ART SENSATION

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 110, 5 November 1926, Page 12

ART SENSATION

ILL-TIMED CRITICISM

AN APOLOGY ACCEPTED.

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

LONDON, 25th September.

There has been another "Epstein sensation." This time the sculptor has been thrust into the limelight by the criticism of Lord Wavertrce, vice-chair-man of the sub-committee of the Walker^ Art Gallery, Liverpool. Lord Wavertree is the son of Sir Andrew Walker, who gave the gallery to the city. In a speech Lord Wavertree said there were two exhibits which he hoped would bring largo numbers to the exhibition. He did not think they had been accepted as examples of artistic merit. (Laughter.) They were the work of a man who had been mentioned a great deal lately, and especially in connection with his sculpture of Rima, which had caused a tremendous amount of controversy—mostly on one side— (laughter)—as to whether or not he was really a great artist or his works were things of beauty. One could go to the Autumn Exhibition and judge for oneself. "Poor fellow, I have no doutif he has done his best," went on Lord Wavertree. "But, after all, many other very poor artists could have done much better if they had done their worst." (Laughter.) As a sequel, the. sculptor requested the withdrawal of his two exhibits sent there by invitation. Following however, the receipt of a letter fron.

Alderman J. Lea, chairman of the Art and Exhibitions Sub-Committee of the Liverpool Corporation, he decided to allow the sculptures to remain. "I don't caro two pins what Lord Wavertree says about my work orj anything else," Mr. Epstein remarked in an interview.. "My protest was not against criticism as criticism. It was against Lord Wavertree's irregular action and bad manners. It is, as far as I know, wholly unprecedented for a person who is officially opening an exhibition to comment in such abusive terms as those employed by Lord Wavertree on the; woncs ho has been invited to introduce." He regarded Lord Wavertree's action as ;m example of "arrogance of the worst sort." Lord Wavertreo was in the position of a host who had invited a man to dinner, and on the arrival of his guest, subjected him to abusive public criticism. "His further suggestion that I am afraid to leave my works for tlic public to judge is an insulting innuendo and sheer nonsense." A principle was involved, the sculptor added, because if artists thought their work was to be introduced by oilicial speakers as Lord Wavertree had introduced his, they would not send to public exhibitions at all. "Lord Wavertree's remarks were simply uncalled for; they came at the wrong time and place," added Mr. Epstein. "However, in view of the let- • ter I have received from Alderman "Lea I have permitted my works to remain at the Liverpool Exhibition." Alderman Lea, in his letter, said:— "I beg to assure you that Lord Waver'ree did not consult me before making ■is criticism, and as chairman of the Vrts Committee I woul3 suggest that

our retaining the work here would br the best answer to anything said whick may have wounded your feelings. I,do hope that in the wider interests of art you will agree to this. We earnestly desired your sculpture, and we wish to retain it as a valued feature of our exhibition." Lord Wavertree explains the position thus:. "Although I was on the Hanging Committee, and also on the Selection Committee in London, owing to illness in one case and absence in the other I was not able to take part on either of these two occasions. [ I would not havo made such remarks" if I had known the works were invited, and I am grateful to Mr. Epstein for leaving them on exhibition. As to my opinion of Mr. Epstein's school ".of work, I can only say that the impr'eision which I and others felt, in regard to his bronzes can be reserved for another occasion. I am grateful to Mr. Epstein for having accepted &c apology of the committee and for 'allowing his work to remain on exhibition. I have had a considerable amount of experience of sculpture, and . . . . consider myself quite competent to ex« press an opinion." 85, Fleet street.