The Group of Seven emerged during a time of an absence of a defined Canadian art. They chose to revive Canadian art and create a new tradition that did not rely on European trends. Using the landscape as the subject of their paintings, they expressed Canada in a way that had never been done before. The Group were regarded as the creators of a national style of painting that did not use the academic formulas of painting found in Europe. The question is whether or not their style truly was a national style. I think that the concept of nationalism is something that is highly personal to each individual and would be difficult to express in only one form. Therefore, I think that someone who is expressing nationalism in something like a painting must add their own presence to the work. In this respect, the painting of the Group do not strike me as national paintings. By the time the formation of the Group became official, the members had lost personal touch with their work. Instead they painted in a variation of the academic styles they were trying to avoid. As a result the paintings appear stale and removed from the artist.

Ten years before the first Group exhibition and the formal announcement of the Group of Seven, the members sketched and painted together throughout Northern Ontario. With Tom Thomson, who was never formally a member of the Group in his lifetime, as a guide they traveled and painted various regions of Algonquin Park. The wild, untouched landscape inspired them to paint Canada in a new way. Lawren Harris wrote,

From the cities, towns and countryside to the far reaches of the northern ice fields it was an ever clearer and deeply moving experience of oneness with the spirit of the whole land. It was this spirit which dictated, guided, and instructed us how the land should be painted. So it was that the creative life and work of the Group of Seven resulted from a love of the land. (Hunkin p.56)

These early paintings do reflect the love of the landscape Harris wrote about. Thomson, who spent the most time out in the wilderness, was very adept at conveying his love for the Algonquin region in his paintings. He used bold expressive colours, and generously applied thick paint in his brush strokes. The brushwork also appears quick, as if Thomson wanted to capture his admiration for the landscape as quickly as possible. This sort of expression is typical in such paintings as Autumn Foliage of 1916.

The other members of the Group were also able to put their own personal expression of the landscape within their work. Lawren Harris painted the landscape in bold, simplified shapes that appear very graphic in their rendering and placement. He also focuses on creating luminescence in his paintings. His forms are very smooth, with the brushwork practically eliminated. Lake Superior, one of his famous paintings, exemplifies his style.

J.E.H. MacDonald painted in planes, but unlike Harris, his landscapes have not been simplified to the point that they almost become abstract. He used intense, bold colours in a gestural manner of painting. His brushwork, although gestural, is controlled so that the works are more refined than Thomson's paintings. One of MacDonald's best canvases is The Solemn Land, painted in 1921. C.W. Jefferies, a noted Canadian artist, recognized MacDonald's work for being

...as native as rock, or the snow, or pine trees, or the lumber drives that are so largely his themes. In themselves, of course, Canadian themes do not make art, Canadian or other; but neither do Canadian themes expressed through European formulas. In these sketches there is a refreshing absence of Europe, or anything else, save Canada. (Hunkin p.35)

A.Y. Jackson painted in an expressive manner similar to MacDonald, but his work is the closest to the Expressionist style of Europe with his use of patches of pure colour in his work. His paintings were among the most refined of the Group as he was one of the more experienced painters in the group. Paintings like Terre Sauvage are typical of his style.

Arthur Lismer painted in a style that had a strong design sense. His colours are somewhat muted in comparison to the other members of the Group. He treated the different elements in his paintings like sculptures and gave them a rendered, modeling effect like Harris, but not as simplified. His best painting was A September Gale, Georgian Bay(1921).

F.H. Varley's paintings were very gestual and impressionistic. He used a mix of colour within his work to convey what he saw. Instead of using bold, intense colour, Varley chose to paint the landscape in softer, pastel colours as is evident in Sphinx Glacier, Mt. Garibaldi (1927-28).

Frank Carmichael painted very decorative elements in his paintings. His blocks of rich colour are enhanced through his own stylistic way of working. His paintings have a subtle design sense with all the compositional elements through his own stylistic way of working. His paintings have a subtle design sense with all the compositional elements seeming to fit together like stained glass. His own personal design is most evident in paintings like October Gold (1922).

In all of these early paintings, it is evident that each artist had a highly personal response to the spirit of the North. They had collectively decided it would be the best subject to represent the national character of Canada. This national painting was still evident in the first formal exhibition of these artists as the Group of Seven in 1920. The reaction to this exhibit was mixed, but most critics felt that the paintings were far too radical to be a national representation of Canadian painting. It was only through the work of the Group and the support of people like Dr. James MacCallum and organizations like the National Gallery that the work was accepted as a national style.

With the acceptance of their work, the Group seemed to have lost touch with the initial spirit and character of the landscape that inspired their paintings. Instead it appeared that the members settled on using a homogenous style that removes the artist's individuality from the work. Although the idea of using the unconscious as a means of personal expression in painting was emerging, the Group did not see the strength of integrating each member's individuality in the paintings. Arthur Lismer later felt that the Group did not "widen the horizons of our unexpressed thoughts and hopes." (Murray. The Best of the Group of Seven p. 18)

Various critics picked up on this loss of individuality within the new works produced by the Group of Seven. Augustus Bridle effectively summed up the argument between the critics when he wrote:

"In their search for what lies beyond, the Group are becomaing rather more alike. Two years ago I could easily spot any painters by their pictures. Now there are times when I wonder at first glance which is a Jackson or a Lismer, at odd times a Harris, and now and than a MacDonald. Even Carmichael is toning down or keying up, or whatever it may be, to catch the spirit of the group." (Hill p.110)

Adding to the feel of these later paintings as the products of a formula is the approach of the Group of Seven to their national paintings. They wanted a simplified approach to the paintings. This led to all of the paintings essentially following a formula of working in horizontal planes and formats (Murray. The Best of the Group of Seven p.17). This sort of method may have been a fresh approach to painting originally, but after seeing numerous paintings done in exactly the same format with no variation whatsoever, this methos of painting quickly becomes a stale, codified way of working.

The final factor in this perception of the Group of Seven creating "formula" paintings is their acceptance by the establishment. Within a relatively short period of time, the Group went from being an outsider group of artists to being considered the establishement by which all subsequent art was judged. The achievements of the Group had been turned into institutional ones as various members taught and served on several committees for national institutions (Murray. The Best of the Group of Seven p. 12). By the late 1920's Varley directed the department of painting and drawing at the Vancouver School of Art and Lismer supervised the education department of the Art Gallery of Toronto (Murray. Northern Lights p.19).

By now the Group was a direct influence on upcoming artists in Canada and many imitated the style of the Group. While the saying goes that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, too many imitations of a style will detract from the integrity of the original work. I think that this did not help the Group realize its goals and added to the artificial feel of their later work.

The 1931 Group of Seven exhibition made it apparent that the time of glory for the Group was long past and that they had lost the magic of their earlier paintings. Thoreau MacDonald wrote,

"Their present exhibition is far from cheering. For they are becoming more artistic, more artificial. Without any feeling for the face of our country they tiresomely express themselves in strange and unbeautiful forms, in artificially constructed scenery without life..." (Hill p.220)

Hectoe Charlesworth also felt that the Group had "Reduced all Canadian landscape to one graceless and depressing formula." (Hill p.142)

This sentiment was not only shared by Canadian critics. At the same time as the 1931 Canadian exhibition, the Group of Seven had arranged small exhibitions throughout the United States. Reaction to these exhibitions were similar to the critical reviews at home. A Baltimore writer expressed his thoughts about the exhibit:

"They accent and insist upon 'bold' shapes 'strongly' drawn, emphatically outlined and made partly rhythmical. However, these shaes for all their definiteness and massiveness and simplicity really do lack significance. I mean that the designs seem contrived ot invented, and the formal aspect of painting, while it is stridently presented, is really without inevitability and life. It becomes a forced and dramatic affair, a sort of confused emotional geometry wich does not seem quite logical or convincing or meaningful... In the end I should call it synthetic painting the overreaches itself. Nothing could be quite that neat and crisp and impressive." (Hill p.220)

So what good is a 'national' style of painting that is boring to look at because it seems apparent that the artist was bored of painting it? In my opinion it really does not add to the struggle of Canadian painting to be accepted as something that is unique. A landscape that appears artificial and the product of an applied formula says nothing about the national spirit of Canada. It becomes more of a technical exercise than a statement about nationalism. By the 1930's it was obvious that the Group had lost their initial rapport with the Canadian landscape as something that inspired their own sense of nationalism. I think they had lost touch with the goal of creating a national style of painting on their own, but their influence led other artists to accomplish what they could not.

One painter who was greatly influenced by the Group of Seven was Emily Carr. After a terrible public reaction to her exhibition of native paintings in 1913, she virtually ceased all her efforts at painting (Reid p. 159). After travelling to Ontario for an exhibit of west coast art in 1927, she was inspired to continue painting. Her newfound inspiration came from seeing the work of the Group of Seven and meeting the members personally.

Carr found Harris' work in particular to be uplifting as well as Lismer's, to a lesser degree. The impact of the meeting affected her style and upon her return to Victoria she resumed serious painting. She now painted with a simplified, bold style that was derived from what she saw in the work of Harris. She returned to her earlier themes, painting Big Raven in 1931.

After her initial meeting with Harris, she corresponded regularly with him (Reid p.160). With his encouragement, Carr turned to expressing the spirit of the land through the landscape. For a period of ten years. starting in 1932, she used the land to convey the spirit she felt (Reid p. 161). She used sweeping gestures and lush colour to communicate the vastness of the sky or the warm, moist west coast forests. Although she was using a similar style and subject matter as the Group of Seven during this time, the feeling of the spirit of the land is far more evident in Carr's work. Each painting she did reflected her individual reaction. This made her paintings a better representation of the national spirit than Group works from the same period. At that point she had a closer connection to the land that the Group seems to have lost with their acceptance and inherent academicism by the establishment.

Although I think that the Group of Seven did not follow through on their goal of creating a truly national style of painting throughout their creative years, they did contribute to the Canadian art scene in other ways. Harris felt that the work of the Group "freed artists all over Canada, to make it possible for them to see and paint the Canadian scene in their own way..." (Hunkin p.158) This is true in that the efforts of the Group of Seven changed the perception of Canadian art as art that should have a European sensibility to that which should be unique to Canada. This change in attitude made it possible for new artists to experiment and create a national art.

Hill, Charles. The Group of Seven: Art for a Nation. Publications Division of the National Gallery of Canada and McClelland & Stewart Inc: 1995.

Hunkin, Harry. A Story of the Group of Seven. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited: 1976.

Murray, Joan. The Best of the Group of Seven. Hurtig Publishers Ltd: 1984.

Murray, Joan. Northern Lights: Masterpieces of Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven. Key Porter Books: 1994.

Reid, Dennis. A Concise History of Canadian Painting. Oxford University Press: 1988.