![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
6 noted to the same category. 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 $3.00. But as a work of art by Matisse it is valued at $5,000. Thus, when the work of art is called a "manufacture of paper" the importer pays $500 duty. But a more ticklish aspect 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 adjective "original" in order to differentiate between a single, unique work of art and those copies and reproductions (photoengravings, collo-types, etc.) which are essentially manufactures. But that adjective leads down weird by-paths. Back in 1933 an importer who had paid a fancy sum to the fashionable Royal Academician, Frank Owen Salisbury, commissioning a portrait of her deceased mother, was indignantly surprised when the picture was declared a copy of photographs rather than an original oil painting. She entered a protest. The outraged artist appeared in court and claimed that the two small photographs which had been furnished him were "poor reproductions from daguereotypes," one "so small he could cover the face of it with his thumb," so that they served only to give him "the idea of the character." The subject's likeness was achieved not through copying but through the daughter's "knowledge, memory and description and her likeness to her mother, plus a living model." The court held that each such case must be judged on its own record--and in this instance said the "weight of evidence establishes that the art-