New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-03-04
ART FOR SMALL BOYS
A Reply TO "Petronius Arbiter,' with Some
Comment on Manet and the Philistines

! The-lettcr signed "PetronIus Aroiter IN
Yesterdays Tribune is not by any means the
most important contribution to the Manet
controversy. and the Phlistines, which most
Of ne thought dead and buried some time IN
our boyhood, but it is By far the most sig
,idcant in that it IS an expression OF the at
titude Of almost all America toward art. For
this reason. and for a number Of others, this
writer should not be allowed to have the last
word.
J The most astounding thing about the letter
is that the writer knows nothing ABOUT arr
and as much as admits this himself, and yet
he sets himself up a. a critic OF SUCH an I'M
portant artist as Manet simply because ne
happens TO know something about his own
moral IDEAS and is deceived both as to their
universally and as to their scope. Instead
Of taking the properly humble attitude toward
thing he does not understand and saying
with the others Of the artstcally illiterate,
81 don't know anything about art, but know
what like" an attitude intellectually deplor-
able but morally admirable, his is the atti-
tude of the man who is so convinced of the
rightness of his own ideals and beliefs that
all not holding them are, in his eyes, damned
erernally. Having then, certain ideas about
morality. he believes that all others should
conform to those ideas in every moment of his
waking life, and PROBABLY, too. while asleep.
That there are certain things outside the field
Of morality which have no concern with it IS
unknown 70 him; TO point it out to him is to
be accused of being morally dead"
Can Paint Be Immoral?
When he sees a painting therefore, which
has in it the figure OF a woman in the nude
he calls it immoral. although if he knew any
thing about painting he would know that
picture can be no more immoral than piece
of wall paper. being, as the wall paper Is,
merely a decoration. A painting is simply
rhythm worked out in line, color and form; in
+ the painting in question the figure is nude
for no reason except that nude figure pre-
sents some interesting and beautiful lines
standings and masses. Our critic sees nothing
of this in it; he is concerned only with the
consciences Of those represented in it and
with its effect on small boys.
His attitude toward nudity-that it is, un-
less "idealzed,' something vile and loath-
some-is exactly that Of an old Irish woman Of
whom | heard She would never battle all at
once. refusing TO appear even in solitude
wholly nude because God was looking That
God should have made human beings in the
nude instead OF creating them all in proper
clothing is 4 fact which suppose "Petronius"
would like to pass over in charitable silence.
/ In the old Irish women this attitude was eX-
cusable. In a man who signs himself
"Petronius Arbiter" nothing is excusable,
not even the signature.
/ But he gives a reason for his objection 10
the nudity in this painting: 1t Is that 1t might
make small boys ask questions" What the
questions are which the hypothetical small
bows might ask "Petronius" keeps dark secret
he refers to it in such an ominous tone that
the easily excited reader might imagine that
the very foundations of our Republic would
crash if these questions were ever answered,
or even asked.
This is, however, an interesting standard
for our future painters to reach. | suppose
the "Arbiter" would have a commission of
small boys selected to pass on all exhibit
tons; if they came from the gallery in ST.
lence the art loving public might safely and
legally pass in if they asked these mysteri-
Gus questions the paintings would be burned.
Who would risk the burning of them and thus
endanger his immortal soul is question. II
might, however, be turned over to the blind
in the states care This would benefit the
community and give useful occupation to
those otherwise unemployed. incidentally,
the most likely question for a small boy to
ask on viewing lie Deieuner' would be:
isn't she cold, mamma?")
4 There are several things of which "Petronius'
should be made aware in order that the next
time he sets himself up as critic of art he
may have some qualifications for his task.
They are. briefly, these: % Manet was not
painting for small boys. (2) lie was not try
ing to teach moral lesson, nor did he in
tend his painting TO serve as a textbook on
the proper conduct of life. 80 As painter
he had no more interest in nor knowledge Of
morality than "Petronius" as a moraist, has
Of painting.
Not for Small Boys
1t is this Puritanic and Philistinc attitude
toward art which has already made of Amer
lea the laughing stock of the art world. 1t is
this attitude which causes Walt Whitman to
be barred from public Libraries. 1t Is this
attitude which suppressed "The Genius" and
forced the publishers to devitalize George
Moore And this attitude is nothing more or
less than an utter insanity on sex.
BY the majority of Americans sex is not
regarded. as any sensible person regards it,
as the most wonderful fact in nature. II is
regarded as something very indecent, loath-
seine and horrid, to be concealed whenever
possible never to be mentioned in the pres
encc Of women, to be CLOSED over in art, TO
be RELOCATED. as "Petronius" advises. to medical
and scientific books and be joked over
in smoking rooms, vaudeville and musical
comedy | am not enough of psychlatrist
to be so bold as to diagnose all this as an
inverted erotomania, as some have done, but