upon the hurried ones at home and gird at them with wisdom,
hysterically acquired, and administered, unblushingly, with a
suddenness of purpose that prevented their ever being listened to
here,--must I follow in their wake, to be met with suspicion
by my compatriots, and resented as the invading instructor?
Heavens!--who knows!--also in the papers, where naturally I read only
of myself, I gather a general impression of offensive aggressiveness,
that, coupled with Chase's monstrous lampoon, has prepared me for the
tomahawk on landing.
How dared he, Chase, to do this wicked thing?--and I who was charming,
and made him beautiful on canvas--the Masher of the Avenues.
However, I may not put off until the age of the amateur has gone by,
but am to take with me some of those works which have won for me the
execration of Europe, that they may be shown to a country in which I
cannot be a prophet, and where I, who have no intention of being other
than joyous--improving no one--not even myself--will say again my "Ten
o'Clock," which I refused to repeat in London--_J'ai dit!_
This is no time for hesitation--one cannot continually disappoint a
Continent!
[Illustration]
_An Insinuation_
_TO THE EDITOR:_
[Sidenote: _The Daily News_, Nov. 22, 1886.]
My attention has been directed to a paragraph that has gone the round
of the papers, to the effect that Mr. John Burr and Mr. Reid have
"withdrawn from the Society of British Artists." This tardy statement
acquires undue significance at this moment, with a tendency to
mislead, implying, as it might, that these resignations were in
consequence of, and intended as a marked disapproval of, the
determined stand made by the Society in excluding from their coming
exhibition the masses of commonplace work hitherto offered to the
public in their galleries. No such importance attaches, however, to
their resignations, as these two gentlemen left Suffolk Street six
months ago.
[Illustration]
_An Imputation_
_TO THE EDITOR:_
[Sidenote: _The Daily News_, Nov. 24, 1886.]
Sir--Mr. Whistler denies that the recent policy of the Society of
British Artists was the cause of the secession of Messrs. Burr and
Reid from the ranks of that Society, and mentions in proof of his
correction that their resignation took place six months ago. He might
have gone further, and added that their secession corresponded in time
with his own election as president. It is well known to artists that
one, if not both, of these gentlemen left the Society knowing that
changes of policy, of which they could not approve, were inevitable
under the presidency of Mr. Whistler. It will be for the patrons of
the Suffolk Street Gallery to decide whether the more than
half-uncovered walls which will be offered to their view next week are
more interesting than the work of many artists of more than average
merit which will be conspicuous by its absence, owing to the selfish
policy inaugurated.
A BRITISH ARTIST.
"_Autre Temps autre Moeurs_"
_TO THE EDITOR:_
[Sidenote: _The Daily News_, Nov. 26, 1886.]
Sir--The anonymous "British Artist" says that "Mr. Whistler denies
that the recent policy of the Society of British Artists was the cause
of the secession of Messrs. Reid and Burr from the ranks of that
Society."
Far from me to propose to penetrate the motives of such withdrawal,
but what I did deny was that it could possibly be caused--as its
strangely late announcement seemed sweetly to insinuate--by the strong
determination to tolerate no longer the mediocre work that had
hitherto habitually swarmed the walls of Suffolk Street.
This is a plain question of date, and I pointed out that these two
gentlemen left the Society six months ago--long before the
supervising committee were called upon to act at all, or make any
demonstration whatever. Your correspondent regrets that I do not "go
further," and straightway goes further himself, and scarcely fares
better, when, with a quaintness of _naïveté_ rare at this moment, he
proposes that "it will be for the patrons of the gallery to decide
whether the more than half-uncovered walls are more interesting than
the works of many artists of more than the average merit."
Now it will be for the patrons to decide absolutely nothing. It is,
and will always be, for the gentlemen of the hanging committee alone,
duly chosen, to decide whether empty space be preferable to poor
pictures--whether, in short, it be their duty to cover walls, merely
that walls may be covered--no matter with what quality of work.
Indeed, the period of the patron has utterly passed away, and the
painter takes his place--to point out what he knows to be consistent
with the demands of his art--without deference to patrons or prejudice
to party. Beyond this, whether the "policy of Mr. Whistler and his
following" be "selfish or no," matters but little; but if the
policy of your correspondent's "following" find itself among the
ruthlessly rejected, his letter is more readily explained.
[Illustration]
_Talent in a Napkin_
[Sidenote: Lecture before the Church Congress, Oct. 7,
1885.]
If those who talk and write so glibly as to the desirability of
artists devoting themselves to the representation of the naked human
form, only knew a tithe of the degradation enacted before the model is
sufficiently hardened to her shameful calling, they would for ever
hold their tongues and pens in supporting the practice. Is not
clothedness a distinct type and feature of our Christian faith? All
art representations of nakedness are out of harmony with it.
J. C. HORSLEY, R.A.
_The Critic "Catching on"_
[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gaz._ Dec. 8, 1885.]
Mr. Whistler is again, in a sense, the mainstay of the Society
(British Artists), partly through his own individuality and partly
through the innovations he has introduced.... He has several oil and
pastel pictures, very slight in themselves, of the female nude,
dignified and graceful in line and charmingly chaste, entitled
"Harmony," "Caprice," and "Note." Beneath the latter Mr. Whistler has
written, "Horsley _soit qui mal y pense_."
[Sidenote: _REFLECTION:_
Meant "friendly."]
"This is not," said the artist, "what people are sure to call it,
'Whistler's little joke.' On the contrary, it is an indignant protest
against the idea that there is any immorality in the nude."
_Ingratitude_
[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, Dec. 10, 1885.]
No, kind sir--_trop de zèle_ on the part of your representative--for I
surely never explain, and Art certainly requires no "indignant
protest" against the unseemliness of senility. "Horsley _soit qui mal
y pense_" is meanwhile a sweet sentiment--why more--and why
"morality"?
[Illustration]
_The Complacent One_
[Sidenote: _Magazine of Art_, Dec. 1887.]
Mr. Whistler has issued a brown-paper portfolio of half a dozen
"Notes," reproduced in marvellous facsimile. These "Notes" are
delightful sketches in Indian ink and crayon, masterly so far as they
go--but, then, they go such a little way ... the "Notes" can only be
regarded as painter's raw material, interesting as correct sketches,
but unworthy the glories of facsimile reproduction, and imposing
margin.... The chief honours of the portfolio belong to the
publishers....
_The Critic-flâneur_
[Sidenote: _Sunday Times_, Jan. 15, 1888.]
Sir,--You, who are, I perceive, in your present brilliant incarnation,
an undaunted and undulled pursuer of pleasing truths, listen, I pray
you, while again I indicate, with sweet argument, the alternative of
the bewildered one.
Notably, it is not necessary that the "Art Critic" should distinguish
between the real and the "reproduction," or otherwise understand
anything of the matter of which he writes--for much shall be forgiven
him--yet surely, as I have before now pointed out, he might inquire.
Had the expounder of exhibitions, travelling for the _Magazine of
Art_, asked the Secretary in the galleries of the Royal Society of
British Artists, he would have been told that the "Notes" on the
staircase, and in the vestibule, are not "delightful sketches in
Indian ink and crayon ... _reproduced in marvellous facsimile_ by
Boussod, Valadon & Co.... unworthy the glories of facsimile
reproduction, and imposing margin" ... while "the chief honours of the
portfolio, however, belong to the publishers"--but are, disconcerting
as I acknowledge it to be, _themselves the lithographs from nature_,
drawn on the stone upon the spot.
Thus easily provided with paragraph, he would also have been spared
the mortification of rebuke from his well-meaning and embarrassed
employers.
Let the gentleman be warned--let him learn that the foolish critic
only,--_looks_--and brings disaster, upon his paper--the safe and
well-conducted one "informs himself."
Yours, Sir, gently,
[Illustration]
_A Played-out Policy_
_TO THE EDITOR
OF THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE":_
[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, Dec. 9, 1886.]
Sir--In your courageous crusade against the Demon Dulness and his
preposterous surroundings, I think it well that there should be
delivered into your hands certain documents for immediate publication,
that your readers may be roused quickly, and hear again how well
fenced in are the foolish in strong places--and how greatly to be
desired is their exposure, discomfiture, and death--that Truth may
prevail.
It happened in this way. The criticism in the _Times_ called for
instant expostulation, and my answer was consequently sent in to the
Editor, who forthwith returned it, regretting "that its tone prevented
its appearance in the paper." ... I thereupon withdrew to write the
following note to the Editor in person:--
"Dear Sir--Permit me to call your courteous attention to the fact that
the enclosed letter to the Editor of the _Times_ is in reply to
an article that appeared in your paper--and that, as I sign my name
in full, I alone am responsible for its tone or form; indeed, that
such is its tone and form, is because it is my letter.
"In common fairness the answer to, or comment upon, any statements
made in your paper should be published in your paper, as proper
etiquette prevents its insertion in any other journal.
"Also, you surely would not propose to dictate certain forms or styles
in which alone the columns of the _Times_ are to be approached--as who
should say all other savour of sacrilege!--or acquiescence alone would
do, and you would have to write all your letters yourselves.
"My letter concerns the effect produced by criticism of a commonplace
and inferior kind, wholly unworthy the first paper in England--and I
am startled to learn, and still unwilling to believe, that the _Times_
would shun all ventilation and refuse to publish any letter as its
sole means of screening its staff or protecting its writers.
"I submit that the tone of my letter sins against no laws that are
accepted in antagonism--that it offends in no way the etiquette of
attack known to gentlemen.
"I beg, therefore, again, that if there be still time for its
insertion, you will have it printed in your issue of to-morrow, or
will say that it shall appear in the _Times_ of Thursday morning.
"I am, dear Sir,
"Very faithfully,
"J. MCNEILL WHISTLER."
I was now told, "with the Editor's compliments," "that my letter
should be considered." Taking this in complete good faith, I left the
office, to discover the next day in print a remnant of the letter in
question; that, by itself, entirely did away with sufficient reason
for its being there at all. The two ensuing notes explain themselves:
To J. MCN. WHISTLER, Esq.:
"The Editor of the _Times_ has inserted in to-day's paper the
only portion of Mr. Whistler's letter of November 30 which
appears to have any claim to publication.
"PRINTING HOUSE SQUARE, Dec. 1, 1886."
"To the Editor of the _Times_:
"Dear Sir--I beg to acknowledge the consummate sense of
opportunity displayed by the Editor of the _Times_, in his
cunning production of a part of my letter.
"Amazing! _Mes compliments!_"
[Illustration]
Without further comment I hand you a copy of the rejected letter.
"To the Editor of the _Times_.--Sir--In his article upon the
Society of British Artists, your Art gentleman ventures the
opinion of the 'plain man.'
"That such opinion is out of place and stultifying in a question
of Art never occurs to him, and it is therefore frankly cited as,
in a way, conclusive.
"The _naïf_ train of thought that justified the importance
attached to this poor 'plain' opinion at all would seem to be the
same that pervades the writing throughout; until it becomes
difficult to discover where the easy effrontery and
self-sufficiency of the 'plain one,' nothing doubting, cease, and
the wit and wisdom of the experienced expert begin--so that one
unconsciously confounds the incautious critic with the plausible
plain person, who finally becomes the same authority.
"Blind plainness certainly is the characteristic of the solemn
censure upon the fine work of Mr. Stott, of Oldham--plain
blindness the omission of all mention of Mr. Ludovici's dainty
dancing-girl.
"Bewilderment among paintings is naturally the fate of the 'plain
man,' but, when put forth in the _Times_, his utterances, however
empty, acquire a semblance of sense; so that while he gravely
descants with bald assurance upon the engineering of the
light in the galleries, and the decoration of the walls, the
reader stands a chance of being misled, and may not discover at
once that the 'plain' writer is qualified by ignorance alone to
continue.
"Permit me, therefore, to rectify inconsequent impressions, and
tell your readers that there is nothing 'tentative' in the
'arrangement' of colour, walls, or drapery--that the battens
should _not_ 'be removed'--that they are meant to remain, not
only for their use, but as bringing parallel lines into play that
subdivide charmingly the lower portion of the walls and add to
their light appearance--that the whole 'combination' is
complete--and that the 'plain man' is, as usual, 'out of it.'--I
am, Sir, etc.,
"J. MCNEILL WHISTLER."
The question of fair dealing and good manners in this matter I could
not leave in better hands than your own, and I will only add that
hitherto I have always met with the utmost readiness on the part of
the press to receive into their columns any reply, however opposed to
assertions of their own.
Surely it is but poor policy this peremptory attempt to maintain in
authority the weak and blundering one, that he may destroy himself
and bring sorrow upon his people.
Rather let him be thrust from his post, that he may be "brayed in a
mortar among wheat with a pestle"--that the Just be assuaged and
foolishness depart from among us.
[Illustration]
_An Interview with an ex-President_
[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, June 11, 1888.]
The adverse vote by which the Royal Society of British Artists
transferred its oath of allegiance from Mr. Whistler is for the time
the chief topic of conversation in artistic circles.... We instructed
our representative to visit Mr. Whistler to obtain his explanation of
the affair.
"The state of affairs?" said Mr. Whistler, in his light and airy way,
raising his eyebrows and twinkling his eyes, as if it were all the
best possible fun in the world; "why, my dear sir, there's positively
_no_ state of affairs at all. Contrary to public declaration, there's
actually nothing chaotic in the whole business; on the contrary,
everything is in order, and just as it should be. The survival of the
fittest as regards the presidency, don't you see, and, well--Suffolk
Street is itself again! A new government has come in, and, as I told
the members the other night, I congratulate the Society on the result
of their vote, for no longer can it be said that the right man is
in the wrong place. No doubt their pristine sense of undisturbed
somnolence will again settle upon them after the exasperated mental
condition arising from the unnatural strain recently put upon the old
ship. Eh? what? Ha! ha!"
"You do not then consider the Society as out of date? You do not
think, as is sometimes said, that the establishment of the Grosvenor
took away the _raison d'être_ and original intention of the
Society--that of being a foil to the Royal Academy?"
"I can hardly say what was originally intended, but I do know that it
was originally full of hope, and even determination; shown in a manner
by their getting a Royal Charter--the only art society in London, I
believe, that has one.
"But by degrees it lapsed into a condition of incapacity--a sort of
secondary state,--do you see, till it acknowledged itself a species of
_crêche_ for the Royal Academy. Certain it is that when I came into it
the prevalent feeling among all the men was that their best work
should go to 'another place.'
"I felt that this sense of inferiority was fatal to the well-being of
the place.
"For that reason I attempted to bring about a sense of _esprit de
corps_ and ambition, which culminated in what might be called
'my first offence'--by my proposition that members belonging to other
societies should hold no official position in ours. I wanted to make
it an art centre," continued Mr. Whistler, with a sudden vigour and an
earnestness for which the public would hardly give credit to this
Master of Badinage and Apostle of Persiflage; "they wanted it to
remain a shop, although I said to them, 'Gentlemen, don't you perceive
that as shopmen you have already failed, don't you see, eh?' But they
were under the impression that the sales decreased under my methods
and my _régime_, and ignored the fact that sales had declined all over
the country from all sorts of causes, commercial, and so on.
Their only chance lay in the art tone of the place, for the
old-fashioned pictures had ceased to become saleable wares--buyers
simply wouldn't buy them. But members' work I _couldn't_, by the
rules, eliminate--only the bad outsiders were choked off."
"Then how do you explain the bitterness of all the opposition?"
"A question of 'pull devil, pull baker,' and the devil has gone and
the bakers remain in Suffolk Street! Ha! ha! Here is a list of the
fiendish party who protested against the thrusting forth of their
president in such an unceremonious way:--
"Alfred Stevens, Theodore Roussel, Nelson Maclean, Macnab, Waldo
Story, A. Ludovici, jun., Sidney Starr, Francis James, W. A. Rixon,
Aubrey Hunt, Moffatt P. Lindner, E. G. Girardot, Ludby, Arthur Hill,
Llewellyn, W. Christian Symons, C. Wyllie, A. F. Grace, J. E. Grace,
J. D. Watson, Jacomb Hood, Thornley, J. J. Shannon, and Charles Keen.
Why, the very flower of the Society! and whom have they left--_bon
Dieu!_ whom have they left?"
"It was a hard fight then?"
"My dear sir, they brought up the maimed, the halt, the lame, and the
blind--literally--like in Hogarth's 'Election;' they brought up
everything but corpses, don't you know!--very well!"
"But all this hardly explains the bitterness of the feud and personal
enmity to you."
"What? Don't you see? My presidential career had in a manner been a
busy one. When I took charge of the ship I found her more or less
water-logged. Well, I put the men to the pumps, and thoroughly shook
up the old vessel; had her re-rigged re-cleaned, and painted--and
finally I was graciously permitted to run up the Royal Standard to the
masthead, and brought her fully to the fore, ready for action--as
became a Royal flagship! And as a natural result mutiny at once set
in!
"Don't you see," he continued, with one of his strident laughs,
"what might be considered, by the thoughtless, as benefits, were
resented, by the older and wiser of the crew, as innovations and
intrusions of an impertinent and offensive nature. But the immediate
result was that interest in the Society was undeniably developed, not
only at home, but certainly abroad. Notably in Paris all the art
circle was keenly alive to what was taking place in Suffolk Street;
and, although their interest in other institutions in this country had
previously flagged, there was the strong willingness to take part in
its exhibitions.
For example, there was Alfred Stevens, who showed his own sympathy
with the progressive efforts by becoming a member. And look at the
throngs of people that crowded our private views--eh? ha! ha! what!
But what will you!--the question is, after all, purely a parochial
one--and here I would stop to wonder, if I do not seem pathetic and
out of character, why the Artist is naturally an object of
vituperation to the Vestryman?--Why am _I_--who, of course, as you
know, am charming--why am I the pariah of my parish?
"Why should these people do other than delight in me?--Why should they
perish rather than forgive the one who had thrust upon them honour and
success?"
"And the moral of it all?"
Mr. Whistler became impressive--almost imposing--as he stroked his
moustache, and tried to hide a smile behind his hand.
"The organisation of this 'Royal Society of British Artists' as shown
by its very name, tended perforce to this final convulsion, resulting
in the separation of the elements of which it was composed. They could
not remain together, and so you see the 'Artists' have come out, and
the 'British' remain--and peace and sweet obscurity are restored to
Suffolk Street!--Eh? What? Ha! ha!"
[Illustration]
_Statistics_
[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, July 6, 1888.]
Since our interview with Mr. Whistler curious statements have been set
afloat concerning the question of finance ... giving circumstantial
evidence of the disaster brought upon the Society by the enforcement
of the Whistlerian policy:--
This evidence, which is very interesting, is as follows:--The sales of
the Society during the year 1881 were under £5000; 1882, under £6000;
1883, under £7000; 1884, under £8000; 1885 (the first year of Mr.
Whistler's rule), they fell to under £4000; 1886, under £3000; 1887,
under £2000; and the present year, under £1000.
On the other hand, the fact of the Society having made itself
responsible to Mr. Whistler for a loan raised by him to meet a sudden
expenditure for repairs, is also true; but the unwisdom of the
president and members of any society having money transactions
between them need hardly be commented upon here....
Mr. Wyke Bayliss, the new president, strikes one as being "a strong
man"--shrewd, logical, and self-restrained. The author of several
books and pamphlets on the more imaginative realm of art, he is, one
would say, as much permeated by religion as he is by art; to both of
these qualities, curiously enough, his canvases, which usually deal
with cathedral interiors of cheery hue, bear witness.
The hero of three Bond Street "one-man exhibitions," a Board-school
chairman, a lecturer, champion chess-player of Surrey, a member of the
Rochester Diocesan Council, a Shaksperian student, a Fellow of the
Society of Cyclists, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquarians, and
public orator of Noviomagus ... he is surely one of the most versatile
men who ever occupied a presidential chair....
_A Retrospect_
_TO THE EDITOR
OF THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE:"_
Sir,--The Royal Society of British Artists is, perhaps, by this time
again unknown to your agitated readers--but I would recall a brilliant
number of the _Pall Mall Gazette_ (July 1888), in which mischievous
amusement was sought, with statistics from a newly elected
President--Mr. Bayliss (Wyke).
Believing it to be, in an official and dull way, more becoming that
the appointed Council of this same Society should deal with the
resulting chaos, I have, until now, waited for a slight washing of
hands, as who should say, on their part as representing the gentle
deprecation of, I assure you, the respectable body in Suffolk Street.
Well, no!--It was doubtless adjudged wiser, or milder, to "live it
down," and now it, I really believe, behoves me, in a weary way,
to remind you of the document in question, and, for the sake of
commonplace, uninteresting, and foolish fact, to lift up my parable
and declare fallacious that which was supposed to be true, and
generally to bore myself, and perhaps even you, the all-patient one,
with what, I fear, we others care but little for--parish matters.