
perfectly certain that that cannot be serviceable in the particular branch
of art which I profess, namely, landscape-painting; I know that I must
give more or less of bad examples.
Mr. Richmond. But you would admit nothing into this second gallery
which was not good or true of its kind?--Nothing which was not good
or true of its kind, but only inferior in value to the others.
And if there were any other works which might be deposited there with
perfect safety, say precious drawings, which might be protected by
glass, you would not object to exhibit those to the unselected
multitude?--Not in the least; I should be very glad to do so, provided I

could spare them from the grand chronological arrangement.
Do you think that a very interesting supplementary exhibition might be
got up, say at Trafalgar Square, and retained there?--Yes, and all the
more useful because you would put few works, and you could make it
complete in series--and because, on a small scale, you would have the
entire series. By selecting a few works, you would have an epitome of
the Grand Gallery, the divisions of the chronology being all within the
compartment of a wall, which in the great Gallery would be in a
separate division of the building.
131. Mr. Cockerell. Do you contemplate the possibility of excellent
copies being exhibited of the most excellent works both of sculpture
and of painting?--I have not contemplated that possibility. I have a
great horror of copies of any kind, except only of sculpture. I have great
fear of copies of painting; I think people generally catch the worst parts
of the painting and leave the best.
But you would select the artist who should make the copy. There are
persons whose whole talent is concentrated in the power of imitation of
a given picture, and a great talent it is.--I have never in my life seen a
good copy of a good picture.
Chairman. Have you not seen any of the German copies of some of the
great Italian masters, which are generally esteemed very admirable
works?--I have not much studied the works of the copyists; I have not
observed them much, never having yet found an exception to that rule
which I have mentioned. When I came across a copyist in the Gallery
of the Vatican, or in the Gallery at Florence, I had a horror of the
mischief, and the scandal and the libel upon the master, from the
supposition that such a thing as that in any way resembled his work,
and the harm that it would do to the populace among whom it was
shown.
Mr. Richmond. You look upon it as you would upon coining bad
money and circulating it, doing mischief?--Yes, it is mischievous.
Mr. Cockerell. But you admit engravings--you admit photographs of

these works, which are imitations in another language?--Yes; in
abstract terms, they are rather descriptions of the paintings than
copies--they are rather measures and definitions of them--they are hints
and tables of the pictures, rather than copies of them; they do not
pretend to the same excellence in any way.
You speak as a connoisseur; how would the common eye of the public
agree with you in that opinion?--I think it would not agree with me.
Nevertheless, if I were taking some of my workmen into the National
Gallery, I should soon have some hope of making them understand in
what excellence consisted, if I could point to a genuine work; but I