The Gentle Art of Making Enemies Part 28

... "Quite true--now that it is established as an improbability, it becomes true!

[Sidenote: _The World_, Oct. 13, 1886.]

They tell me that December has been fixed upon, by the Fates, for my arrival in New York--and, if I escape the Atlantic, I am to be wrecked by the reporter on the pier.

I shall be in his hands, even as is the sheep in the hands of his shearer--for I have learned nothing from those who have gone before--and been lost too!

What will you! I know Matthew Arnold, and am told that he whispered Truth exquisite, unheeded in the haste of America.

And these others who have crossed the seas, that they might fasten 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!

[Ill.u.s.tration]

_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 Reid have "withdrawn from the Society of British Artists."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 ma.s.ses 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

_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 _navete_ 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 s.p.a.ce 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 pa.s.sed 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

_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 t.i.the 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, ent.i.tled "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."