f 
From CURRENT OPINION, July, 1923 
U 
Current Opinion for July 
rtesy New York Times 
THE COURT OP THE FREER GALLERY 
The rooms of the newly opened gallery in Washington donated to the 
nation by Charles L. Freer are grouped about a~central court in which 
are peacocks ; a playing fountain and blooming azaleas. 
prepared for them. Their general appro¬ 
priateness lies, of course, in their per¬ 
sistent search for beauty, and in the quiet¬ 
ness of their method.” 
Miss Cary speaks at this point of the 
examples shown of Abbott Thayer’s 
art; of “a stony beautiful head” by 
George de Forest Brush; of Sargent’s 
“Breakfast in a Loggia”; of water 
colors by Winslow Homer; of land¬ 
scapes by Tryon; of a room dedicated 
to Thomas Dewing. Then she says: 
“The Whistlers are a chapter by them¬ 
selves, or a volume. The variety of 
Whistler is shown and his genius. From 
the Peacock Room, in which his original 
design is almost reproduced, to the slight 
imperious little pastels fluttering across 
the walls like flower petals blown by a 
discriminating breeze, he is given to the 
nation to enjoy. The portrait of Mr. 
Freer is in the group, a small head, char¬ 
acterized with Whistler’s peculiar inat¬ 
tention to formula and the traditions fixed 
by other painters. It is the key-note of 
the gallery for those who read it without 
indirection.” 
This collection of Whistlers, taken 
in conjunction with the “Whistleriana 
prmt.rihnt.p.d bv Mr. and Mrs. Pennell 
to the library of Con¬ 
gress, may have the 
effect of drawing to 
Washington students 
of Whistler as Madrid 
attracts admirers of 
Velasquez. Mr. Pen¬ 
nell insists: 
“It is of the greatest 
importance that the 
collections, Freer’s and 
others, should be in¬ 
creased; that all the 
works of Whistler that 
can be got should be 
gathered together in 
what once was and 
must be again the intel¬ 
lectual capital of the 
land, where there is a 
beginning, and where 
there should not only 
be these national col¬ 
lections of art—free to 
those who care—how 
few they are!—but where there should be 
held the annual Salon which would at¬ 
tract the world, or the best people in the 
world. It would pay just as the Louvre 
pays and the Salon pays in Paris.” 
In an editorial appreciation of Freer 
and his generosity, the Christian Sci¬ 
ence Monitor says: “It is possible to 
criticize Freer and his gift in detail. 
It may be thought he was mistaken at 
times, but no one could think him any¬ 
thing but generous. Objection may be 
made to his methods of selection ^ and 
exhibition, but not to his enthusiasm 
as collector, nor his patriotism in pre¬ 
senting his collections to his country. 
His gift was munificent, and, as his 
name will go down with it to future 
generations, he cannot be forgotten. 
The Monitor continues: 
“All his fellow citizens are his heirs, 
because Freer made his gift not to his 
town of Detroit, not to his State of Michi¬ 
gan, but to the United States. Washing¬ 
ton, which should lead, has lagged far 
behind in matters of art. It needs only a 
few more millionaire collectors to follow 
his example, and Washington as an art 
center may rival the capitals of Europe. 
