New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-05-28
GgoRGB LANSING TAYLOR
~ fffl


| FROM lIaTpcrs weekly.
! Mr. w H. BEARD Dear .StT: In HE FRI
rSr Of MAY ~ yoo address letter 10 justly assun
inc that I vrotr MI article entitled "ArtCriticsm
Uf,po's Urklr II May !. That article was sugges'e
by the rejonders to Tn TRIBUNE criticisms np.n pc
lures which far as | had heard or read them con
sisted Of personal yitnpcraon and even menace OF IN
critic ] therefore wrote the article 10 when yo'
allude in which assert the right Of every man 70 *
nress his opinion OF pictures however nnsound hi
uhilusophy or dsfasteful his style, or erroneous M
copci ions gross bis ignorance may appear l" any
one else, prov ded alsal that he does hot pei solh
asperse thr artist The criticisms in question. sweep
inc severe ignorant and arrogant as tue! nave beer
called did not seem Ia me 10 be properly des'riheh a.
persuna attacks upon the artists criticised ana Ia my
zeal wrote thnf the most exasperaed artist dared MOI
call them SO. N0n reply that yon not only dare bu
do SAY tina, they are little else than personal attacks
and that in your own case especially the criticism J,
not 90 much attack upon your art as upon your mora
character. . -. ,
have read the articles again a. you suggest but
still cannot agree with you that they are personal AZ
tacks. The remarks upon your Dance 81 steH1s ar'
certainly a wholesale condemnation OF that pictnle II
il Described az "lOw with other epltses mat neeO
NOT repeat aud ~ tending TO the corruption OF yonth
Bn thu, you arc low that you painted tue plctur,
for the pirtose Of coiruptBg youth the critic docs mol
saw man may say that state what is ROT ruci oui
that is very different from calling me mar Inc question
then still remains whether spectator ooks al PIC
ture and thinking II false III art ana dangerous ~
morals may no, rnhcly say sof
II prinf d book. and the reader without any &c
ouantanee with me or prejudice against me- thihss
sophistcal false, immoral may he not say so' may
he the public asains. what ne coce,ses 20
The debasing Influence Of my book and hope that TINS
man will write no more like II May he mol declare
that nv book il q, bad as Mrs. Aphra Behn's, ana
worthy 10 have been read in the steHs oi ,orh ina'
i his ouinion, lie may indeed. express himself IN
yer, o,.n.iye ysy; bur cannot fairly denounce ms
clsm however fnlse may think IL IN substance ana
arrogant In expression as persona at.ach. M e
fore you ale wrong IN thinking tha' nave aPp'V''a
assault upon moral character 4,
III you v MI allow me- viii add few words upon tht
general subject which has occssioned TINS correspond
ence. A.. ,,...o. I'd
This ns,,- articles merning THE TRIBUNE criticism
on when YOU say this you were not aware thh
in Hgrot. Vessy OF the previous week mao Apressee
my dissent from the pinciple M ir as,i uiaers.u ~
their ,pecial ,erdots In that article say OF th'
ncture of youir. which was 30 severely cehsuTd py
IUF TRIBUNE critic, The ',oat keVei Oh bea'u ~
toad nf .ee,ning 10 us indecent 10 mention Is mo-
u;,bout startling strain Of Rabclaisque satire ant
warning do not. therefore, indorse' the aftlcies
merely indorse" the critics right 70 express MI
opinion Of any artist rs an aItst JUST 10 !ouds
a., nrcss your opinion OF any critic as critic. IheI
Won deny that every man has night 10 express III
opinion publicly OF subjects upon when he " to,
ignorant But do you really thihA thhl r,oeihy NAT
, ,ha same right 10 say that the moved round h'
ar,h that onerncus bad TO say that the earth mover
round the SUM- How Is the question OF ignorance 20 o.
sefleJ THE TRIBUNE critic snys, Virtuniy that Mr.
Durand IN ignorant Of nature pom your princpe. N
ought 10 insist that Mr. Durand has no right TO paint
He also says that i like the pictures Of certain artists
know nothing Of nature. Upon your principle, u
ought TO insist that should not publicly express m,
opinion of those picinres, because they are subect
nron which am totally ignorant. Certainty you can
Mr. mean that Ifhc should take that ground, should
reply that my admiration Of Kensetts pictures, and
MrTniees and Of Eiliotts, Of Hiokss Of Hennessyi
Of Nasts and Of your own, might be very ignorant ba
n was wholly sincere. and that should not hesitate +
proclaim it merely because critic whether he were al
artist OF not thought ine incapable Of judging.
Indeed, must not every work OF art IN literature
pajntng music architecture whatever IL may be- taxi
rs chancci They addressed to the human heart
and that will justify them, and wnnow the chat IRON
the wheat Besides the balance Of criticism VI artis
and authors is pretty fairly adjusted II our heads a
broken in The Round Table for instance, they may N
swathcd with the sweet spices in The Independent !
an "ignoramus criticises US in The tribune g.nia
sympathy and Intelligence may sparkle in The Eren,f
Posi- When you say that no person has sns 70 -
publicly Of subjects of which he Is Ignorant you seem -
me to forget that then nobodys right to talk oou'a
be satisfactorily settled. ,.,,a.
cordially agree with you that criticisms Of p,csure'
would always be better II they were written ny vnR
tent persons And you remember that vas Ia a. ~
certsin nictnre also that il would have en- better
the Ntiit bad taken mOrs pains, IHsle0mss0s s'c''