International studio (18.1902/1903)

fine work by an unadvertised man be hung in an
obscure gallery, or in a bad roorn or bad place at
the Academy, iet us say, the betting is a hundred to
one that nearly every critic wiil pass it by unnoticed.
A knowledge of these elementary facts, and the
repugnance a sincere critic must feei increasingly
to the business of art criticism as a business, with
all its pedantry and superfrne insincerity, tends, as
years advance, to render him inarticulate; inarticu-
iate, that is to say, to this extent: he is more
and more inciined to accept or reject the art of his
day and generation without comment, or if with
comment, with comment of the kind the connois-
seur, dealer, and amateur—the modest amateur, be
it understood—empioy. Either a work of art is
good or it is bad ; so far as the real art-Iover is
concerned, art must be very good not to be bad.
He cares nothing at all for your middling per-
formance, nothing at all for
a picture—to confine these
remarks to pictures, though
of course, the critic, using
the word in its highest sense,
of any kind of artistic,
musical or literary work is
in a like case—which does
not possess in the flrst
instance two essential
qualities. It must have in-
dividuality; that is to say, it
must be expressive of a
powerful and distinct per-
sonality; it must have style,
to put it another way: and
it must be executed with
consummate technical
skill. In other words, the
man behind the picture
must be sharply differen-
tiated from other men,
and that difference must
take the form of accent-
uated power, accentuated
virility; a remarkable ap-
preciation of what is
essentially beautiful, and
a perfected command
over the technicalities of
his craft. To say this is
not merely to say that the
great painter must be a
fine colourist and draughts-
man, though the general
"THE vionN PLAYER" BY joHN LAVERY statement necessarily

milk of human kindness, are prepared to buy work
which they will need to put by for a quarter of a
century—from being of much use to painters of
parts at the outset of their careers. I am moved
to make these remarks because John Lavery, in
common with one or two other painters of high
distinction I might mention, having achieved his
position outside of the ordinary channels, and
irrespective of ofBcial sponsorship, has little or
nothing to thank the critics for—so far, in any
case, as any of the fashionable critics of this
country, whose word is law with the groundlings,
go. It is simply astonishing how absolutely silent
these superior persons are until they find it is safe
to speak. One laughs in one's sleeve at their
belated discoveries. When a variety of causes
has at last conspired to make a neglected painter,
they are ready enough to acclaim him. But let

4