International studio (60.1916/1917)

The Lay Figure

THE LAY FIGURE: ON HOLD¬
ING WHAT WE HAVE.
“I think all sensible people must admit
that there is sound common-sense in the proposal
that some of the superfluous things in the National
Gallery should be sold,” said the Collector. “It
certainly seems to me that a judicious weeding out
of the collection there is eminently necessary.”
“ Before I express any opinion on that subject
I would like to know what you mean by super-
fluous,” returned the Art Critic; “and also the
reason why you think weeding out is desirable.”
“ Well, I should say that when you have pictures
enough by a particular master to represent him
adequately anything by him over and above that
number would be superfluous,” declared the Col-
lector ; “and I am anxious for the weeding out
because by that means funds could be obtained
for the purchase of some very important additions.”
“ That is all very well,” cried the Critic ; “ but
how are you going to fix the number of works by
which any master can be adequately represented ?
A couple of things might suffice to give you a good
idea of the capacities of one master, a couple of
thousand would not be enough to enable you to
estimate fully the genius of another. Who is to
establish the right proportion ?”
“Why, surely that is the business of the autho-
rities who direct the gallery,” broke in the Plain
Man. “They ought to know what things are
indispensable and what are superfluous.”
“ The authorities who direct the gallery are not
a fixed quantity,” suggested the Critic. “ One set
of them might declare a particular work to be indis-
pensable and their successors might pronounce it to
be an obvious superfluity. What is to happen then?”
“ Oh don’t anticipate troubles before they arise,”
objected the Plain Man. “ The gallery authorities
are men of intelligence and I think you can trust
their judgment. They are showing admirable
sense just now by seeking powers to get rid of
some of the things they have by an artist who is
grossly over-represented.”
“Yes, especially as by reducing this over-repre-
sentation they can raise money for other purchases,”
agreed the Collector. “ There are serious gaps in
the collection which ought to be filled.”
“ And you want to fill gaps by making gaps,”
laughed the Critic. “ That is a curious policy.”
“ When you have thousands of works by one
man you can surely sell some of them without
making gaps,” argued the Plain Man. “ You do not
want the National Gallery to be a one-man show.”

“ Of course not,” exclaimed the Collector.
“ That would be ridiculous. The National Gallery
is a museum of pictorial art and it should include
examples of all the artists who have helped to
make art history. It should illustrate all the
periods of artistic development and it should sum
up the world’s achievement in painting.”
“ It is a museum ; I grant you that,” said the
Critic; “but it is also, I would like you to re-
member, a place in which the best art of the world
should be preserved. If one artist happens to be
the greatest in the world it seems to me logical to
retain these thousands of his works simply because
you cannot replace them by anything better.”
“ No, there I disagree with you,” replied the
Collector. “ It is not a question of replacing them
by better things but of maintaining the continuity
of the collection. We must make some sacrifices
to keep that end in view.”
“ I think you propose to make sacrifices which
are greater than you realise,” commented the Critic.
“You are going to sacrifice principles as well as
pictures if you allow the authorities to sell their best
things simply to raise the wind. You will endanger
the whole future of the collection.”
“ How can that be when you are securing the
funds you want to make the collection more com-
plete?” asked the Plain Man. “ It seems to me
that you are making the future more secure.”
“ It seems to me that you are doing nothing of
the kind,” answered the Critic. “The National
Gallery must chiefly dependin the future, as it has
in the past, upon the generosity of private donors
for additions to its collection, and these donors are
anxious to give to the gallery the best that is at
their disposal. Do you think they will still feel
this anxiety when they realise that even the best
is likely to be put on "the market at the caprice
of a board of directors which is always hard up ?
Don’t you see that they will be the first to resent
what will seem to them a breach of trust ? ”
“ I cannot see that there will be any breach of
trust,” declared the Plain Man.
“Oh, can you not?” exclaimed the Critic.
“ When a man offers to the gallery, either by gift
or bequest, something he treasures he assumes that
it will become permanently the property of the
nation. If you accept his gift and then put it up
for sale you grossly betray his trust.”
“ Then is the collection to remain as it is,,
incomplete and unfinished?” asked the Collector.
“It will be better, I belisve, to hold on to what
we have than to open the door to dangerous ex-
periments,” said the Critic. The Lay Figure.

2 t 2