New-York tribune., 1917-06-12
for the enactment of what experts and
public officials have condemned as an un-
wise and dangerous measure.
The Price of a Name

Some OF the worst dDSurQltleS OF Coii-
noisseurship and the art market were
brought out clearly in the recent action
in which the eminent New York collector,
Mr.. II. f. Huntington claimed damages
for breach of warranty from firm OF
picture dealers in London. The art critics
are again exposed to the derision of the
inexpert-for on this occasion their posi-
tive opinions were suddenly reversed on
evidence that could not be disputed-and
vet it cannot be said that they made
worse exhibition of themselves than their
sworn enemies, the professional painters
Sir William Richmond, one of the most
scornful and inveterate haters OF critlcs'
was among the painters who testlhed tnat
the picture in dispute was assuredly
genuine Romney. And he went much fur-
tier than any of the mere critics, solemn
" declaring that eff God Almighty told
him that it had not been painted by Rom-
ney he would have contradlcted HIM.
None Of the critics was quite so hrmiy
convinced as all that. For the rest both
critics and painters were pretty evenly
divided for and against Romney's author
ship. "To tell you the honest truth, said
the producer of many popular Pictures OF
the Year, I'VE artists don't think much OF
the art critics. and he was right. Yet
without the assistance of certain set of
iourneymen critics it is difficult to believe
that artists of his type would ever have
eny reputation at all. Romney himself
would surely have squirmed at the thought
of being thrown in with him under the
common label of 1--WE artists
The classification is manifestly unsatis
factory, for among the experts who testl-
fed we find not few painters. Some of
them had sense enough long ago to recog-
nize their limitations; others, like the gen.
tleman who talked of I'VE artists" still
continue to practise picture making as
profession, but though they probably earn
more money than the others there is really
no reason in the world why their opinions
on the work of real artists should be
taken more seriously. Is it not about time
to abolish this purely artificial distinction
ir connoisseurship?
As to the real occasion of the trial, it
lad nothing at all to do with art. The
question was not whether the picture was
good, but whether, good or bad, it was
done by Romney. The dealers, it seems,
paid S3,5O0-odd for it, and, concluding it
was a very fine Romney, fixed the price at
S5OO,OO0. 1t was at that price that Mr.
Huntington bought it, and he was appar-
emily perfectly well satisfied with his bar
gain until a year or two later ne formed
the view," as his counsel said, that it was
rainted by some one else.
Now, if he had paid for the picture on
the strength of its looks this would not
have mattered in the least. But prices
are not fixed in that way. AS far as it
is possible to judge by the expert testi-
nrony in court, the picture apart from the
name was worth something in the neigh
borhood of $4,000. Hence, it may be con-
Guided that the price Of the name was
S498, 900 The rule that applies TO dog
is reversed in the case OF picture, ana IL
seems still TO be doubtful whether any of
the national galleries will hang this one,
though the name of the real author,
Ozias Humphry is not bad one. In
Germany the question might be settled in
more satisfactory way, for it will be re-
membered that after one of their greatest
connoisseurs bought a work by fourth
rate English artist under the delusion that
he was acquiring a priceless Leonardo, and
after it had been conclusively proved that
it was nothing but worthless mid-Vic-
torian counterfeit. the Prussan govern
ment decided that it was nevertheless
officially Leonardo and must continue so
in spite of all facts.