![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
8 the figures were covered with real clothes, that the auto trucks were made "of some material and painted over" and that real cotton was incorporated in the scene. Ipso facto, "a manufacture of pulp." What annoys the importer most in these cases is not the indignity to which his artistic judgment has been subjected, but the fact that although he pays duty at the rate prescribed for pulp or paper or whatever, he pays on the declared value of the object as a work of art. As paper, for instance, the Matisse collage would be worth about [[strikethrough]]thirty cents [[/strikethrough]] $3.00: but as a work of art by Matisse it is valued at $5,000 + [[strikethrough]][[cannot read]] [[/strikethrough]] yet, as a [[?]] of paper it requires $500 duty. But a more ticklish apsect of whether an object qualifies as a painting than the matter of materials, which is, after all, a straightforward, factual matter, is that of its originality. Obviously, the legislators inserted the [[strikethrough]] word [[/strikethrough]] adjective "original" in order to differentiate between a single, unique work of art and those copies and reproductions (photoengraving, lithotype, etc.) which are essentially manufactures. But not adjective leads down wind by paths. [[strikethrough]] To the sentimental GIs who entrusted the photographs of their girls to bereted artists on the Left Bank, it must come as a shock to find that the "hand-painted portraits" which arrive by the dozens in the New York Appraiser's Store are dutiable as "copies." [[/strikethrough]] Back in 1933 an importer who had paid a fancy sum to the highly
Transcription Notes:
not sure if first paragraph is considered crossed out or not (or if that's more of a check mark)