{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53477/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53477","id":"gutenberg_53477","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53477","summary":null,"tags":["Art","Category: Art","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Nature (Aesthetics)"],"text":"Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSidenotes are identified as: [SN: text of sidenote].\n\nAdditional Transcriber\u2019s Notes are at the end.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_The Relation of Art to Nature_\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n_THE RELATION OF ART TO NATURE_\n\n\n  _by John W. Beatty_\n\n  _New York\n  William Edwin Rudge_\n  1922\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  _Copyright, 1922\n  by_ JOHN W. BEATTY\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  _To my gentle wife this little volume\n  is affectionately dedicated._\n\n\n\n\n_Contents_\n\n\n  ARGUMENT                        _Page_ 1\n\n  THE ARTIST AND HIS PURPOSE             5\n\n  ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF ART            13\n\n  EVIDENCE OF PAINTERS AND SCULPTORS    19\n\n  OPINIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS AND WRITERS  48\n\n  SYMMETRY                              57\n\n  CONCLUSION                            67\n\n\n\n\n_Authorities Quoted_\n\n\n  PAINTERS AND SCULPTORS\n\n  Kuo Hsi                           11th Century\n\n  Leonardo da Vinci                    1452-1519\n\n  Albrecht D\u00fcrer                       1471-1528\n\n  Michelangelo Buonarotti              1475-1564\n\n  William Hogarth                      1697-1764\n\n  Sir Joshua Reynolds                  1723-1792\n\n  Gilbert Stuart                       1755-1828\n\n  Sir Thomas Lawrence                  1769-1830\n\n  John Constable                       1776-1837\n\n  Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot          1796-1875\n\n  Jean Fran\u00e7ois Millet                 1814-1875\n\n  James Abbott McNeill Whistler        1834-1903\n\n  John La Farge                        1835-1910\n\n  Winslow Homer                        1836-1910\n\n  Anton Mauve                          1838-1888\n\n  Auguste Rodin                        1840-1915\n\n  Abbott Handerson Thayer              1849-1921\n\n  Henry Ward Ranger                    1858-1916\n\n  Giovanni Segantini                   1858-1899\n\n  WRITERS AND PHILOSOPHERS\n\n  Socrates                         470-399 B. C.\n\n  Plato                            427-347 B. C.\n\n  Aristotle                        384-322 B. C.\n\n  Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz 1646-1716\n\n  Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten        1714-1762\n\n  Immanuel Kant                        1724-1804\n\n  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel        1770-1831\n\n  Arthur Schopenhauer                  1788-1860\n\n  John Stuart Blackie                  1809-1895\n\n  James Anthony Froude                 1818-1894\n\n  Jean Henri Fabre                     1823-1915\n\n  Hippolyte Adolphe Taine              1828-1893\n\n  William Angus Knight                 1836-1916\n\n  Lord James Bryce                     1838-1922\n\n  Lafcadio Hearn                       1850-1904\n\n  Maurice Maeterlinck                  1862-\n\n  Sei-ichi Taki\n\n\n\n\n_Introduction_\n\n\n_In his very convincing and lucid treatise on the fundamental\nprinciples of art, John W. Beatty gives us a most absorbing theme to\nfollow--the relation of art to nature, as expressed in their own words\nby artists themselves, of different times and creeds; with, too, the\nopinions of philosophers and men of letters._\n\n_Himself a well-known painter, Mr. Beatty has been for almost thirty\nyears the enlightened Director of Fine Arts of the Carnegie Institute,\nwhere, alone in our whole country, are held annually International\nExhibitions of Art. Much of his life has thus been spent in intimate\nassociation with the very best painters and sculptors of our\ngeneration, and his and their opinions and observations are here to be\nread with much pleasure and profit by every one interested in art._\n\n_Mr. Beatty is quite right when he says, \u201cNot many able artists\nhave recorded their opinions.\u201d In conversation, or on the impulse\nof the moment they may often speak with great beauty and clarity of\nexpression, but nearly always tersely and to the point. On the other\nhand, the man of letters is more given to analysis and finds more\nwords, and more beautiful ones, to express his meaning._\n\n_Analysis is perhaps a dangerous thing for the craftsman to toy with.\nHe must approach nature directly and simply, with concentration that is\nabsolute. He dissects only that particular fragment of nature which is\nbefore him, and that unconsciously. The precious sensation of closeness\nto nature is so fleeting and so fickle, so often not there at all, and\nso frightened, that it is easily scared away by the cold voice of the\nman with a rule to follow. The ever changing aspect of nature, be it\nman or landscape, makes the first impression quickly recorded in the\nthumb-box sketch, or with a dozen lines on the back of an envelope, an\ninvaluable document. Again and again in the painting of a picture we\nrefer with respect to this first strong impression of nature._\n\n_The words_ character _and_ beauty _are many times repeated in this\nbook. Both terms are definite and yet how elastic! Rembrandt is the\npre\u00ebminent example of the complex meaning of the word beauty; many of\nhis models he found in the Ghetto and among his friends and neighbors,\nor, for lack of a model, he painted himself. Surely he has proved to us\nthat only that which has character is truly beautiful; and we must also\nfeel in the presence of Rembrandt\u2019s works, his absolute fidelity to\ntruth._\n\n_On a certain occasion I was in Rodin\u2019s studio when reference was made\nto some harsh criticism of one of his nudes. After listening with\nimpatience Rodin shrugged his shoulders and said: \u201cWhy find fault with\nme? they should find fault with nature!\u201d_\n\n_And so we return to Mr. Beatty\u2019s contention that the artist has\nsucceeded when he has imitated the truth and beauty of nature. The word\nimitation might seem to limit the artist\u2019s personal vision, which must\nbe his very own. How very different this personal vision can be came\nvividly before me when I visited the Prado in Madrid. In one room are\nseen the immortal works of Velasquez, among which are the portraits of\nPhilip IV and his consort; and in an adjoining room are portraits of\nthis same Philip and his queen by Rubens, the Fleming, who happened\nto be temporarily in Madrid on a diplomatic mission. The Spaniard\nsaw his sovereigns in all their splendor, but with a solemn dignity,\ndark haired and sallow complexioned. While the man from Antwerp saw\nthe forms more round and amiable, the hair and flesh more blond and\ncolourful, and unconsciously injected the blood of the Netherlands into\nthe veins of his Spanish sitters._\n\n_Notwithstanding this personal expression, the predilection of a Rubens\nfor the more florid colours, of a Velasquez for the more subdued, sober\nnotes found in nature, it remains true that the end sought by both is\nthe representation of character as it exists in nature._\n\n  GARI MELCHERS.\n\n  _Belmont,\n  Falmouth, Virginia,\n  January 5, 1922._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  \u201c_The realities of Nature surpass our most ambitious dreams._\u201d\n\n  AUGUSTE RODIN\n\n\n\n\n_Argument_\n\n\nMy purpose in writing this treatise is to establish, if this be found\npossible, a foundation for the belief that the art of the painter and\nsculptor is imitative, not creative; that the great masterpieces of\nart which have withstood the test of time rest firmly upon the supreme\nexpression of character and beauty as these qualities are revealed in\nman and nature; that it is the mission of art to reveal and make plain\nthese rare and lovely qualities. The truthful representation of these\nqualities constitutes a common factor which binds all great works\ntogether, a fact that is realized in every national gallery of art.\n\nI have chosen to base my argument not upon theory or opinion but upon\nthe evidence of eminent painters and sculptors who have produced great\nworks of art.\n\nNot many able artists have recorded their opinions touching the\nphilosophy of art. On the other hand, writers in abundance have\nundertaken to define art. A few early and some modern philosophers\nhave given profound thought to the subject and bequeathed to us their\nopinions. Painters and sculptors, with few exceptions, however, have\nconfined their efforts to searching for, and revealing by their art,\nbeauty and character. More is the pity, because opinion supported by\nachievement is always more valuable than judgment which rests solely\nupon theory or observation.\n\nThe great masters who have directed brush and chisel in the performance\nof their work must have known what their purpose was; they certainly\nknew better than any one else, and they undoubtedly realized how far\nthey had succeeded, or how far they had fallen short of securing the\nqualities which they had discovered and which they had undertaken to\nreveal. The evidence of these men is invaluable. Its importance bears\nan exact relation to their success in producing great and enduring\nworks. This is true in every other field of human endeavor and it is\nequally true in the field of art. The opinion of the great astronomer\nwith reference to astronomy is more valuable than that of the layman;\nthe opinion of the great painter than that of the amateur. The man who\nknows any science so perfectly that he can practice it successfully,\nthe artist who knows his art and nature so well that he can produce\ngreat works of art, these have earned the right to express their\nopinions. I think this must be accepted as a fundamental truth. It is\ntherefore to the painter and sculptor that I turn for judgment. I have\nbeen aided in this inquiry by knowledge of the opinions of many of the\nable painters and sculptors of our own time. Intimate discussion has\nstimulated further inquiry, and a conviction which was originally based\nupon familiarity with the methods and purpose of the painter has been\nconfirmed.\n\n\n\n\n_The Artist and His Purpose_\n\n\nDuring all the great periods of art able men have striven earnestly\nto attain a knowledge of character and beauty and to achieve their\ntruthful representation. Even when the purpose of the artist has been\nto express some specific idea or to record some incident or historical\nevent, the work has lived, not because of the idea conveyed or the\ninterest which attaches to the subject, but because it has portrayed\ncharacter in a powerful manner, or because it has expressed the\nqualities of beauty which are inherent in nature. Upon these qualities,\nas they have been understood and translated by the artist, has depended\nthe life of every great painting and work of sculpture. I believe this\nto be a fundamental and far reaching truth, accepted almost universally\nby painters and sculptors. This, I know, is equivalent to saying that\nthe chief value of a work of art lies in its power to give aesthetic\npleasure.\n\nThese observations may suggest a question as to the relative\nimportance of a work of art which tells a story or records historical\nevents as compared with one which appeals solely to the aesthetic\nsense or the love of beauty. Human language, it would seem to me, is\nthe logical method for conveying thought from one mind to another and\noffers direct, untrammelled mental contact without the intervention\nof form or design of any kind, while the representation of beauty for\nbeauty\u2019s sake alone is the more direct and effective way of creating\nand stimulating in the human heart a love of nature and art.\n\nThis, however, is not the question considered in this work. The\nquestion raised is simply this: Has the artist, in representing the\nevanescent effects of nature, the manifold beauties and harmonies with\nwhich we are surrounded in this world, or predominant character as\nexpressed by man, exceeded nature either by virtue of his exceptional\npower or as a result of any personal quality which he may impart to the\nwork?\n\nIt is also manifestly true that the greatness of a work of art must\ndepend upon the mental power of the artist, that power which enables\nhim to apprehend or discover the essential qualities existing in\nnature. It is equally true that every artist, even though wholly\nabsorbed in the effort to reveal the truth and beauty which exist\nin nature, expresses in some degree his own personality. He does\nthis inevitably, first, by the type of subject he chooses to study\nand represent, and, second, but in a less important degree, by the\ntechnical manner employed. This is, of course, well understood by\nevery one. It is not for a moment disputed. But beyond and above this\npersonal expression stands, as the chief and highest purpose of the\nartist, the representation of truth and character as these do actually\nexist.\n\nWhile the painter has used his art to record history, to tell stories,\nand to express emotions and convictions, his chief mission is to\nextract from nature her many beautiful forms and harmonies and to\npresent these in pleasing fashion. In this way the artisan, drawing\nupon the great multitude of beautiful forms and colours exhibited\nby nature and so lavishly spread everywhere in the animal and plant\ncreations, cunningly fashions patterns and combinations, weaving these\ninto rugs and adapting them to the many beautiful objects with which we\nare familiar.\n\nNotwithstanding these accepted facts, I am convinced that the great\nworks of the painter and sculptor, those of supreme importance, rest\nnot upon any of these devices or expressions of art, but upon the\nfaithful, unerring and masterly representation of character and beauty\nas these do actually exist. The masterpieces of art as they live today\nin the national art galleries of the world establish this fact. They\nseem to possess a common factor without regard to subject or period\nwhich unites in a common family the great paintings of the entire\nhistory of art. This factor I believe to be the quality of truth.\nThese great works owe their existence to the fact that they faithfully\nrepresent some great outstanding type, or because they truthfully\nreveal the characteristic and essential beauty of nature expressed in\none of her many moods. They are important just in proportion as their\nmasters have understood these qualities and recorded their impressions\non canvas and in marble.\n\nI know perfectly well that the opinion here expressed is not the one\nmost widely accepted; it is not the popular view of art; it is not the\nview expressed by many writers upon this subject.\n\nThe opinion most widely accepted is that the artist creates beauty;\nthat in some mysterious way, by virtue of a special gift, he does\nactually evolve from within his own consciousness forms of grace and\nloveliness; that however deeply the artist sinks himself in nature, art\nyet remains intensely individual; that in representing nature he adds\nto that which he secures from nature a personal quality which becomes\nthe most important part of the work. This is the theory of art accepted\nvery generally, but it is not supported by evidence.\n\nThe main purpose of this writing is, in fact, to establish by the\nevidence of the men who are quoted that their reliance has been solely\nupon nature and their success in exact proportion to their knowledge\nof nature and their ability to portray her predominant qualities. Let\nme repeat, however, that the ability to see and understand nature is\ndependent upon mental power. The man of limited mental power will see\nlittle; the one of great power will see much. The latter will apprehend\nthe subtle, elusive qualities in a way impossible to the former. This,\nI know, is equivalent to saying that the great artist must bring to\nhis task a great mind. This assumption is quite correct. A great mind\nis that power which is vaguely described as genius; it is what enables\nmen to accomplish great things in every field of human endeavor. The\nquestion, therefore, is not whether the great artist possesses superior\npower, but rather how important are the inevitable traces of personal\npredilection or technical manner revealed in nearly all works of art as\ncompared with the truthful presentation of the fundamental qualities\nthe artist has discovered and undertaken to represent.\n\nLet us examine this phase of the question more fully. A painting by\nCorot for instance bears, first, the evidence of Corot\u2019s choice of\nsubject. That which appealed to him in nature he painted. The kind\nof thing he loved, the phase of nature he chose, unquestionably bore\nevidence of his personal temperament or predilection. By this he\nexpressed his personal taste, his discriminating judgment, himself, in\nfact. If the artist be a man of gentle and sensitive quality, he will\nselect for representation, as Corot did, a phase of nature which is in\naccord with his feeling.\n\nIn the second place, a painting by Corot will exhibit in a very obvious\nway the manifest impress of the artist\u2019s technical method. In fact, the\nmanner by which the work is performed, that which is termed technic,\nthe very manner in which the artist touches the canvas, becomes a\ndistinguishing and individual characteristic intimately associated with\nthe artist and easily recognized. However, the technical treatment is\nof little significance. It is in an important sense pure mannerism,\noften the result of habit or early professional training. In a limited\nsense it is the handwriting of the artist. This technical side of a\npainting, the obvious and superficial aspect, is, I am convinced,\ngiven by the amateur an importance out of all proportion to its value.\n\nWe must, however, deal with this personal phase of a work of art. The\nquestion is how important is this personal expression as compared with\nthe more profound truth of nature. If we may accept the testimony of\nthe painters and sculptors who have produced enduring works of art, we\nwill, I think, be convinced that this quality is not important when\ncompared with essential truth or predominant character. The artists\nwhose opinions you will read seem almost without exception to attach\ngreater importance to the expression of the character of the person\nor object represented than to the expression of personal temperament.\nIndeed, they seem to be oblivious to the qualities which attract and\noccupy the attention of the writer and amateur, but they are insistent\nupon the paramount importance of truth.\n\nWhat this all-important quality is may be further explained by a simple\nillustration.\n\nAbraham Lincoln was an outstanding type. The painter or sculptor\ncannot by his art enhance either the beauty or strength of Lincoln\u2019s\ncharacter. The utmost he can hope to do is to realize that character in\nits richness and fullness of power. In everything the artist touches\nin his effort to reproduce this character his taste will be displayed,\neven in the treatment of details, the adjustment of draperies and\naccessories, the appropriateness of gesture or movement; but all\nthese things, including the technic displayed, will be subordinate to\nLincoln\u2019s character. The great, outstanding, dominant character of\nAbraham Lincoln exists as a masterpiece of nature far outranking in\nperfection any description or portraiture. The man who best reads or\ncomprehends this character and who most faithfully represents it, will\nproduce the greatest work of art. In the effort to do this, the painter\nor sculptor will undoubtedly leave traces of his own individuality or\ntemperament, but these qualities must not be confused with the dominant\ncharacter of a Lincoln or given undue importance. The highest purpose\nof the artist is to faithfully represent character.\n\n\n\n\n_Ancient Conceptions of Art_\n\n\nClosely allied to the thought that the painter creates beauty is the\nancient tradition that the artist is inspired to produce works of art.\nThis conviction had its origin very early in the history of art. In the\ntime of Praxiteles this belief was entertained by many; it was thought,\nfor instance, that in the production of the Aphrodite of Knidos the\nsculptor was inspired by the goddess herself.\n\nThis conception of art doubtless grew out of the fact that the\nearly art of the Egyptians and Greeks was largely devoted to the\nrepresentation of deities and to the erection of temples which\nshould be their shrines. This association of art with the gods and\ntheir temples doubtless contributed to the belief that the artist\nwas inspired or that he possessed a superior power or the gift of\ninspiration.\n\n[SN: _Hegel_]\n\nClosely allied with this thought was the conception expressed by Hegel\nwith reference to a distinction between the external and material\nforms of art and the spirit which he suggests permeates the work and\nof which it is a manifestation. Hegel, although accepting the theory\nthat \u201cart has the vocation of revealing the truth in the form of\nsensuous artistic shape,\u201d speaks of the union of the material with the\nspiritual in a manner, which although quite true in abstract reasoning,\ncontributes to this impression. Discussing Architecture as a Fine\nArt, he wrote: \u201cThe material of architecture is matter itself in its\nimmediate externality as a heavy mass subject to mechanical laws, and\nits forms remain the forms of inorganic nature, but are merely arranged\nand ordered in accordance with the abstract rules of the understanding,\nthe rules of symmetry. But in such material and in such forms the ideal\nas concrete spirituality cannot be realized; the reality which is\nrepresented in them remains, therefore, alien to the spiritual idea, as\nsomething external which it has not penetrated or with which it has but\na remote and abstract relation.... Into this temple now enters the God\nhimself. The lightning-flash of individuality strikes the inert mass,\npermeates it, and a form no longer merely symmetrical, but infinite and\nspiritual, concentrates and molds its adequate bodily shape.\u201d No one\ntoday in the presence of a superb relic of architecture asks whether or\nnot it is the abiding place of a spirit. It is accepted as expressing\nthe spirit of beauty and is enjoyed for this alone.\n\nHegel\u2019s conception of a work of art, frequently expressed in his\nphilosophy, was that the content or idea is the important thing. This\nconception conformed to early art because painting and sculpture were\nemployed primarily to express ideas.\n\nWith the development of the Landscape School of Art and the enjoyment\nof art on the purely aesthetic side, modern thought has materially\nchanged. Gradually our appreciation of the beautiful for its own sake\nhas developed. The influence of this movement has reacted upon all\nphases of art expression, and even those works which express ideas in\nthe sense of subject matter have come to be judged upon the basis of\naesthetic beauty, rather than with reference to the idea or content as\nthus defined.\n\nTherefore what Hegel says applies to the early conception of art rather\nthan to that of the present time.\n\n[SN: _Socrates_]\n\nAnother conception of art suggests the union of the beautiful with\nthe good. The philosophy of Socrates teaches this. He regarded the\nbeautiful as coincident with the good, and both of them as resolvable\ninto the useful. He does not seem to have attached importance to\nthe immediate gratification which a beautiful object affords to\nperception and contemplation, but rather to have emphasized its power\nof furthering the more necessary ends of life.\n\nThese early theories and conceptions with reference to art may in some\ndegree account for the prevalence of an impression, even in our own\ntime, that the artist is inspired or that he creates his masterpiece\nas the result of some supernatural power. It has always seemed to the\ninexperienced that the creation of a work of art implies an element of\nmystery or represents something inexplicable. What is to the painter a\nnatural process becomes mysterious. Nothing existed on the blank canvas\nand behold, presently, there appears a picture simulating life. Having\nno knowledge of the methods employed, or of the years of patient labor\nrequired to secure the technical ability to represent the actual truth\nand spirit of natural objects, the result seems far removed from the\nordinary. Thence it is but a step to the point of view that the artist\nis one \u201cinspired.\u201d\n\nAlthough the conception of a work of art which places it above nature\nis very old, I do not recall a definition made under this impression\nwhich seems satisfactory. There is always apparent the effort to\ncompromise or bring together two distinct conceptions--the one\nattributing to the work a quality superior to nature and the other\ndemanding that it be a truthful representation of nature. Defining\na work of art as something superior to nature, and at the same time\ninsisting that it represent nature faithfully is an inconsistency\neternally cropping out.\n\n[SN: _John Constable_]\n\nJohn Constable touched this subject with remarkable acumen and\nexpressed his conviction with precision when he said: \u201cIt appears to me\nthat pictures have been over-valued; held up by a blind admiration as\nideal things, and almost as standards by which nature is to be judged\nrather than the reverse; and this false estimate has been sanctioned by\nthe extravagant epithets that have been applied to painters, as \u2018the\ndivine,\u2019 \u2018the inspired,\u2019 and so forth. Yet, in reality what are the\nmost sublime productions of the pencil but selections of some of the\nforms of nature, and copies of a few of her evanescent effects; the\nresult, not of inspiration, but of long and patient study, under the\ndirection of much good sense.\u201d\n\nThis, then, is my argument: First, that art is the expression of\nsupreme or predominant character and the representation of grace and\nharmony as these qualities exist in nature; and, second, that the\ntruthful rendering of these qualities is the high mission of the\npainter and sculptor.\n\n\n\n\n_Evidence of Painters and Sculptors_\n\n\nIf we will now turn to the evidence bearing upon this subject, we will\ndiscover what I have already indicated, namely, that the able artists\nwho have expressed opinions touching the philosophy of their art have\ndone so in no uncertain terms, and that the opinions which refer art\nto nature as the highest source seem convincing. We will also discover\nthat not only do the majority of able painters agree upon what art\nreally is, and express their opinions with clearness and precision, but\nthat many of the philosophers of recent and ancient times define art in\nthe same forceful way.\n\nLet us first examine opinions expressed by painters and sculptors.\n\n[SN: _Michelangelo_]\n\nMichelangelo wrote: \u201cIn my judgment that is the excellent and divine\npainting which is most like and best imitates any work of immortal God,\nwhether a human figure, or a wild and strange animal, or a simple and\neasy fish, or a bird of the air, or any other creature.... To imitate\nperfectly each of these things in its species seems to me to be nothing\nelse but to desire to imitate the work of immortal God. And yet that\nthing will be the most noble and perfect in the works of painting which\nin itself reproduced the thing which is most noble and of the greatest\ndelicacy and knowledge.\u201d Michelangelo thus reduces the philosophy of\nart to the simple problem of selection, and the faithful and truthful\nrepresentation of the dominant, the graceful, the harmonious, and the\nbeautiful in nature. His statement, which so simply, even quaintly,\nexpresses the opinion of a great master whose works have commanded\nthe homage of the world during nearly four centuries, is worthy of\nthe most careful consideration. It reveals his reliance upon nature\nwithout confusion of thought or pretension of any kind. There are here\nno intricate definitions of art or complex theories concerning his\nmethod of creating his masterly representations of the best he found in\nnature--\u201cthe thing which is most noble!\u201d\n\nThe universality of this profound truth and of its independence of\nlocal conditions and circumstances is emphasized by the fact that\nanother great master of another race, one whose technical methods\nand choice of subjects differed widely from those of Michelangelo,\nexpressed the same reliance upon nature. [SN: _Albrecht D\u00fcrer_]\nAlbrecht D\u00fcrer was a contemporary of Michelangelo, but he worked under\nwidely different conditions. It is the great fundamental quality of\ntruth so quaintly commended by Michelangelo that distinguishes the\nworks of Albrecht D\u00fcrer. Albrecht D\u00fcrer wrote: \u201cLife in Nature proves\nthe truth of these things; therefore consider her diligently, guide\nthyself by her, and swerve not from Nature, thinking that thou canst\nfind something better of thyself, for thou wilt be deceived. For Art\nstandeth firmly fixed in Nature, and whoso can thence rend her forth,\nhe only possesseth her.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Leonardo da Vinci_]\n\nWe find in Leonardo da Vinci\u2019s notebook reference to this same\nprinciple. He recommends application to the study of the works of\nnature and advises the student to withdraw as far as possible from\nthe companionship of others in order that he may more earnestly\nand effectively do this. His sage advice emphasizes the importance\nof study. \u201cThe eye, which is called the window of the soul, is the\nchief means whereby the understanding may most fully and abundantly\nappreciate the infinite works of nature.... All visible things derive\ntheir existence from nature, and from these same things is born\npainting.\u201d\n\n[SN: _William Hogarth_]\n\nAnother painter who has written his opinion upon this subject is\nWilliam Hogarth, who said: \u201cNature is simple, plain, and true, in all\nher works, and those who strictly adhere to her laws, and closely\nattend to her appearances in their infinite varieties, are guarded\nagainst any prejudiced bias from truth.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Sir Joshua Reynolds_]\n\nOf the great painters who have touched upon the philosophy of art in\ntheir writings, no one has written, shall I say, more fluently than\nhas Sir Joshua Reynolds. He may even be said to have been eloquent.\nHis lectures prepared for the students of the Royal Academy have\nbeen famous for a century and a half. They have not only inspired\ngenerations of art students with a keener interest in art, but they\nare probably the most helpful utterances upon the subject given to the\nworld in his time or since. It seems to me, however, that, as is often\nthe case where great facility of expression is practiced, Reynolds\nemploys a term which, without clear definition, confuses the mind.\nThis is true where he frequently uses the term \u201cgenius.\u201d The term is\nassociated in popular belief with the power to create works of art.\nAlthough using a term which is at least subject to this interpretation,\nReynolds definitely denies to the human mind this power, asserting that\nthe power to create is simply the power to imitate nature. Reynolds\nwrote: \u201cI am on the contrary persuaded that by imitation only, variety,\nand even originality of invention, is produced. I will go further;\neven genius, at least what generally is so called, is the child of\nimitation.\u201d He further says: \u201cThe study of nature is the beginning and\nthe end of theory. It is in nature only we can find that beauty which\nis the great object of our search; it can be found nowhere else; we can\nno more form any idea of beauty superior to nature than we can form an\nidea of a sixth sense, or any other excellence out of the limits of\nthe human mind.\u201d Reynolds again writes: \u201cInvention, strictly speaking,\nis little more than a new combination of those images which have been\npreviously gathered and deposited in the memory: nothing can come of\nnothing: he who has laid up no materials can produce no combinations.\u201d\n\n[SN: _John Constable_]\n\nJohn Constable, a contemporary of Reynolds, and to whose judgment we\nhave already referred, further expressed his opinion upon this subject.\nA statement of principle by him seems to be conviction crystallized.\nConstable, although unaccustomed to writing, even unaccustomed to\ndiscussion, because he was a man of quiet and simple life, seems to\nhave thought profoundly; and when the rare occasion to express his\nopinion did come he condensed within a few words a great fundamental\nprinciple with unerring precision. His definition of the purpose\nand method of the artist cannot, I think, be excelled for accuracy\nor fullness of meaning. He wrote: \u201cIn art, there are two modes by\nwhich men aim at distinction; in the one, by a careful application to\nwhat others have accomplished, the artist imitates their works, or\nselects and combines their various beauties; in the other, he seeks\nexcellence at its primitive source, nature. In the first, he forms a\nstyle upon the study of pictures, and produces either imitative or\neclectic art; in the second, by a close observation of nature, he\ndiscovers qualities existing in her which have never been portrayed\nbefore, and thus forms a style which is original. The results of the\none mode, as they repeat that with which the eye is already familiar,\nare soon recognized and estimated, while the advances of the artist\nin a new path must necessarily be slow, for few are able to judge of\nthat which deviates from the usual course, or qualified to appreciate\noriginal studies.\u201d There is here no mystery or ambiguity. This is the\nstatement of a profound truth by a great painter who knew perfectly his\nreliance upon nature. It was prompted by the conviction of a great mind\nwhich saw only the underlying fact and abjured all trivialities and\nhair-splitting theories. In his mental attitude and grasp, Constable\nwas like Winslow Homer, a man of few words, one given to much thought\nand to firm convictions.\n\n[SN: _Sir Thomas Lawrence_]\n\nIn one of his lectures at the Royal Institution of Great Britain,\nConstable said: \u201cIt was said by Sir Thomas Lawrence, that \u2018we can never\nhope to compete with nature in the beauty and delicacy of her separate\nforms or colours, our only chance lies in selection and combination.\u2019\u201d\n\n[SN: _Gilbert Stuart_]\n\nGilbert Stuart expressed a like reliance upon nature when he said: \u201cYou\nmust copy nature, but if you leave nature for an imaginary effect, you\nwill lose all. Nature cannot be excused, and as your object is to copy\nnature, it is the height of folly to work at anything else to produce\nthat copy.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Corot_]\n\nCorot was equally assured of the importance of this principle to an\nartist. He said: \u201cTruth is the first thing in art, and the second, and\nthe third.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Millet_]\n\nLet us take the opinion of another able painter, that of Millet, who\nsaid: \u201cMen of genius are, as it were, endowed with a divining-rod.\nSome discover one thing in nature, some another, according to their\ntemperament.... The mission of men of genius is to reveal that portion\nof nature\u2019s riches which they have discovered, to those who would\nnever have suspected their existence. They interpret nature to those\nwho cannot understand her language.\u201d\n\n\u201cI should like to do nothing which was not the result of an impression\nreceived from the appearance of nature, either in landscape or figures.\u201d\n\n\u201cI should express the type very strongly, the type being, to my mind,\nthe most powerful truth.\u201d\n\nThese opinions are at once simple and comprehensive. They express the\nthoughts of men who have achieved great works. Indeed, I have never\nheard the able master of art say otherwise than that he has striven\nwith all his power, sometimes in despair, to wrest from nature the\nsubtle beauties of form and colour possessed by her and discovered by\nthose who have the power to perceive and understand these qualities.\nNature is the supreme standard, attained to only in part. We may accept\nnature as the source of all beauty and harmony in art and rest assured\nthat the stream has never risen above its source.\n\nThe opinions here quoted do not differ materially from those expressed\nby painters of our own time.\n\n[SN: _Whistler_]\n\nI recall that Whistler upon the occasion of one of my visits expressed\nan opinion upon this subject. Whistler\u2019s \u201cWhite Girl,\u201d \u201cGirl at the\nPiano\u201d and many other works are such notable examples of truthful\nrepresentation as to give weight to his opinion. The absolute certainty\nwith which the several parts of these pictures exist in relation to\neach other cannot be overstated.\n\nIn response to my inquiry regarding the most important quality in\nthe art of the painter, Whistler said: \u201cArt is the science of the\nbeautiful. The parts of nature bear a certain relation to each other,\nand this relation is as true as a mathematical fact. People sometimes\nsay my pictures are dark. That depends upon whether or not the subject\nwas dark; whether the conditions made it dark. If a dark or low toned\nphase of nature is selected, then the picture must be absolutely true\nto those conditions.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere it is, the subject. Certain relations exist between the value\nnotes, and these relations must be reproduced absolutely. Two and two\nmake four--that is a simple truth in mathematics as it is in nature.\nTwo and two make four--the trouble is that many painters do not see\nthat two and two make four. They do not see this fine relationship\nwhich results in a simple truth. Not seeing, they try all kinds of\nnumbers.\u201d\n\nTurning from the easel in front of which we were standing, Whistler\nlifted a book from the table with a quick, almost nervous action, and\nas he opened it said with a quizzical expression, \u201cIt is all in here.\u201d\nThe book was the \u201cGentle Art of Making Enemies.\u201d Tuning quickly to the\nparagraph he had in mind, he read, \u201cNature contains the elements, in\ncolour and form, of all pictures, as the keyboard contains the notes\nof all music. But the artist is born to pick, and choose, and group\nwith science, these elements, that the result may be beautiful.\u201d He\ncontinued to read for a good part of an hour. Whistler by Whistler\nwas an inimitable and rare treat. The slightest shade of meaning was\nexpressed with great delicacy, by inflection and gesture.\n\nAt the end of very many years of study and observation, Whistler\u2019s\nsensitive appreciation and power of selection were extraordinary. The\nmost subtle and harmonious qualities in nature made an irresistible\nappeal to him. He has described this faculty as the power to pick and\nchoose. By the very choice of many of his subjects he was enabled to\neliminate all insignificant details and thereby to render the harmonies\nof nature as they appeared to him. He described his method or mental\nattitude with reference to nature when he said: \u201cAs the light fades and\nthe shadows deepen all petty and exacting details vanish, everything\ntrivial disappears, and I see things as they are, in great strong\nmasses.\u201d\n\nThis represents Whistler in the presence of subdued and gentle\nqualities in nature, but it was the same Whistler, without modification\nor change in his attitude with respect to nature, who rendered with\nsuch startling realism and absolute fidelity to truth in his marvellous\netchings the shipping, the city, and the river Thames. Under the\nblazing light of noonday the masts and rigging of the ships, the forms\nand details of the hulls, even the tile upon the roofs of the city\nhouses were distinctly seen. He recorded his impressions manifestly\nwithout the slightest deviation from the simple truth of form and\nvalue. No one who has studied Whistler\u2019s set of the Thames etchings\nwill for an instant dispute this statement. The quality of simple truth\nis so astonishingly present in every line and form in these works that\nno argument is needed touching this point. The Whistler who made these\netchings, the Whistler who painted the \u201cWhite Girl\u201d and the \u201cGirl\nat the Piano,\u201d must be reconciled with the Whistler who painted the\nevening symphonies representing the river, the \u201cPortrait of Sarasate,\u201d\nand other works of subdued and gentle qualities. The simple truth is\nthat Whistler was as faithful and scientific in the one case as in the\nother, and that the result depended upon his choice of subject, and\nthe time, and effect observed. I am told that in his later period\nhe sought after and discovered means of securing the more gentle\naspects of nature; that he toned and diffused the light in his studio\nscientifically by the use of semi-transparent window curtains. However\nthis may be, it is undoubtedly true that he did rely upon the effect\nactually before him and that he sought to represent the subdued effect\nin his studio or the gentle light of evening so beautifully described\nby him in his \u201cTen O\u2019Clock.\u201d It would be difficult to imagine a more\nbeautiful pen picture than this description by Whistler. It indicates\nhis love for the gentle and harmonious qualities in nature.\n\n\u201cWhen the evening mist clothes the riverside with poetry, as with a\nveil, and the poor buildings lose themselves in the dim sky, and the\ntall chimneys become campanili, and the warehouses palaces in the\nnight, and the whole city hangs in the heavens, and fairyland is before\nus--then the wayfarer hastens home; the workingman and the cultured\none, the wise man and the one of pleasure, cease to understand, as they\nhave ceased to see, and Nature, who, for once, has sung in tune, sings\nher exquisite song to the artist alone, her son and her master--her son\nin that he loves her, her master in that he knows her.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Abbott Thayer_]\n\nThis power to select and represent the beautiful qualities in nature,\na power which is the result of repeated efforts, has been defined by\nAbbott H. Thayer with rare skill and poetic beauty. \u201cIt is as though\na man were shown a crystal, a perfect thing, gleaming below depths of\nwater--far down beyond reach. He would dive and dive again, driven by\nhis great desire to secure it, until finally, all dripping, he brought\nit up. But that in the end he could bring it--a perfect thing--to us,\nwas possible solely because he had first seen it, gleaming there.\nOthers might dive and dive, might work and labor with endless patience\nand endless pain, but unless they had first seen the crystal--unless\nthey had been given this divine gift of seeing--this vision--they would\ncome up empty-handed. The occasional so-called genius does not make\nthe crystal, but he alone sees it, where it lies gleaming below depths\nof water, and by his effort brings it to us. The whole question is how\nabsolutely, how perfectly, the artist sees this vision.\u201d\n\n\u201cAfter the artist has lived, for a certain period, in worship of some\nparticular specimen or type of the form of beauty dearest to him,\nthis crystal-like vision forms, clearer and clearer, at the bottom\nof his mind, which is, so to speak, his sea of consciousness, until\nat last the vision is plainly visible to him, and the all-strain and\ndanger-facing time has come for putting it into the form in which as\none of the world\u2019s treasures it is to live on.\u201d\n\nWhen asked whether the artist has ever been granted a vision of any\nbeauty which is not based upon the beauty of nature, Thayer exclaimed\nemphatically, \u201cNo, no, no! I don\u2019t see the slightest material for any\nsuch conception.\u201d\n\nAnd when the question was further put--granted that the artist has\nthe gift of seeing beauty in nature to which others are blind, is\nhis picture Art in proportion as he truthfully records the beauty of\nthe nature that he sees? Mr. Thayer answered, \u201cYes. Everything in\nart, in poetry, music, sculpture, or painting, however fantastic it\nlooks to people who are not far enough on that road, is nothing but\ntruth-telling, true reporting of one or another of the great facts of\nnature--of the universe.\u201d\n\nThe ability to see, as Thayer suggests, is the very foundation of\nthe artist\u2019s power. It is this power of seeing which enables him to\ndiscover truth and beauty, and it is the skill of the trained master\nwhich enables him to reproduce these for the delight and inspiration of\nhis fellows.\n\nThat men are endowed by inheritance with varying degrees of mental\npower is a self-evident fact. No one will dispute this; it comes within\nour common experience. Providence has been lavish in the bestowal of\nextraordinary powers upon the few, but it remains everlastingly true\nthat even with these success depends upon effort. Nothing is more fully\nestablished than this truism. The records of successful men in all\nperiods and in every avenue of life bear testimony to this fact.\n\nTo the artist, seeing is the all important thing, and to him there is\nno mystery either in the development of this power or in the result\nobtained. To him it is simply a matter of logical evolution, the result\nof the day\u2019s work well done. He begins his career as a student by\nlaboriously copying nature. His first studies are, as a rule, hard and\nunsympathetic. I have not discovered an exception to this rule. In the\nbeginning the art student does not even see colour in its fullness and\nbeauty. Gradually he acquires greater power of perception. He discovers\nbeautiful and harmonious colours in nature which were unseen at first.\nHe realizes the exquisite grace of line to be found on every hand but\nunperceived before--the movement, charm, and beauty of natural forms.\nNew beauties are revealed from day to day; new harmonies are seen\nand felt. Presently the inharmonious becomes distasteful; the ugly,\nintolerable; the offensive, a distress. He comes into the presence of\nnature with a new vision. Her beauties are revealed to him. He feels a\nthrill in the love he bears for the exceptional and profound beauty of\nan evening sky or a grey day. He never talks about inspiration or soul,\nalthough he has searched out the very soul of the landscape. He simply\nseeks with every power at his command, as Constable, borrowing the\nthought from Wordsworth, expressed it, \u201cto give \u2018to one brief moment\ncaught from fleeting time\u2019 a lasting and sober existence, and to render\npermanent many of those splendid but evanescent Exhibitions which are\never occurring in the endless varieties of Nature.\u201d\n\nThe sculptor, I think, in some such manner lies in wait for the grace\nand charm of movement, the supreme expression of character and of\nharmony, as an animal lies in wait for its prey. When one or all of\nthese qualities are seen he seizes his chisel and strives to fix what\nhe has discovered in permanent form.\n\nThe artist, looking back over twenty or thirty years of continuous and\nearnest study, of repeated and laborious effort, and of failures and\nsuccesses, realizes that the power of perception and selection which he\nnow possesses is the result of these years of observation and labor. He\nalso realizes that he has never quite attained to the full height of\nhis ambition to represent truthfully the supreme qualities of beauty\nwhich he has learned to discover in nature.\n\nIn the selection of subjects for his works and in the production of\narrangements or combinations representing either grace, beauty of\ncolour and form, or essential character, the painter or sculptor is\naided by two very powerful influences.\n\nThe first of these is his inherited or acquired taste. Step by step,\nprecept upon precept, first as a student in the art school, then as\nan artist, this faculty known as taste is cultivated, increased,\nuntil with rare discrimination and judgment he selects, \u201cpicks and\nchooses,\u201d as Whistler said, the things of beauty and harmony, being\nguided all the while by the unwritten law of harmony of which we are\nall conscious. To arrive at this consummation of the artist\u2019s highest\nendeavors is not an easy task.\n\nHis course may be, and often is, a very delightful and agreeable\none, but it is one of infinite effort and labor. Before the painter\nacquires this knowledge or power which enables him to discriminate\nwith judgment and taste, selecting those forms and colours expressive\nof harmony, grace and beauty, he must have served an apprenticeship of\nmany long years. The sculptor who would aspire to the exquisite and\ndiscriminating taste of a Rodin, who observes with patience and who\nseizes with marvellous skill upon the very essence of grace as it is\nexpressed by the human figure, must travel the same tedious road. If\nthe sculptor would read and know character as does a Saint-Gaudens, he\nmust travel many a weary mile over the path which leads to perfection\nin art.\n\nThe second powerful influence helping the artist to acquire knowledge\nis, as Constable suggested, art itself. The student while pursuing the\nplodding course of training in the art school and later in a wider\nfield as an artist, is not only searching out in nature the qualities\nof grace and harmony, but his eyes are constantly turned in the\ndirection of the accumulated records of art. He studies with assiduous\ncare and thought in the great works of all times, the qualities, the\nharmonies, the character wrested from nature by the able painters\nand sculptors of the past. Myriads have tried and failed to know and\nmaster nature during the past few hundred years, and only the few who\nhave succeeded have left the record of their success. All the weak\nproductions have gone into oblivion. To these really great works the\npainter and sculptor turn again and again, patiently, persistently,\nunfalteringly, sometimes through hours of silent study at other times\nby earnest effort to copy, but always with a single purpose in\nmind--to know and master the secrets of the masters. Little by little,\nalways referring the master to nature for confirmation or proof, the\nartist struggles upward to a more consummate understanding of the works\nof nature, but he never forsakes or belittles this supreme source of\nall his power and knowledge.\n\n[SN: _Winslow Homer_]\n\nI recall asking Winslow Homer if he did not think the beauty existing\nin nature must be discovered and reproduced by the painter. Quick as a\nflash he answered: \u201cYes, but the rare thing is to find a painter who\nknows a good thing when he sees it.\u201d\n\nOn another occasion we were picking our way along the Maine coast, over\nthe shelving rocks he painted so often and with such insight and power,\nwhen I suddenly said: \u201cHomer, do you ever take the liberty, in painting\nnature, of modifying the colour of any part?\u201d\n\nI recall his manner and expression perfectly. He stopped quickly and\nexclaimed: \u201cNever! Never! When I have selected the thing carefully I\npaint it exactly as it appears.\u201d\n\nDuring our talk he emphasized, however, the importance of selection.\n\u201cYou must not paint anything you see--you must wait and wait patiently\nfor a particular effect, and then when it comes, if you have sense\nenough to know it when you do see it--well, that\u2019s all there is to\nthat.\u201d\n\nAt another time, referring contemptuously to the calm ocean under a\nvacant sky, he said: \u201cI take no interest in that.\u201d There came, however,\none morning while I was at Prout\u2019s Neck a misty and threatening sky.\nGrey clouds bewitching in their silvery tones went hurrying across the\ntroubled sea. By noon it was blowing a gale and the waves were lashing\nthe coast, sending spray high into the air. Once and again great clouds\nof mist drove across the deserted rocks, and the music of old ocean\nrose to an ominous and resounding tone. Presently Homer hurried into\nmy room, clad from head to foot in rubber, and carrying in his arms a\nstorm coat and a pair of sailor\u2019s boots. \u201cCome,\u201d he said, \u201cquickly! It\nis perfectly grand.\u201d\n\nFor an hour we clambered over rocks, holding fast to the wiry shrubs\nwhich grew from every crevice, while the spray dashed far overhead.\nThis placid, reserved, self-contained little man was in a fever of\nexcitement, and his delight in the beautiful and almost overpowering\nexpression of the ocean as it foamed and rioted was inspiring. To him\nthis was the supreme expression of beauty and power. The moment he had\npatiently waited for had come.\n\nHomer\u2019s love for and appreciation of those rugged, elemental qualities\nin nature resulted in the production of forceful works of great beauty.\nIn the selection of subjects he expressed his individual taste.\n\n[SN: _Henry W. Ranger_]\n\nI recall an opinion expressed by the late Henry W. Ranger to the\neffect that Tolstoi\u2019s definition of art had never been excelled. He\nreferred to Tolstoi\u2019s definition of art as the power to pass on a\nsensation. Ranger maintained the opinion that art is the expression\nof the individual\u2019s feeling, that the artist uses the facts of nature\nto express his own sensation and that no great landscape was ever\npainted directly from nature. \u201cThe technical difficulties,\u201d he said,\n\u201cand the rapidly changing effects made it hard to paint out of doors.\nHe could do better by depending upon his memory.\u201d It was his opinion\nthat the deeper qualities were secured in the studio; that nature only\nfurnishes the hooks upon which the painter hangs his work; that he\nin reality expresses his own feeling, the poetry or sentiment which\nis in himself. Ranger here describes a vague or not clearly defined\nquality which is referred to as personal temperament. His opinion is\nin direct contradiction to the almost universal testimony of painters\nand sculptors, and Ranger himself in his practice failed to maintain\nit. Although he did not complete his works in the presence of nature,\nhe made many sketches from nature and copied his larger canvases from\nthese.\n\nI think Ranger at the end of a long career had the power of discovering\nbeautiful qualities in nature and of seeing them profoundly. I knew\nhim well, and many times we discussed art and artists. I found his\nknowledge broad and intimate. His view that a painter simply passes\non a sensation was repeated to me many times. I think one may frankly\nagree with this opinion, but I do not think a painter originates or\ncreates a sensation. In the presence of nature he simply receives it\nand then transmits it, the result being dependent upon his natural or\nacquired power of perception, his memory, and his technical ability.\n\nRanger\u2019s paintings are characterized by an understanding of nature,\nand this was the result of a lifetime of the most earnest, patient,\nand persistent study. Probably no modern artist was more industrious,\nfor his studio was filled with studies in colour and many thousands\nof pencil drawings. Indeed, so familiar was he with the colours and\ncharacteristic forms of nature that he frequently reproduced these\nwith much delicacy, relying solely upon his memory and a few accurate\npencil notes. In discussing his method, I recall his remark that he\npainted in the studio because he could get closer to nature that way\nthan by painting out of doors. Painters universally understand the\ndifficulties of painting in the open because of conflicting lights.\nThey also realize the more certain judgment of the experienced eye when\npainting in a quiet or more subdued light; but to do this requires\ngreat knowledge and a retentive memory.\n\nAs illustrating Ranger\u2019s method of study and his reliance upon memory,\nI recall an occasion when he studied long and patiently the union\nor combination of two colour notes, the sky and water--for we were\nsailing at the time. He remarked upon the beautiful harmony expressed\nby these colours. He studied them intently, evidently with the thought\nof reproducing them later. I also remember a painting expressive of the\ncharm and beauty of a moon-light night. It was painted at his Noank\nhome. I believe this picture was painted almost wholly in his studio. I\nthink it was the result of an infinite number of impressions received\nas he studied, evening after evening, the ocean and the sky. By this I\nmean that while Ranger in this painting was passing on a sensation, he\nwas only passing on the truth and beauty of nature as realized by him\nnight after night, and recorded in his memory.\n\nThe point here raised is one of vital importance with reference to the\nsubject under consideration. It is that the painter does not express\nanything he has not received. He pursues one of two methods: he either\nsecures beautiful qualities in the presence of nature or he reproduces\nqualities stored in his memory.\n\n[SN: _John La Farge_]\n\nJohn La Farge referred to these two methods, the one by which the\npainter works directly from nature and the other by which he depends\nupon his memory, and his opinion bears directly upon the point raised.\nLa Farge wrote: \u201cHe [the painter] will then go again to nature, perhaps\nworking directly from it, perhaps only to his memory of sight, for\nremember, that in what we call working from nature--we painters--we\nmerely use a shorter strain of memory than when we carry back to our\nstudios the vision that we wish to note. And more than that, the very\nway in which we draw our lines, and mix our pigments, in the hurry of\ninstant record, in the certainty of successful handling, implies that\nour mind is filled with innumerable memories of continuous trials.\u201d\n\nAs La Farge points out, the difference between painting in the presence\nof nature and painting from memory is only a different span of memory.\nOne painter pursues one way, another a different method. The end sought\nis the same.\n\n[SN: _Segantini_]\n\nGiovanni Segantini\u2019s method was to go to nature _finally_. He began his\npaintings in the studio, working from studies, and finished them in the\npresence of nature. I recall a delightful visit with this able Italian\npainter at his home at Maloja, and also his interesting description of\nhis method. His art was little known at that time, some twenty years\nago. His works are now well known to art lovers throughout the world.\n\nI had but recently seen his \u201cPloughing in the Engadine\u201d at an\nexhibition in the Bavarian capital. It impressed me as possessing a\nvery vital quality. The technical manner seemed at that time strange\nand unusual. Like worsted, the colours stretched across the sky.\nThe earth clods were small strands of colour, revealing, on close\nexamination, a rarely prodigal palette. This phase of Segantini\u2019s art\ninterested me on the purely technical side. The effect of the picture\nwas startling. It was like a breath of fresh and fragrant air from the\nmountains of Switzerland.\n\nIt was following this impression received from his painting that I\nvisited the painter at Maloja. Leaving Chiavenna early one morning,\nthe coach slowly climbed the mountainside and, presently, crossed the\napex of the range. There lay at our feet the beautiful valley of the\nEngadine. I carried away from Maloja many delightful impressions,\nbut the two dominating all others were these: the earnestness of the\npainter, and his unwavering dependence upon nature.\n\nHe showed me large drawings or cartoons of some of his well known\nsubjects representing the arrangement of the compositions and the\nbalancing of the various parts of his pictures. The drawings were\nmade in crayon and suggested in line the technical treatment of\nhis paintings. From these sketches he transferred the drawings to\ncanvas. In this way he saved time and labor. When a drawing was thus\ntransferred to a canvas he carried the canvas to the scene of his\nsubject, where he painted invariably directly from nature. When I asked\nif he ever completed a picture in the studio, he said: \u201cAbsolutely no!\nI always finish my pictures in the presence of nature.\u201d\n\nSegantini spoke his last word, if I may adopt this form of expression,\nin the very presence of and under the influence of nature. This to him\nwas the supreme moment in the execution of his work.\n\n[SN: _Anton Mauve_]\n\nAnother illustration of the method of a great painter in relying upon\nhis memory for the truths and facts of nature is found in Anton Mauve.\nMauve\u2019s power is unquestioned. He was one of the great modern Dutch\npainters. His pictures are always direct and forceful. His knowledge\nof nature was profound. This knowledge was the result of effort and\nstudy. Among his early drawings are found studies from nature which,\nin spirit, are wholly unlike his later productions. They reveal Mauve\nas a student of nature who was untiring in his effort to draw minute\ndetails with unflinching accuracy. I recall pencil studies of sheep,\nhorses, cows, and plants which have rarely ever been excelled in the\ndelineation of detail, not even by a master draughtsman like Barque.\nMauve\u2019s knowledge of nature acquired by this method was intimate and\ndeep. His later manner was based upon a solid foundation. It was\nby this knowledge he was enabled to depict the more characteristic\nforms with a few hastily drawn lines. He knew well how important are\nbroad, essential masses in art and he rendered these, eliminating\nnon-essentials and trivial details. His sense of design or appropriate\nbalance of parts was keen and sure; nearly all his pictures possess\nthe distinguishing quality of simplicity. Like Ranger, he preferred to\npaint his pictures in the studio, but his reliance was, in the highest\nsense, upon nature.\n\nI recall a visit to Mauve\u2019s country, a country of sand dunes and\npastures. These he loved and painted. One of Mauve\u2019s students, an able\netcher, was probably more familiar with the artist\u2019s method than any\nother person. \u201cHis [Mauve\u2019s] best pictures, before Laren,\u201d he wrote me,\n\u201cwere all made in his studio from memory, aided with sketches in chalk.\nThen he went every day, if possible, to the spot he had sketched, to\nstudy the effect, the \u2018moment,\u2019 and he tried to fix that impression on\nhis canvas when back home.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Rodin_]\n\nLet us turn from the art of the painter to the art of the sculptor.\nProbably no modern sculptor has taken a higher place in the estimation\nof his fellow artists than has Rodin. As expressions of his art, his\n\u201cThinker\u201d stands at one extreme end of the scale and such graceful and\nbeautiful forms as \u201cEternal Spring\u201d at the other. It is interesting,\ntherefore, to know that Rodin has acknowledged his absolute dependence\nupon nature for the widely divergent expressions of character rendered\nby him. He is quoted as saying: \u201cSeeker after truth and student of\nlife as I am, ... I obey Nature in everything, and I never pretend to\ncommand her. My only ambition is to be servilely faithful to her.\u201d\n\n\u201cI have not changed it [nature]. Or, rather, if I have done it, it was\nwithout suspecting it at the time. The feeling which influenced my\nvision showed me nature as I have copied her.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf I had wished to modify what I saw and to make it more beautiful I\nshould have produced nothing good.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe only principle in Art is to copy what you see. Dealers in\naesthetics to the contrary, every other method is fatal. There is no\nrecipe for improving Nature.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe only thing is _to see_.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe ideal! The dream! Why, the realities of Nature surpass our most\nambitious dreams.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n_Opinions of Philosophers and Writers_\n\n\nThe opinions here referred to are those of masters who have produced\nworks of art. They seem to be supported by the opinions of able\nwriters and philosophers who have dealt with this subject. If the\nopinions of these writers are less authoritative, they are nevertheless\nimportant as representing the thought of profound scholars. They cover\npractically the entire period of writing upon art. While diversified in\nthe manner of approach, they will be found to unite in a common theory.\nThese writers naturally deal with mental processes; with the attributes\nof the mind; with the philosophy of the subject.\n\n[SN: _Schopenhauer_]\n\nSchopenhauer defines genius as pre-eminent capacity for contemplation\nwhich ends in the object. \u201cNow,\u201d he says, \u201cas this requires that a\nman should entirely forget himself and the relations in which he\nstands, genius is simply complete objectivity, i.e., the objective\ntendency of the mind, as opposed to the subjective, which is directed\nto one\u2019s own self--in other words, to the will. Thus genius is the\nfaculty of continuing in the state of pure perception, of losing one\u2019s\nself in perception, and of enlisting in this service the knowledge\nwhich originally existed only for the service of the will; that is\nto say, genius is the power of leaving one\u2019s own interests, wishes,\nand aims entirely out of sight, and thus of entirely renouncing one\u2019s\nown personality for a time, so as to remain pure knowing subject,\nclear vision of the world--and this not merely at moments, but for a\nsufficient length of time and with sufficient consciousness to enable\none to reproduce by deliberate art what has thus been apprehended, and\n\u2018to fix in lasting thoughts the wavering images that float before the\nmind.\u2019\u201d\n\nSchopenhauer\u2019s definition of genius is probably more accurate and more\nlogical than that of any other writer. In his opinion, genius is the\npower of pre-eminent perception. The artist only exceeds his fellows in\nthat his perception is keener; that he is able to see and understand\nmore perfectly than others. When an able painter approaches nature in\nthis spirit, forgetting all else, as Schopenhauer suggests, the result\nis usually a masterpiece. To such a painter is attributed the quality\nknown as genius.\n\n[SN: _Taine_]\n\nTaine defines art as the power of perceiving the essential character\nof an object. Taine says: \u201cThe character of an object strikes him\n[the artist] and the effect of this sensation is a strong, peculiar\nimpression.... But art itself, which is the faculty of perceiving and\nexpressing the leading character of objects, is as enduring as the\ncivilization of which it is the best and earliest fruit.... To give\nfull prominence to a leading character is the object of a work of art.\nIt is owing to this that the closer a work of art approaches this\npoint the more perfect it becomes; in other words, the more exactly\nand completely these conditions are complied with, the more elevated\nit becomes on the scale. Two of these conditions are necessary; it\nis necessary that the character should be the most notable possible\nand the most dominant possible.... The masterpiece is that in which\nthe greatest force receives the greatest development. In the language\nof the painter, the superior work is that in which the character\npossessing the greatest possible value in nature receives from art\nall the increase in value that is possible.... It is essential, then,\nto closely imitate something in an object; but not everything.\u201d After\ndefining the essential quality by two illustrations--the illustration\nof the lion and the illustration of the dominant characteristics of a\nflat country like Holland, Taine continues: \u201cThrough its innumerable\neffects, you judge of the importance of this essential character. It\nis this which art must bring forward into proper light, and if this\ntask devolves upon art it is because nature fails to accomplish it. In\nnature this essential character is simply dominant; it is the aim of\nart to render it predominant.... Man is sensible of this deficiency,\nand to remove it he has invented art.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Froude_]\n\nFroude touches upon this point in his reference to the art of the\nwriter. He said he would turn to Shakespeare for the best history of\nEngland because of his (Shakespeare\u2019s) absolute truth to character and\nevent. \u201cWe wonder,\u201d Froude wrote, \u201cat the grandeur, the moral majesty,\nof some of Shakespeare\u2019s characters, so far beyond what the noblest\namong ourselves can imitate, and at first thought we attribute it to\nthe genius of the poet, who has outstripped Nature in his creations.\nBut we are misunderstanding the power and the meaning of poetry in\nattributing creativeness to it in any such sense. Shakespeare created,\nbut only as the spirit of Nature created around him, working in him\nas it worked abroad in those among whom he lived. The men whom he\ndraws were such men as he saw and knew; the words they utter were\nsuch as he heard in the ordinary conversations in which he joined. At\nthe Mermaid with Raleigh and with Sidney, and at a thousand unnamed\nEnglish firesides, he found the living originals for his Prince Hals,\nhis Orlandos, his Antonios, his Portias, his Isabellas. The closer\npersonal acquaintance which we can form with the English of the age of\nElizabeth, the more we are satisfied that Shakespeare\u2019s great poetry is\nno more than the rhythmic echo of the life which it depicts.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Baumgarten_]\n\nBaumgarten concluded, from Leibnitz\u2019 theory of a pre-established\nharmony and its consequence, that the world is the best possible, that\nnature is the highest embodiment of beauty, and that art must seek as\nits highest function the strictest possible imitation of nature.\n\n[SN: _Leibnitz_]\n\nBosanquet says: \u201cThe greatest degree of perfection was to be found,\naccording to Leibnitz, in the existing universe, every other possible\nsystem being as a whole less perfect.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Kant_]\n\nKant deals with a phase of this subject which is of great interest.\nIn many strong works of art there remain incomplete and often\nunsatisfactory details. These are permitted to remain because the\nartist knows that to remove them would weaken or affect the strength\nof the whole. These, Kant says, are \u201conly of necessity suffered to\nremain, because they could hardly be removed without loss of force\nto the idea. This courage has merit only in the case of a genius. A\ncertain boldness of expression, and, in general, many a deviation from\nthe common rule becomes him well; but in no sense is it a thing worthy\nof imitation. On the contrary it remains all through intrinsically a\nblemish which one is bound to try to remove, but for which the genius\nis, as it were, allowed to plead a privilege, on the ground that a\nscrupulous carefulness would spoil what is inimitable in the impetuous\nardor of his soul.\u201d\n\nThe genius here referred to by Kant is well understood and his power\nis fully recognized, but he is not separated from his fellow craftsmen\nexcept in the degree of his knowledge and ability. He is a man of\nsuperior ability and power who, driving straight to the object of\nhis labor, represents character in a direct and forceful way. To\nthis end he brings to his assistance his superior technical skill,\nbut often in the very impetuosity of his ardor, as Kant suggests, he\nleaves unfinished parts because he well understands that to labor over\nthese parts would be to reduce the force or power of the whole. This\nimpetuous manner which strives to render the character of the object\nor person, or of the scene, or of the ephemeral effects of nature,\nquickly and directly, is well understood by the painter. I recall a\nlarge sketch of Daubigny\u2019s owned by Mesdag, probably purchased from\nthe painter. This sketch represents a green hillside with a canal and\nhorses in the foreground. For absolute power and truth of beautiful\nquality and colour it was probably never surpassed by Daubigny, but it\nis what the public would call an unfinished picture. In truth, force,\nand beauty, it might fairly be considered \u201cinspired\u201d as compared with\nDaubigny\u2019s finished or carefully painted pictures so widely known.\nIn this painting there are many unsatisfactory parts, such as are\nreferred to by Kant as \u201cdeformities,\u201d but Daubigny well understood\nthat to remove them or to work over this sketch, which was doubtless\nmade rapidly in the presence of nature and under the influence of the\nparticular mood expressed by nature, would have weakened its power.\n\nI recall another painting that will illustrate this point--a study by\nAnton Mauve. This study was found among Mauve\u2019s possessions after his\ndeath, and was probably never offered for sale during his lifetime\nbecause, in minor parts, it is incomplete. Rough lines of the original\ndrawing were permitted to remain. These are the kind of blemishes to\nwhich Kant refers, but they do not detract from the supreme beauty\nand power of the study. Indeed, this picture is considered by many\npainters to be one of Mauve\u2019s masterpieces, so true and just is it in\nthe representation of a momentary effect in nature. Mauve doubtless\nrecognized the importance of the study and refused to make corrections\nof minor defects. I have been told that he replied to Weissenbrouck, a\nfellow painter who urged him to finish this work: \u201cI will leave it as\nGod made it in nature. It is finished.\u201d Mauve had secured the broad,\nessential truth of nature and with this he was content.\n\n[SN: _Maeterlinck_]\n\nMaurice Maeterlinck tersely expressed the same thought when he said:\n\u201cI myself have now for a long time ceased to look for anything more\nbeautiful in this world, or more interesting, than the truth....\u201d\n\nThe reader will not have failed to observe the significant note of\nagreement running through these opinions touching the importance of\nselection, the power to perceive and select from among the multitude of\nforms those which are exceptional or dominant.\n\n\u201cPure perception\u201d; \u201cthe faculty of perceiving and expressing the\nleading character of objects\u201d; \u201cIn nature this essential character is\nsimply dominant; it is the aim of art to render it predominant ...\u201d;\nthese expressions of philosophers are in perfect accord with the\nexpressions of painters, as for instance, \u201cThe only thing is _to see_\u201d;\nor \u201cour only chance lies in selection and combination.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n_Symmetry_\n\n\nIf what has been written is true, if art is but the revelation of grace\nand beauty inherent in nature, the making plain that which is revealed\nto the artist and obscure to the less observant, or to those with less\npower, it still remains to account for the universal distinction in\nform which characterizes all great works of art. Reference has been\nmade to the common factor of truth, but there is a second factor or\nquality possessed by works of art, that of symmetry. This attribute\nlifts a work above the commonplace and, combined with truth, places it\namong the masterpieces of art.\n\nThere are certain fundamental laws of symmetry existing in nature and\nthese, consciously or unconsciously, govern the masters of art in the\nproduction of their works. These undefined laws have been recognized\nfrom the earliest time, and the artist who is governed by them in the\nselection of his subjects and controlled by them in the execution of\nhis work makes a universal appeal to which the aesthetic sense in man\nresponds. These laws are not of man\u2019s creation. They belong to nature.\nThey exist in form and colour. They also exist in sound. Whether or not\nthe Greeks had reduced these laws to definite principles or rules, and\nwere governed by them in the construction of their temples and in the\ncreation of their masterly works in sculpture, is a doubtful question;\nbut certain it is that Hambidge has shown quite conclusively that\ncertain fundamental proportions existing in natural forms are repeated\nin the Parthenon and in other great architectural structures belonging\nto the Grecian period.\n\nThis does not mean that every great work of art must of necessity be\nbased upon clearly defined, rigid rules of proportion, on what is\ncalled Dynamic Symmetry, but rather that works made to conform to these\nrules do possess a degree of distinction and that the result is an\norderliness of arrangement or an agreeable disposition of spaces with\nrelation to each other which produces an aesthetic effect upon the\nhuman mind.\n\nTherefore, while truth is essential, it is conceded that symmetry must\nbe added to secure distinction. Commonplace expressions of nature,\nwhile satisfying the ignorant, have never been accepted as art by\nthose who have given this subject serious thought.\n\nThe quality of design, of pattern, of appropriate and harmonious\narrangement, must be taken into account in any discussion touching\nthe philosophy of art. The universal appreciation and enjoyment of\ndesign as revealed in rugs, in tapestries, and in a hundred other art\nforms, may only be accounted for upon the theory of the existence of a\nuniversal law of nature governing the judgment of man with reference to\nthese things.\n\nThis law is found in nature just as certainly as is found the law of\ngravitation. The art of design when not literally transcribed from\nthe beautiful forms presented by nature herself is found to rest upon\nsome adaptation of this universal law of symmetry and harmony. With\nsymmetrical forms in nature we become familiar even in our childhood.\nTake for instance the symmetrical forms of leaves. The grace and\nsymmetry of the leaf of the elm tree is well known, as is also the\ncharacter of the oak leaf and its almost invariable symmetrical form.\nWhen a form that is not symmetrical appears, such, for instance,\nas that of the leaf of the sassafras tree--one of the three leaf\nforms borne by this tree being shaped like a mitten--we instantly\nrecognize this exception to the almost universal rule and reject it\nas unsymmetrical and inharmonious. Illustrations of symmetry might\nbe multiplied, because they are found in flower and animal forms\neverywhere. With harmony and colour we are made familiar by the passing\nseasons. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter are successive expressions\nof harmony.\n\nHow far this universal law of symmetry extends throughout nature and\nwhat influence it has upon the human mind in its appreciation of the\nbeautiful in nature it would be difficult to estimate. It is sufficient\nfor our purpose to know that it is universal and far reaching in its\napplication and influence. [SN: _J. Henri Fabre_] It is interesting\nin this connection to note that J. Henri Fabre, the eminent French\nnaturalist, makes reference to this law in describing the uniformity\nwith which certain bees act, their actions seeming to be governed by a\nmysterious law. In his book on \u201cBramble Bees and Others\u201d Fabre says:\n\u201cThe first time that I prepared one of these horizontal tubes [for\nbramble bees] open at both ends, I was greatly struck by what happened.\nThe series consisted of ten cocoons. It was divided into two equal\nbatches. The five on the left went out on the left, the five on the\nright went out on the right, reversing, when necessary, their original\ndirection in the cell. It was very remarkable from the point of view\nof symmetry; moreover, it was a very unlikely arrangement among the\ntotal number of possible arrangements, as mathematics will show us.\u201d\nFabre elucidates this fact by mathematical calculation proving that\nthere had been a spontaneous decision, one half in favor of the exit\non the left, one half in favor of that on the right, when the tube was\nhorizontal and gravity ceased to interfere.\n\nThis law of harmony has been recognized and to some extent defined by\nearly philosophers and writers as well as by those of recent date.\n\n[SN: _Plato_]\n\nIt was recognized and referred to by Plato, who said that the world\noffers the material in graceful and beautiful forms; or again that\nthere is no difficulty in seeing that grace or the absence of grace is\nan effect of good or bad rhythm ... that beauty of style and harmony\nand grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity. He also refers to art\nas representing proportion, harmony, or unity among the parts. His\nthought is that there is an absolute principle of beauty which reveals\nitself in natural objects. [SN: _Aristotle_] Aristotle expressed the\nopinion that the essential qualities of beauty are order and symmetry.\n[SN: _Knight_] Knight refers to the appreciation of symmetry and\nproportion on the part of the Greek people and he concludes that the\nknowledge of this same law of symmetry and its appreciation was\ndoubtless the basis of Greek art. [SN: _Kant_] Kant in his philosophy\nrefers to this same law of symmetry, grace, and beauty in nature. He\nsays: \u201cThe beautiful forms displayed in the organic world all plead\neloquently on the side of the realism of the aesthetic finality\nof nature in support of the plausible assumption that beneath the\nproduction of the beautiful there must lie a preconceived idea in the\nproducing cause--that is to say, an end acting in the interest of our\nimagination. Flowers, blossoms, even the shapes of plants as a whole,\nthe elegance of animal formations of all kinds, unnecessary for the\ndischarge of any function on their part, but chosen as it were with an\neye to our taste; and, beyond all else, the variety and harmony in the\narray of colours (in the pheasant, in crustacea, in insects, down even\nto the meanest flowers) so pleasing and charming to the eye, but which,\ninasmuch as they touch the bare surface and do not even here in any way\naffect the structure of these creatures--a matter which might have a\nnecessary bearing on their internal ends--seem to be planned entirely\nwith a view to outward appearance: all these lend great weight to the\nmode of explanation which assumes actual ends of nature in favor of\nour aesthetic judgment.\u201d [SN: _Blackie_] John Stuart Blackie refers\nto qualities in nature which create spontaneously in the mind a degree\nof pleasure because of their symmetry and beauty. He says: \u201cThere must\nbe, therefore, in nature and in the constitution of things certain\nqualities which, being superinduced upon the useful, or mere fitness\nto achieve a practical end, create in the mind the pleasant sensations\nwhich arise spontaneously on the perception of a beautiful object.\u201d\n\nIt would seem, therefore, that nature has furnished those forms and\ncolours which are symmetrical and harmonious, and that familiarity with\nthese has created in man, in varying degrees, a love for the beautiful\nand an appreciation of the symmetrical and orderly. This law of\nsymmetry and proportion not only appeals to our own consciousness but\nhas become a part of our daily life.\n\nIt frequently happens that the repetition of beautiful forms results in\nwhat comes to be recognized as a conventional or national expression of\nart. This is especially true of Chinese and Japanese art. Conventional\nforms adopted by one generation of Chinese or Japanese artists were\noften handed down to succeeding generations of artists. Not only was\nthis true, but the repetition of these conventional forms, generation\nafter generation, resulted in the adoption of certain arbitrary\nrules governing the composition and construction of their works of\nart. [SN: _Sei-ichi Taki_] Sei-ichi Taki in his \u201cThree Essays on\nOriental Painting\u201d noted eighteen rules for the painting of \u201cmountain\nwrinkles.\u201d Among these rules the following may be mentioned: \u201cWrinkled\nlike eddying water.\u201d \u201cWrinkled like a horse\u2019s tooth.\u201d \u201cWrinkled like\nbullock\u2019s hair.\u201d \u201cWrinkled like the veins of a lotus leaf.\u201d\n\nNotwithstanding these conventions, the fundamental or underlying\nqualities in Chinese and Japanese art do not differ from those\ncharacterizing works by artists of other nations. There was the same\nreliance upon nature and insistence upon selection and the expression\nof essential character. [SN: _Kuo Hsi_] For instance, Kuo Hsi, himself\na landscape painter, in his work on art criticism, \u201cNoble Features\nof the Forest and Stream,\u201d wrote as follows: \u201cObserve widely and\ncomprehensively.\u201d And again: \u201cTake in the essentials of a scene and\ndiscard the trivialities.\u201d\n\n[SN: _Lafcadio Hearn_]\n\nWith Chinese and Japanese artists it was always a question of\ndiscriminating selection. Lafcadio Hearn, a keen observer and a\ncharming writer upon Japanese life and art, referred with unusual\npenetration to the importance of selection when he wrote: \u201cThe artist\nlooked for dominant laws of contrast and colour, for the general\ncharacter of nature\u2019s combinations, for the order of the beautiful. He\ndrew actualities but not repellent or meaningless actualities, proving\nhis rank even more by his refusal than by his choice of subjects.\u201d\nIt will be seen from these expressions that Chinese and Japanese art\nwas in fact based upon an intimate and thorough knowledge of nature,\ninfluenced by certain conventions which were clearly defined and\nunderstood.\n\n[SN: _La Farge_]\n\nJohn La Farge, the American artist who was a profound student of\noriental art, suggests this undefined law of harmony in the universe\nwhen he says: \u201cI might acknowledge that I have far within me a belief\nthat art is the love of certain balanced proportions and relations\nwhich the mind likes to discover and to bring out in what it deals\nwith, be it thought, or the action of man, or the influences of nature,\nor the material things in which the necessity makes it to work. I\nshould then expand this idea until it stretched from the patterns of\nearliest pottery to the harmony of the lines of Homer. Then I should\nsay that in our plastic arts the relations of lines and spaces are, in\nmy belief, the first and earliest desires. And again, I should have to\nsay that, in my unexpressed faith, these needs are as needs of the soul\nand echoes of the laws of the universe, seen and unseen, reflections\nof the universal mathematics, cadences of the ancient music of the\nspheres.\u201d\n\n\u201cFor I am forced to believe that there are laws for our eyes as well as\nfor our ears, and that when, if ever, these shall have been deciphered,\nas has been the good fortune with music, then shall we find that all\nbest artists have carefully preserved their instinctive obedience to\nthese, and have all cared together for this before all.\u201d\n\n\u201cFor the arrangements of line and balances of spaces which meet these\nunderlying needs are indeed the points through which we recognize the\nanswer to our natural love and sensitiveness for order, and through\nthis answer, we feel, clearly or obscurely, the difference between what\nwe call great men and what we call the average, whatever the personal\ncharm may be.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n_Conclusion_\n\n\nIt may seem ruthless to destroy the old conception which attributed to\nthe works of the painter and sculptor a place superior to or above the\nworks of men in the field of science or in other spheres of activity,\nbut this, I think, is rapidly being done. The idea that man is capable\nof adding anything to or improving upon the supreme qualities of beauty\nas these exist in nature is disappearing. The spirit of a scientific\nage is dispelling the old conception of art. Men now realize in art as\nin science that the quality of truth is the sole object to be sought.\n\n[SN: _Lord James Bryce_]\n\nLord James Bryce, the eminent English statesman and author, recently\ncalled attention to the dominating influence of the scientific spirit\nas felt in the various activities of our time. He referred to the\neffect which the enormous increase in knowledge in the scientific world\nhas had upon our intellectual life and upon the ideas, the habits and\nways of thought of mankind. He said that the scientific investigations\nduring the past century and a half have occupied a larger proportion\nof the energetic intellects of the world than ever before. The\nresults of these investigations have been more read than they ever\nwere before, and by a widening circle. They have more affected men\u2019s\nminds and become part of our thinking--part of the mental furniture\nof educated men and women. Lord Bryce pointed out that through the\neverlasting searching after truth and the facts of nature \u201cthe methods\nand the spirit of science have undoubtedly affected such subjects as\nmetaphysical and ethical philosophy, as economic science and history,\nas political theory, as oratory, as philology, as literature.\u201d And he\nadded that for some reason (he would not call it inscrutable, because\nhe said that everything is more or less discoverable by sufficient\nstudy and attention--everything in the human sphere at least) he\nbelieved that there did, in the Eighteenth Century, begin to come over\nthe human mind a change, the results of which are seen in all these\nfields. The novelty of this method, Lord Bryce said, \u201clies in the\nscrupulous care which we bestow upon phenomena, in the determination to\nexamine the minutest details and to record exactly what we see, that\nand nothing more.\u201d Lord Bryce had also expressed the thought that\nwith all careful study we must strive to communicate an impression,\nwhich is much more difficult than merely to state facts. For example,\nhe says, the historian\u2019s general impression of a people is no less an\nexpression of truth and no less accurate than is the presentation of\nmany minor facts. Lord Bryce here states a profound truth, namely, that\nthe impression of the whole is of greater importance than the literal\nrepresentation of detail. This truth applies to art. The elimination of\ntrifling details but emphasizes the power and beauty of the whole.\n\nI think it is this scientific spirit which has influenced modern art\nand which is very clearly exemplified in the history of the School of\nImpressionists. This school has exerted a powerful influence upon the\nart of painting of the present day. I know that the general opinion has\nbeen that the so-called Impressionist painters have departed from the\nrepresentation of the truths of nature and that their paintings are not\nfaithful representations of nature; but I believe the very reverse of\nthis to be true. I think, in their search for the essential truth of\nnature, or the essential fact, that they have, in their very intensity\nof effort, departed from the representation of minute details and of\nmany forms, in order that they might the more fully and perfectly\nrepresent the less obvious and more subtle truth.\n\nTake, for instance, the purpose which actuated Monet, probably the\nleader of this group of painters, in his effort to represent the very\ntruth of nature by a few masses of vibrating colour. For example,\nhis haycock series of pictures was but an effort to represent the\nmost essential qualities of the subjects which he had chosen for his\nexperiment. I recall very well the first painting by Monet which I had\nthe opportunity to see, some thirty years ago, and the impression I\nreceived then remains fresh in my memory. It was not the pleasurable\nor childish sensation created by recognizing the forms of familiar\nobjects, but rather the delight created by an impression of vibrating,\nsunlit atmosphere. This effect was the result of scientific research.\nMonet simply applied his power and his wealth of technical ability\nto reproduce another kind of truth, the truth of nature as broadly\nrepresented by beautiful colours in relation to each other. I mention\nMonet in this connection because he seems to represent, in an important\nsense, the influence of a scientific age upon the art of the painter.\n\nThis view of Claude Monet\u2019s art and the art of the so-called\nImpressionists is the very opposite of that entertained by many writers\nwho have attributed to these painters careless rather than scientific\nmethods.\n\nIf the principles laid down in this work are true, they become of vital\nimportance. We will not think less of art, but we will be inspired by\na new devotion to nature and the great laws which govern her. We will\nseek more diligently after the subtle harmonies and beauties in nature,\nthose qualities which have been discovered by the great masters and\ntranslated with measurable success. We will go to nature with more\nintelligence and devotion, that we may there enjoy these things for\nourselves at the source of all beauty. The student may lay aside all\npreconceived notions with reference to inspiration and creation, and\naddress himself to his task as would any other workman. The result\nshould be a more profound appreciation of all beauty and more joy in a\nworld too often made commonplace by man.\n\n\n\n\n_References_\n\n\n  ARISTOTLE\n\n  p. 61     William Angus Knight, \u201cPhilosophy of the\n            Beautiful,\u201d Part 1, p. 28.\n\n  BAUMGARTEN, ALEXANDER GOTTLIEB\n\n  p. 52     Enc. Brit. 9th Ed., Vol. 1, \u201cAesthetics.\u201d\n\n  BLACKIE, JOHN STUART\n\n  p. 62-63  The Contemporary Review, Vol. 43, June, 1883,\n            pp. 821-822.\n\n  BRYCE, LORD JAMES\n\n  p. 67-69  Founder\u2019s Day Book, Carnegie Institute, 1908,\n            pp. 12-16.\n\n  CONSTABLE, JOHN\n\n  p. 17-18  C. R. Leslie, R. A., \u201cMemoirs of the Life of John\n            Constable, Esq., R. A.,\u201d 1843, pp. 147-148.\n\n  p. 23-25  C. R. Leslie, R. A., \u201cMemoirs of the Life of John\n            Constable, Esq., R. A.,\u201d 1843, p. 66.\n\n  p. 34     C. J. Holmes, \u201cConstable and His Influence on\n            Landscape Painting,\u201d 1902, p. 131.\n\n  COROT, JEAN-BAPTISTE CAMILLE\n\n  p. 25     Mrs. Schuyler Van Rensselaer, \u201cSix Portraits,\u201d\n            p. 160.\n\n  D\u00dcRER, ALBRECHT\n\n  p. 20-21  Wm. Angus Knight, \u201cPhilosophy of the Beautiful,\u201d\n            Part 1, p. 48, and Moriz Thausing, \u201cAlbert D\u00fcrer,\n            His Life and Works,\u201d 1882, p. 319.\n\n  FABRE, JEAN HENRI\n\n  p. 60-61  J. Henri Fabre, \u201cBramble Bees and Others,\u201d p. 42.\n\n  FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY\n\n  p. 51-52  James Anthony Froude, \u201cEngland\u2019s Forgotten\n            Worthies,\u201d pub. in \u201cShort Studies on Great\n            Subjects,\u201d Vol. 1, First Series, 1894, p. 360.\n\n  HAMBIDGE, JAY\n\n  p. 58     Jay Hambidge, \u201cDynamic Symmetry: The Greek Vase.\u201d\n\n  HEARN, LAFCADIO\n\n  p. 64-65  Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 78, August, 1896, p. 224.\n\n  HEGEL, GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH\n\n  p. 13-15  \u201cThe German Classics of the Nineteenth and\n            Twentieth Centuries,\u201d trans. by Kuno Francke\n            and Wm. G. Howard, Vol. 7, pp. 112-113.\n\n  p. 15     \u201cPhilosophy of Fine Art,\u201d trans. by Bernard\n            Bosanquet, p. 105.\n\n  HOGARTH, WILLIAM\n\n  p. 22     William Hogarth, \u201cAnecdotes of William Hogarth,\u201d\n            1833, p. 47.\n\n  HOMER, WINSLOW\n\n  p. 37-39  Author\u2019s Notebook.\n\n  KANT, IMMANUEL\n\n  p. 52-55  Immanuel Kant, \u201cCritique of Aesthetic Judgment,\u201d\n            trans. by James Creed Meredith, 1911, p. 181.\n\n  p. 62     Immanuel Kant, \u201cCritique of Aesthetic Judgment,\u201d\n            trans. by James Creed Meredith, 1911, pp. 216-217.\n\n  KNIGHT, WILLIAM ANGUS\n\n  p. 61-62  Wm. Angus Knight, \u201cPhilosophy of the\n            Beautiful,\u201d Part 1, pp. 40-41 and page 19.\n\n  KUO HSI\n\n  p. 64     Sei-ichi Taki, \u201cThree Essays on Oriental\n            Painting,\u201d pp. 43-45, quoting from Kuo\n            Hsi, \u201cNoble Features of the Forest and Stream.\u201d\n\n  LA FARGE, JOHN\n\n  p. 42     John La Farge, \u201cAn Artist\u2019s Letters\n            From Japan,\u201d p. 141.\n\n  p. 65-66  John La Farge, \u201cAn Artist\u2019s Letters\n            From Japan,\u201d p. 145.\n\n  LAWRENCE, SIR THOMAS\n\n  p. 25     C. R. Leslie, R. A., \u201cMemoirs of the Life\n            of John Constable, Esq., R. A.,\u201d 1843, p. 148.\n\n  LEIBNITZ, BARON GOTTFRIED WILHELM VON\n\n  p. 52     Bernard Bosanquet, \u201cA History of Aesthetics,\u201d\n            1892, p. 185.\n\n  LEONARDO DA VINCI\n\n  p. 21     \u201cLeonardo da Vinci\u2019s Notebooks,\u201d trans.\n            by Edward McCurdy, p. 156 and p. 160.\n\n  MAETERLINCK, MAURICE\n\n  p. 55-56  Maurice Maeterlinck, \u201cThe Life of the Bee,\u201d p. 5.\n\n  MAUVE, ANTON\n\n  p. 44-46  Author\u2019s Notebook.\n\n  MICHELANGELO BUONAROTTI\n\n  p. 19-20  Francisco D\u2019Ollanda, \u201cThird Dialogue on Painting,\u201d\n            pub. in \u201cMichael Angelo Buonarotti,\u201d by Charles\n            Holroyd, Appendix, p. 323.\n\n  MILLET, JEAN FRAN\u00c7OIS\n\n  p. 25-26  Romain Rolland, \u201cMillet,\u201d trans. by Clementina\n            Black, pp. 383-385, 162, and 180.\n\n  PLATO\n\n  p. 61     Plato\u2019s Republic, pub. in \u201cDialogues of Plato,\u201d\n            trans. by B. Jowett, Vol. 3, pp. 86-87, and Enc.\n            Brit. 9th Ed., Vol. 1, \u201cAesthetics.\u201d\n\n  RANGER, HENRY WARD\n\n  p. 39-41  Author\u2019s Notebook.\n\n  REYNOLDS, SIR JOSHUA\n\n  p. 22-23  Henry William Beechy, \u201cThe Literary Works of Sir\n            Joshua Reynolds,\u201d Vol. 1, pp. 385 and 317, and\n            G. Clausen, \u201cRoyal Academy Lectures on Painting,\u201d\n            p. 137.\n\n  RODIN, AUGUSTE\n\n  p. 46-47  Auguste Rodin, \u201cArt,\u201d trans. from the French of\n            Paul Gsell by Mrs. Romilly Fedden, pp. 30-33,\n            and Literary Digest, June 4, 1910, p. 1127.\n\n  SCHOPENHAUER, ARTHUR\n\n  p. 48-49  \u201cThe German Classics of the Nineteenth and\n            Twentieth Centuries,\u201d trans. by Kuno Francke\n            and Wm. G. Howard, Vol. 15, p. 48.\n\n  SEGANTINI, GIOVANNI\n\n  p. 43-44  Author\u2019s Notebook.\n\n  SOCRATES\n\n  p. 15-16  Enc. Brit. 9th Ed., Vol. 1, \u201cAesthetics.\u201d\n\n  STUART, GILBERT\n\n  p. 25     George C. Mason, \u201cThe Life and Works of Gilbert\n            Stuart,\u201d 1894, pp. 68-69.\n\n  TAINE, HIPPOLYTE ADOLPHE\n\n  p. 50-51  H. Taine, \u201cPhilosophy of Art,\u201d trans. by Durand,\n            1865, pp. 41, 57, 73, and H. Taine, \u201cLectures on\n            Art,\u201d Vol. 1, 1889, pp. 163, 197, and 353.\n\n  TAKI, SEI-ICHI\n\n  p. 64     Sei-ichi Taki, \u201cThree Essays on Oriental\n            Painting,\u201d p. 48.\n\n  THAYER, ABBOTT HANDERSON\n\n  p. 30-32  Carnegie Institute Catalogue, Abbott H.\n            Thayer Exhibition, 1919, p. 9.\n\n  TOLSTOI, L. N.\n\n  p. 39     L. N. Tolstoi, \u201cWhat is Art,\u201d p. 43.\n\n  WHISTLER, JAMES ABBOTT MCNEILL\n\n  p. 26-30  Author\u2019s Notebook, and James McNeill Whistler,\n            \u201cThe Gentle Art of Making Enemies,\u201d pp. 142-143,\n            and James McNeill Whistler, \u201cTen O\u2019clock,\u201d\n            pp. 13-14.\n\n  WORDSWORTH, WILLIAM\n\n  p. 34     Wm. Wordsworth, \u201cUpon the Sight of a Beautiful\n            Picture,\u201d lines 12-14.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY COPIES PRINTED\n  AT THE PRESS OF WILLIAM EDWIN RUDGE\n  MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK\n\n  TYPOGRAPHY BY BRUCE ROGERS\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes:\n\nPunctuation has been made consistent.\n\nVariations in spelling and hyphenation were retained as they appear in\nthe original publication, except that obvious typographical errors have\nbeen corrected.","title":"The Relation of Art to Nature","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":15948}