George and Martha -- Washington?

True or False? Boston has more culture than Washington, D.C. True or False? Boston represents more of our "national heritage" than Washington. Treu or False? The fuss in the art world about which city deserves the paintings of George and Martha Washington in the Museum of Fine Arts is getting a little bit silly.

At least the third question is true. Boston Mayor Kevin White has said the first question is true (although he may regret saying it to the press). And Bostonians, swamping the Boston Globe with letters to the editor protesting the planned sale of the paintings to the Smithsonian Institution, have said that even if the second question isn't true. Boston harbors enough of our "heritage" to justify its claim to the portraits.

While one Globe columnist declared war on Washington, Art Buchwald called for an end to the silly debate about which city is more deserving. Besides, he said, "Bostonians can't tell a Picasso from a hockey puck." Buchwald, you're no help at all.

The chaos has reached such a pitch that Boston is suing the Smithsonian and the Boston Athenaeum (a historic library that really owns the works) to prevent the sale. Ted Kennedy flew quickly into town (from Washington, a city he evidently wants to spend more time in) to say he doesn't want the paintings to go to Washington. (What's good enough for Ted isn't good enough, for George, evidently. George died without ever seeing the national capital he helped plan.

Rumor has it Martha had to nag at George to get him to sit for the painting; she must have angered Stuart because he made Martha's nose awfully big and didn't even stick around to finish the portraits. Even so, the paintings are nice and all, but Gilbert Stuart, the artist (who is very famous) isn't even from Boston (he was born in Rhode Island, poor devil) and George came to Boston with his army only a couple of times. So does Boston really have a claim?

You have to feel sorry for the Atheneum. It's 172 years old, its Beacon Street building needs repairs, and the demon inflation looms large. But just because the Smithsonian has $5 million to spend on two more portraits for the endless corridors of nameless faces in the National Portrait Gallery, doesn't mean the Atheneum should sell the portraits right out from under the MFA which has had them on loan since 1876.

But never fear! The people of Boston are rallying. One gentleman told the Globe the sale never would have been necessary if it hadn't been for all those crazy liberals with "their anti-business attitudes and no-growth economic policies" that stifle Mother, God and free-enterprise. Other Bostonians, somewhat more constructively, are rushing checks to the MFA to try to raise $5 million for the SOS (Save Our Stuarts) campaign.

Boston has until the end of the year to drum up the cash; then the paintings will belong to the People of Boston, or something like that. You know, we could always compromise. How about sending them half-way, to New York? True or false? New York has more culture than either Boston or Washington.