Let us recapitulate the possibilities: the reason that would induce an individual painter to support this movement, engage in it, and use it as a material optimistically. The creative line, structure, Imagination, untrammelled by any pedantry of form or of naturalist taboo, a more vigorous and permanent shaping of the work undertaken: these were the inducements and the prizes. The movement also developed a cult of experiment which allowed of any combinations and inventive phantasies. All the scientific notions as they came along of any useful application could be used without a foolish outcry. But this liberty and these opportunities also begot a necessity for moderation or rather _concentration_ which would have been a vice in any age of repression and academic tyranny. The painters have been thankful for this disembarrassing of the ground for them, and have been delighted at these splendid opportunities. They do not want to _lose_ what has been won by an infatuation for some effete mode that there is no rhyme or reason to succumb to, apart from the megalomania of an individual artist, or the commercial promptings of some tortuous and sordid game. They do not wish to be involved in the mere acrobatics of freedom. Freedom bristles with unexpected tyrannies. It would not have been easy for Cézanne, the laborious innovator and giver of this freedom, to do so; but any very able and at the same time resourceful artist could invent you a new mode _every week_ without any difficulty; some new stylistic twist; some new adaptation of a scientific notion. This is not, however, what is needed. If he can do nothing _else_ than that, he must be allowed to go his way, and his chief praise be a pæan to his agility. How we _need_ and can _use_ this freedom that we have is to invent a mode that will answer to the great mass sensibility of our time. We want to construct hardily and profoundly without a hard-dying autocratic convention to dog us and interfere with our proceedings. But we want _one_ mode, for there _is_ only one mode for any one time, and all the other modes are for other times. Except as objects of technical interest and indirect stimulus, they have nothing to do with us. And it is not on the sensibility of the amateur, which is always corrupted, weak, and at the mercy of any wind that blows, that the painter should wish to build. It is on the block sensibility, the profoundest and most personal foundations of his particular time. Fashion is not always the exact physiognomy of a time. And every physiognomy in any case is made to be changed. What we really require are a few men who will _use_ Fashion, the ruler of any age, the avenue through which alone that age can be approached to get something out of it, to build something in Fashion’s atmosphere which can best flourish there, and which is the best thing that therein could flourish.