Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-03-16

IL IL so easy to criticise art. Particularly
''Art at NsShins to3 !" and taking IL for granted
always, that loose fault finding and general
denunciatlOD can be put OF as criticism. Here.
fcr instance, Is what the editor OF the Tribaa.-
the New York Tribune, we mean, not the Tribune
lately born and deceased in this city-feels
called upon 10 say on the subject:
There Is nothing more disgrscefuI abo,t
Washington than the carIcatures in tha shana
OF pictures and statues, which aifiict the eve OF
the native and send CONSERVATION 10 the foreign
visitor"
Now, whatever other people may think, il is
clear that a man who writes In this lorily way
intends the public to understand that he kno VS.
all about the matter In hand. He will there.
fore have a fine opportunity to spread himself
and at the same time do asubstsntial service to
ne pubic, in need OF light, ifhe will unburden
his mind on the subject. We beg him to speak
outfreely. Let him state without hesitation or
higgling whether or not all of the pictures and
statues about Washington are "caricatures";
aud II not, let him kindly point out which OF
them fall within that category. and which out
side Of it, with the why's and wherefores in full
SloshiDg around as he does, like a bswildered
bull in camel brake, dOe.n do any good. liz
worries the bull ana damages the cane, i'm the
one case; in the other IL only frets the critic,
without helping art or enlightening the public
less than to its readers to be specific in its state
ments. Let it impale and condemn the false,
and point out and approve the true, if any there
lie, and thus do something towards increasing
the knowledge of those who undertake to buy
works OF art, and at the same time aid in edu-
eating the taste OF those who have to look at
them after they are bought and placed in posi-
ton
Among the many pictures and statues to be
seen in the public buildings and grounds of
Washington, the majority are credItable efforts
OF artists who were regarded, by common con-
cent OF persons OF taste and culture, as masters
In thew day, and many of them have more IAN
once received the warm commenda atoms of
competent and severe critics, foreign as we'll As
domestic The list of artists who have con-
uibuted in some way 10 the adornment of its
capital Is tolersbiy long and reasonably Illus
trious one, Considering the short aud busy life
OF the nation. 1t doubtless does contain names
OF no great renOwn; but it il yet too much to
say that statues by such sculptOFs as Rogers
GTeenOugh, Powers, David OF Angers, Craw-
ford, Brown, and Stone, and pictures by such
PAINTERS as VsndeIlyn, AIRY Scheffer, GILBERT
Stuart, Sully, Weir and Leutze are nothing bat
"eaneatures,' however smart it NAV seem TO
the self constituted newspaper critic 10 saw il.
1t Is the opinion OF competent judges, often ex-
ptsssSui mat there Il nothing in the way of art
10 be seen In any public place IN New York,
ssVe and except only Wards Shakespeare, in
the Central Park in any other city IN the
country, for that mstter,-that Is At All conn
parable with the works OF some of the men we
have named, which may be seen in Washing
ton.
But We did not intend to institute COMPARE
sons, which are no where more odiOus than
when applied to works Of art. Our purpose was
simply to invite the Tribune TO point out which
OF the pictures and statues in Washington are
caricatures, and which not, with the reasons in
each case We trust it will also see its way
clear to give to the world the names of artists
who stood or stand higher in their day and gen
Grafton than those we have mentioned By ALL
means, let the country have the benefit of a
catalogue of this character, with such marginal
notes ard references as will prevent the pur-
chase OF ''caricatures" in future