MR. HARRY QUILTER'S PROTEST.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Your reviewer of " Preferences," who appears to have Impressionism and Mr. James McNeil Whistler somewhat on the brain, has entirely misrepresented the aim and character of my book. He describes a work which does not exist, and finds a defence inadequate, where none is made or intended. " Preferences " is not intended as an apology to Mr. James McNeil Whistler, or to any of his friends and admirers, or to those journalists who, in his defence, have made themselves merry over my personal and critical shortcomings ; nor is it concerned with that artist and those critics in any way what- ever. Moreover, strange as it may seem, I had no thought what- ever of Mr. Whistler when I wrote the "History of Pre- Raphaelitism," which forms the first part of my book, when I corrected and revised the essays on various great artists and writers, which form the second part of my book, or when I selected, for the third part, chiefly from your own columns, the notes on the Exhibitions of the Royal Academy for eighteen years, in only one of which was Mr. Whistler's work so unfortunate as to obtain a place in the Gallery. Indeed, the name of the artist in question, on each occasion accom- panied with words of very strong praise, only occurs twice in my four hundred pages. This quite disproves your critic's conten- tion that my book represents the case of " Quilter v. Whistler," and is therefore to be fairly criticised from that point of view.
Your reviewer's criticism also mis-states my position with regard to Impressionism. So far from not being familiar with the works of Impressionist artists, and having only heard of the " nickname," and constructed an untenable and absurd theory thereupon, I have from the very first been inti mately acquainted with both the pictures of the school, and many of the men who painted them. I have even exhibited pictures myself which were generally criticised as evidencing my conversion to the Impressionist theory. Therefore, in his statements on this point also, your reviewer is absolutely incorrect. Hi3 other mis-statements, very numerous and annoying, I will deal with elsewhere, as it would be asking you for too much space were I to enter upon their discussion
Previous page
