New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-01-24
ART CRITICISM.
WITH AN ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH Be
TWEEN CRITICISM AND IDOLATRY AND
SOME FURTHER NOTES On NIX.
WHISTLER AND THE
LUXEMBOURG.

of Opinion. II he were living tO-uaN nc '"iS"'
write another the Influence OF ldoia.IS ia
Matters Of Opinion. In all times the lhhuence
Of one or the other. or Of both. has been consid-
cradle IL is supposed, rightly or wrongly, 10 Nv
less now than of old in respect OF religious oeiei
less in Protestant countries, at any rate. buy
in other matters this influence is still potent:
some times portentOus. la English politics, or
in the politics of one party, II is ail-poWeIu
Whatever Mr.. Gladstone says or does, or omils
70 say or do, is right. The attitude is unworthy
of free people but it is idle 10 deny That large
section of the English public delights IN inns
abject and ignoble relation 10 the man whom IL
has erected into political Pope. 1t is TO be seen
elsewhere than in politics: it is TO be seen, Tor
example, in the world OF art
Perhaps idoatry is no better III art than III
politics; in art-crticsm IL 10 certainly no oetter'
since to the idolater no criticism is possible
The idolatrous attitude and the critical atutnue
cannot co-exist This it is which makes the in
6uence of a great critic sometimes injurious to those
who follow him blindly. In the admiration OF
his critical powers they to have any OF their
own; their own critical faculty. if they had one.
becomes benumbed These general remarks have
particular application. There appears TO be
In America a group OF persons interested in art,
or in some forms of art, whose attitude TO Mr..
Ruskin is idolatrOus There is no great reason
for wonder that il should be. The same thing
might be said OF groups of people in this country.
Mr.. Ruskin is a writer of much original force,
and with that power Of fascination which comes
In part from original force and In part
from an eloquent and sympathetic style;
in part. also, from the continual assertion of an
authority the basis for which is not always firm.
From the beginning of his work Mr. Ruslin
mixed morals with art, and so eflectually that 1T
as often difficult 10 see where the morals end and
the art begins. The effect is confusing TO those
who wish TO consider either morals separately or
art separately The practice is still more confuS-
ing 10 the writer himself Believing himself
sure ground in matters OF morals, he Omits 10 de
fine and limit his convictions, but transfers them
out Of their proper domain, and into the domain
where the whole history of criticism and con
noisseurship is warning against pretensions 10
infalibility. But since with people who do not
care TO take the trouble 10 think for themselves
authority is ever welcome refuge, this habit
of Mr.. Ruskins only makes him the more precious
to the more docile among his disciples They are
able TO quote from thcir beloved master some
dogmatc deiverance on almost every issue that
can be stated with reference TO art
They quote him as the devout believer once
quoted the PentarcNci. and still quotes those por
lions Of what is called revelation which science
has not shown 10 be inconsistent with the ascer-
tanned facts of psaeontology. of some other
department of the physical history of this globe
They set themselves against the modern spirit.
which in almost all branches of human knowledge
is more and more disposed TO restrict the area Of
mere authority. Few questions. of ethics,
be answered by the mere parade of
name on one side or the other. IT was an ancient
spirit also. When somebody quoted IIippocratcs,
if his opinion should end the debate because il
MO
ought not to be content with the name of Hip
pOcrates but 10 examine and see whether lie has
reason on his side.
AS much may be said even when the great name
of Ruskin is invoked Those who care for the
truth will not be content with the name. but
will examine and see whether he has reason
on his side. lie is not. as II happens. writer IN
whom the use of the is chiefly conspicuous.
lie has perceptions impulses Sensiblities. enihusi-
asms and many other qualities which ar, apt
to consider feminine; and lie has prejudlces;
a thing not confined TO either sex. lie had,
and l presume still has, prcin dice against
Mr. Whistler. a. lac has against other
artists whose theories of art do not square with
his own use the word prejudice instead Of opn-
ion because Mr. Ruskin expressed his opinion with
the kind of luminosity and nniairness which re-
move it into the category OF prejudices. But he
is an honest ana intelligent critic, says writer
in an uncritical weekly. and his judgment Is ILL
dependent. No doubt he is honest and intelligent,
and no doubt his judgment is independent when
il is a Judgment and not "a whim.
In referring to the purchase OF Mt whistler
picture by the French Government for the Lux
emboure, said it would be interesting 10 hear
what Mr.. Ruskin now has 10 say Of MIR. Whistler
IS an artist still think / give him credit
for being willing to confess that he maze MS
:. .t,,.rtt -lnnIT mai a.
whom he wronced His uncritic1 admirer does
not lie goes further. and in bis zeal to bolster
I'D his idol, whose pedestal is not entirely hrin
he socks 70 bettle the value Of French testimony
IN Mr. Whistler and to discredt the Luxembourg
IT, coines to this that he has seen pictures there
which he says, or somebody says Salon tom'
mittee Of twenty years ago would not have huns
lie has also heard that an unnamed Spanish
artis.. whose work may he seen in the LuXcm-
bourg has a French brother-in-law very Innu-
entail in art circles.
One does not need to be an ait critic, or critic
Of any sort, in order to judge OF the validity OF
those reasons In the Luxembourg, az III most
other places where government composed OF
uoltacans has control influence there may be
iobs In the French Academy, which is independ-
ont of Ministries the jobs sometimes hagrani ;
al. kinds of personal motives avail against the just
claims of literature. But the French Academy Is
still the French Academy, aud the Luxembourg
is still the Luxembourg. And If authority Is 10 be
set against authority, is it clear that the author
itv of a single English writer whose eccenIicliics
are notorious is 10 be preferred before that Of all
France. or of what stands for all that is most
intelligent in French Art? The French Govern
rnent concerns itself about art more zealously
and more integently than any other Govern
ment. as becomes the rulers of a people whose
art-I speak Of the art of living artsisis first IN
the world Of to-day. / know Of no evidence tend
ing to show that the Luxembourg is administered
less honestly less critically than it was IN other
DAYS I never heard of French ARTIST VINO did
not look TO IL as the honorable goal OF an honor
able ambition. Among the pictures when hahg
there TODAY are works by all the greatest painters