Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1909 (Heft 26))

Nor does the mischievous effect of his narrow sympathies and of his lack
of moderation and conscience in expounding them stop here. It is impressed
also on the character of the collection over which he has the honor for a few
years to preside. Sir Purdon’s term of office is becoming conspicuous for the
little recognition that the Museum is giving to modern art. Through his dislike
of impressionism and his consciousness that all painting, characteristically
modern, is more or less affected by it, he has failed so far to give such painting
adequate representation in the collection. This policy of imposing his own
personal likes and dislikes on the conduct of a great public institution, the true
policy of which should be and was intended to be that its galleries shall contain,
as far as possible, full representation of all periods and phases of art, is saddling
future directors with undue liabilities. They will have to remedy the deficiency;
probably with examples less good than the best and at an increased cost.
Charles H. Caffin.

The following is a reprint of the interview published in the “New York
Post,,, December 30, 1908, and referred to in the above:

CLARKE TALKS ABOUT ART
SIR PURDON DISCUSSES OUR MOD-
ERN PAINTERS
Director of the Metropolitan Museum is a Foe
of the “Cant” of To-Day—Americans
Afraid of Expressing Their Honest Opinions
—Impressionism and Highly Finished Work
“The trouble about most Americans so far
as art is concerned is that they are afraid of
expressing their real, honest opinions for fear
of being jibed at as mere Philistines.”
The director of the Metropolitan Museum
of Art swings himself around in his chair as he
sits at a desk in the big book-walled office facing
on Central Park, and there is a merry twinkle
in his blue eyes as he adds:
“You know, there’s an awful lot of humbug
about it all.”
Sir Purdon Clarke is a bitter foe of what
he calls the “cant” of the school of impression-
ists.
“I think,” he continues, “it was Carlyle
who said that there were two classes of humbugs,
the humbug who knows he’s a humbug and the
humbug who humbugs himself. It is the latter
that is the most dangerous because he is so
convincing, and he is the humbug who is doing
much harm to art here in this country.
“Why can’t people have the courage of
their opinions in art ? Why should Boston

dictate to us what is good and what is bad and
frighten us into expressing opinions that we
know we don’t hold ? A few nights ago I gave
a talk on art to a couple of clubs in Brooklyn,
and did my best to expose the cant of the present
ruling fashion in art. After the lecture man
after man came up and thanked me, saying he
perfectly agreed with what I had said, but did
not dare say so himself, for fear of being
denounced for his ignorance.
“Now, don’t imagine I am a rabid Philistine,
for I am not. I can see good in impressionism,
but only in its right place. Even dirt is but
material in the wrong place. There is room
for impressionism in art as well as for pre-
Raphaelism.”
WHERE ART NOUVEAU FAILS
“ But you have the reputation, Sir Purdon,”
says the reporter, “of being strongly opposed
to anything that is new in art.”
“If you mean by that what is known as
‘art nouveau,’ I am. My fight against these
new art people is in their holding the dogma
that the moderns must not imitate in any way
the work of the past. By their works they shall
be known. So far I have seen nothing to justify
their existence. As director of this Museum
my object is to gather together such objects
of ancient art craft that the crafter of to-day
may study what his predecessors did and profit
by their mistakes. The modern can improve
on the works of the past, certainly, but if he
tries to start off on a new art all by himself,

24