New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-04-15

The scheme aforesaid is simple
enough. "Thcre are no requirements
for admission to the society save the
acceptance of its principles and the
payment Of the initiation fee of 81 and
the annual dues of So" Having fulfilled
these conditions, the artist may send
two works TO the exhibition, where
/ they will be placed according to the
/ alphabetical order in which his name
! falls. He is untroubled by any jury.
! He is not subjected to the temptation
/ Of competing for prize; there is not
a prize in the place. If he wants one
/ of his works reproduced in the cata-
/ logue he may be gratified. All he has
TO do is to pay for the page. And there
4 he is. Now, what particularly inter
/ ests us in this programme Is the allu-
sion TO "principles." What are they?
/ For the principle of mo jury" the high
sanction, of Ingres is invoked; for that
/ of mo prizes" the Endorsement Of
Renoir is cited, and for that of hang
ing the exhibits in alphabetical order
the directors of the society are evil
IDENTIFY themselves responsible. The
authorities, in all three cases, are, Of
course. unimpeachable. But not even
! the great shade of Ingres-a master
for whom we profess nothing less than
reverence-could persuade us that
these "principles' have anything to do
= with art. They relate exclusively to
/ the practical machinery of exhibitions.
/ They constitute what, we have been
told is described in Wall Street and
/ tbcreabouts as "a business PROPOSE
ton" As such they may have eXtraor-
binary merits. The manifesto from
which we have quoted contains an in
! teresting observation on this point.
Referring 10 the Societe des Artistes
Independants, Of Paris, whose pro
cramme suggested that of the Amer
lean organization, the latter says; 1T
has more members, sells more works
and is on a frmer financial basis than
any other Of the four great salons.
We suppose that for the artist with
bus;ness head on his shoulders that
ougbt TO be a clincher. But 1t leaves
rs still searching for the purely ar
bstic niger in the woodpile
One more principle" we must touch
upon before turning in our quest from
tho manifesto 20 the exhibition itself.
The society remarks that no one eX-
hibition at present gives an idea OF
contemporary American art IN its en-
semble. or permits comparisons OF the
various directions it is taking Put
ting aside an impulse TO debate the
matter. we have looked only 70 the
question of what the society might have
done to perform the suggested service
80 American art. Such effort as il has
made has been sorely invalidated' IN
tho first place, by the alphabetical mode
or hanging. Discord re,gns. II is as
,boupb a delirous paperhanger were 10
o,,+ HE stock into eight-fOot strips, mix
them together and then paste them on
tho wall. one by one, just as they came
- hand Tho result might be papery,
but il would hardly be decoration.
There is scarce good picture in this
exhibition which is not smothered by
;ts nejehbors. This IS disconcerting
oooupb. butiit is not the saddest part
Of the story. That comes when you 80
+broucb the 1000 and odd, looking for
the good pictures with scrupulous care
a,d a. the end of the job find them
.o,,raratively so few in number Is TO
no almost negligible. II the rest were
only bad pictures. pictures so bad as
~ be amusing! But the tragic thing
about this show is its dulness, its fur
1orgs and furlongs Of incurably bsnal,
,rodiocre canvas. The charm Of the
armorv enterprise was that it supplied
some irritating sensations. On this oc-
casion one is only bored, bored almost
TO tears.
II tho editors Of 1.-THE Atlantic" and
"Scribner's Magazine" were to abdieate
their functions. offering to PRINT for a
fixed sum Gncludng an annual sub
scription) whatever Was sent TO them
lc,sr,Iv ns II was sent. piling poetry
unon prose as the alphabetical order Of
things dictated, they could doubtless