DOI Heft:
No. 104 (November, 1901)
DOI Artikel:Sickert, Oswald: The International Society
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19874#0131
The International Society
the world. The worst that disappointment could
find to say is that they never at any time had a
very definite cause for which to fight, and that now
for the first time the Society clearly recognises
what its aim must be, and has settled down to
reach it without casting regretful glances upon the
past.- It would be more interesting—and better for
the reputation of the art of painting—if other
reasons could be brought forward to explain the
superiority of the two earlier exhibitions ; if one
could discover that success had made the Society
proud, or that lack of appreciation had moved the
authorities to descend to the level of the public
eye, or that faction had used its dark influence to
exclude the beautiful work that adorned the walls
at Knightsbridge. But not success, nor failure,
nor any influence is responsible for the fact that
in the galleries of the Institute this year there is
no Execution of Maximilian and no Spanish
Beggars; that there is nothing to be compared
with the rehearsal of the ballet by Degas, with the
drawing of a woman drinking, by Menzel, with
The Present of Alfred Stevens, with the little girl
by Mr. Tom Graham, or Renoir's lady standing
near a window; with the girls at the piano, or
the ship in the Thames, or the etchings of
Amsterdam, by Mr. Whistler. They were the
contributions that made the International Exhibi-
tions wonderful, and they had one quality in
common, they did not belong to our day—they
were the work of thirty years ago.
It would be well that visitors who go to the
present exhibition in Piccadilly with a grateful
remembrance of what the Society once showed
them in Knightsbridge, should be quite clear upon
the point. They should remember that it was not
the work done in the nineties that most delighted
them in the Society's exhibitions in '98 and '99,
and lent the glamour that still clings in their
recollection to the name of the International.
And if they pause for a moment to reflect,
they will, further, acknowledge that they cannot,
and should not, expect from the Society a
constant supply of any such masterpieces as
made the two earlier exhibitions memorable. It
would, no doubt, have been possible for the
"SPRING IN LONDON"
ri?8
BY D. V. CAMERON
the world. The worst that disappointment could
find to say is that they never at any time had a
very definite cause for which to fight, and that now
for the first time the Society clearly recognises
what its aim must be, and has settled down to
reach it without casting regretful glances upon the
past.- It would be more interesting—and better for
the reputation of the art of painting—if other
reasons could be brought forward to explain the
superiority of the two earlier exhibitions ; if one
could discover that success had made the Society
proud, or that lack of appreciation had moved the
authorities to descend to the level of the public
eye, or that faction had used its dark influence to
exclude the beautiful work that adorned the walls
at Knightsbridge. But not success, nor failure,
nor any influence is responsible for the fact that
in the galleries of the Institute this year there is
no Execution of Maximilian and no Spanish
Beggars; that there is nothing to be compared
with the rehearsal of the ballet by Degas, with the
drawing of a woman drinking, by Menzel, with
The Present of Alfred Stevens, with the little girl
by Mr. Tom Graham, or Renoir's lady standing
near a window; with the girls at the piano, or
the ship in the Thames, or the etchings of
Amsterdam, by Mr. Whistler. They were the
contributions that made the International Exhibi-
tions wonderful, and they had one quality in
common, they did not belong to our day—they
were the work of thirty years ago.
It would be well that visitors who go to the
present exhibition in Piccadilly with a grateful
remembrance of what the Society once showed
them in Knightsbridge, should be quite clear upon
the point. They should remember that it was not
the work done in the nineties that most delighted
them in the Society's exhibitions in '98 and '99,
and lent the glamour that still clings in their
recollection to the name of the International.
And if they pause for a moment to reflect,
they will, further, acknowledge that they cannot,
and should not, expect from the Society a
constant supply of any such masterpieces as
made the two earlier exhibitions memorable. It
would, no doubt, have been possible for the
"SPRING IN LONDON"
ri?8
BY D. V. CAMERON