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!
NOTE ABOUT DILETTANTI VIOLIN MAKERS.
Whoever takes an interest in violin making will undoubtedly be pleased to hear more particulars in regard to dilettanti violin makers and their patrons. There are some dilettanti violin makers in America who consider violin making their business, and there are others who do not make it their chief business. They have their own particular patrons, who in the knowledge of violins are on the same level with themselves; but it cannot be denied that in the productions of some of these violin makers there is talent discernable; if these persons could have had proper instruction, more good violin makers would be found than are now in existence. But as long as dilettanti violin makers remain as such, only dilettanti violins will be produced; for without proper instruction it is impossible to obtain either a correct knowledge of the exterior formation or a correct knowledge of the production of tone.