[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR. " ] SIE, — Allow me to point
out that the article on "The Empire of Silence" in the Spectator of December 26th, 1903, is a singularly unjust piece of special pleading. It is not true that Whistler received "hardly anything else but abuse, some of it foolish abuse, some of it personal abuse, and most of it very bad criticism indeed." On the contrary, from the very first the chorus mingled blame and praise, and for by far the greater portion of the artist's life—certainly for the last twenty years—there has scarcely been, so far as Press opinion is concerned, a single artist so vehemently lauded, so consistently overpraised. Nor is it true, or even approaching to the truth, that the personalities of which Whistler's written work almost exclusively consisted were in general a reply to similar discourtesies. On the contrary, these attacks were his replies to any form of criticism whatever, as could be easily shown by quotations. I need not go further, however, than the article itself for an example of this, for in the fourth paragraph its writer, with what seems to be somewhat doubtful taste, quotes a portion of one of Mr. Whistler's most offensive personalities, directed against the (then) critic of the Spectator. A reference, Sir, to your own columns will show that Mr. Whistler's work was criticised therein with fairness, appre- ciation, and absolute impersonality, and as I have the best reason to know, no single word of either abuse or personal rejoinder ever proceeded from the writer in question concern- ing that artist. Let us not for the sake of justifying the dead misrepresent the conduct of the living. The truth is very simple, and may be stated without exaggeration or dis- guise. Whistler was an artist of great ability, greater touchi- ness, and greatest vanity. He resented, not unjust criticism, but all criticism whatsoever ; and what he resented he abused. That he clothed his personalities wittily on occa- sion, at other times with vulgarity and insolence, is certainly true; but his most offensive rejoinders were not replies to personal criticisms, but were directed against the critic qud
critic,—were intended to be arguments against criticism itself. He would have loved to play the part of Tarquinius Superbus to every writer upon art. Why ? The answer must always now remain a little doubtful, but I believe the reason to have been that he never succeeded in shutting his eyes to the fact that the work of the great masters of painting was, rightly understood, the one unanswerable critical verdict upon his own performance ; that, tried by that standard, his incompletion, his tentativeness, his de- ficiency, became patent. He was a gifted artist, a great etcher, and, as a man, impulsive, irascible, and unjust,— charming, courageous, and originaL—I am, Sir, &c., [Mr. Quilter has surely misread the intention of the article of which he complains. The " offensive personality " to the quotation of which he objects was cited as a glaring instance of the unjust and " schoolboyish " methods to which Whistler occasionally stooped in answering his soberest critics.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
