Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1882-08-11

OF compound ratio, as the Democratic influ-
Every year brings new acccssions OF origin
ality to our national art, as the resources Of
our country and our own genius as people
are more fully revealed to us. American ar
they were, better able to understand aud in
terpret home themes. There is less scrvilc
copying in our art to-day than in the art of
any other nation. In some departments of
art American skill leads the world In wood
engraving, in etching, ip landscape painting,
our artists are unexccled. We have not
only stepped to the front in certain excclcn.
ccs, bu, have opened new fields to the ar
fresh and suggestive and promising in our
art than is to he found in that of any other
people.
With all this progress, and this hopeful
outlook, is it not strange that American critics
1--WE can not dignity them by the adjective
bearisl they are rather snarlsh) should sud-
denly take on apessimistio tone, in chorus, and
declare that American art is going TO the dogs?
The only way it can, indeed, is when it
goes to them The critics will get
themselves heard, though. Here is n
little book by S. r. Koehler, entitled "Art
Education and Art Patronage in the United
States" that makes such sharp "Kyi.ing"
ut the heels of the artists, that 1t can not fail
to draw the attention OF the whole COM
munty. Mr. Kochler says that we have
too many artists in this country. cart"
he declares, sis On occupation where not one
in thousand can make living, unless he
resort to talking, toadying, or speculation.
We are producing altogether too many artists.
What we need at the present moment is the.
Encouragement rather than the encourage
ment of art study This reminds us of the
doctrine of Malthus, who thought that there
were altogether too many people in the
world anyway, and that something ought to
be done to reduce the birth rate. or the two,
Malthus' doctrine is the more sensible. What
possible foundation there can be for the
statement that we have too many artists in
America, is hard to see. There is probably
no class OF skilled workers in greater demand,
or who claim better wages. Artists aie by
no means a destitute class. Their skill is at
premium.
But" urges Mr.. Koehler, "modern ar
lists are manufacturers OF pictures" or
course they are. They could not produce
IN IND pth lhf.t. 1.ax,
obtained n valuable mechanical facility of
production, are they to be considered lacking
in the elements OF carefulness and taste !?
BY no MEANS They only have their faculties
under better and quicker control
A more serious objection is brought against
the prevalent fashion of producing mere
bric-a-brac instead Of works Of thought and
originality. Bat this does not apply to the
work Of our leading artists. There is Il pre-
valent demand for bric-a- brac, and, in our
opinion, it is not outside of the province of
young artists and amateurs to minister to this
demand. 1t can not be permanent, and it
leads them up to something better.
On the whole, we do not see any cause
for disquctude among lovers OF art, from the
fact that certain class of critics are just
now baying q very pale and fimsy moon of
their own construction. All great arts have
times of particular offensiveness to critics,
and those very times are apt to be the ones of
greatest progress and value. A small dog, in
spired by the moon, will always bark at alarge
man he will also bark at a man who holds
up his head. These two facts in natural his
tory may, perhaps, help us 10 understand the
present disposition of the critics toward the
artists.