THE THREE PICTURES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19142, 7 October 1925, Page 9

THE THREE PICTURES.

Sir,—Being a comparatively recent arrival in New Zealand, I have been able to view as a detached and impartial observer the epistolary conflict, -which has taken place on the above subject. I had not intended to join tn the fray, but the letter of Mr. J. H. Upton, on Saturday, compels me to make a few observations. It seems to me that Mr. U pton neither appreciates the intention of the critics nor his own position as trustee of public money. A man should deal with property committed to him ra the capacity of trustee with the same care and prudence as be himself would fcaks in managing his owe affairs. If he dc?s not, he is guilty of negligence, and in such a case a Court of law would order his removal. For instance, a trustee, with little knowledge of equine matters, who disposed of horses at half their proper value, or having little knowledge of land values and being empowered to purchase real estate, gave far mors than its . market value, could properly be called to ae« count by the beneficiaries trader the trust. His duty would be in the one case to call for the advice of a veterinary sorgsoa or expert and in the other of a land vainer. Failing this, ha would be deemed culpablv negligent. Now, so far a$ I have been able to gather from the correspondence, what the trustees, (including Mr. Uptoni have been asked to do was to give an account of their stewardship. They have bought the three pictures at a high figure with money of which they are trustees for the public. If these pictures are not the production of the alleged artists, the public money has been improperly used; if they are genuine I am at a loss to know how they can be regarded as truly representative—to avoid being branded as ignorant I refrain from using the word "typical" as I intended—of the work of the respective artists and they will be standing memorials of the incompetency of the trustees. The monay could have been nsed to much better purpose. I have seen most of the art galleries in Great Britain and on ihe Continent and claim to know a little of the style and characteristics of many of the old masters and modern painters. Personally, after a careful examination of the three pictures in question, I would not give £l5O for the lot. It is hardly likely that these pictures, if gentdee and considered valuable, would have been allowed to travel so far as Australia and then to New Zealand before they found a purchaser. The public have a right to knew: (!) The price paid for each picture; (21 whether the pictures were purchased after the trustees had taken expert advice as to their tenuineness and value. If so, who was the gentleman consulted 1 If no such advice was takers, the public will draw their own conclusions. Mr, Upton, 'seeking advice after the: purchase which is certainly rather late and somewhat strange, remarks thi-t he ! "had hoped that the trustees might Lave got some help from their advisers (meaning the critics), but it is not so. I see no sign of it." He aids, "Mr. Page Howe in many words has said nothing,'* This is not true. I do not know Mr. Page Rowe personally and therefore hold no brief for him. do not agree with several observations he has made, but he has given what appears to me to be good advice, namely, that future parchases by ihe trustees should be made by or through a competent art critic at Home. In this connection, I would venture to supplement this advice hy mentioning the name of Mr. Frank Butter, 8.A., who, formerly curator of the excellent art gallery in the City of Leeds, is now art critic of the Sunday Times, London, and the author of several books on art. He is well-known in art circles in London. Mr. Upton's reference to Mr. G. H. Wilson "with mercantile conception of art" is surely in bad taste, Even a merchant who admires the style of a particular artist may, after years of study, become a capable judge of his works, and it does not follow, as Mr. Upton implies, that the merchant buys the works of that or any other artist "from the motive of prospective pecuniary gam and sot from love of art. I would ask Mr. Upton to whom do artists look for sale of their productions if not to the well-to-do, ineluding merchants? Further, Mr. Wilson's reference to money value is not, as Mr. Upton suggests, "irrelevant. Mr. Upton himself admits thai the tiny vignette by Bir-set Foster if *or!h ra-re than the big oil painting in question, but adds that they (the trustees) "do not value it on that account" The inference is that they valup it because of its artistic merit, bu, surely it is that rn^" fc which .gives it its monetary value. .in®' Dubl'i are entitled to see that thev are getting value fo- »he money expended on their behalf and that, 1 take it, u Mr. Wilson'r standpoint. To sum up, Mr. Lpton has nothing in justification of himseij IS? Si. Mv". tat «h,rmg .!>« w "?;?*• ' b„ hnvp tad case, abuse the other s.ue, has confined himself to making persona! Sacks on his critics. The Public ere awaiting an authoritative and statemeri by *be tristees and aoijwreoniw recriminations. WnxUM WGOSfflT^