New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-06-09
ACADEMY CRITICISM.

TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: | hardly know whether 1t Is worth |
while to take any notice OF the letterof MI Nham H.
ODonovan. which appeared in THE TRIBUNE of june 2
il is mere wordeaohng and bairsplitting and has no
more serious purpose than to bring aud the cause
have ospoused into ridcue; and to anybody who knows
the facts aud what is going on behind the scenes
carries its own reutation with it, But there Will he
some people deceived by its pretended earnest tome par
tcuarly in the opening clause where 1t breathes IKE
sanetled and pous bonds, the better to begule And
then again. comparatively few people do know the facts
or what going behind the scenes. ana on such your
correspondents dSngenuOus twisting OF my ctter may
make an unfavorabe impressions; so, on the whole
will ask little space in which TO answer Mr. ODonovan
In my third lettcr the Academy, published in THE
TnlBUNE OF June s. have done all could to atone for
the wrong did the Academy in accusing them'o having
made Mr.. Dolph Acadcmician, when they had only
made him an Associate. DO not that the Academy
gains much by having the fact insisted on. should
think the gentlemen in the institution would wish as lit
e said about the matter possible For certainly the
gentlemen in the Academy have been much compromised
IN this matter blythe others.
Mr. ODonovan makes himself very merry over my
saving that there 81 OF the seeding party OF two
wears ago In fact did not say any thing 0f the kind
II was the fault printers and the prOofreaders
that seemed to make that statement absurd on the
face of 1T. What wrote that they went of IN
body" not 81 in body" If had written " 81 1t
would not have been printed in Arabic numerals but
the number would have been spelled out III all ielers-
"ninetvone."
We'll there were not nnetyone seceders, there were
only dozen. And they mostly women. though Mr.
John la Fargo and Mr.. T. IAthrop, and Mr. ~ F. Ryder
were among them. And did not say that they were
refused because Academician SAID that he didn't
intend 70 have the bread taken out OF his mouth by
women" What said was that " one OF the Acaden-
ician gave honestly. his stupid reason for his action
his reason for his action, not the reason for the
action the whole body OF Academcians NOW every
thing that l strictly true. The pictures OF
number of young artists mostly women were rejected
and one OF the Academicau did give as the reason for
his action Just what have said he gave. And These
artists with some others, went of in body and opened
an exhibition OF their in rooms generously loaned
them. And their exhibition successful, ana ther
cause was so warmly espouscd that the next year they
were assured that if they would send their pictures 10
the Academy. they would be fairly treated ana Inc
Academy kept word Pictures by these same hands,
not as good the rejected Of the year before were
hung on the line and in conspicuous Places hnd
nothing to Withdraw modify in my original statement
sand nothing about 4lg. Lambdin, MI Wilmarh. or
Mr.. sonutag. mentioned no names said that over
lures were and accepted, and reairm the state
mcnt.
Mr. O'Donovan thinks it ridiculous that I should say
Mr. Duveneck's Charles Dudley Warner is evidently
strong picture. when is hung high up III "a corner
where we cannot IT," Why, strength makes itself FELT
long way OF and though MI. DuvcnecKS portrait was
hung where it could enjoyed seem in the or-
u =
wished il were hung lower because every one saw
that il was strong picture. But, them suppose any
body can see that Nj ODonOvan is quibbling. He pre-
tends wonder too az putting together the names OF
Mcssrs Hicks Huntington. Page l. Clear, and Laurie
do not say that all artists bad alike. would
not certainly put MIR Page and Mr.. Huntington, when
they are al their best with such artists Hicks AMI lie
Clear, but in the present exhibition, no one oil these
artists is than another and said that to bring
their pictures osteutatousy forward while the works
atira ia
mt them IN The pory TO make them ridiculous. aud 10
advertise their faults had no other reason for saying
this than that meant d..
Mr. Maynards Portrait of Secretary Eyarts re
ected by one OF Hanging Committee because he did
not think it a good likeness. this was piete OF
impcrlincnce on this persons part We do not 20 to
the Academy to look portraits portraits We 20 to
look al pictures as pictures. What does any care
whether Ttan's Portrait of Young Man IN the Pitt
IS a good portrait. RaphacIs Julius H.
or his LEO "" or his Portrait OF Lady
I'm the Trbuuel / do not believe portrait
was over before rejected from any exhibition
in the world OF the hangers took the liberty
OF considering good portrait Even at the Por
trait Exhibitions that had such splendid success in
London few years ago, there to be seen many
portraits OF Che iudydual-Oi Queen Elizabeth for
instancebetwcen which there were great discrepancies
SO that some Of them been bad lkenssc, evil
IDENTITY bad not from any personal knowledge We had Of
that geptlewOman but because know from the work
she Gil ANA the part she played IN the world
that II wasn't possible they could nave been good por
traits. Hoi1cu and Ddrer each made portrait OF
Erasmus, and Erasmus preferred The one by Holbein
He said Differs was mot bit like" For all mat
never heard OF any admrer Durers work who rejected
the beautiful etching from his portfolio because Eras-
mus did not think the likeness good one 1 do not
think iii l. Clears portraits of Mr. Parke Goodwin and
OF Mr. f. W. stougton should have been rejected be
cause they are bad licensees they what used TO be
called stariug kenesses hat that not meant for
praisel I'm ud have had them rejected as bod paint
ing did say that had no personal knowledge OF
these gentlemen TO enable to decide they are not
good portrasat least did not mean so to be under
stood. | meant to say that such knowledge was moi
nscessary II happens that do know Mr.. Parke Goodwin
and M L. " Stoughton very well by sight AMI tins
knowledge makes Mr. lie Clears portraits socm TO me
very poor Onos. Mr. Goodwin especially has
face and head that would have bcen the delight Of
InaTes for instance who il ne had Mr. Goodwin for Il
sitter would have made third portrait 20 match his
IN Berth" and his Portrait of Himself" which he
sent as his contribution the Portrait Gallery OF the
Ufizii Mr. stoughtOn's head and face NOT so mas
sve as Mr. Godwu's, but they just individual and
striking Now NIr. lie Clear has made these TWO gentle
men-I sag without the slightest dsrcspcct 10 them-
IooT like two OF Charles Lambs "wOOlly bcdioiOws"
Mr. lie Clear himself, did see, To my knowledge,
AND his work ia always disagTceabc to me- but have
certainly prejudice against him, such a. would MAKE
me believe bust OF him in the Academy can be good
portrat OF him. 1t looks like the head Of deafand
dumb blind man, whose naturally small intellectual
baggage has been reduced in size by long isolation
from te world Of men. But il Mr. ODOnoyan insists on
its likeness his subject, shall still think IT ought To
have been rejected as poor art.
MI O'Donoyan thinks very inconsistent for saying
that the Academy has become mercenary and yet pras
ing the new mon while admitting that they are just as
mercenary as tho This seems to me very unrea-