Mr, Sargent thereupon wrote the following letter to Mr, MaeColl:— ing your
ood many "people. to belt ole think woul Tadmire "the certainty with which you have refrained from Rinting at the possibility of bad faith' on' the part of people like Matiwe'or at the theory that Lam inclined to believe. thatthe. shai Picture dealers invented and be this new article of commerce: think you have exactly weighed the merits of Cézanne. and' rather! there were something for the sake of your argument, sou Jou had io deal with hin objects in a racaum. As to Gauguin,
Beand fare colon "Some day if we ever meet I should discuss with you the mean Ing of the word values! and. the youre sincerely, "Sohn 8. Sargent."
On January 7, 1911, Mr. Sargent wrote the following letter to the tention hax been culled to by Me. Roger Fry, called EX posteript on. Postelmpreasianism in Your. imue of December 2h. hich he mentions mong the chat 2 of the painters now being shown at the Gratton Gaatery. Famouid be ehiized columns for these few wards. of {you would allow me space in your Feu a ince one formed, and if I had. been inclined 5 been entirely. mixing join'in the controversy, he would have known that. my. aympatl were in the exactly opposite. than as far as the novelties are con teemed, that have been mont discussed find that this show has been Hest opportunity. of seaing. thud declined Ake, Fry's request to price my name on the initial list of pros inneters of the Exhibition on "the round of not knowing the work Of the painters to whom the name of Pon'imprevsionist can be nnpiieds certainly does not apply to. Monet for Césanne, Mr. Fry may have been fold. ""vand have " believed..that the sight of those paintings had tune ae a convert to his faith "The fact is that T am absolutely sceptical as to their having nay cell Whatever to being works of wrt, with the exception of some o¢ the picts by' Gauguin' that strike mous mugable in colour, "But. one. won to say, what will he not print?
The above extencts "ate taken john S. Sargent."
from Charteris' recent book "John Sargent," pages 192/3, My humble opinions need not be taken into cone sideration when Sargent's are known Dut the fact that they coincide scarcely strengthens the for Cézanne.
And Mr. MacColl's critic cism in itself shatters the statement that Cézanne is accepted as one of the greatest of modern painters.
Mencken in his volume of "Select® dices" deals with Cés he says in 40 many words that it was taken up by 4 crowd of painters who could not draw and found they could do this post-impressionistic work and theres fore hailed Cézanne as a Master, 1 do not wish Mr. "Art Gallery" to think for one moment that [am attacking him Iam merely upholding my opinions as opposed to his, which, T am entitled to do and which he will agree is fair, But perhaps the late Mr. Sargent' or MacColl or Mr. Mencken cannot be compared to the reviewer of "The Observer."
The Question of Photography Lastely, the dragging in of photo graphy, Which had nothing to do with the ease, movely because U happen to be a keen worker it this combined science and art, and that because this is so Tam treuted to a dissertation upon my hopeless capacity to say whether or not I like a picture (which in one of the fune+ tions of a critic)....this Lam going briefly with the remark "Exiled" seems to have inia the old error of thinking that fine photography is a matter of microscopical definition (accuracy of drawing is assured, fortunately, the proper lenses aye used); whereas it is usually undesirable except for record and technical work, Apologizing for taking up £0 much of your space, Tam, ete, Shanghai, April 20, 1028,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.