First of all I will take America into consideration, where the art of
making violins is too little understood to be judged. Commissioners of
exhibitions like those, for instance, of the late Centennial, have no
idea of violins, and, therefore, are unable to appoint judges competent
to award the premiums. It would be too much to ask that they should
themselves be such connoisseurs, for the violin is still considered as a
fiddle in this country, and it may still take a long time before the
people here reach the standard of knowledge and appreciation which
Europe occupies. Therefore, only very few real violin makers are found
here, for most of them are only amateurs doing business in this branch.
In the Centennial exhibition in Philadelphia, in the United States
Department, were found mostly such amateur violins. I have heard that
all those who called themselves violin makers received a premium. The
judges were either unequal to the requirements of their office or they
desired to offend nobody. If the latter be the case they certainly acted
generously if not justly. But exhibitions of art were established for
the purpose of finding out in which way the different articles of
industry and art compare with each other. Proper examinations can be
made only by professional men, otherwise only that fiddle that "cries"
the most will attract the greatest attention.
Justice will never prevail in such exhibitions, owing either to want of
knowledge in order to be able to judge who has deserved a premium, or to
favoritism, for merit can hope least, especially in Europe. Artists
there can only receive acknowledgment if they have the means to spend.
The Centennial exhibition, however, was not guilty of such a wrong; here
it was the desire to be as just as possible to all, although not every
one could be satisfied. To act in the capacity of an awarder is always a
thankless task; whether the judge has or has not the necessary
knowledge, discontent is sure to follow, because the conceited man who
has been unrewarded does not see the difference between his production
and the better one of his co-exhibitor, but an injustice is done to an
artist, if through favoritism a premium is awarded to an inferior
production.
Exhibitions, however estimable they may be, are still very imperfect in
regard to their organization; in Europe they have been for years
entirely corrupt, and are now called into existence mostly by
speculators. The true principle has been lost sight of and taken a
corrupt form. It is scarcely to be expected that the time will come when
the many defects which have crept in will be removed again, for all
these failings which have manifested themselves throw a shade over such
exhibitions, and the time is not far distant when they will be entirely
disregarded, if not reorganized on a different basis. But I believe that
they will never attain great perfection, even if taken in hand by the
Government, for so long as a system of awards is connected therewith,
mistakes and discontent cannot be avoided. Managers of exhibitions are
not always competent to appoint the proper professional men and experts
as judges; and as those appointed lack the necessary qualifications,
dissatisfaction ensues. But suppose the awards were made with proper
knowledge and strictest impartiality, what then? What have the
remaining competitors gained who are less gifted by nature, and
therefore could not receive any award? Nothing but mortification and an
impaired business. Is this fair on the part of human society? Not every
one can be an artist. The offering of premiums has for its object the
promotion of industry; but the majority of exhibitors can never achieve
distinction by reason of lack of talent, and must consequently be
considered as excluded from their line of business. Are we not bound to
consider them as our fellow brethren and to care for them as well as for
those receiving premiums? But the present generation does not seem to
have any thoughts about this, for there are but very few men who are
still animated with noble impulses; while the majority are striving to
ruin their fellow men by greediness.
In my opinion such exhibitions cannot continue any longer, because
justice can never be expected, and the chase for the highest premium in
order to outdo others, has not only become ridiculous, but also immoral.
If I were the richest man, it should never come into my mind to strive
for a premium which I must purchase through so-called leeches. There
are, however, connoisseurs who know how to distinguish that which is
better from that which is less good.
As long as such exhibitions are based on such rotten principles, I find
no longer any interest as an exhibitor in striving for a premium, and as
I gained the highest moral premium in the exhibition at Vienna in 1873,
on this account I did not compete for any premium as an exhibitor in the
Centennial exhibition at Philadelphia!