--but genius will
seize an opportunity, and be original--such is the character of Mr
Grant's portrait of "Lord Charles Scott, youngest son of the Duke and
Duchess of Buccleuch." The boy stands like a boy, every limb belongs to
him; he is all life--the flesh tints in the face are as perfect as can
be. The attitude, the dress, so admirably managed. It has all the
breadth, and power, too, of Velasquez, with all modern clearness. And
what a charmingly coloured picture is the portrait of "Lady Margaret
Littleton!" And close at hand, right glad were we to see the noble
portrait of the "Professor of Moral Philosophy, Edinburgh," the [Greek:
autos echeinos], by R. S. Lauder, an artist whose works we think have
not always been done justice to in the Academy--yet how seldom do we see
pictures of such power as his "Trial," from the "Heart of Mid-Lothian,"
and his "Ravensworth!" There is another portrait painter that is very
original--Linnell; and such is he, in the "Portraits of the Three eldest
Children of Robert Clutterbuck, Esq." There are so many smooth and soft
pictures at the exhibitions which we must look at very near, that the
habit is acquired of seeing all in that manner. To those who should so
see this of Mr Linnell, it will appear odd, sketchy, unfinished--recede,
and it is of very great power, and comes out wonderfully with all the
truth of nature. It is an out-of-door scene. The children in most
natural positions, and separate from the background, which is quite true
in effect, with surprising force. It is very well coloured, and the
manner, though not so at first, at length pleases. We like to see much
done with little effort, as soon as the eye has recovered from the
examination of laboured work.--How many works of great merit that we
should wish to mention! and perhaps we ought to notice some of demerit;
but we must forbear; the bad and the good must repose together--if there
_can_ be repose in an exhibition room. Why has not Mr Uwins painted
another "Fioretta," worth all the crude, blue, red and yellow
processions he ever painted? And why--but we will ask no questions but
of the "Hanging Committee:" why do they offend the eyes of spectators,
and vex the hearts of exhibitors, by hanging little pictures out of
sight? It is insulting to the public and the artists. Surely, if the
works be not fit to be seen, boldly and honestly reject them. It is an
injury to misplace them. Many of the pictures so placed, are evidently