Evening star., 1925-11-05
THE NORTH WINDOW
By Leila MechIiu.

Is well done or not-is a simple mat
ter as compared with establishing the
identity Of its painter. The impress
sion prevails that If one knows any
thing about art one should be able
to state with authority at a glance
by whom a picture is painted and
whether or not 1t Is an original or
copy. In fact, however. these are
questions about which the leading ex-
perts disagree, and when this Is the
case. as with the proverbial doctors,
who shall decide?
II n X
1t is true that every painter has q
style of his own. With some this 1s
more markedly individual than with
others, and as one recognizes at a
glance the handwriting OF a frlend,
so the works OF these painters OF
more pronounced personality are read
ily distinguishable. But there have
been very many painters in the world,
and the works of those living about
the same time frequently show strik-
ing similarity. For instance, witness
tho so-called school Of Rembrandt,
and the commotion that was caused
In the art world a year or more ago
when Prof. John Van Dyke declared
that the majority Of the paintings
attributed for generations to the great
master himself were works or cotem-
poraries-pupils, apprentices in MS
workshop. Prof. Van Dyke came to this
conclusion after years Of very care
full study, examining again and again
not only the canvases attributed to
Rembrandt, but those Of known mas
ters of his school, comparing the
brush strokes and taking into con-
sideration not merely the style OF the
painting, but the use OF certain col
ors-innumerable technical features
about which the layman Is totally
ignorant.
There are only a few persons In
this country and abroad who nave
made such an intensive study or
technique in painting that they can
say with any authority whether or
not a work is an original, and to
whom, in the matter of production, 1t
belongs. Even among these experts
there is now and then disagreeme mt.
as between Prof. Van Dyke and some
of the European authorities In regard
to the Rembrandt paintings. But
even in this instance there Is no dis
agreement as regards the school.
X
When II comes to a matter OF the
original or copy the problem Is sim
pier. for seldom is copyist able 10
equal the original master; but not IN.
frequently, particularly in the case or
an old copy made, presumably. with
in a few years of the original, he may
approximate it so closely that 1t Is
difficult to distinguish. Some painters,
furthermore, made habit or copying
themselves. Gilbert Stuart. for In
stance, as Is we'll known, made many
replicas Of his Washington portraits.
Rembrandt was never known to re-
peat himself therefore, when a copy
of a Rembrandt is shown 1t is safe to
conclude that 1t Is not by the hand of
the master.
Another difficult point for the lay
man TO understand with reference to
the valuation of works of art is that
an old painting Is not, of necessity, a
good painting. There were poor paint
ers even back in the days of the 1tal-
ian Renaissance, as there are today.
and the works of many of these have
been preserved and handed down
from generation to generation, as have
those of their more distinguished CO.
temporaries. Perhaps in those days
these less worthy works sold more
cheaply, as they do today; perhap
they were preferred by the uninitiated.
Persons who had the opportunity OF
ley. and, in this later day, by Sargent
and Cecilia Beaux, have been known
TO choose feebler painters because their
works were more to their liking; con-
sequently, to have had a painting
handed down in ones family for 100
years or more does not mean that It is
a masterpiece.
Every time publicity is given TO the
discovery of work by a great paint
LID j
attic or an antique shop, a painting
valued at a fabulous sum, every one
who has an unnamed old painting is
stirred with excitement and the eager
hope that their possession may prove
equally valuable and rare. There is a
lure about such discoveries, but alas
they are so few.
To meet the need for expert advice
in such matters, the Pennsylvania
Museum has lately established a de
partment to pass upon and v ne such
have applied for this proffered assist
ance.
i That mistakes are sometimes made
| in the attribution of paintings, even
in the best museums, is a fact, and
one which goes far to shake the
public faith in expert authority. Not
| long ago the attribution of a portrait
in the Metropolitan Museum was
changed and created thereby consid
| cradle notice. 1t was a portrait OF
| Henry Clay, a very well known por-
| trait, given to the museum in 1903
| and labeled the work Of Samuel F. B.
| Morse, an attribution which, curious
| ly enough, was never challenged: In
fact. one of the leading authorities
| on early American painting had pub
| lished it as an example Of Morse's
work. 1t was signed, supposedly
Morse, Jan'y. 1872" But one day
some one who had known the por-
trait in the early days before its first
publication, recognized 1t as the work
| of another artist. REORGANIZATION of
| the signature showed it plainly to
| be Noise" and upon careful inquiry
| it was found that it was painted by
Theodore Sidney Noise, who was born
| in Charleston in 1906 and who paint
| ed chiefly in the South. The painting
in question was done in New Orleans
| from life for John Freeland. and hung
| for many years in the house of his
| son-in-law, Col. John Redmon SAKE
| Lewis, in Lexington, Va. The 'i'' In
| the painters name had two dots over
| 1t and 1t was these that gave the
misleading appearance Of an "r. :
| After all, the only way absolutely to
| authenticate a work of art is to have
its pedigree.
| X X X X
| Referring to this re-attribution, Mr.
wehle Of the Metropolitan Museum
| staff, in an article in the bulletin
| of the museum says: 1.-THE history
| of museums and collecting Is en-
| livened by q multitude of classic tales
| of blindness and blundering, and spe
| cialists in any branch Of the history
| of painting would be the last to be
| surprised on learning of such a case
| in our museum. Each of these stu
dents could call to mind, not without