New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-05-07
Art Criticisu.

Last week We welcomed the art criticisms OF
IBs TRIBUNE foT their sincerity and ability however
We might differ with the Judgments the! expressed
This week We wish 10 speak Of the utterly unfair way
IN which those criticisms have been attacked. They
are the paines opinions OF pictures founded upon pm
Cipes plainly stated and they are denounced ss per
sOna Injuries The critic is nsulied II not threat
yned in private speech and IN published oonmnnica'
tons for faithful performance OF his duty But the
insult is addressed to every man VINO diseasses AT
journalist ought TO take up the gage thus trucuenty
The ony open question in the whole matter is whether
there has been any personal attack made by the critic
question which the most exasperdted artist vii not dare
" answer III the affirmative. Their names are used
"a Titan ia Raphael "a Teniers." When FOR in
stance the critic saws that the promise of Mr. kenset
Il fading away in such pictures as tho October AMER
noon upon Lake George and the Massachusetts Coast
you NAV not agree with him: but it Il perfectly clear
at he more insulting Mr. Kenset than If he should
Say that he thought Mr. FsITer had truer eye FOR ma
tufe than Mr. Kcnsett And even II there had been per
ponay in the criticisms certainly the account has been
balanced by the petulaDt. and cOntemptuous snd We
must add, contemplate personality Of the Teoinder'
But what night has the critic TO write a. be Goes
empy the right that every man has 10 express his
soinions If lie have insufficient knowledgef he lie
merely presumptuous shallow. and conceted he writes
himself down an much more emphatioaly than any
else write him by calling him 20. IL You ask
What right he has 10 have opinion, you ask qnes
tic0 not worth an answer On, again. If yCu demand
what he knows Of pictures the reply IT, that the articles
themselves answer. II they show that he knows moth
.ng. why all the exasperationi Mr.. Leutze. for in
stance paints picture Of Washington Crossing the
Delaware" He has thought upon his subject he has
studied and pr3cticed his art His picture may DO
yumed 70 be the result Of long reflection and prepare
He paints II and not otherwise because he Is
convinced that IL ought to be- Now Is IL cOnceiva
bic that II the artist be correct In bis conception and
method so elaborate work is TO lose IN reputation be-
cause somebody who knows nothing looks at il and
says: 1T is ell false :" IL the artist be profoundly
convinced he should DO before painting that or any
picture that il oil true he bis friends likely
T. tad afo.n,
pronounces it unnatural in conception and extTayagant
h execution
Or is nobody TO express opinion of pictures except
tainteTs themseyee The same rule must then be ap-
Shed 20 all other Only poets must oriticse poetry
en,y musicians music. Motley only may be allowed 70
erteise Bancroft. Bryant must be the sole critic Of
Longfelow. But II any has often listened 10 music
In the company Of musicians or II he recalls what he
may have heard painters say OF each others pictures
be can readily fancy whether criticism would be gentler
IL were confined in every art TO experts III that
Are pictures painted for painters or for the public DO
poets sing for poets or for the world why are the
works Of the year annually exhibited In the National
Academy If Il be not that their merits may be judged
BY the public taste Has man no right as ne LOOKS
81 the present Exhibition, TO prefer Lnee 10 inod
Clifford to Cole or Cole 70 Hubbard. or Hubbard to
Coleman, or Coleman 10 anybody esef We cannot too
strongly condemn the spirit which has been displayed
IN the rejoinders 10 The TRIBUNE criticisms as II II
were mortal ofense critic to say that Church is
xot great painter and that Farrer is that Laarge Is
untrue 70 nature and Hennessy Ii true.
Bot il II not unkind you ask 10 speak OF any men a.
Huntington and Durand are spoken OF IN tnoSt
They are denied every kind Of excellence. Very well
grant that unpleasant but what Is the way 70 meet
euch critcisi Ii IL 10 declare that gentlemen OF such
rnbenished lives and amiabe characters must neces
sary paint fine pictures show that they do paint
fhemf We very Of the answer both OF the gen;
tenen named would give TO the.question. Ibeywonld
gay TINT neither they nor any painters had
c& 10 praise and that artists they must be judged
by their works They stand exactly as Bryant stands
An kindred artas indeed every artist always stands
the mercy Of any man who can show that their 70
putatSon is unfounded.
Yet once more, we shall be asked II II s not ungener
In any man 10 spoil another mans market for biz
wsresf Here, we told are some young artists
who club together and hope to realize pretty sum by
1he sale Of their studies and pictures and the very
eve of the sale an article appears with knowing air
IN leading paper declaring that the pictures
vcgtby the gentlemen who otter thsp toy sale. Tie