ABSTRACT
Like training racehorses, sailing a motor-yacht in the 'Med' and remodelling an extravagant home, collecting art is uniformly regarded by historians as one of the expressions of great wealth. Moore, MacColl and Holmes took their cue from Whistler in arguing against an institutionalized and 'democratic' aesthetic. For Whistler, good art was the byproduct of public indifference. There should be no expectation that the public, through state or municipal agencies, would have anything significant to say. That Whistler saw the need to deliver this message in 1885 is an indication that the public appreciation of works of art was a matter of concern. Collections should be formed by individuals who might then present them to public museums for the appreciation of all. The art of the eighteenth century is prone before the distinguished patron, as subtly and deliciously flattering and yet always fine. In contrast to that the art of the nineteenth century is coarse, turbulent, clumsy.
