New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-01-05
ART WORKS CRITICIZED.
THE NEW BRONZE PANELS IN THE
BROOKLYN MEMORIAL ARCH


REPRESENTATIONS OF LINCOLN AND GRANT on
HORSEBACK THAT ARE FAR FROM sATIsFAC-
TORY-A LOUD DEMAND THAT THE PARK
COMMISSIONER SHALL REMOVE THEM.
The people Of Brooklyn are looking forward
with deep interest to the completion Of the Sol
diers and Sailors Memorial Arch. VIXEN the
bronze groups designed for 1t by Frederick Mac
Monnies are placed in position. These will CON
sist Of large quadriga for the summit OF the
arch and Of two strongly conceived groups for
| the columniated pedestals the north side
| That these works will be worthy OF the places
| they are occupy. the high rank which the
sculptor has attained is sufficient guarantee
| In the mean time the attention OF those Brooklyn
ties who have had occasion to pass near the arch
! in the last few weeks has been attracted to the
| two bronze panels which have been placed on the
inside of the arch. These are equestrian sculpt-
ures and represent Lincoln and Grant on horse
! back as If in the act Of reviewing an army. They
| are not by MacMonnies. This work was done
under a contract made by the Arch Commission
during the administration OF Mayor Body The
sculptors are w r. O'Donovan and Thomas Ea-
kins. and the casting was done by Maurice j
Power. the wel-known political leader. in New
| York.
A good deal Of adverse criticism has already
| been passed on the combined products Of O'Dono-
van Eakins and Power. ana there is strong
| feeling in the minds of many competent judges
who have examined the panels with care that
they do not meet the artistic requirements by
which such works she uld be judged. and that they
| should not be allowed 10 remain In So conspcu-
Gus place. 1t is also evident that there will he
a total lack of harmony between them and the
/ MacMonnies groups which will shortly be placed
on the arch
THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIONS NOT RE
sPONsIBLE.
For the securing and erection OF the panels
the present city administration Is responsible In
no degree whatever. Park Commissioner Squier
would have gladly interposed 10 keep them from
being appended to the arch. had he felt that he
| had any authority to act In the matter He found
the contract in existence when he came into Of
fee and under it's terms the city is bound to
pay for the work. whether it is regarded as salts
factory by the authorities or not.
That there was political element in the award
ing OF the contract by the former Arch Commits
sion Is suspected. 1t would be surprising II II
were so. seeing that there were politics and
iobbery In the construction OF the arch itself and
that man formerly active In politics is believed
to have made large sum in connection with the
granite used i'm building II. The cost Of these
bronzes is 81 500 and apparently the city cannot
avoid paying the bill. even II 1t Is decided that the
best disposition of the articles purchased Is to
melt them up and sell them for junk
The Park Commission er stands ready to remove
! the panels. now that the people OF Brooklyn
! have had a chance to see them. as soon as he is
assured that public sentiment is strong enough
! TO Justify him in taking such heroic measure.
1t will be seen from the statements Of well-known
/ citizens and competent judges IN art matters
/ which are published herewith that there Is SUCH
a sentiment. and that there can be no doubt that
| 1t is constantly gathering force.
THE REV DR. BAKERS VIEWS
Few men in Brooklyn are more competent 10
pass judgment on works OF this character than
the Rev. DR. Charles X. Baker rector OF the
Church of the Messiah. VINO has travelled exten-
sivey and made a special study OF art, boih In
this country and abroad. From him Park Com
missioner Squier recently received the following
Rectore Office. Church of the Messiah
Greene and Clermont ayes.
Brooklyn. December 90 1880.
To the Hon Frank sqner: Park commissioner
amned the bronzss watch have just been put in the
soldiers Arch the entrance to the PARK As |
knew Of Your good taste IN matters OF arr won be-
Just ground Of PRIDE to AL our pSo pc; bot whe
not TO be regarded as good sample OF the re-
mander
good family beast, suitable for all work, and safe
for children bu; fear that the General might not
have regarded it as quite up to his fasiiious re-
The Increasing interest among our citizens in
self In the growth Of our institute and Museum OF
Art and Science. ought to make us heedful not to
monuments, lest generations to come should think
too meanly of tastes and accomplishments.
Na trlIlv LIE II
THE Touch or GENTS LACKING
In an interview day or two ago Dr. Baker
supplemented what ne said in this letter by the
statement that works in high relief were out o!
place where these panels have been put.
THE inside Of the area should have been
served" he said. "either for low bass-reiefs. or
better STILL for bronze tablets bearing the names
OF the engagements IN which the soldiers and
sailors commemorated by the arch took part. AS
/ said in writing to Commissioner Squier. these
works are not altogether bad, but they are not
good enough for the place they occupy. They
lack the touch OF genius. OF course you cannot
blame the man who made them for this lack. but
the people Of the city should have right to say
whether they want them or not. II is possible
that some place might be found In the city
some wall or something OF that klnd-on which
they might be put. where they would not be much
In the public eye and would not be especially
offensive. | suppose they Will have TO he paid
for. but that is no reason why we should keep
them where they now are. II any one wants 10
Judge them fairly. he need only compare them
with the statue of Mr. Stranahan just inside the
Park entrance. That is fine work OF art. and
will always be admired as such. even If people
forget about Mr. Siranahan. But these panels
will speak iii for the artistic taste Of Brooklyn II
they are allowed to remain. The Park Commits
soner would in my Judgment, DC amply justified
In removing them.
PROFESSOR HOOPER SPEAKS EMPHATI-
CALLY.
Professor Franklin W. Hooper, director OF the
Brooklyn Institute is another authority on art
matters whose opinion will be accepted as
weighty. He spoke deliberately but most en-
phaticaly In condemnation Of the representa-