New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-02-23
TIE REJECTED WATER COLORs.

The American Art Gallery was crowded last
evening on Of the opening or an exDluon
Of water color drawings which had been "refused BY
the Water Color Society Whether this is TO prove the
nucleus Of new society. which like the young OF Ger
tain species OF acaephs deaches itself, with all its
gans perfect the body OF s parent and swins off
alone % pick up its living and enjoy Itself,
or whether IL Is merely a protest and
vndcaton and 20 end here where IT has begun, time
viii show. All that the impartial spectator can say Is.
that the young dashes out with sufficient ve
ness and it shall prove goodooking by daylight
!; does by gasght viii make for itself many friends
aud win golden opinions from al sort Of people.
Last night difficult to the drawings as well
could be desired because Of the crowd and difficult
toudge them fairly because OF the gas II one went
by the first impression received on
entering gallery in danger OF being carried
away by the generally prosperous appearance OF the
walls For five minutes every thing seemed good
wondered that the society could have rejected OF
these drawings Then, the crowd sifted
away and the drawings were better seen, 1t be-
came evident that after all, here, IN all collections
few pay the debt, aud at last it plain
Judgment could be arrived until the daylight stood
umpire. For gas, while 1t hurts a few pictures
helps by far the most aud while we are
IN the fortunes OF these exhibitors and
anxious that they should have fu usic done them we
ere also unwilling that injustice should done
10 the Water Color society by making
any picture they may have rejected better
than il reayis For while think IL extremely likely
The society may have fallen and then between the
two stools Board OF Control and its Hanging Com
mttee do not believe any injustice meant III any
case nor viii anything short Of demonstration con-
vince ~ that this company OF rejected artists
have anythin 70 urge against their fellow towns
mistakes In Judgment such every society Is
liable TOO
We b lieye it viii be found on n closer examnstio
that there particular reason why tirceOurths
Of the drawings In this exhibition should have
been Ucceped 10 Il not "a Lutte amusing 70 discover
that tn rejected" have Themselves banshed u The
Coventry 4 another considerable number or
drawings, Tins confirming by their own action part Of
Tie sOclety's dec, sion Yet there good things
Of "a banished dra wings, and who knows but
II few d8ys young acaleph may hnd iisen the
parent VI another rejected" company starting Oh 10
tul1l its destiny with another catalogue and new
Ecket takers
II Is dit1cult TO und rstand Of these reec01s
ND as difficult 10 understand why in some cases draw
l1gs accepted refused IL order 10 make room Tor
Others Of the artists that here among the
secled Why reject Mr.. Hamilton Gibsons large land
hcape the east wall IL il certainly an nl-
pOrtant work, and nothing belonging to the
same school u better IN the sOcicy g4sics, do
Indeed think that the conventional school Is so well
represented there II would have been by the drawing
OF Nj. Gibson. Then, again, Mr. Charles Moore might
willingly have exchanged his two landscapes IN the
Society for the " Study OF a Gateway" that Ia
LeTe among the rejected. But, wac this drawing
really rejected, did IL late De sent in Mr.
Henry smiths" Tug Boat" Is more interesting TO
eyes than any OF his drawings accepted by society
but TVS only Que, and his accepted drawings must
1unhsr nv. or ak. Mr. Blum seems to wholly