The evening times., 1899-06-13
PIutOcrncy and Art.


One of the paragraphers of the comic pa
pers delineates two men, the rich man
without an idea beyond his dollars. and
the walking encyclopedia of science with
hardly a dollar to his name; each of these
men expresses his opinion of the others
failure in life" Like many jests OF its
kind, this paragraph suggests grave mod
ern problem.
1t has been charged by many writer's, Sc
rious and satirical, that the ideal Amer
lean is the rich man, whether he has any
ideas in his head beyond the making of
money, or not. To a certain extent this
Is undoubtedly So. The millionaire occu-
pies. in our day and generation, the po-
sitiCn which the king. the general, the
explorer. have occupied in other centuries;
with this difference, that whereas the lit
tie ragamuifins who gazed open -mouthed
on the king of the Middle Ages never
hoped that they themselves might be kings,
the modern youngster secretly cherishes
the idea that some day he himself may be
rich and able to buy the luNuries and
privileges which he now envies. This
makes the influence of the rich man upon
the rest of the population rather more Sc
rious than it otherwise would be.
In so far as the possession of riches is
merely the key to a certain kind of pow
er the ambition to make money is not
unworthy. The desire of power is natural
to men, and it will probably exist as long
as the human race itself. The dangerous
element in the plutocratic ideal is that
which leads the plutocrat to crush out all
other ideals which do not minister TO
his personal needs. There was a time
when man could deliberately choose COM
parative poverty, with freedom to work
at his chosen calling. He could say to
himself, Il do not care for a great fortune,
II / may only become q great painter"
OF inventor. or musician. as the case might
be. There is probably not a man in any
of the learned or artistic professions who
would not say the same thing today. If he
has true love for his work There is a
joy in creative work which is its own re-
ward. All that the artist, inventor, or
investigator really desires is success in
his chosen calling and sufficient money to
keep himself and his family above want.
If he can have that, he rarely desires the
burden of large fortune. If he cannot
have ii, his work is hampered, some
times almost spoiled by the want of it.
The knowledge that his wife or child is
suffering for the necessaries of life has
driven more than one artist to sell his
genius; and to gain mere foothold on the
pathway of art, more than one musician
has debased his powers to serve the needs
OF the moment. If a plutocratic ideal
makes the artist dependent on the Phils-
tine-if il sets up ignorantly a standard
of its own and compels the true artist to
conform to that standard or starve-then
Il is doing harm, and great harm, to the
future of the country. To a certain ex-
tent this has happened in America: and
st should be the care OF those rich men
and women who are not only wealthy, but
cultured, TO use their power in such a way
as to prevent more damage being done.
In really civilized country, the artist
should have a free hand. He should be
able to pursue his work without anxiety
about the means of livelihood. 1t is true
that scme of the finest works of art have
been created merely as "potboilers," but
this happened not because OF poverty, but
in spite of it. 1t is not a bad thing for
q young artist to struggle with poverty
awhile before gaining recognition-such an
experience serves to test his real fitness
for his art-but after he has proved him
self a genius he should receive the most
generous support and recognition possible,
that he may be able to do his best work
without hindrance. And he should not be
'hampered, in any way, by the necessity