New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-26
To the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: May have the courtesy of your COL
umns in answer to structures by Mt stephen
Haweis. of Nassau, in the Bahamas, on the
criticism of painting by Edouard Manet'
which appeared in the January Art word :
The structures by Mr.. Haweis are in your Is
sue of February Il.
Manet's Lunch on the Grass" shows two
couples buried in forest on the banks OF
brook. The two men are seated upon the
grass. One OF the women is in the brook
bathing the other, stark naked, sits by the
side of the men on a pile of underclothes'
The whole thing is absolutely devoid OF
noetry or idealization of any kind. II was
intended to be very real. "Manet was real
list Poutrance,' says his biographer.
lie confessed his aim was to make SEN
sation in the Salon, both by the novelty OF
his painting" and the brazen shockingness
Of his subject and it's rendition He sue
ceeded The picture was refused by the ON
cal Salon, but it found a prominent place IN
the salon of the Rejected" which was opened
in that year, 1868. There it almost raised
a row, so much were the decent trench peo-
pie. even of the peculiarly corrupt era OF the
Second Empire. shocked by the cynieism ana
contempt for the higher social interest which
Manet manifested by the exhibition Of this
work in public salon. His friend, Duret,
in his book on the painter admits that he
became and remained all his life "a moral
reprobate" because of this picture.
And now comes the critic and defends
picture that even the French people, when
never has been accused Of being squeamish,
officially and publicly denounced as moral
menace"l He begins by saying: "Manets
reputation as a great painter and landmark
in the history of art calls for no defence
of him
Well. "The Art World" did not attack him
so sharply as painter" but as an artist,
which is totally different thing. Some
very good painters are very poor artists, and
vice versa Manet was first class painter,
but third class artist Therefore, he never
produced single inspiring picture. The only
things of his about which the world has made
any noise are his Olympia" MANA" and
Lunch on the Grass" and none of these is
fit to be in any decent public museum.
Then Mr.. Haweis fishes out that misead-
ing verse in the Bible. "To the pure all
things are pure TO JUSTIFY the vulgar lceh-
tiousness of Manet's pictures. for which they
are attacked, especially the Lunch on the
Grass" Then he launches an argument
which, if ne believes what he says. convicts
him as a man morally dead. Speaking of the
representation with almost Photographic real
ism of two men in forest dressed in civil
ian clothes, by the side Of two naked women
out of whom the nakedness had not been
idealized-and who, therefore, inevitably
make every adolescent boy and girl ask sus-
picious questions, even though they be pure
in heart" he says:
perhaps these people are not free lovers
after all. but legally married: it may be two
artists who have married two models from
whom they have studied together in the
schools for years"
As to this, let me ask Mr.. Haweis: If he
were sufficiently coarse TO allow his wife to
sit naked by his side in the presence of an