Evening star., 1937-11-25
Opinions Vary on Murals
AT Glenn Dale Hospital
10 the Editor Of The Star:

0AAA NSAAFASeSAy AoAALnA VAIL 0SAAASS
Cross work. The fact is without doubt
that DR.. Ruhland's conceptions of her
| mural at the Glenn Dale tuberculosis
Sanatorium are fantastic in the extreme.
That children would most prefer styl-
| lied fairy tale characters to quaint
charming conceptions chat most suit a
childs mind Is absurd. Evidently
DR.. Rutland has had no contact with
art to recognize it's qualities above his
own personal tastes. 1 am quite con-
vinced stylized poster would represent
genuine art to DR.. Ruhland. Art that
really is art, you know" You often hear
the expression from the uninitiated. The
attitude deviates from being contempt
able to being irritating.
1t Is easy to understand DR.. Ruhland's
| position on many points now He is no
| longer the enchanted child that Francis
Thompson wrote of in his essay on
Shelley. He is devoid of poetry and
imagination.
Wordsworth said: "Child is father of
| the man. And was Dr. Rutland SO un-
| fortunate as to be unfavored with child
hood; or has he disowned it as un-
| becoming? Do fairy tales evoke no smile
| from him? He Is to be pitied.
1t is all unbecoming in doctor, espe-
| cially if he intends to have much con-
| tact with children.
! Children entering the Sanitarium re-
| tain all their childlikeness because of
| the segregation and situations under
which they enter-either for examination
or treatment. They are terrified. highly
imaginative children. Not boys and girls
or unimaginative old men.
The issue should prove very embarrass-
| ing to DR.. Rutland, and should prove
very sustaining to the evaluation of the
mural which in itself is very intriguing,
and which is most intriguing in its posi-
| tion at the sanitarium.
KENNETH ALLAN.
X
| To the Editor of The Star:
In deciding whether the mural at the
| ChildrenS Hospital at Glenn Dale should
remain in its place there are some things
| to be said for letting the doctor rather
than the artist decide.
1t should be borne in mind that this
painting is to be seen by sick rather than
| we'll children. While it may be a good
example OF modern art and worthy of
prominent place in museum or in
a private collection, its place in hos
pltal gives an altogether different phase
20 the problem. From its reproduction
in The Evening Star my opinion is that
1t is too confused and crowded and ex-
citing. II one will try to remember ones
own mental state when sick in child
hood, think all will agree that some
thing confused. crowded and exciting
would have been just the opposite of
what We craved or needed. The mental
state of a sick child is confused and
oppressive, and something calm cheer
full and 'reasSuring is what is needed
For sick child We let the doctor and
detitian determine what food shall be
taken not the grocer or the farmer who
produces the food. The artist is the pro-
ducer in this case. The doctor and psy-
chiatrist are the mental dietitians.
Submit the present question for the
decision of doctors and pSychiatristS. not
for the decision of a jury of art pro-
ducerS. w B. DYE
To the Editor Of The Star:
I have just returned from a trip to
the children'S Sanatorium. where / went
to view the much discussed murals. The
first thought in my mind was one of
simple wonder at the point of view of
the person who could condemn them.
II they are grotesque then so are all
the immortal stories that have delighted
children for generations. They are all
there. painted with fidelity and loving
care: Simple Simon and the Pieman,
the Four and Twenty Blackbirds, the
Three Bears, the Queen of Hearts, Jack
and Jill, the Cow Jumping Over the
Moon, the Princess and the Apple Tree,
Hop o My Thumb, Little Jack Horner;
all easily recognizable, all delightful
There is originality in the conception.
The three bears are climbing diligently
up the tree to visit the rock-a-bv baby,
the pleman has a distinctly worried eX-
preston as he confronts the simplicity of
Simon the butler who serves the four
and twenty blackbirds is delightfully."-
supercllious-there is practically no end
to the enchantment of the picture
1t is, it seems to me, one of the best
examples Of Miss Cross work. I have
seen many of her pictures and have
watched her progress through several
years. She put infinite thought and
painstaking design into this picture 1t
would be nothing less than criminal to
destroy 1t. and whoever did so would
make himself laughing stock. 1t would
not hurt the artist. for. like every artist,
she has gained by giving of herself. It
would greatly hurt the person who
ordered the destruction, for he would be
accomplishing piece of consummate
eHrontery that would not easily be for
gotten. HARRIET MONTAGUE.
To the Editor Of The Star:
Commissioner Aliens submission of the
mural controversy to Jury" of five
children between 10 and IL years old is
one more idiotic move in a ridiculous
controversy
II he knew children. he would realize
that their judgment in art work is on
par with their judgment on every other
topic. They would eat sweets until they
are Ill; would ignore bedtime; would
choose the impossible in color combina-
tlons IN their Clothes to mention only
few OF the things they know most
about
When it comes to fine arts. they prefer
Jazz In music to the classical, and, as all
English teachers know, they choose the
dime novels and movie magazines to good
books.
Why should the distorted be placed
before children, as in those Mother
Goose pictures? Why not give them the
correct and accepted forms which have
brought happiness to young children for
ages? Why inf1ict on them, in the name
of art, such distortions?
Go into the cafeteria of the Roosevelt
High School and see the monstrosities