1913--Sold at Paris for 220,000 * * * * * During the exhibition in New York and Chicago the pictures were the one topic of conversation; for the time being it was worth while to dine out; society became almost animated. I recall one delightful and irascible old gentleman, critic and painter, who had not had a fresh appreciation for twenty-five years. For him art ended with the Barbizon school. Whistler, Monet, Degas had no sure places. * * * * * We all have the courage of _others_’ convictions. The new, however good, is always queer; the old, however bad, is never strange. Most people laugh at new pictures because they are afraid if they don’t laugh at the pictures, other people will laugh at _them_. Now and then a man laughs at a queer picture because he can’t help it, _he_ is a _joy_. Laughter is the honest emotion of the child, on the grown-up it is often a mark of ignorance. It is so easy to ridicule what one does not understand and _dares_ not like. Laughter never stops to think--if it did there would be less laughter. If you _feel_ like laughing at a picture, laugh by all means, it will do you good, but be sure you _really feel_ like laughing, and to make sure ask yourself this question, “If that picture were the only one in the room and I were alone with it would it strike me as laughable?” * * * * * It always takes just about so many years. What happened with the Barbizon School happened with Impressionism; what happened with Impressionism, will happen with Post-Impressionism; what will happen with Post-Impressionism will surely happen with post-post-Impressionism, and so on. One movement follows another, as season follows season. Life is rhythm. Each generation thinks itself unique in its experiences. We go to an exhibition of cubist pictures and we think nothing like that ever happened before, hence we feel safe in denouncing them. We admit England was wrong when it ridiculed Turner, that France was wrong when it ridiculed Corot, that Paris was wrong when it derided Millet, Manet, Monet, Degas, and a host of other great men, but _we_ are _not_ wrong when _we_ deride the new men. Why? Because we think they are newer and stranger than the men named. [Illustration: ZAK The Shepherd] We accept Wagner as a genius, but Strauss--oh, no, he is _too_ strange, but there are stranger composers than Strauss already at work and we must travel fast to keep up with the procession.[3] Be very sure the Cubists, the Futurists, and all the other queer “ists” would not make the impression they are making if there were not a good reason for it, if the times were not ripe for a change. * * * * *