there are hundreds of pictures in the Post-Impressionist manner, many of which are quite worthless.[4] These, one realises, are bad in precisely the same way as any other picture is bad; their forms are insignificant and compel no aesthetic reaction.  In truth, it was an unfortunate necessity that obliged us to speak of “Post-Impressionist pictures,” and now, I think, the moment is at hand when we shall be able to return to the older and more adequate nomenclature, and speak of good pictures and bad.  Only we must not forget that the movement of which Cezanne is the earliest manifestation, and which has borne so amazing a crop of good art, owes something, though not everything, to the liberating and revolutionary doctrines of Post-Impressionism.

The silliest things said about Post-Impressionist pictures are said by people who regard Post-Impressionism as an isolated movement, whereas, in fact, it takes its place as part of one of those huge slopes into which we can divide the history of art and the spiritual history of mankind.  In my enthusiastic moments I am tempted to hope that it is the first stage in a new slope to which it will stand in the same relation as sixth-century Byzantine art stands to the old.  In that case we shall compare Post-Impressionism with that vital spirit which, towards the end of the fifth century, flickered into life amidst the ruins of Graeco-Roman realism.  Post-Impressionism, or, let us say the Contemporary Movement, has a future; but when that future is present Cezanne and Matisse will no longer be called Post-Impressionists.  They will certainly be called great artists, just as Giotto and Masaccio are called great artists; they will be called the masters of a movement; but whether that movement is destined to be more than a movement, to be something as vast as the slope that lies between Cezanne and the masters of S. Vitale, is a matter of much less certainty than enthusiasts care to suppose.

Post-Impressionism is accused of being a negative and destructive creed.  In art no creed is healthy that is anything else.  You cannot give men genius; you can only give them freedom—­freedom from superstition.  Post-Impressionism can no more make good artists than good laws can make good men.  Doubtless, with its increasing popularity, an annually increasing horde of nincompoops will employ the so-called “Post-Impressionist technique” for presenting insignificant patterns and recounting foolish anecdotes.  Their pictures will be dubbed “Post-Impressionist,” but only by gross injustice will they be excluded from Burlington House.  Post-Impressionism is no specific against human folly and incompetence.  All it can do for painters is to bring before them the claims of art.  To the man of genius and to the student of talent it can say:  “Don’t waste your time and energy on things that don’t matter:  concentrate on what does:  concentrate on the creation of significant form.”  Only thus can either give the best that is in him.  Formerly because both felt bound to strike a compromise between art and what the public had been taught to expect, the work of one was grievously disfigured, that of the other ruined.  Tradition ordered the painter to be photographer, acrobat, archaeologist and litterateur:  Post-Impressionism invites him to become an artist.