No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
It is surprising to find a critic as sensitive to the ideas in Pater’s work as David Carrier telling us that Pater had ‘little interest in or knowledge of contemporary visual art’ and again: ‘Pater isn’t interested in contemporary visual art’ (Carrier, 1995, pp. 112, 113). To many this claim would seem counterintuitive. It is true that Pater never wrote any extensive piece on a contemporary artist, but his writing is punctuated with references, often covert or veiled, to the work of living artists he knew or admired. One document alone is testimony to this abiding passion. His 1893 review of George Moore’s Modern Painting is confident, knowledgeable and authoritative. Throughout the short text he endorses or takes issue with Moore’s views on painters such as Ingres, Degas and Millet. He puts forward his own views of the work of Corot, and congratulates Moore for being in the possession of what he calls the ‘secret’ of Sisley, Puvis de Chavannes and Monet. He praises Moore for recognizing the ‘personal [and] the uncontrollable’ in the work of Whistler and Sargent. And he concludes by saying that Moore’s book would appeal both to ‘those who, being outsiders in the matter of art, are nevertheless sensitive and sincerely receptive towards it’ and equally ‘to those who in this matter really know ’, making it clear by further elaboration that he himself was one of those who ‘really know’ (Pater, 1919, pp. 149–50). Pater’s highly developed visual sensibility has never been called into question. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.