others of Redfield's type. His range of idealistic landscape subjects is
intimate, but not characterized by the stirring suggestion of outdoors
which Inness, Wyant, and others of his school possess. Keith's marvelous
dexterity of brushwork really constitutes his chief claim upon fame, and
some of his best things are gems in easy-flowing methods of painting
which the best men of the Barbizon school seldom approached. Keith must
not be looked upon as a painter of nature nor even an interpreter of
nature. He used landscapes simply to express an ever-changing variety of
personal emotion. His attitude toward nature in his later work was of
the most distant kind, although his early career was that of the most
painstaking searcher for physical truthfulness.

Gallery 76.

Mathews and McComas.

Mathews and McComas do not exactly make good company. While closely
related in the decorative quality of their work, they are not alike in
any other way. Mathews' art is emotional. It tells something beyond mere
colour, form, and composition, while McComas' art is mostly technical,
in the clever manipulation of a very difficult medium. His sense of
construction and feeling for effect is very acute. He is becoming so
expert, however, in the handling of watercolour that one sometimes
wishes to see a little more of that accidental charm of surface that his
older work possesses.



General Collection