Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-02-07

person who can tell an original painting
| from copy"
But there are millions of originals"
| which are not art. Sir JoSeph's def
milton. therefore, is no more satisfying
than that of Coleridge. Art Is not an
illusion" any more than an limitation.
| And originality either in fiction or
painting is damnable in itself. The
common compliment" offered by the
uniformed that a picture is SO realistic
| that it stands right out from the can
vas" is no compliment at all to a real
artist.
what is art?" Half a century ago
the answer might have been that
picture should tell its Breaking
Home Ties" for example-today that IS
proof that it is not art but literature"
| The distinction is as apt as was MI
Dooley's explanation about Mr.. Car
negies donations of libraries when the
| donations were restricted to buildings,
without books; for Mr.. Dooley told
Hinnessy that that was not "hteratoor
but architectoor." So "anecdotal art"
is not art, as testified by all critics to-
day, but might rather supply what Mr.
1 OdLUC61C dCL14Cds S2Al0 OF NC NV $780,
| from Sir Joseph Duveen that an art
critic need not know anything about
art technique.
Ages ago a certain newspaper CORE
spondent, then living in Paris and
cabling stuff to America, visited the
studio of Meissonier, announcing to
| that whimsical artist that he had come
to ask him some questions about art, In
| connection with the opening or the
salon. Meissonier poked his long gray
beard out through crevice of his door
| and with all seriousness replied:
art? Art? I know nothing about
art. You must go to the art critics for
that-not mel"
And now the leading art critic tells
us that he Is in the same pred1cament
as was Meissonier. So, what is art?
Easier it is to comprehend Einstein
than modern art ideals, when some
| modernists paint cubes, pied, and an
| nounce that that means 1.-The abstract
in art" Maybe il is the soul of aspir-
ing ideality seeking to fathom the I'M
fashionable of lifs'S most abStruse prob
lens and giving perspective to four di-
mansions at once. Maybe it is small
boy after eating green apples. Not even
art critics can agree as to what Is ''ex-
pressed" but it must be beautiful, what
ever it is. If not beauty, what have
you, o artist?
The figure of a woman may have a
neck several inches too long, but If the
outlines rhyme with the outlines Of the
dress, that proves art. A painted boat
upon a painted ocean Gin this Volstead
age with not drop to drink'O may
stand out like Coleridge Illusion"
141T~ H. 1xy InNf ~
of pure color" all around 1t, like halo,
but does that not indicate "self-expres-
sion" of the modern artist? What is art
but abstruse "self-expression" independ-
ent of the rules OF grammar or the
poetry Of the sentiment expressed?
There is an art writer, Horace Shipp,
who in his book entitled 1.-The New
Art" makes it all as clear as Einstein
relatively; he explains as follows:
I'VE no longer need to assert the
existence of things by representing
them; art serves the deeper purpose OF
revealing the elements which go to their
formation, and their Spatial and other
relationships of the human mind. Great
art, says Walter Pater. approximates
to the condition of music. We do not
ask that musical composition sound
llAC OubolQC VI AIoC1ls 40 dR-
peal is not to the comparative OF the
conscious intellect, but to the super
lative of the subconscious emotions"
Mm!-Just that
Surely that bars Da Vnei's Last
Supper" and all of Angeles and
Raphaels illusions
To illustrate this answer to What Is
Art?" there is picture of one of Law
renee Atkinson's Sculptures-a cross
between a Sphinx and COB of candy
such as a candymaker losses across a
big hook while he is working IL white.
What does it artiStically express? Quien
sabe!
Also, to show in painting what Is
Art?" there is mass of wreckage as of
a tailspun airplane crashed to earth
which means anything or nothing, ac-
cording to the state of exhilaration of
the critic. For the author assures us
that great artists neither accent rules
consciously. nor break them consciously"
Nor do idiots.
Again: Abstract art claims to be the
inevitable symbol of this deeper world.
The fact that it lacks superficial mean
ing Is guarantee that the mind can
not be arrested on the frontiers of ex-
preston clear case of Canadian
Bookkeeping evading the frontier guards.
Is 1t any wonder that Sir Joseph Du-
Veen ulScialmS any necessity TO know
modern technique, in order to qualify
as an art expert?
Abstract art is channel to the in
finite, not cul-de-sac of the Senses
says Author Shipp. Whoopeel Also
whew!
Now bring on your Einstein for recre-
alton! Some day even the Manche win
be tunneled; then we'll know what
is art?" It's now the Channel" that
confuses and makes mal-de-rier, o In
Unity!