The sun., 1878-12-22
An Artist in Court.

1 ltSblOndi ulbbiuNblOH WI bNbOhhb VI bbbh mo
paintings and his etchngs, lately sued Mr..
| RUsKIN, tho celebrated writer ON art for
| speaking dsrespectfully OF him personally
and OF certain Of his pictures.
Mr.. WHISTLER exhibited at the Grosvenor
| gallery, in the summer OF 1871 several
peculiar paintings, one Of which was sold
for two hundred guincas Writing OF them,
Mr.. RUsKIN said they were works in
| which the ill-educated conccit OF tho artist
| so nearly approaches tho aspect OF wilful
| imposture" that it was wonder Sir
| Courts LINDSAY admitted them TO his
gallery He added that he had seen and
heard much OF cockncy impudenco before
now, but never expected to hear q coxcomb
ask two hundred guineas for ilnging pot
OF paint in the public's face"
These certainly were hard words, and IL is
not surprising that they offended Mr..
WHISTLER. No painter likes to have his
works so spoken Of, the presumption being
that If he offers them for public exhibition,
at least he himself thinks they are credit
able to him and worth looking at. Mr..
| WHISTLER therefore demanded 5000 OF Mr..
| RUsKIN for libcling him, and after a very
amusing trial got one farthing damages,
| which has no advantage over nothing at all
| except that IL leaves the defendant to pay
| his own costs instead of saddling them all
upon the plaintiff.
There Is a good deal Of fun made in Eng
land over Jury OF checsemongers and
pastry cooks" sitting in judgment on the
work Of SO eccentric and subtle an artist as
Mr. WHISTLER, who sometimes paints in
manner comprehensive, II it is comprchen-
sible at all, only by those most cultivated
in art but they seem to have reached a
very sensible verdict They said there was
libel, but that the damage done by it to
Mr. WHISTLER was of no account. Mr..
RUsKIN's language was incorporate, as 1t
often is when his dislkes are strong; for
Mr. WHISTLER is not by any means a cox
comb or an impudent cockney, or n man
who would be guilty OF wilful imposture.
On the contrary, he Is an artist whose etch-
ings have gained renown, and painter who
has consistent theories OF the meaning Of
colors, obnoxious though they may be to
Mr.. RUsKIN. and who has painted pictures
Of remarkable merit. He Is also a very in
tercsting and original man, quite as free In
his expressions Of opinion, by the way as
Mr.. RUsKIS. though he may not publish
them. He would have been wise to leave
unnoticcd the ill-naturcd and unseemly
words OF his critic, but that is not his way.
He was wrongcd he felt, and he was deter
mined to be righted. He has at least got
the satisfaction OF having put Mr. RUsKIN
to an expense Of several hundred pounds.
which, however, the Fine Art Society of
London have started subscription to pay.
Probably he himself has a pretty bill 10
foot as the price Of his effort to avengc his
character as painter and as man.
We do not justify Mr.. WHISTLER by any
means. He did a very foolish thing, and II
would be a sorry precedent to establish, that
the critic shall be held responsible in dam
ages for his unfavorable opinion Of the
works Of an artist which are offered ostcn.
tatiously for criticism, and which could not
got n standing without such criticism.
There was one point raised in the trial
however, which is well worth discussing
1t is matter OF very little Importance
whether Mr. BURSE JONES, a fellow artist
thought that Mr. WHISTLER "evaded the
difficulties Of painting by not carrying his
pictures far enough or Mr.. FIRTH another
artist, thought the painting was mo more
than could be had on a wall paper or a piece
Of silk" or whether Mr. Tom TAYLOR, the
playwright, deemed all his work unlin
ishcd." Those were their opinions, but Other
people might and do think differently o.
Mr.. WHIsTLER's later work; and there is NJ
fixed standard OF taste in these matters
Some people think TURNER'S slave Ship,
for instance a crazy picture, and yet it re
Gently brought price Of several thousanC
dollars. Other people think MEIssoNIERi
marvellously executed figures about a
I..t an prt tho oh
ing a. in the original; and yet a canvas o
his, about the size OF an ordinary window
pane is eagerly sought for and commando
an enormous price. A picture is worth wha
it will fetch in the market.
The attempt was made at this trial T.
, show that Mr.. WHIsrLERs picture. wa
not worth two hundred guineas and tina
therefore Mr.. RUsRIN was justified in sub
stantially saying that the artist swindle'
the purchaser 1t was shown by Mr., WHIST
LER's own testimony that 1t was begun on
q day and finished the next, though the artis
? added that il was the result of the work o
a a lifetime. But no matter what the time
3 takes him TO paint them, an artist has
right TO set what prices he chooses on hi
pictures, and the public may buy them o
not So long as he doesn't misrepresen
+, them, or otherwise deceive the purchaser
IS he cannot rightly be called an impostol
II even if they should happen TO look as if h
p had flung pot Of paint in the pubics fac,
They are what they are and the purchase
can see them and Judge for himself whethe
- they arc worth what Is charged for then
~ or please him enough to induce him TO pa
: the money, whether they are intrinsicall
worth it or not. Mr. RUsKIN didn't thin
Mr. WHIsTLER's picture worth two hundre
guineas, and doubtless he had right to sa
y so but the man who bought it evidently di
!, think So or he wouldn't have paid the pric
=, However, Mr. WHISTLER, already we
> known before the trial, is now much bette
" known and Of that we are glad, for when i
- paints with care his pictures are credit
y art. and as TO his etchings, they we'll dcserN
the great reputation they have obtained.
a Republican Blundering.
II The Republicans Of the Senate and OF Il
l.. Hnuao rosDpctiVOlV committed two SpTiOt