perfectly satisfied to feast on the gorgeous colouring and the great
veracity they possess. Some of them are already sold, a most surprising
thing when one considers that to most people a picture actually executed
in three dimensions is seldom considered meritorious. I do think that
while the physical width and height of Mrs. Boberg's pictures are
governed by conventional considerations, a little less depth of paint
might accomplish the same solid appearance without making one feel like
slipping sideways past them into the next gallery for fear of knocking
off a few lumps of paint.

In the adjoining gallery, a somewhat larger one on the east, Gustav
Fjaestad's very fine decorations form what we are in the habit of
calling a "one-man show." Mr. Fjaestad certainly has the decorative
feeling, whether he paints a picture or designs a rug. In fact all of
his pictures look like designs for rugs. And why not? If a wall rug is a
decoration, a picture should be one in just the same way. It is hard to
single out among the many good examples the best one, and it may be left
to the taste of the individual, who among nothing but good things cannot
make a poor choice. The time will come again when our artists will find
it honourable and profitable to apply their talents to utilitarian art,
as does Fjaestad, and the interrelated activities of the Swedish in both
fine and applied arts afford a lesson which is by no means new. It is
the basic condition on which the art of the Renaissance flourished that
develops men like the Swedes.

There is a big difference between Liljefors and Mrs. Boberg, or again
between her and Fjaestad, but not any greater than between all of these
artists and John Bauer. John Bauer's paintings are exquisite, and even
such abused adjectives as "sweet" and "delicate" are not out of place
when applied to his work. I hope we have some enlightened person among