Part 4 — THE PHILADELPHIA ART-UNION.

While other Art-Unions throughout the country are falling into disrepute, that of Philadelphia seems to be rising in favor.

This cannot be owing to the absence of discouragements. Like all similar institutions, it suffered severely from the pressure of the money-market during the last six months of the year 1851. It found, in common with others, that money was not forthcoming for the promotion of art, when it commanded from one to two per cent. a month on ’change—that men could not, or would not buy pictures, when they were obliged to strain every nerve to save themselves from bankruptcy.

Besides the serious loss of revenue arising from this source, the Philadelphia Art-Union lost by fire its two most valuable steel plates, just at the moment when it was about to reap from them a golden harvest. These splendid plates, “Mercy’s Dream,” and “Christiana and her Family,” which had cost the society several thousand dollars, and which were unquestionably among the most attractive prints ever issued in this country, were entirely destroyed in the conflagration of Hart’s buildings in this city.

It is not, therefore, mere good luck, nor the absence of discouraging circumstances, that has given the Philadelphia Art-Union its present condition of success. This success is based on the principles of its organization, which differ materially from those of other kindred associations.

In the first place, though located nominally in Philadelphia, and having its Board of Managers here, it is really an Art-Union for every place where it finds subscribers. Its prize-holders may select their prizes from any gallery in the United States, or may order a picture from any artist of their own selection. This puts it entirely out of the power of the Board of Managers, even if they had the inclination, to exercise favoritism toward any particular clique of artists, or to practice any kind of fraud or trickery either in the purchase or the valuation of pictures.

Secondly, and for the very reason just assigned, the Philadelphia Art-Union enjoys in a high degree the confidence of the artists themselves. They know by experience that its free gallery is the means of selling a large number of pictures, besides those which are ordered in consequence of the annual distributions. They know also that in order to sell their pictures, or to obtain orders for painting, they have not to cater to the fancies or caprices of a small clique of managers, but to appeal to the public at large, depending solely upon the general principles of their art. In other Art-Unions, the managers themselves select and buy the pictures that are to be distributed as prizes. Hence they are almost invariably regarded with jealousy by every artist who does not receive from them an order—that is, by at least nine-tenths of the whole body. The artist sees, however, that the Philadelphia Art-Union does not admit of any favoritism of this kind. Its very plan renders the thing impossible. If any particular artist finds that among the prize-holders, no order or purchase has come to his studio, he may see in it evidence perhaps that he has not pleased the public taste, but no evidence of partiality in the Board of Managers. So far as their operations are concerned, they give to all competitors “a fair field and no favor”—and this is all that the artist asks.

That this view of the subject is the true one, and that the artists themselves so view it, has been conclusively shown by their action on the occasion of the losses of the institution by the late fire. The artists of Philadelphia, on hearing of this disaster, called a meeting, of their own accord, and passed a series of resolutions, approving in the most unqualified manner both the plan and the management of the institution, and agreeing severally to paint a picture of the value of at least fifty dollars, and to present the same to the Art-Union. Several other gentlemen, amateurs and patrons of art, stimulated by this generosity, joined them in the enterprise, and already about fifty valuable prizes have been thus guarantied.

It is obvious that they have entered upon this matter in a generous spirit, with that animation and hearty good-will which spring naturally from the circumstances. Every one at all conversant with art or artists, knows how much the excellence of a picture, its very life and soul—all, in fact, that distinguishes it as a work of art, or raises it above a mere piece of mechanism—depends upon the feeling of the artist while creating it. The noble enthusiasm with which the artists have entered upon the present arrangement, is the best guaranty that the Art-Union will have from each painter one of the happiest efforts of his genius—something done under the direct influence of inspiration. Indeed, we happen to know that several of our most eminent artists intend to lay themselves out on this occasion—resolved to show what artists are, and what they can do, for an institution which commands their confidence.

Mr. Rothermel has signified his intention to paint a picture worth $500; Mr. Paul Weber a landscape worth $500; Mr. A. Woodside a picture worth $500; Mr. Scheussele a Scriptural subject worth $250; Mr. Sully a picture worth $100; Mr. Joshua Shaw a landscape worth $75; and several others have promised pictures at prices varying from $50 (the minimum) to $75, $100, $150, etc. The names of the other artists and amateurs who have offered original pictures of this description, are Rembrandt Peale, James Hamilton, Isaac L. Williams, Wm. A. K. Martin, Wm. F. Jones, Wm. E. Winner, Leo. Elliot, F. de Bourg Richards, George C. White, John Wiser, J. K. Trego, George W. Holmes, Geo. W. Conarroe, John Sartain, Alex. Lawrie, Jr., Samuel Sartain, G. R. Bonfield, S. B. Waugh, W. T. Richards, Aaron Stein, R. A Clarke, W. Sanford Mason, J. R. Lambdin, G. C. Lambdin, J. Wilson, May Stevenson, I. W. Moore, T. H. Glessing, W. H. Wilcox, Thomas A. Andrews, George F. Meeser, James S. Earle, Edward F. Dennison, George W. Dewey, James L. Claghorn. Others will, no doubt, be added to the list.

About fifty splendid original works of art, ranging in value from $50 to $500 each, have thus been placed absolutely at the disposal of the Board of Managers, and have been by them specifically pledged to the subscribers at the next distribution.

Besides this, Mr. Rothermel has just finished for the Art-Union a great historical painting of Patrick Henry making his celebrated revolutionary speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses. This picture is undoubtedly Mr. Rothermel’s master-piece. He has thrown into it all the fire of his genius, all the ardor of his patriotism, all the accumulations of his knowledge and skill as one of the practiced and leading historical painters of the day.

The historical scene which Mr. Rothermel has commemorated in this painting is the passage of Patrick Henry’s resolutions on the Stamp Act in the House of Burgesses, in the year 1765. The passage of these resolutions was the first bold note of defiance that was uttered on this side of the Atlantic. The manner in which they were carried through the House is thus described by his biographer:

“It was, indeed, the measure which raised him [Mr. Henry] to the zenith of his glory. He had never before had a subject which entirely matched his genius, and was capable of drawing out all the powers of his mind. It was remarked of him, throughout his life, that his talents never failed to rise with the occasion, and in proportion with the resistance which he had to encounter. The nicety of the vote, on the last resolution, proves that this was not a time to hold in reserve any part of his forces. It was, indeed, an Alpine passage, under circumstances even more unpropitious than those of Hannibal; for he had not only to fight, hand to hand, the powerful party who were already in possession of the heights, but at the same instant to cheer and animate the timid band of followers, that were trembling, and fainting, and drawing back below him. It was an occasion that called upon him to put forth all his strength; and he did put it forth, in such a manner as man never did before. The cords of argument with which his adversaries frequently flattered themselves that they had bound him fast, became packthreads in his hands. He burst them with as much ease as the unshorn Samson did the bands of the Philistines. He seized the pillars of the temple, shook them terribly, and seemed to threaten his opponents with ruin. It was an incessant storm of lightning and thunder, which struck them aghast. The faint-hearted gathered courage from his countenance, and cowards became heroes while they gazed upon his exploits. It was in the midst of this magnificent debate, while he was descanting on the tyranny of the obnoxious act, that he exclaimed in a voice of thunder, and with the look of a god, ‘Cæsar had his Brutus—Charles the First his Cromwell—and George the Third—’ ‘Treason!’ cried the Speaker. ‘Treason! treason!’ echoed from every part of the house. It was one of those trying moments which is decisive of character. Henry faltered not for an instant; but rising to a loftier attitude, and fixing on the Speaker an eye of the most determined fire, he finished his sentence with the firmest emphasis—‘may profit by their example. If this be treason—make the most of it!’ ”

The exact moment of time which Mr. Rothermel has seized for his painting, is when the last words which we have quoted, (“If this be treason—make the most of it!”) are dying away upon the ear. The impassioned orator stands erect and self-possessed, his open hand aloft, as though a thunder-bolt had just passed from his fingers, and his eye were quietly awaiting the issue, in the conscious strength of a Jupiter Tonans.

Foremost in the foregoing is Richard Henry Lee. Lee sees, by a sort of prophetic intuition, the full import of this inspired oratory. His very face, under the magic of Mr. Rothermel’s genius, is a long perspective of war, desolation, heroic deeds, and the thick-coming glories of ultimate civic and religious liberty.

Peyton Randolph, also in the foreground, is a most striking figure. So is Pendleton, so is Wythe, so is Speaker Robinson. Indeed, every inch of canvas tells its story. The spectator, who knew nothing of the scene or of its actors, would instantly and involuntarily become conscious that he was present at some great world-renowned action.

But in dwelling upon this fascinating topic, we have been unconsciously carried away from our main point. This great painting, which was executed by Mr. Rothermel for the Art-Union, at the price of one thousand dollars, but which, by its extraordinary excellence, has already acquired a market value far beyond that sum, is to be drawn for among the other prizes at the next annual distribution.

Every subscriber, moreover, secures for himself a copy of the engraving of this great picture, which the Managers have contracted for in a style of surpassing beauty. The picture itself, and the engraving of it, will form an era in the history of American art, as the subject itself did in the history of American Independence.

Besides this, all the money obtained from the subscribers, after paying for the engraving and other incidental expenses, is to be distributed, as heretofore, in money-prizes for the purchase of other works of art, at the option of the prize-holders.

Of the general beneficial influence of Art-Unions, at least of those conducted on the plan of that in Philadelphia, we have not the shadow of a doubt. We are happy, however, to quote a couple of passages quite in point. The first is from the North British Review.

“We believe that by a judicious distribution of engravings more may be done for the culture of the public taste than by any other means whatsoever. One thoroughly good engraving, fairly established and domiciled in a house, will do more for the inmates in this respect, than a hundred visits to a hundred galleries of pictures. It is a teacher of form, a lecturer on the beautiful, a continually present artistic influence. Nor do we see any reason why the same system should not be extended to casts, which might be taken either after the antique, or some thoroughly good modern sculptor, such as Thorwarldsen. If such a system were carried out, matters might soon be brought to a state in which there should scarcely be any family which did not possess within its own walls the means of forming a taste, and that a genuine and a high one, both in painting and sculpture.”

The second passage is still more to the point. It is from our contemporary, the Saturday Courier.

“This Institution, [The Philadelphia Art-Union,] by its Free Gallery, and by its being a centre of action for artists and amateurs, is continually operating in a silent but most perceptible manner upon public taste. Every visit to the Free Gallery, every picture sold from its walls, every picture which it is the means of calling into existence, every print which it sends abroad into the community, is so much done toward the promotion of a popular taste for what is refined and elegant, and a consequent distaste for what is coarse, illiberal, and depraved. Every man in the community has on interest—not merely a moral, but a pecuniary interest—in the promotion of a popular taste for the Fine Arts. It is a part of the moral education of society, which, like all other good popular education, adds at once to the value and the safety of every man’s property.”