Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Omaha morning bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 1922-1927 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 26, 1923)
How Jealous Social Rivals of the • — V Former Chicago Woman Are Believed to Have Inspired the || Recent Humiliating Rejection of Her Famous Hus band's Latest Portrait of Her by the London Art Gallery V'CW co The former Miss Hazel Martin of Chicago, now the wife of Sir John La very, the great English artist LONDON, Aug. 9. IT IS no novelty for a woman to be forced to undergo various forms of social punishment because she hap pens to be sadly lacking in good look.), but it is most unusual to see one pun ished, as it is believed Lady Lavery is now being, because she is so generously endowed with beauty of face and figure. What is strangest of all is that her ladyship’s distinguished artist husband, Sir John Lavery, and her warm friend, Lady Bache Cunard, are being made to share no small measure of the punish ment that is being meted out to her. As if they were to blame any more than Sir John’s American wife herself because she is so extraordinarily good looking! That Lady Lavery is being punished by some of her jealous rivals in fashion able society for the triumphs her beauty has brought her would seem to be the only reasonable explanation of the re cent surprising rejection of her hus band’s portrait of her by the trustees of the Tate Gallery in London. This is punishment, indeed, for it has put not only Lady Lavery but her hus band and Lady Cunard in a most hu miliating position and made them the center of one of the most bitter contro versies that has ever stirred London’s smart and artistic circles. Lady Cunard thought she had never seen anything quite so charming as this latest of the many portraits Sir John Lavery has painted of his American wife, the former Hazel Martin, of Chi cago. “It is too heavenly for anything!” she cried, as she watched the artist putting the final touches to the glowing canvas. “I would like to buy it and muke a pres ent of it to the Tate Gallery." Sir John readily agreed to this plan. He was anxious to oblige his wife’s friend, and, besides, as he well knew, the walls of his home and studio were al ready so crowded with portraits of Lady Lavery, painted both by him and the talented beauty herself, that there was really no room for another. So when the picture had received its last coat of varnish and been appro priately framed it was turned over to Lady Cunard and she carried it off to the Tote Gallery.' But, as Lady Cunard soon learned to her greut amazement and indignation, the offer of this picture to the Tate Gallery was us vain a job as carrying coals to Newcastle. Instead of her gift being received with the open arms of gratitude it was given—the cold shoul der fff rejection. Yes, while she listened with ears that could hardly believe what they heard, the trustees of the gallery told her cour teously but firmly that this particular picture was not wanted—that they posi tively could not give it' a place in their famous collection. "But why?” de manded Lady Cunard, who, be ing an American born woman like Lady Lavery, was not in the least afraid to engage the august trustees of the art gallery in an argument. The trustees politely explained, but the reasons they gave for their refusal to accept the picture are not believed to have been the ones that really prompted the rejection. According to the gossip with which art and society circles are humming, certain jealous rivals of Lady Lavery have long been anxious to be revenged on her and to punish the American beauty for what they consider her “for wardness” in seeking a high place in London society. They happened to have some influence with one or two of the Tate Gallery's trustees and by working through them they are said to have succeeded in in ducing the board to agree to refuse the portrait of Lady Lavery—to "turn it down cold,” as you Americans would say. What the trustees told Lady Cunard was that the gallery already possessed two portraits of Lady Lavery>vboth painted by her husband, and they thought these quite enough. Even if they were not so well supplied they would hardly care to accept the picture Lady Cunard offered, for they felt it was not up to the artist’s usual high standard. Lady Cunard boiled with indignation at the charge that Sir John’s artistry left much to be desired and the implica tion that her enthusiasm over his por trait was sadly misplaced. And it is said she secretly suspected, just as many Sthers now openly do, that the real reason for the rejection of the picture was jealousy df Lady Lavery’s beauty and the prominent place she is taking in the smartest circles of English swelldom. "This picture is one of Lavery’s best," she declared. "The Tate Gallery merely is prejudiced ugainst Sir John. They never have bought any of his works, the two pictures by him which they possess (and which are not his best) having been gifts. I probably will give the picture of Lady Lavery to some gallery in Paris or New York, where it will be appre ciated.” With the printing of l,ady Cunard’s indignant account of the humiliating re buff she and her intended gift had met at the Tate Gallery the row was on, and nobody knows when it will end or how. It has split not only fashionable society but the art world into two bitterly opposed camps. Friends of Lady Lavery roundly de nounce the meanness of the jealousy that would vent itself in this spiteful .. Lovely Lady Lavery with two of the innumerable paintings which her charms of face and figure have inspired i way. The whole thing is, they say, another manifesta tion of the strong anti American bias which is mak ing its appearance in smart London society. Many Englishwomen are growing weary of seeing the places in society they think should be theirs by every right usurped by their sisters from the re public across the seas. No matter how rich, talented \ind charming these aliens are their prominence in English so ciety forms a bitter 'pill for some of the native born maids and matrons. And it is none the easier to swallow when, as in the case of Lady Lavery, the husband of one of the American Invaders is an Englishman. Besides those who take violent sides for or against Lady Lavery, there are in fashionable society, and particularly in the art world, many impartial observer* who think that the rejection of the picture, no matter whnt the motives that prompted it, is quite likely to have in the end some very good effects. Although until now few have had the courage to hint any such thing, London has for some time been pretty well “fed up” on Lady Lavery’s beauty. Just as orchida would not be so admired and sought after if they were as common as dandelions or daisies, so her ladyship’s beauty, it is thought, has lost much of its lure through some picture of it being on view almost wherover one turns one's eyes. Since he fell in leva with Hazel Mar tin, of Chicago, Sir John Lavery has been happiest only whon transferring some hint of her charms to painted can vas. He has preferred her to any other model, and, whether his picture was an has been almost continually the inspira tion of his brush. Sinco Lady Lavery herself took up painting and displayed a really remark able talent she also has produced many pictures which look as if she had used her own mirrored image for a model. As a result the Lavery studio, the walls of the Lavery home, the art gal \ «' . * # Below, Lady Bache Cunard, who is mad clear through because the Tate Gallery would 1 not accept the picture 1 of her friend, Lady 1 Lavery, which she of | fered as a gift leries ami stores and many great pri vate collections display an endless vari ety of portraits of her ladyship or pic tures that were plainly inspired by her. In recent years every Royal Academy exhibition has contained at least one portrait of Lady Lavery by her husband. Even many of her ladyship’s best friends are inclined to think that Lon don has been “oversold,” to use an Amer ican phrase, on her beauty. Her ex traordinary physical charms would he more highly prized, more admired ami more thoroughly appreciated, they de clare, if ftiey were not displayed on can \as so incessantly. This is why they are inclined to feci almost glad at the mean trick her ene mies are thought to hive played on her at the Tate Gallery. Humiliating as it is, it may in the end, they think, serve a very useful purpose. Distinguished art critics declare in all friendliness that both Lady Lavery and her distinguished husband would he fat greater artists if they did not confine r themselves so much to one model and went away from their own fireside more frequently' for inspiration. But Lady Cunard is not one of those who think the re jection of the picture she tried to have enshrined ir the Tate Gallery may be all for the best. She seems almost as captivated by Lady La very’s beauty ns the lady's husband, and apparently would be content to liu\< both Sir John and his wife keep right on painting it over and over again. She has added to the bitterness of the quarrel that is raging by resigning from all connection with the offending gallery. “One cannot permit 'an artist of Lav cry's distinction and ago to be insulted like that,” says Lady Cunard, explain ing her action. “As I have told them, my resignation is the direct result of their refusal of my offer of Sir John's portrait of Lady Lavery. I should never have dreamt of offering the picture had I not been told by one of the foremost urt critics that it was a very fine picture and one of the best of Lavery’s he had ever seen. "You ought not to insult a man at the close of his career. There are persons on the committee who do not like his work, but who like only the French school. It looks like a personal attack upon Lavery, and 1 know two members of the board who dislike him.” A charming photo graphic study of Lady Lavery, now the « center of one of the bitterest rows Lon don’s fash ionable and artistic circles have ever known -OPPS ** or* £ *£ab€*T Sir John Lavery and the wife whose inspiration he prefers to that of any other woman