"THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD."

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXIX, Issue 112, 15 May 1906, Page 3

"THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD."

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—For pure stuffing the " New Zealand Tijnes' " production on " Broad Patriotism" would take a lot of beating; but for brutal impertinence and narrow-mindedness commend one. to the article on Hunt's picture, "Tho Light of the World." Following their line of argument, every representation of the Cross erected upon our churches is, after all, but " poster evangelism," " teaching no now lesson," etc. The richest bit, however, is where we are informed that "it is from every aspect exclusively artistic in its value aud in its effect, and cannot hope to make a strictly evangelistic appeal." You .silly fellow! cannot you see further than your nose? Who said it would make a strictly cvangolistical appeal? The same carping spirit would object to Millet's famous picture, "The Angelus," being exhibited in our various centres (because being full of devotion and depicting two peasants, upon the sound of the evening bell for prayer, rising up and reciting with downcast eyes "Angelus domini nuntiavit Marae "), it would be "poster work" for our brethren in the Catholic Church. 'It would say the same if Mr Barraud allowed Millais's famous picture of Cardinal Newman to ho exhibited from town to town. "Where the "Times" would only vsee 'poster work" other people would see a face that caused oven Millais to exclaim, when being introduced to Newman, "'God bless you, Mr Cardinal ; you have the complexion of a child !"' The art critic of the "Times" would find in the face exactly what he was looking for—" poster work" — because to the vulgar all things are vulgar; but the average man and woman would look for something vastly different, tenderness and greatness combined. The article in question is also unkind and ungenerous. The "Times" cannot deny that the; picture has given considerable pleasure j to thousands of people, and pleasure : of an exalted character; and to state { that the picture does not even "forcibly express an old lesson" is simply falsehood, to which hundreds of people could testify. ■ Dr. Johnson long ago remarked: "All cannot be judges or purchasers of pictures, yet we have found by experience that all are fond of seeing a good picture exhibited " ; and his opinion will be backed up by thousands. It would appear that the "Times" is half ashamed to write so unkindly, when it expresses its genuine sorrow at having so to write. We should like to gaze upon the face of the writer when the "genuine sorrow" fit was on him. Say what you like,, fools—and educated fools—sometimes rush in, etc., and, like a dovetail joint, it fits our critic this time. What the picture has done and is doing is to give an opportunity for thousands of people to look upon a great picture, which, but for the bounty of Mr Booth, they probably .would never have seen. Thousands of our fellow colonists never saw a great picture, and iioav that Mr Booth (would there were more like him) has put it into their power to gaze on such, the "Times" talks such humbug as "sensational methods." It ought to be ashamed of itself for its imperfect appreciation of what is truly great and beautiful! — Yours, etc. F.P.

P.S.—After writing the above I read Avith great interest the excellent letter of your Wellington correspondent. The ability to express myself as he does is not mine, ,but I heartily agree with every Avord of it. Certainly he has given the unlovely Philistine a hard stone from his sling.