Second Post-Impressionist Exhibition. British, French and Russian Artists

"HONORARY COMMITTEE*
The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Plymouth, P.C., C.B.; The Rt. Hon. The Earl Curzon of Kedleston, P.C.; The Rt. Hon. Lord Ribblesdale, P.C.; The Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, M.P.; Sir Edgar Vincent, K.C.M.G.; Sir Louis Mallet. K.C.B.; The Rt. Hon. Lewis Harcourt, M.P., P.C.; Charles Aitken, Esq.; M. Gustave Bernheim; M. Octave Mirbeau; M. Alphonse Kann; M. Théodore Duret; M. Paul Gallimard; M. Frantz-Jourdain; M. Maurice Gangnat; Clive Bell, Esq.; Robert Dell, Esq.; Roger Fry, Esq.; W. M. Wade, Esq.
''* The gentlemen on the Honorary Committee, though they are not responsible for the choice of the pictures, by lending their names have been kind enough to give this project their general support.''", n.p. [p. 15]

"EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
M. Boris van Anrep; Clive Bell, Esq.; Robert Dell, Esq.; Roger Fry, Esq.; W. Mercer Wade, Esq.
Secretary: Roger Fry, Esq.", p. 17

"The design for the Poster is the result of collaboration among several artists of the English group. It has been drawn by Mr. Duncan Grant. Examples can be purchased on application to the Secretary.”, p. 20

10am - 6pm

Nr. of pages: 67.
Holding Institution: Victoria & Albert National Art Library

Fry, Roger: INTRODUCTION, p. 19-20

"THE scope of the present Exhibition differs somewhat from that of two years ago. Then the main idea was to show the work of the "Old Masters'' of the new movement, to which the somewhat negative label of Post-Impressionism was attached for the sake of convenience. Now the idea has been to show it in its contemporary development not only in France, its native place, but in England where it is of very recent growth, and in Russia where it has liberated and revived an old native tradition. It would of course have been possible to extend the geographical area immensely, Post-Impressionist schools are flourishing, one might almost say raging, in Switzerland, Austro-Hungary and most of all in Germany. But so far as I have discovered these have not yet added any positive element to the general stock of ideas.
In Italy the Futurists have succeeded in developing a whole system of aesthetics out of a misapprehension of some of Picasso's recondite and difficult works. England, France and Russia were therefore chosen to give a general summary of the results up to date.
Mr. Clive Bell is responsible for the selection of the [p. 19] English works and Count Boris von Anrep for the Russian. The selection of the French works fell to my lot. [p. 20]”

Bell, Clive: THE ENGLISH GROUP, p. 21-24

"FOR the Second Post-Impressionist Exhibition I have been asked to choose a few English pictures, and to say something about them. Happily, there is no need to be defensive. The battle is won. We all agree, now, that any form in which an artist can express himself is legitimate, and the more sensitive perceive that there are things worth expressing that could never have been expressed in traditional forms. We have ceased to ask, "What does this picture represent?" and ask instead, "What does it make us feel?" We expect a work of plastic art to have more in common with a piece of music than with a coloured photograph.
The first thing to be considered is the relation of these English artists to the movement. That such a revolutionary movement was needed is proved, I think, by the fact that every one of them has something to say which could not have been said in any other form. New wine abounded and the old bottles were found wanting. These artists are of the movement because, in choice of subject, they recognise no authority but the truth that is in them; in choice of form, none but the need of expressing it. That is Post-Impressionism.
Their debt to the French is enormous. I believe it could be computed and stated with some precision. For instance, it could be shown that each owes something, directly or indirectly, to Cezanne. But detective-work of this sort would be as profitless here as elsewhere. I [p. 21] am concerned only to discover in the work of these English painters some vestige of those qualities that distinguish Post-Impressionists from the mass – qualities that can be seen to advantage in the work of the French masters here exhibited, and to perfection in those of their master, Cézanne. These qualities I will call simplification and plastic design.
What I mean by “simplification” is obvious. A literary artist who wishes to express what he feels for a forest thinks himself under no obligation to give an account of its flora and fauna. The Post-Impressionist claims similar privileges; those facts that any one can observe for himself or discover in a text-book he leaves to the makers of Christmas-cards and diagrams. He simplifies, omits details, that is to say, to concentrate on something more important – on the significance of form.
We can regard an object solely as a means and feel emotion for it as such. It is possible to contemplate emotionally a coal-scuttle as the friend of man. We can consider it in relation to the toes of the family circle and the paws of the watch-dog. And, certainly, this emotion can be suggested in line and colour. But the artist who would do so can but describe the coal-scuttle and its patrons, trusting that his forms will remind the spectator of a moving situation. His description may interest, but, at best, it will move us far less than that of a capable writer. Yet most English painters have attempted nothing more serious. Their drawing and design have been merely descriptive; their art, at best, romantic.
How, then, does the Post-Impressionist regard a coalscuttle? He regards it as an end in itself, as a significant form related on term of equality with other significant forms. Thus have all great artists regarded objects. Forms and the relation of forms have been for them, not means of suggesting emotion but objects of emotion. It is this emotion they have expressed. Their drawing and design have been plastic and not descriptive. That [p. 22] is the supreme virtue of modern French art: of nothing does English stand in greater need.
If, bearing in mind the difference between the treatment of form as an object of emotion and the treatment of form as a means of description, we turn, now, to these pictures an important distinction will become apparent. We shall notice that the art of Mr. Wyndham Lewis, whatever else may be said of it, is certainly not descriptive. Hardly at all does it depends for its effect on association or suggestion. There is no reason why a mind sensitive to form and colour, though it inhabit another solar system, and a body altogether unlike our own, should fail to appreciate it. On the other hand, fully to appreciate some pictures by Mr. Fry or Mr. Duncan Grant it is necessary to be a human being, perhaps, even, an educated European of the twentieth century. "Fully," I say, because both Mr. Fry and Mr. Grant - and, for that matter, all the painters here represented - are true plastic artists; wherefore the most important qualities in their work are quite independent of place or time, or a particular civilisation or point of view. Theirs is an art that stands on its own feet instead of leaning upon life; and herein it differs from traditional English art, which, robbed of historical and literary interest, would cease to exist. It is just because these Englishmen have expelled or reduced to servitude those romantic and irrelevant qualities that for two centuries have made our art the laughing-stock of Europe, that they deserve as much respect and almost as much attention as superior French artists who have had no such traditional difficulties to surmount.
No one of understanding, I suppose, will deny the superiority of the Frenchmen. They, however, have no call to be ashamed of their allies. For the essential virtue is common to both. Looking at these pictures every visitor will be struck by the fact that they are neither pieces of handsome furniture, nor pretty knickknacks, nor tasteful souvenirs, but passionate attempts to express profound emotions. All are manifestation of a [p. 23] spiritual revolution which proclaims art a religion, and forbids its degradation to the level of a trade. They are intended neither to please, to flatter, nor to shock, but to express great emotions and to provoke them. [p. 24]”

Fry, Roger: THE FRENCH GROUP, p. 25-29

"WHEN the first Post-Impressionist Exhibition was held in these Galleries two years ago the English public became for the first time fully aware of the existence of a new movement in art, a movement which was the more disconcerting in that it was no mere variation upon accepted themes but implied a reconsideration of the very purpose and aim as well as the methods of pictorial and plastic art. It was not surprising therefore that a public which had come to admire above everything in a picture the skill with which the artist produced illusion should have resented an art in which such skill was completely subordinated to the direct expression of feeling. Accusations of clumsiness and incapacity were freely made, even against so singularly accomplished an artist as Cézanne. Such darts, however, fall wide of the mark, since it is not the object of these artists to exhibit their skill or proclaim their knowledge, but only to attempt to express by pictorial and plastic form certain spiritual experiences; and in conveying these ostentation of skill is likely to be even more fatal than downright incapacity.
Indeed, one may fairly admit that the accusation of want of skill and knowledge, while ridiculous in the case of Cézanne is perfectly justified as regards one artist represented (for the first time in England) in the present Exhibition, namely, Rousseau. Rousseau was a customhouse officer who painted without any training in the art, His pretentions to paint made him the butt of a great [p. 25] deal of ironic wit, but scarcely any one now would deny the authentic quality of his inspiration or the certainty of his imaginative conviction. Here then is one case where want of skill and knowledge do not completely obscure, though they may mar, expression. And this is true of all perfectly naive and primitive art. But most of the art here seen is neither naive nor primitive. It is the work of highly civilised and modern men trying to find a pictorial language appropriate to the sensibilities of the modern outlook.
Another charge that is frequently made against these artists is that they allow what is merely capricious, or even what is extravagant and eccentric, in their work – that it is not serious, but an attempt to impose on the good-natured tolerance of the public. This charge of insincerity and extravagance is invariably made against any new manifestation of creative art. It does not of course follow that it is always wrong. The desire to impose by such means certainly occurs, and is sometimes temporarily successful. But the feeling on the part of the public may, and I think in this case does, arise from a simple misunderstanding of what these artists set out to do. The difficulty springs from a deep-rooted conviction, due to long-established custom, that the aim of painting is the descriptive imitation of natural forms. Now, these artists do not seek to give what can, after all, be but a pale reflex of actual appearance, but to arouse the conviction of a new and definite reality. They do not seek to imitate form, but to create form ; not to imitate life, but to find an equivalent for life. By that I mean that they wish to make images which by the clearness of their logical structure, and by their closely-knit unity of texture, shall appeal to our disinterested and contemplative imagination with something of the same vividness as the things of actual life appeal to our practical activities. In fact, they aim not at illusion but at reality.
The logical extreme of such a method would undoubtedly be the attempt to give up all resemblance [p. 26] to natural form, and to create a purely abstract language of form - a visual music; and the later works of Picasso show this clearly enough. They may or may not be successful in their attempt. It is too early to be dogmatic on the point, which can only be decided when our sensibilities to such abstract form have been more practised than they are at present. But I would suggest that there is nothing ridiculous in the attempt to do this. Such a picture as Picasso's "Head of a Man," wouId undoubtedly be ridiculous if, having set out to make a direct; imitation of the actual model, he had been incapable of getting a better likeness. But Picasso did nothing of the sort. He has shown in his "Portrait of Mlle. L. B. that he could do so at least as well as any one if he wished, but he is here attempting to do something quite different.
No such extreme abstraction marks the work of Matisse. The actual objects which stimulated his creative invention are recognisable enough. But here, too, it ill an equivalence, not a likeness, of nature that is sought, In opposition to Picasso, who is pre-eminently plastic, Matisse aims at convincing us of the reality of his forms by the continuity and flow of his rythmic line, by the logic of his space relations, and, above all, by an entirely new use of colour. In this, as in his markedly rythmic design, he approaches more than any other European to the ideals of Chinese art. His work has to an extraordinary degree that decorative unity of design which distinguishes all the artists of this school.
Between these two extremes we may find ranged almost all the remaining artists. On the whole the influence of Picasso on the younger men is more evident than that of Matisse. With the exception of Braque none of them push their attempts at abstraction of form so far as Picasso, but simplification along these lines is apparent in the work of Derain, Herbin, Marchand and L'Hote. Other artists, such as Doucet and Asselin, are content with the idead of simpli- [p. 27] fication of form as existing in the general tradition of the Post-Impressionist movement, and instead of feeling for new methods of expression devote themselves to expressing what is most poignant and moving in contemporary life. But however various the directions in which different groups are exploring the newly-found regions of expressive form they all alike derive in some measure from the great originator of the whole idea, Cézanne. And since one must always refer to him to understand the origin of these ideas, it has been thought well to include a few examples of his work in the present Exhibition, although this year it is mainly the moderns, and not the old masters that are represented. To some extent, also, the absence of the earlier masters in the exhibition itself is made up for by the retrospective exhibition of Monsieur Druet's admirable photographs. Here Cézanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh can be studied at least in the main phases of their development.
Finally, I should like to call attention to a distinguishing characteristic of the French artists seen here, namely, the markedly Classic spirit of their work. This will be noted as distinguishing them to some extent from the English, even more perhaps from the Russians, and most of all from the great mass of modern painting in every country. I do not mean by Classic, dull, pedantic, traditional, reserved, or any of those similar things which the word is often made to imply. Still less do I mean by calling them Classic that they paint "Visits to Ӕsculapius" or "Nero at the Colosseum." I mean that they do not rely for their effect upon associated ideas, as I believe Romantic and Realistic artists invariably do.
All art depends upon cutting off the practical responses to sensations of ordinary life, thereby setting free a pure and as it were disembodied functioning of the spirit ; but in so far as the artist relies on the associated ideas of the objects which he represents, his work is not completely free and pure, since romantic associations imply at least an imagined practical activity. The disadvantage of such [p. 28] an art of associated ideas is that its effect really depends on what we bring with us : it adds no entirely new factor to our experience. Consequently, when the first shock of wonder or delight is exhausted the work produces an ever lessening reaction. Classic art, on the other hand, records a positive and disinterestedly passionate state of mind. It communicates a new and otherwise unattainable experience. Its effect, therefore, is likely to increase with familiarity. Such a classic spirit is common to the best French work of all periods from the twelfth century onwards, and though no one could find direct reminiscences of a Nicholas Pouissin here, his spirit seems to revive in the work of artists like Derain. It is natural enough that the intensity and singleness of aim with which these artists yield themselves to certain experiences in the face of nature may make their work appear odd to those who have not the habit of contemplative vision, but it would be rash for us, who as a nation are in the habit of treating our emotions, especially our aesthetic emotions, with a certain levity, to accuse them of caprice or insincerity. It is because of this classic concentration of feeling (which by no means implies abandonment) that the French merit our serious attention. It is this that makes their art so difficult on a first approach but gives it its lasting hold on the imagination. [p. 29]"

von Anrep, Boris: THE RUSSIAN GROUP, p. 30-33
"RUSSIAN spiritual culture has formed itself on the basis of a mixture of its original Slavonic character with Byzantine culture and with the cultures of various Asiatic nations. In later times European influence has impressed itself on Russian life, but does not take hold of the Russian heart, that continues to stream the Eastern blood through the flesh of the Slavonic people. One of the peculiarities of Eastern art is a great disposition for decorative translations of life, an ideographical representation of it, and an imaginative design. Romanesque and Gothic art of Western-Europe had much of the same character, but European art inclined towards naturalism, the Russian persisted in its archaic traditions. The Bytantine influence was of the utmost importance to Russia, as from there came the light of Christianity. With the religious beliefs and rites were introduced the Byzantine symbolical representation of the Divinity as they were realised in the religious images, called “ikones,” made for devout purposes. The conventions of the ancient ikone-painters remained the only pictoral language till the end of the seventeenth century, the art being purely religious and under canonical regulations. In the eighteenth century the Russian pictoral forms undergo a strong European influence, and since then they follow European ideals. At the present day Western influence is regarded by the nationalists as incompatible with the deepest aspirations of the Russian soul. Artists filled with [p. 30] admiration before the beauty and expressivity of Russian ancient art aim to continue it, passing by the Western influence, which is considered foreign and noxious to the growth of the Eastern elements of the Russian art. The principal trait of their personal art is a decorative and symbolical treatment of nature combined with an imaginative colouring, that they feel answers the most to their Russian soul. Only during the last fifteen years artists of note worked for the revival of the national art. Mr. Stelletzky approaches the closest to the ancient forms. His works are not copies of the ikones but are the result of his extreme knowledge of all the possibilities that the ancient art gives ; he uses the archaic alphabet which he finds the best medium for the exercise of his pictorial imagination. Count Komarovsky is not less accomplished but his colouring and forms are more tender and sensitive. Mr. Roerich belongs to the same new Byzantine group though he does not appropriate entirely the forms of the ikones, he succeeds, may be, more than others, to translate in his own manner the essence of the Russian religious and fantastical spirit. His imagination carries him further to the dawn of the Russian life, and he gives an emotional feeling of the prehistoric Slavonian Pagans.
Madame Goncharova does not realise in her art the mastership and the decorative calligraphic qualities of the ikones, but she aims for a true representation of the ancient Russian God, who is her own, and His saints. That is why sweetness, joy, tenderness and voluptuousness are far from her art as they are far from the Russian conception of the Divinity. Her saints are stern, severe and austere, hard and bitter. The revival of the Russian national art brought forth the interest of some artists to the modern popular art, the art of the unlearned lads who find their sport in painting and show by that medium their simple-natured, fresh and naive spirit. Those artists assimilated themselves to the popular art and rejoice in its sincere directness. Their art is welcome as a counterweight to the over-refined [p. 31] and effeminate tastes of an influential group of aesthetical "gourmands" of St. Petersburg. Mr. Larionoff is at the head of those "rustical" artists. The naive and awkward russifications of European forms remain as a special epoch in the history of the Russian art. Some young artists aiming for the same emotions that those simple rural imitations give, chose to use their shapes as their pictorial language. Mr. Soudejkin for instance.
Another group of artists does not exploit the national forms ; their means seem to be more explicit to a modern European artist's mind: Petroff- Wodkin, Bogaevsky and Chourlianis being thoroughly different in their personalities possess the same valuable quality of keeping their art in close connection with their philosophical substance. Petroff-Wodkin gives a great spiritual meaning to the gestures of his figures, naturalistically comprehended, but coloured in a fantastical and decorative way, Bogaevsky is a landscape painter; but the ``morne`` cliffs, the dead cities, the desolate shores of a leaden sea are not earthly landscapes; they terrify the Russian soul as if they were terrible omens. The innermost recesses of the Russian heart are filled with mystical passions. The painter Chourlianis was overpowered by them, he was devoted to the mysteries of the Cosmos and to the music of the empyrean aether. "Rex" is one of his most important pictures. The fire, that burns in the centre of it, is surrounded by the horizon of an occult world, by the mounting spheres and by the shadows of angels. Chourlianis prematurely died last year.
As for the realistic art, the young gifted artists in Russia do not manifest any great energy in practising it, and there are but few interesting representatives of that art. Among the artists whose works are exhibited here, Mr. Sarian and Miss Joukova give the largest quantity of realistic sensations. Mr. Sarian is represented by his energetic illustrations of the Turkish life. Miss Joukova's portrait of an old woman shows a studious and sincere research for the characteristic of human nature. [p. 32]
It is to be noticed that both of them are still much inclined to a decorative interpretation of their feelings ; that is the dominant tendency of the most interesting part of the modern Russian art.
[Owing to delays in transport some of the Artists mentioned in Mr. von Anrep’s preface are not exhibited. [p. 33]”

Roger Fry: "Introduction", p. 19-20
Clive Bell: "The English Group", p. 21-24
Roger Fry: "The French Group", p. 25-29
Boris von Anrep: "The Russian Group", p. 30-33

Catalogue Structure altered
Other Mediums listed

"1 Shilling", title page (The price may refer to the ticket price or the catalogue price.)
"An Illustrated Catalogue of the Exhibition is in course of preparation.", p. 20
- "Nos. 194-201 are shown by courtesy The Cube Press, 275 Regent Street", p. 59 [typewritten addendum]