National Republican., 1883-11-03
FINE PICTURES IN PARIS.
American Exhibitors at the Palace Of Fine
Arts in the Champs Elysecs
what the Painters Think OF Our Recent
Tariff Leglslation.
Specidl Letter.

Special Letter.
PARIS, Oct. 23.--The present exposition Of
pictures and statuary at the Palace of Fine
Arts in the Champs Elysees, is a triennial
exhibition Of the best works Of distinguished
living artists, mainly chosen from those adj
mitted to the salons Of the previous three
years The organization is controlled by the
most distinguished artists Of France, such as
MeiSonnier and Cabanel, Bonnat and Bou-
geneau, so that no social nor political inhu-
enoe can avail to procure the admission OF an
inferior or unworthy production. From the
immense number of paintings. many OF them
by no means of the first class, admitted to
the annual exhibitions, it had become
the impression that in republic every
artist was privileged to exhibit his work
regardless of its artistic merits. Now, at
least, tho artists have nothing of which to
complain. Among the famous artists rep
resented Bougeneau has one picture, Bon
mat six, Meisounier seven, and Cabanel
\ ten. These are mostly paintings OF large
size. Meisonnier, 80 famous for his ex-
auiste pictures of diminutive size,
seems determined to demonstrate to the world
that his forte is paintings on large SCALE
While undoubtedly superior productions, they
lack something of the delicate spirit OF his
infintessimal works.
But wish more particularly to notice the
American exhibitors, of whom there are six,
Messrs. Bridgeman, Dannat knight, Boggs,
Masler, and Miss Louisa Boni. One thing
is noticeable in all their pictures. They are
among the best efforts of the respective
artists. In too many cases our artists have
presented pictures painted hurriedly and
without care, not properly or creditably
representing themselves or their country.
This should be reformed altogether. An
artist should do his "level best for public
exhibition. He has no right to make his
fellow citizens ashamed of him or his
country. Although these beautiful pictures
yes, beautiful aldo not in any sense
represent American art, being decidedly
after the modern French style. from which
they cannot be distinguished, they are pos
sessed of decided individuality, and do not
represent the style of their respective in
structors. The head of the boy which Mr..
Bridgeman exhibits reflects in no degree the
manner of Gerome neither does Dannats
dashing Spanish smuggler recall Munhazy.
although he is fresh from the studio
of that realistic genius. Frank Boggs
exhibits very realistic as well as artistic
view of the Place de la Bastile in rainy
weather, which, with j. Ridgway Knights
"Un Denil," attracts much admiring atten-
tion. Miss Louisa Boni has two cases. con-
tanning nine miniature portraits. They are
very finely finished, delicate and beautiful,
and extremely faithful to nature. An ad-
miring crowd closely surround them con-
stantly, eagerly intent upon infinitely ex-
hood, whether in art song are becoming
appreciated abroad, as well as at home. While
our artists have not as yet established a dis
tinctive American school of art, yet we are
permitted to take a just prdein their achieve
ments thus far and to believe in their event.
ful success and triumph.
Since the late tariff legislation fixing an
I'd valorem duty upon pictures by foreign
,rtists imported into the United States, there
has been good deal of discussion in certain
circles in Paris as to its propriety. 1t is gen.
orally condemned by the picture dealears
and by the famous and high priced artists
abroad This feeling is sympathized in by q
few foreign artists, who occasionally send a
picture to our shores for sae and also, in a
i sentimental sort of way, by American artists
\ and students who avail themselves of the
facilities for study in Europe. They feel
grateful for the privileges generously afforded
them (not always without an equally liberal
consideration in return), and naturally wish
5 their foreign brethern treated literally. Blu,
the opinion that the law is opposed tC
the interests of art in America Is entirely
mistaken impression. Any painting OF
statue imported into the United States fol
any public institution, gallery, or school Of
art is now, as heretofore, admitted free. This
Is in the interest of art among tho people
But the rich man ostentatiously pays an enor
nous price for foreign picture, ignoring the
deserving American artist. lilo uniformly
gallery, to be seen only by few privileged
friends, or exhibited on rare occasions Mt d
fashionable "party." 1t WAS as much as
strangers life was worth to gain admission
to the galleries of the late A. T. Stewart, and
a person who is privileged to view the mag.
nifcent decorations in the Vanderbilt and
other costly New York, Boston, or Philadel
phia mansions is fortunate indeed. Why
should these men be privileged against taxa
tion merely to the minister to the ostentatior
of their families and crafty a few friends
When our rich men hold their artistic
treasures for the benefit of art amonl
the people it will be time enough Il
advocate a change in our policy in this re
spect. If they would open their gallerie;
freely to the public, as is done by many
Italian mobiles and other foreign families, tn
case would be different. But if the nonuea
richo wish to indulge in luxuries for thei
private qualification let them pay for TIL
privilege l know of but one individual il
the United States, besides Mr.. Corcoran, o
Washington, who constantly opens his gal
leries of paintings and statuary free to tn
public, and he resides in an obscure villag
in Michigan.
1t is reported that Congressman Kelley, o.
his recent visit to Paris, promised somebod
to use his influence to procure the repeal @
the ad valorem clause in the tariff act, and t
substitute therefor specific duty of $50 o.
each picture imported, with the idea of OK
Cluulng poor copies ana INFERIOR pictures
There can be no objection to prohbitor
duty on daubs, but an enormous special ia
on moderate works of merit would not sub
serve the interests of art. Tho great mas
of apprecative lovers of art arc not endowe
with superabundant wealth, and if they dc
sire to indulge their modest taste by purchas
of picture within their means, why shou
they be taxed beyond their more fortunat
brethrenP Neither are the rich the onl
persons who purchase choice pictures,
many poor man from his savings buys
good picture. If this were not so artists an
picture dealers would have a hard time, in
deed. If some method could be devised dii
eliminating in favor of really valuable work
of art, and even excluding the utterl
vicious aud unworthy it would be WE'LL Bu
where is our art standard? What authorit
could be depended upon to decide the quo!
tion between good and bad in art?
FERNANynn JONpa