New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-26
THE PROTEST AGAINST AN ART TAX.
Some Considerations Which Show Why 1t
Should Not Be Needed.
To the Editor Of The Tribune

To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir In the petition recently placed before Con-
gress by an intelligent group OF artists in this coun
try il is said that tax upon works OF art is
tax upon education. This is not quite true. he
cause the works of art intended for public mu-
seums admitted duty free. Very few persons
the paintings Of private collector until the
auCtiOneers hammer sounds the invitation. The
only educational erect therefore hat the private
collection has is the private collector himself
who becomes educated to the END that his particular
line of pictures is the only valuable Hno-for the
time being
way. They a great cviliziug force according
To who views them or how they Viewed or the
exact kind Of civilization you gauge them by
Pictures are educational in indicating the trend OF
schools or periods-nothinE more. That some pct
ures valuable in giving artists their bear
ings may be accepted also. but 10 be guided entirely
by the pictures of the past would be to make hope
less the struggle of the coming men CT talent and
would reduce the art of painting to the mere work
ing out of conventional traditions. In spite Of
what has been put forward by the artists who have
petitioned Congress for the abolition Of tax upon
works of art. II must be conceded that under the
present system of taxation We have developed
school Of landscape painting of which none I'm the
world is stronger or more vrile-
The contention that tax upon works OF art acts
as constant force to hamper the growth Of our
collections is far from the facts. II is not true
because public collections are not made In year
or a decade II would he a mistake 10 thlnk OF
loading down every public gallery with the pictures
that could be collected every few years. 10 make
a worthy gallery takes many years. Ihe Louvre
has been centuries in the making II often hap
pens that the treasures of one generation become
the rubbish Of another.
The petition further says that the artists welfare
depends upon the free admission Of the works Of
all Of the Old World. This is a peculiar admission.
If the petition means the modern works. then IL
sounds like saying that the model gowns Of Paris
or Vienna should he admitted free. that the
proper fashions may be spread chea ply, thus saw
ing the steamer fares Of the mOdists who have
go abroad every year A real artists welfare does
not depend upon the admission free Of European
works of art, but that many of the persons who
graduate from art schools may need this kind
Of sUstenance may again he true.
To call a duty upon works Of art a handicap upon
the progress OF art here wide Of the mark Thou
sands Of the young persons who have gone abroad
"a fatal mistake I'm doing 10 were better they
had stayed and rpeued here before taking the jour
uey. The question Of tax upon art works is
economic one. and while our protective policy may
he weak I'm spots the tax upon works Of art is not,
10y any means one Of those spots. II il is IN Us 10
produce great painters those painters viii be forth
coming and their number viii he no and
less whether free trade country
protection country. At present our policy IS pro
lection. and under that shield have made
great progress artistiCaIly has been made by
and 7 believe should be- making a very serious
mistake to take of the duty on foreign works Of
art as is contemplated IN the petition placed be
fore Congress by some very estimahle and some
very amiGble artists. AMERICAN.
New city. March 10. 1876