The record-union., 1898-06-19

| by the bill for the creation Of art COM
| missions in certain cities, introduced
in the Senate by Mr.. Nussbaum. After
authorizing the appropriation Of public
money to the extent of $5O,OOO a year
for the purchase of works of art, 1t
restricts such purchases to the works
of American artists resident in Amer
lea. 1t has been publicly stated that
the bill was drafted in accordance with
the advice of certain New York artists.
AS the statement has not been contra
dlcted, it seems fair to assume that
this restriction is approved by them.
But whether as individuals or in q rep
resentative capacity does not appear.
| However, the fact. that because an
artist lives out of the country his work
should be disqualified for purchase in
what will be in some cases his native
State; or, to put the proposition an
other way, that cities should be de-
barred from acquiring what they may
wish to possess by an artificial restric-
tion of this sort, certainly demands eX-
| animation.
| Either this restriction is right and
valuable, or it is the outcome of the
pettiest form of trades unionism. Now,
If an individual is expending money for
| his private purpose, he will buy what
and where he can get the best for his
money. At first sight, an aggregate of
individuals, a municipality. would be
wise to insist upon the same right. 1t
may, however, fairly say that it's OBJ
ject is not entirely selfish, and that.
While it wants to secure the best, it
also wishes to encourage American
production. Such a limitation seems
patriotic and in every way expedient.
1t is right" because it grows out of
zeal for the country's progress, and
valuable" because it will help to pro-
mote that progress. In the interests
of national advancement this is justi-
able preference for American" as op-
posed to ''un-American'' art.
But is it just to brand an artist as
un-American because he does not re-
side in this country? Perhaps it may
be replied that no such imputation has
been made. Very likely not, in actual
words; the statement in it's crude form
would be too absurdly weak; it would
carry it's own refutation. But the i'm
plication, which is as far as the pro-
moters of this bill have deemed it ex-
pedient to go, is palpable. In the evil
dence given before the committee if
| was urged that municipal art ought
| to express life and sentiment of the
country, and that those artists who
| lived in it must naturally be the best
eXponents; that, in a word, the art
should be American, and resident art
lists are at any rate the best, if not
the only true, representative of Amer
/ icanism. The rest are in a greater or
less degree un-Americanized
Granted that municipal art should
express the life and sentiment Of the
American nation; but does it follow
| that those who are surrounded by the
rush and riot Of New York streets gain
the fullest insight into those things.
AMERICAN ART.
There is a good deal of speciousness
| In the talk about expressing American
life and sentiment. In mural paint
ing, for example, or sculpture no artist,
at any rate, demands a transcript of
American incidents. All that this talk
amounts to is that the artist shall ex-
press the common emotions, instincts,
and what not of humanity in the way
| in which they are colored by American
civilization. These are fundamental
principles and abide with the man who
| has been born and lived in America,
| whether he happens to be buying his
sartorial equipment in New York Paris
or Japan.