There is no reason today why the two Salons should not coalesce and make one exhibition. In less than twenty-five years the older has absorbed much of what was good in the revolutionary force of the younger, and so much of the revolutionary enthusiasm of the younger has subsided that the members of the new _Société_ fight side by side with the members of the old _against the two more radical exhibitions_, the _Salon d’Automne_, organized in 1903, and the _Société des Artistes Independents_, organized in 1884. * * * * * In time the Salon d’Automne will become quite as conservative as the two older Salons and there will be no reason why it should not exhibit and coalesce with the older. What is happening in Paris has happened in Munich. The Munich Secessionists, once denounced as aesthetic anarchists, have so far subsided that they exhibit with the academic painters, retaining a faint show of identity by having the word “Secessionist” over the doors of the few rooms they fill. The old Secession having subsided, the “Neue Sezession” has been organized by “Die Wilden” of Munich and that is now rampant; in ten or twenty years _it_ will be absorbed in the main stream and a still _newer_ secession challenge attention--and so on to the end of progress, for progress depends upon new and newer and ever newer departures. Already there is a division in the New Secession; the “Blue Riders” have withdrawn. * * * * * Months after the above was written the London correspondent of the “Chicago Tribune”--Nov. 2, 1913--wrote as follows about the post-impressionist exhibition in the Grafton Galleries: Many of the pictures which would have provoked happy laughter three years ago now look quite ordinary. The public is inured to them as much as it is inured to Whistler or Degas, and in a little time some of them will be dealers’ pictures, just like the works of the Barbizon school. There is, for instance, nothing extraordinary about the “Interior of a Café,” by VanGogh, except its quiet excellence. It is all seen as justly and yea as newly as a character in one of Tolstoi’s novels. One feels that any one could have painted it who had had the luck to see it so. The “Boats at Anchor,” also by VanGogh, is merely a sound but not very interesting impressionist picture, and his flower piece is even academic in a delightful way. Cézanne’s “Boys Bathing” is one of those works on which the art of modern painters like M. Friesz is based. It looks like a representation of something seen instantaneously, and yet at the same time it is all designed like a work of Nicholas Poussin’s.