, 1874-07-26

,,;t7al 1~' "sa, III 1ne slllal!er model, hh has
functions OF tho artist conflict with those OF lie
assistant? Tho artist creatos, the as
Hs'ant executes ell that is purely mo-
sential, even at this mechanical stage Of lilo
w,jrk is the eyer-wa:cafnl eve Of the artist, and
hoS frequently Ao destroys tie result OF his as
slstauts tslor, replacing it by the WORK Of his
own hands. ovea this amount OF MD would bo
ro!'':od Of much Of its APPARENT importance. If
sculpture ls to be considered nlrfe;tly me-
cna:lical art, restrained within tho l,crc OF tho
! luo and compass, and if the valuo OF a statue is
to bo estimated by tho nu2ll,er Of cubic feet
which it contains, then, i1ulccd. the artist who
a1lxcs Aia name to the mass Of clay which he has
| not himself manipulated must bo regarded as m
| inpostor; but it tho must noble attribute of
| art is precisely TINT which deties mathematical
limits, which is dependent upon fine sense of
| grace, which is Tho offspring OF thought, Of re-
| search: and of culture. then he who roncei.es,
creates, and controls tic woTs. leaving q. the
| !ast ms own impress uroI Il. 1nGsr be regarded
| as lta truo autlpr,
| AID NO oTuE1.*
am aware that leave one question undo
ta1lned; it is to what stage s it legitimate for
! the assistant to conduct the work. It is nice
point. anu our ca!unltiators have not failed to
dwell upon it; but. fortunately for tho accused
Artists, q tost eau bo furnished, which all can
| apply for themselves, to ahce1 tain whether in
! any glvon Instance. these legitimate limits have
] been o1cae!ed. Lot nc inquire Of thoso WHO
have visited Italy, or who have been frequent
visitors to nculptoss' studios in any tar< OF tho
! world, IT they have ever found the pro,luo-
| tions OF two artists to be precisely eimar.
| Is there not, in style, ds in subject,
| or IN treatment, N indehnztte some
character of the individual wllo has created it?
| think few will deny thnt t1s is so. And here
| mu.t direct attention to an error into winch
Mr. Iealey has fallen,--an orIur l.o would have
! studiuusly avoided had he been, in the slightest
degree, familiar with Mr. Storys works. Against
no artist could Mr.. Hoaley have brought 3
charge Of imposture which could bo 80 easily
reiuted- Ho has pointed to ons whose style is
so lnuiTidnal and original that lie may DO said to
have created new school OF art. a style neither
| strictly Greek nor strictly modern. but uniting
| tie noblest features Of both, III manner l1u-
| known to any other artist Of tho present dny.
Who that has seen his Lbyau Sib,;l, one Of tile
| finest statues OF modern times or MS Salome,
or, better than all his last WORT, the A1ces,is,
| can regard Tho monstrous chRiyo Which Mr.
| l1ealey has preferred against him except With
THE CONTEMPT WHICH IT. DESERVES?
| OF all Mr.. Storys works, tbo Aloost,s is, per-
| haps. the most. original, and shall, therefore.
select it i'll illustration of tho test. In this truly
exquisite conception, we zee the w1fo Of the
doomed Adnetas Eeisauing into tie light Of day
size has witnessed; awake get .seeing not; hu-
| man, but With hauan senses sealed; weird,
| ghosty; tEead,ng, with uncertain step, tho mar
row limits which separate tue living from tho
| her. Is this the result Of the labors Of q man
| who. to uso Mr.. Healeys own words. is paid
his dollar and a half day j" or is it the work Of
the poet and tho scholar, OF the man OF culture
! a distinctive character Of it's own; or
| is it what any man could have produced -
| what We could meet with in any studio?
| This is the ties. which We apply these the
blinded BY prejudice aud unbiased by profess
| sonal Jealousy, we would discover whether the
! artist is m honest man, or whether he has
uttered sculpturod lle
| repeat that Mr. uealeys article is malicious,
| because he causes it to appear that the practice
| OF obtaining assistance ls peculiar to certain
artists. Let US read tho following passage from
/ his letter OF the 18th Of March:
| We have already developed ecnius Of q very high
order-gcniue, moreover, which requires protec-
tiou other than tho condemnation IN the rress and
through public 9}n3tnon, o. men Tho re uscra1- M
1vcs and Rogers in Rome all artists Of the first class,
artists who aro honest in their abora and their rrn-
cpiea sincere in their aeprationa aud earnest and
trustworthy in all that they undertake.
| Why are they " honest in their 1abors and
| rtnciples?" Obviously as Mr. Healey presents
! the question to us,
BECAUSE rnEr ACCEPT NO ASSISTANCE
| from nay one. They rely upon themselves, aud
| upon themselves alone, and they rank those
| fists who Go accept assistance Us impostors- Is
! it not this which Mr.. HealeJ ilnpl,es? Now lot
Us select the most prominent Of these three
pames in Rome. that Of Mr. Rogers, Docs Mr..
| Hcalcy pretend to say that he is unaware OF the
fact ihat Mr. Rogers obtains assistance in his
| work? This is impossible The fact is so
universally known IN Koulo, aad, aince Mr.
Heaioy's visit, has been 50 freely al.
luded to by afr. fogcrs, himself, that it
is absolutely impossible to belicyo that the
circumstance escaped Mr.. Healey's observation.
particularly as Mr. Healy, unloss We are grossly
uisinfcrmcd. was constant visitor in Mr.
Rogerp studio. How is tlis7 How is it that
he has placed Dir. Rogers na1no in the category
Of artists who are honest artists because they
avail themselves Of no foreign aid? How is it
ttat he repeats the paragraph, with an emphasis
| New York World? Was It an oversight? Then
does not such uniustihablo heedlossness Eorious-
ly detract from the confidence with which We
would wish to regard an inquirer into the sub.
| ject which Mr. Healey processes to investigate?
! WAS it intentional? Then does it not suggest d
degree Of partiatity which roba Mr. Hoaley's
gumcnts Of oil weight, his testimony. Of all
value7 I am not prepared to say that AIr.
Rogers receives more assistance in his work than
| is legitimate but I ain prepared to say that he
! recelycs
EoT o:E WHIT LEES
than those artists who arc denounced as i'm
posters.
constitutes mpoEture why Should Gel tain artists
| escape with impunity wl.ilo others nra denounc-
ed bY Mr.. Healcy as - thieves aud forgors"7 I
alluded to this apparent Inconsistency to friend
/ OF LII. Rogers. BcutlcA4AA <-lbo CHAhS1tGA h4t4
| Journalism, who replied, :'Ies. but then it is
known TINT Mr. Rogers il almost always employ
ed upon large works" Now, was this gentleman
| aware, when be admitted into tho columns OF
his journal tho paragraph which implies that Mr.
F1ankun Simmons is an impostor. that his hne
| group Of Gtlet and History-the work which ID
pointed out by his critics as tho one which
proves him to ba an i1npostor-is composed OF
two figures, both Of colossal dimensions, the
] modelling Of which involves great physical
| labor? What is the standard Of proporlon what
tae fixed point at which assistance ceases to BE-
i,nposturo and becomes legitimate necessity
| Is not zir. Simmons group Of proportions s1lih-
ciently colossal to justify IN artist in procuring
assistance, il assistance, is ever justiflabief
Neither can the argument be accepted as sound;
the samo principle applies to all works, whether
large or small, mud there ia no possibility OF ap-
plying exceptional rules, saye through the very
] doubtful medium Of personal pa1tia1itY.
Hitherto have carefully refrained from reply.
ing to any attack made upon mo but rarely, IL
| ever, has any attack assumed such rnonstrous
PROPORTIONS as th1s OF Mr. Healey. Silence is in
decd golden, but tho precious stuff is moro than