Cinematographic annual : 1931 (1931)

20 CINEMATOGRAPHIC ANNUAL look jealously, as well as zealously, for the truth in these new things. We blush at our incomprehension. We acknowledge feelings of resentment when, in our search for understanding, we resort to periodicals devoted to these advanced ideas of art, and read involved and extravagantly phrased criticisms of their material. We cannot but speculate as to whether it is all sincere or a subtle exposition of something that is thrust upon them and which they must make the best of. And even the proponents of this new school do not seem to discourse well upon it. We have read a disquisition by a modern school celebrity in which he attempts to analyze those emotions that urge his activities. He describes as always having before him, as an inspiration, one of the masterpieces that has enjoyed the veneration of all lovers of art since its creation. He very ably presents an appreciation of its merits — its fidelity to natural form, the simplicity and dexterity of technique, its tenderness of impulse, harmony of color, the soul of the artist. Our enthusiasm is aroused, our chilly reaction to modern art begins to melt, until we behold some examples of the work which the old masterpiece had inspired. We then feel like the child who watched with delight a magician's trick and suffers disillusionment by seeing it immediately exposed. We begin enquiries as to whether or not this school of art is the result of a peculiar departmental complex of modern civilization. During the last fifty years, the evolution of ideas has been kaleidoscopic, and the authorship of these new ideas is the ambition of students — the conception of a novelty is the passport to recognition, and recognition is a ruling passion. Is this school of art a straining after something new in a noble scheme where novelty is not the primary moving force? It may be that we live in such an insouciant age, that something of this sort is required to arouse us. Have modern institutions discouraged sentimentalism? Have the rapid developments in science and mechanics impoverished individual effort and diminished sincerity? If so, we might be justified in imputing to modern art, also, a lack of sincerity, or, at any rate, that restless impatience (characteristic of the present age) , with the very trying curriculum of the artist — the modern craze for direct and immediate expression. Such speculations lead us to refute the assumption of a so-called modern art. Let us contend, rather, that there are two forms of art, and make no distinction as to modern or antiquated schools. We may call them Graphic art and Recondite art. By Graphic art, we allude to that form whose proponents still cling to the idea that art is, primarily, the contemplation, production, and expression of things beautiful, the nobility of thought back of its literary design, the purity of its emotional appeal, and a sincere acknowledgment of the training necessary for the mastery of a specific department; and above all, its cultural influence. As an example, we imagine an artist being inspired in the choosing of a subject and executing it to a degree that entitles him to the same admiration accorded the serious efforts of his brother artists. This type of artist existed in past ages, exists today, and will always exist. By Recondite art, we consider those vagaries so hard for some of