of impatience at the continued application of the arrangements, motifs and technique of the traditional schools, and, aided by great natural originality and vigorous personality, they have injected into their decorative enrichments a personal note based in both instances upon oriental inspiration, but strongly modified by their individual manner and point of view. In addition to this Urban has rendered a great service by his intelligent application to scenic work of the characteristic methods of Claude Monet and the other leaders of the French Impressionist” school; for if, as a matter of convenience and economy, it is essential that scenery should be painted upon a surface devoid of actual texture, the effect of texture and luminous quality imparted to
canvas surfaces by broken vibrating color is the most valuable contribution that modern scene painting has yet received.
In thorough understanding of the lighting effects to which his painting is to be subjected, and in making his broken tones responsive to the color of the light, Urban’s skill is pre-eminent. It is, therefore, the more to be regretted that with all the amusing quality and decorative interest of his settings, his more serious efforts seem to miss the sentiment of the great dramatic or operatic works. The most notable illustration of this was his “Caliban” set.
Here was a theme that offered a wonderful opportunity for imaginative symbolism, but the impression produced was neither majestic, mysterious nor imaginative; it was merely crude and grotesque, because symbolic forms cannot be invented for a special occasion and injected into decorative art with any success.
Conventionalization and symbolism are gradual growths. Their roots are inextricably woven into
the traditions of the past, and a form in order to be truly symbolic must be a natural, logical growth from these roots. Urban’s influence should, it seems to me, prove a valuable influence in stage craft in this country, but it cannot be so unless his admirers study his craftsmanship rather than imitate his eccentricities.
If the scenic designer aims, as he should, to eliminate non-essentials and at the same time to avoid barrenness, he must find some means-of filling his otherwise empty spaces with something more interesting and significant than flat surfaces of obvious paint. Urban’s work is full of suggestion in this regard, and there is furthermore a field, but little developed at present, for the introduction of real texture instead of the simulated texture of a painted surface.
Illustrations are shown herewith of Urban’s preliminary studies for new productions of “Faust” and “Le Prophete,” and of the three “Marouf” sets by Ernest Gros, all for the Metropolitan Opera. Ur
ban’s studies, together with the sets that have been painted from them, represent a far closer adherence to the familiar traditions of the Opera House than his most ardent admirers would have expected or, in fact, desired; and on the other hand this work of Gros’, particularly the first act, shows a largeness of feeling and a simplicity of composition that could hardly have been expected of this able painter “of the old school,” had he not during the past few years been awake to the newer movements of his art.
One of the most encouraging signs of the times in scenic design is the opportunity now being furnished by the management of the Metropolitan Opera Company for conservatism and modernism to act and re
FAUST
By JOSEPH URBAN
FAUST
By JOSEPH URBAN