TOLERANCE IN ART.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 14343, 1 May 1912, Page 4

TOLERANCE IN ART.

AP3»EAL BY MR JOHN IJAILLIE

(SFE&AJ, TO "THE I'RESS.") WELLINGTON, April 21). Mr John Buillic, who is hore just now with a fine" collection of British paintings, was a "tiest of the Savage Clnb on Saturday evening, and, m the coursii of abrit'f address, ho miuio .in appeal for tolerance in art. 31r Baillie is himself an artist, but for .-some yours now ho has been acting successfully in London as"an artist's agent. Up <;c:nraoncod in a very humble way "at'lirst, a- long way from Bond street. O:io of Ills first successes was a half-crown ;>.rt union. One of tho befit, pictures was won by a friend from whom ho bouyi.it j it. Hβ subsequently sold it for four times the original price- to Mr C.'crr^c j EchvAides of the London Gaiety. Mc ! has had a long experience now of p:ctuces and buyers of pictures, and'he made an : appeal to those present lor greater tolerpnco in mattem or , art. Somo people had said there war> a groat deal of nil>bis]i in lm collection, peoplo intolea-ant of the modern in art, but they should remember that .-.11 the Threat arrist3 wtiro moderns once nn-d that artbts such asAVhistler Cor.ot, and others, were once laughed at "as too absurd for anything." 3lr Bailiie drew a distinction between the real artist and tho painter. The painter, and there were many of quite exeejvtional talent, generally painted that which he deemed was popular and likely to sell. The artist painted what im]>u!ko told liini, irrespective of whet'ier it pleased others or.not. He. was vre;>tire. so it was when one saw a pic Lure people must jiot imagine that tlie picture was painted for them alon.". it was very nice to bo able to paint a picture which charmed everybody at onco, but there were other good pictures which might not please one but might ma'co an appeal to others to such an extent that they desired to possess it. It was,-after all, tho public who made the artist, and it was tho pubhe who very often in the past had !:i;lod good artists by intolerance. Unfortunately, perhaps, at Homo there was rather too much tolerance. Thore had been so many mistakes made in t'.ie past that people were chary about cou- j demning anybody.