Produced by Chris Curnow, Craig Kirkwood, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive.)






Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Sidenotes are identified as: [SN: text of sidenote].

Additional Transcriber’s Notes are at the end.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Relation of Art to Nature_

       *       *       *       *       *




_THE RELATION OF ART TO NATURE_


  _by John W. Beatty_

  _New York
  William Edwin Rudge_
  1922

       *       *       *       *       *

  _Copyright, 1922
  by_ JOHN W. BEATTY

       *       *       *       *       *

  _To my gentle wife this little volume
  is affectionately dedicated._




_Contents_


  ARGUMENT                        _Page_ 1

  THE ARTIST AND HIS PURPOSE             5

  ANCIENT CONCEPTIONS OF ART            13

  EVIDENCE OF PAINTERS AND SCULPTORS    19

  OPINIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS AND WRITERS  48

  SYMMETRY                              57

  CONCLUSION                            67




_Authorities Quoted_


  PAINTERS AND SCULPTORS

  Kuo Hsi                           11th Century

  Leonardo da Vinci                    1452-1519

  Albrecht Dürer                       1471-1528

  Michelangelo Buonarotti              1475-1564

  William Hogarth                      1697-1764

  Sir Joshua Reynolds                  1723-1792

  Gilbert Stuart                       1755-1828

  Sir Thomas Lawrence                  1769-1830

  John Constable                       1776-1837

  Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot          1796-1875

  Jean François Millet                 1814-1875

  James Abbott McNeill Whistler        1834-1903

  John La Farge                        1835-1910

  Winslow Homer                        1836-1910

  Anton Mauve                          1838-1888

  Auguste Rodin                        1840-1915

  Abbott Handerson Thayer              1849-1921

  Henry Ward Ranger                    1858-1916

  Giovanni Segantini                   1858-1899

  WRITERS AND PHILOSOPHERS

  Socrates                         470-399 B. C.

  Plato                            427-347 B. C.

  Aristotle                        384-322 B. C.

  Baron Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz 1646-1716

  Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten        1714-1762

  Immanuel Kant                        1724-1804

  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel        1770-1831

  Arthur Schopenhauer                  1788-1860

  John Stuart Blackie                  1809-1895

  James Anthony Froude                 1818-1894

  Jean Henri Fabre                     1823-1915

  Hippolyte Adolphe Taine              1828-1893

  William Angus Knight                 1836-1916

  Lord James Bryce                     1838-1922

  Lafcadio Hearn                       1850-1904

  Maurice Maeterlinck                  1862-

  Sei-ichi Taki




_Introduction_


_In his very convincing and lucid treatise on the fundamental
principles of art, John W. Beatty gives us a most absorbing theme to
follow--the relation of art to nature, as expressed in their own words
by artists themselves, of different times and creeds; with, too, the
opinions of philosophers and men of letters._

_Himself a well-known painter, Mr. Beatty has been for almost thirty
years the enlightened Director of Fine Arts of the Carnegie Institute,
where, alone in our whole country, are held annually International
Exhibitions of Art. Much of his life has thus been spent in intimate
association with the very best painters and sculptors of our
generation, and his and their opinions and observations are here to be
read with much pleasure and profit by every one interested in art._

_Mr. Beatty is quite right when he says, “Not many able artists
have recorded their opinions.” In conversation, or on the impulse
of the moment they may often speak with great beauty and clarity of
expression, but nearly always tersely and to the point. On the other
hand, the man of letters is more given to analysis and finds more
words, and more beautiful ones, to express his meaning._

_Analysis is perhaps a dangerous thing for the craftsman to toy with.
He must approach nature directly and simply, with concentration that is
absolute. He dissects only that particular fragment of nature which is
before him, and that unconsciously. The precious sensation of closeness
to nature is so fleeting and so fickle, so often not there at all, and
so frightened, that it is easily scared away by the cold voice of the
man with a rule to follow. The ever changing aspect of nature, be it
man or landscape, makes the first impression quickly recorded in the
thumb-box sketch, or with a dozen lines on the back of an envelope, an
invaluable document. Again and again in the painting of a picture we
refer with respect to this first strong impression of nature._

_The words_ character _and_ beauty _are many times repeated in this
book. Both terms are definite and yet how elastic! Rembrandt is the
preëminent example of the complex meaning of the word beauty; many of
his models he found in the Ghetto and among his friends and neighbors,
or, for lack of a model, he painted himself. Surely he has proved to us
that only that which has character is truly beautiful; and we must also
feel in the presence of Rembrandt’s works, his absolute fidelity to
truth._

_On a certain occasion I was in Rodin’s studio when reference was made
to some harsh criticism of one of his nudes. After listening with
impatience Rodin shrugged his shoulders and said: “Why find fault with
me? they should find fault with nature!”_

_And so we return to Mr. Beatty’s contention that the artist has
succeeded when he has imitated the truth and beauty of nature. The word
imitation might seem to limit the artist’s personal vision, which must
be his very own. How very different this personal vision can be came
vividly before me when I visited the Prado in Madrid. In one room are
seen the immortal works of Velasquez, among which are the portraits of
Philip IV and his consort; and in an adjoining room are portraits of
this same Philip and his queen by Rubens, the Fleming, who happened
to be temporarily in Madrid on a diplomatic mission. The Spaniard
saw his sovereigns in all their splendor, but with a solemn dignity,
dark haired and sallow complexioned. While the man from Antwerp saw
the forms more round and amiable, the hair and flesh more blond and
colourful, and unconsciously injected the blood of the Netherlands into
the veins of his Spanish sitters._

_Notwithstanding this personal expression, the predilection of a Rubens
for the more florid colours, of a Velasquez for the more subdued, sober
notes found in nature, it remains true that the end sought by both is
the representation of character as it exists in nature._

  GARI MELCHERS.

  _Belmont,
  Falmouth, Virginia,
  January 5, 1922._

       *       *       *       *       *

  “_The realities of Nature surpass our most ambitious dreams._”

  AUGUSTE RODIN




_Argument_


My purpose in writing this treatise is to establish, if this be found
possible, a foundation for the belief that the art of the painter and
sculptor is imitative, not creative; that the great masterpieces of
art which have withstood the test of time rest firmly upon the supreme
expression of character and beauty as these qualities are revealed in
man and nature; that it is the mission of art to reveal and make plain
these rare and lovely qualities. The truthful representation of these
qualities constitutes a common factor which binds all great works
together, a fact that is realized in every national gallery of art.

I have chosen to base my argument not upon theory or opinion but upon
the evidence of eminent painters and sculptors who have produced great
works of art.

Not many able artists have recorded their opinions touching the
philosophy of art. On the other hand, writers in abundance have
undertaken to define art. A few early and some modern philosophers
have given profound thought to the subject and bequeathed to us their
opinions. Painters and sculptors, with few exceptions, however, have
confined their efforts to searching for, and revealing by their art,
beauty and character. More is the pity, because opinion supported by
achievement is always more valuable than judgment which rests solely
upon theory or observation.

The great masters who have directed brush and chisel in the performance
of their work must have known what their purpose was; they certainly
knew better than any one else, and they undoubtedly realized how far
they had succeeded, or how far they had fallen short of securing the
qualities which they had discovered and which they had undertaken to
reveal. The evidence of these men is invaluable. Its importance bears
an exact relation to their success in producing great and enduring
works. This is true in every other field of human endeavor and it is
equally true in the field of art. The opinion of the great astronomer
with reference to astronomy is more valuable than that of the layman;
the opinion of the great painter than that of the amateur. The man who
knows any science so perfectly that he can practice it successfully,
the artist who knows his art and nature so well that he can produce
great works of art, these have earned the right to express their
opinions. I think this must be accepted as a fundamental truth. It is
therefore to the painter and sculptor that I turn for judgment. I have
been aided in this inquiry by knowledge of the opinions of many of the
able painters and sculptors of our own time. Intimate discussion has
stimulated further inquiry, and a conviction which was originally based
upon familiarity with the methods and purpose of the painter has been
confirmed.




_The Artist and His Purpose_


During all the great periods of art able men have striven earnestly
to attain a knowledge of character and beauty and to achieve their
truthful representation. Even when the purpose of the artist has been
to express some specific idea or to record some incident or historical
event, the work has lived, not because of the idea conveyed or the
interest which attaches to the subject, but because it has portrayed
character in a powerful manner, or because it has expressed the
qualities of beauty which are inherent in nature. Upon these qualities,
as they have been understood and translated by the artist, has depended
the life of every great painting and work of sculpture. I believe this
to be a fundamental and far reaching truth, accepted almost universally
by painters and sculptors. This, I know, is equivalent to saying that
the chief value of a work of art lies in its power to give aesthetic
pleasure.

These observations may suggest a question as to the relative
importance of a work of art which tells a story or records historical
events as compared with one which appeals solely to the aesthetic
sense or the love of beauty. Human language, it would seem to me, is
the logical method for conveying thought from one mind to another and
offers direct, untrammelled mental contact without the intervention
of form or design of any kind, while the representation of beauty for
beauty’s sake alone is the more direct and effective way of creating
and stimulating in the human heart a love of nature and art.

This, however, is not the question considered in this work. The
question raised is simply this: Has the artist, in representing the
evanescent effects of nature, the manifold beauties and harmonies with
which we are surrounded in this world, or predominant character as
expressed by man, exceeded nature either by virtue of his exceptional
power or as a result of any personal quality which he may impart to the
work?

It is also manifestly true that the greatness of a work of art must
depend upon the mental power of the artist, that power which enables
him to apprehend or discover the essential qualities existing in
nature. It is equally true that every artist, even though wholly
absorbed in the effort to reveal the truth and beauty which exist
in nature, expresses in some degree his own personality. He does
this inevitably, first, by the type of subject he chooses to study
and represent, and, second, but in a less important degree, by the
technical manner employed. This is, of course, well understood by
every one. It is not for a moment disputed. But beyond and above this
personal expression stands, as the chief and highest purpose of the
artist, the representation of truth and character as these do actually
exist.

While the painter has used his art to record history, to tell stories,
and to express emotions and convictions, his chief mission is to
extract from nature her many beautiful forms and harmonies and to
present these in pleasing fashion. In this way the artisan, drawing
upon the great multitude of beautiful forms and colours exhibited
by nature and so lavishly spread everywhere in the animal and plant
creations, cunningly fashions patterns and combinations, weaving these
into rugs and adapting them to the many beautiful objects with which we
are familiar.

Notwithstanding these accepted facts, I am convinced that the great
works of the painter and sculptor, those of supreme importance, rest
not upon any of these devices or expressions of art, but upon the
faithful, unerring and masterly representation of character and beauty
as these do actually exist. The masterpieces of art as they live today
in the national art galleries of the world establish this fact. They
seem to possess a common factor without regard to subject or period
which unites in a common family the great paintings of the entire
history of art. This factor I believe to be the quality of truth.
These great works owe their existence to the fact that they faithfully
represent some great outstanding type, or because they truthfully
reveal the characteristic and essential beauty of nature expressed in
one of her many moods. They are important just in proportion as their
masters have understood these qualities and recorded their impressions
on canvas and in marble.

I know perfectly well that the opinion here expressed is not the one
most widely accepted; it is not the popular view of art; it is not the
view expressed by many writers upon this subject.

The opinion most widely accepted is that the artist creates beauty;
that in some mysterious way, by virtue of a special gift, he does
actually evolve from within his own consciousness forms of grace and
loveliness; that however deeply the artist sinks himself in nature, art
yet remains intensely individual; that in representing nature he adds
to that which he secures from nature a personal quality which becomes
the most important part of the work. This is the theory of art accepted
very generally, but it is not supported by evidence.

The main purpose of this writing is, in fact, to establish by the
evidence of the men who are quoted that their reliance has been solely
upon nature and their success in exact proportion to their knowledge
of nature and their ability to portray her predominant qualities. Let
me repeat, however, that the ability to see and understand nature is
dependent upon mental power. The man of limited mental power will see
little; the one of great power will see much. The latter will apprehend
the subtle, elusive qualities in a way impossible to the former. This,
I know, is equivalent to saying that the great artist must bring to
his task a great mind. This assumption is quite correct. A great mind
is that power which is vaguely described as genius; it is what enables
men to accomplish great things in every field of human endeavor. The
question, therefore, is not whether the great artist possesses superior
power, but rather how important are the inevitable traces of personal
predilection or technical manner revealed in nearly all works of art as
compared with the truthful presentation of the fundamental qualities
the artist has discovered and undertaken to represent.

Let us examine this phase of the question more fully. A painting by
Corot for instance bears, first, the evidence of Corot’s choice of
subject. That which appealed to him in nature he painted. The kind
of thing he loved, the phase of nature he chose, unquestionably bore
evidence of his personal temperament or predilection. By this he
expressed his personal taste, his discriminating judgment, himself, in
fact. If the artist be a man of gentle and sensitive quality, he will
select for representation, as Corot did, a phase of nature which is in
accord with his feeling.

In the second place, a painting by Corot will exhibit in a very obvious
way the manifest impress of the artist’s technical method. In fact, the
manner by which the work is performed, that which is termed technic,
the very manner in which the artist touches the canvas, becomes a
distinguishing and individual characteristic intimately associated with
the artist and easily recognized. However, the technical treatment is
of little significance. It is in an important sense pure mannerism,
often the result of habit or early professional training. In a limited
sense it is the handwriting of the artist. This technical side of a
painting, the obvious and superficial aspect, is, I am convinced,
given by the amateur an importance out of all proportion to its value.

We must, however, deal with this personal phase of a work of art. The
question is how important is this personal expression as compared with
the more profound truth of nature. If we may accept the testimony of
the painters and sculptors who have produced enduring works of art, we
will, I think, be convinced that this quality is not important when
compared with essential truth or predominant character. The artists
whose opinions you will read seem almost without exception to attach
greater importance to the expression of the character of the person
or object represented than to the expression of personal temperament.
Indeed, they seem to be oblivious to the qualities which attract and
occupy the attention of the writer and amateur, but they are insistent
upon the paramount importance of truth.

What this all-important quality is may be further explained by a simple
illustration.

Abraham Lincoln was an outstanding type. The painter or sculptor
cannot by his art enhance either the beauty or strength of Lincoln’s
character. The utmost he can hope to do is to realize that character in
its richness and fullness of power. In everything the artist touches
in his effort to reproduce this character his taste will be displayed,
even in the treatment of details, the adjustment of draperies and
accessories, the appropriateness of gesture or movement; but all
these things, including the technic displayed, will be subordinate to
Lincoln’s character. The great, outstanding, dominant character of
Abraham Lincoln exists as a masterpiece of nature far outranking in
perfection any description or portraiture. The man who best reads or
comprehends this character and who most faithfully represents it, will
produce the greatest work of art. In the effort to do this, the painter
or sculptor will undoubtedly leave traces of his own individuality or
temperament, but these qualities must not be confused with the dominant
character of a Lincoln or given undue importance. The highest purpose
of the artist is to faithfully represent character.




_Ancient Conceptions of Art_


Closely allied to the thought that the painter creates beauty is the
ancient tradition that the artist is inspired to produce works of art.
This conviction had its origin very early in the history of art. In the
time of Praxiteles this belief was entertained by many; it was thought,
for instance, that in the production of the Aphrodite of Knidos the
sculptor was inspired by the goddess herself.

This conception of art doubtless grew out of the fact that the
early art of the Egyptians and Greeks was largely devoted to the
representation of deities and to the erection of temples which
should be their shrines. This association of art with the gods and
their temples doubtless contributed to the belief that the artist
was inspired or that he possessed a superior power or the gift of
inspiration.

[SN: _Hegel_]

Closely allied with this thought was the conception expressed by Hegel
with reference to a distinction between the external and material
forms of art and the spirit which he suggests permeates the work and
of which it is a manifestation. Hegel, although accepting the theory
that “art has the vocation of revealing the truth in the form of
sensuous artistic shape,” speaks of the union of the material with the
spiritual in a manner, which although quite true in abstract reasoning,
contributes to this impression. Discussing Architecture as a Fine
Art, he wrote: “The material of architecture is matter itself in its
immediate externality as a heavy mass subject to mechanical laws, and
its forms remain the forms of inorganic nature, but are merely arranged
and ordered in accordance with the abstract rules of the understanding,
the rules of symmetry. But in such material and in such forms the ideal
as concrete spirituality cannot be realized; the reality which is
represented in them remains, therefore, alien to the spiritual idea, as
something external which it has not penetrated or with which it has but
a remote and abstract relation.... Into this temple now enters the God
himself. The lightning-flash of individuality strikes the inert mass,
permeates it, and a form no longer merely symmetrical, but infinite and
spiritual, concentrates and molds its adequate bodily shape.” No one
today in the presence of a superb relic of architecture asks whether or
not it is the abiding place of a spirit. It is accepted as expressing
the spirit of beauty and is enjoyed for this alone.

Hegel’s conception of a work of art, frequently expressed in his
philosophy, was that the content or idea is the important thing. This
conception conformed to early art because painting and sculpture were
employed primarily to express ideas.

With the development of the Landscape School of Art and the enjoyment
of art on the purely aesthetic side, modern thought has materially
changed. Gradually our appreciation of the beautiful for its own sake
has developed. The influence of this movement has reacted upon all
phases of art expression, and even those works which express ideas in
the sense of subject matter have come to be judged upon the basis of
aesthetic beauty, rather than with reference to the idea or content as
thus defined.

Therefore what Hegel says applies to the early conception of art rather
than to that of the present time.

[SN: _Socrates_]

Another conception of art suggests the union of the beautiful with
the good. The philosophy of Socrates teaches this. He regarded the
beautiful as coincident with the good, and both of them as resolvable
into the useful. He does not seem to have attached importance to
the immediate gratification which a beautiful object affords to
perception and contemplation, but rather to have emphasized its power
of furthering the more necessary ends of life.

These early theories and conceptions with reference to art may in some
degree account for the prevalence of an impression, even in our own
time, that the artist is inspired or that he creates his masterpiece
as the result of some supernatural power. It has always seemed to the
inexperienced that the creation of a work of art implies an element of
mystery or represents something inexplicable. What is to the painter a
natural process becomes mysterious. Nothing existed on the blank canvas
and behold, presently, there appears a picture simulating life. Having
no knowledge of the methods employed, or of the years of patient labor
required to secure the technical ability to represent the actual truth
and spirit of natural objects, the result seems far removed from the
ordinary. Thence it is but a step to the point of view that the artist
is one “inspired.”

Although the conception of a work of art which places it above nature
is very old, I do not recall a definition made under this impression
which seems satisfactory. There is always apparent the effort to
compromise or bring together two distinct conceptions--the one
attributing to the work a quality superior to nature and the other
demanding that it be a truthful representation of nature. Defining
a work of art as something superior to nature, and at the same time
insisting that it represent nature faithfully is an inconsistency
eternally cropping out.

[SN: _John Constable_]

John Constable touched this subject with remarkable acumen and
expressed his conviction with precision when he said: “It appears to me
that pictures have been over-valued; held up by a blind admiration as
ideal things, and almost as standards by which nature is to be judged
rather than the reverse; and this false estimate has been sanctioned by
the extravagant epithets that have been applied to painters, as ‘the
divine,’ ‘the inspired,’ and so forth. Yet, in reality what are the
most sublime productions of the pencil but selections of some of the
forms of nature, and copies of a few of her evanescent effects; the
result, not of inspiration, but of long and patient study, under the
direction of much good sense.”

This, then, is my argument: First, that art is the expression of
supreme or predominant character and the representation of grace and
harmony as these qualities exist in nature; and, second, that the
truthful rendering of these qualities is the high mission of the
painter and sculptor.




_Evidence of Painters and Sculptors_


If we will now turn to the evidence bearing upon this subject, we will
discover what I have already indicated, namely, that the able artists
who have expressed opinions touching the philosophy of their art have
done so in no uncertain terms, and that the opinions which refer art
to nature as the highest source seem convincing. We will also discover
that not only do the majority of able painters agree upon what art
really is, and express their opinions with clearness and precision, but
that many of the philosophers of recent and ancient times define art in
the same forceful way.

Let us first examine opinions expressed by painters and sculptors.

[SN: _Michelangelo_]

Michelangelo wrote: “In my judgment that is the excellent and divine
painting which is most like and best imitates any work of immortal God,
whether a human figure, or a wild and strange animal, or a simple and
easy fish, or a bird of the air, or any other creature.... To imitate
perfectly each of these things in its species seems to me to be nothing
else but to desire to imitate the work of immortal God. And yet that
thing will be the most noble and perfect in the works of painting which
in itself reproduced the thing which is most noble and of the greatest
delicacy and knowledge.” Michelangelo thus reduces the philosophy of
art to the simple problem of selection, and the faithful and truthful
representation of the dominant, the graceful, the harmonious, and the
beautiful in nature. His statement, which so simply, even quaintly,
expresses the opinion of a great master whose works have commanded
the homage of the world during nearly four centuries, is worthy of
the most careful consideration. It reveals his reliance upon nature
without confusion of thought or pretension of any kind. There are here
no intricate definitions of art or complex theories concerning his
method of creating his masterly representations of the best he found in
nature--“the thing which is most noble!”

The universality of this profound truth and of its independence of
local conditions and circumstances is emphasized by the fact that
another great master of another race, one whose technical methods
and choice of subjects differed widely from those of Michelangelo,
expressed the same reliance upon nature. [SN: _Albrecht Dürer_]
Albrecht Dürer was a contemporary of Michelangelo, but he worked under
widely different conditions. It is the great fundamental quality of
truth so quaintly commended by Michelangelo that distinguishes the
works of Albrecht Dürer. Albrecht Dürer wrote: “Life in Nature proves
the truth of these things; therefore consider her diligently, guide
thyself by her, and swerve not from Nature, thinking that thou canst
find something better of thyself, for thou wilt be deceived. For Art
standeth firmly fixed in Nature, and whoso can thence rend her forth,
he only possesseth her.”

[SN: _Leonardo da Vinci_]

We find in Leonardo da Vinci’s notebook reference to this same
principle. He recommends application to the study of the works of
nature and advises the student to withdraw as far as possible from
the companionship of others in order that he may more earnestly
and effectively do this. His sage advice emphasizes the importance
of study. “The eye, which is called the window of the soul, is the
chief means whereby the understanding may most fully and abundantly
appreciate the infinite works of nature.... All visible things derive
their existence from nature, and from these same things is born
painting.”

[SN: _William Hogarth_]

Another painter who has written his opinion upon this subject is
William Hogarth, who said: “Nature is simple, plain, and true, in all
her works, and those who strictly adhere to her laws, and closely
attend to her appearances in their infinite varieties, are guarded
against any prejudiced bias from truth.”

[SN: _Sir Joshua Reynolds_]

Of the great painters who have touched upon the philosophy of art in
their writings, no one has written, shall I say, more fluently than
has Sir Joshua Reynolds. He may even be said to have been eloquent.
His lectures prepared for the students of the Royal Academy have
been famous for a century and a half. They have not only inspired
generations of art students with a keener interest in art, but they
are probably the most helpful utterances upon the subject given to the
world in his time or since. It seems to me, however, that, as is often
the case where great facility of expression is practiced, Reynolds
employs a term which, without clear definition, confuses the mind.
This is true where he frequently uses the term “genius.” The term is
associated in popular belief with the power to create works of art.
Although using a term which is at least subject to this interpretation,
Reynolds definitely denies to the human mind this power, asserting that
the power to create is simply the power to imitate nature. Reynolds
wrote: “I am on the contrary persuaded that by imitation only, variety,
and even originality of invention, is produced. I will go further;
even genius, at least what generally is so called, is the child of
imitation.” He further says: “The study of nature is the beginning and
the end of theory. It is in nature only we can find that beauty which
is the great object of our search; it can be found nowhere else; we can
no more form any idea of beauty superior to nature than we can form an
idea of a sixth sense, or any other excellence out of the limits of
the human mind.” Reynolds again writes: “Invention, strictly speaking,
is little more than a new combination of those images which have been
previously gathered and deposited in the memory: nothing can come of
nothing: he who has laid up no materials can produce no combinations.”

[SN: _John Constable_]

John Constable, a contemporary of Reynolds, and to whose judgment we
have already referred, further expressed his opinion upon this subject.
A statement of principle by him seems to be conviction crystallized.
Constable, although unaccustomed to writing, even unaccustomed to
discussion, because he was a man of quiet and simple life, seems to
have thought profoundly; and when the rare occasion to express his
opinion did come he condensed within a few words a great fundamental
principle with unerring precision. His definition of the purpose
and method of the artist cannot, I think, be excelled for accuracy
or fullness of meaning. He wrote: “In art, there are two modes by
which men aim at distinction; in the one, by a careful application to
what others have accomplished, the artist imitates their works, or
selects and combines their various beauties; in the other, he seeks
excellence at its primitive source, nature. In the first, he forms a
style upon the study of pictures, and produces either imitative or
eclectic art; in the second, by a close observation of nature, he
discovers qualities existing in her which have never been portrayed
before, and thus forms a style which is original. The results of the
one mode, as they repeat that with which the eye is already familiar,
are soon recognized and estimated, while the advances of the artist
in a new path must necessarily be slow, for few are able to judge of
that which deviates from the usual course, or qualified to appreciate
original studies.” There is here no mystery or ambiguity. This is the
statement of a profound truth by a great painter who knew perfectly his
reliance upon nature. It was prompted by the conviction of a great mind
which saw only the underlying fact and abjured all trivialities and
hair-splitting theories. In his mental attitude and grasp, Constable
was like Winslow Homer, a man of few words, one given to much thought
and to firm convictions.

[SN: _Sir Thomas Lawrence_]

In one of his lectures at the Royal Institution of Great Britain,
Constable said: “It was said by Sir Thomas Lawrence, that ‘we can never
hope to compete with nature in the beauty and delicacy of her separate
forms or colours, our only chance lies in selection and combination.’”

[SN: _Gilbert Stuart_]

Gilbert Stuart expressed a like reliance upon nature when he said: “You
must copy nature, but if you leave nature for an imaginary effect, you
will lose all. Nature cannot be excused, and as your object is to copy
nature, it is the height of folly to work at anything else to produce
that copy.”

[SN: _Corot_]

Corot was equally assured of the importance of this principle to an
artist. He said: “Truth is the first thing in art, and the second, and
the third.”

[SN: _Millet_]

Let us take the opinion of another able painter, that of Millet, who
said: “Men of genius are, as it were, endowed with a divining-rod.
Some discover one thing in nature, some another, according to their
temperament.... The mission of men of genius is to reveal that portion
of nature’s riches which they have discovered, to those who would
never have suspected their existence. They interpret nature to those
who cannot understand her language.”

“I should like to do nothing which was not the result of an impression
received from the appearance of nature, either in landscape or figures.”

“I should express the type very strongly, the type being, to my mind,
the most powerful truth.”

These opinions are at once simple and comprehensive. They express the
thoughts of men who have achieved great works. Indeed, I have never
heard the able master of art say otherwise than that he has striven
with all his power, sometimes in despair, to wrest from nature the
subtle beauties of form and colour possessed by her and discovered by
those who have the power to perceive and understand these qualities.
Nature is the supreme standard, attained to only in part. We may accept
nature as the source of all beauty and harmony in art and rest assured
that the stream has never risen above its source.

The opinions here quoted do not differ materially from those expressed
by painters of our own time.

[SN: _Whistler_]

I recall that Whistler upon the occasion of one of my visits expressed
an opinion upon this subject. Whistler’s “White Girl,” “Girl at the
Piano” and many other works are such notable examples of truthful
representation as to give weight to his opinion. The absolute certainty
with which the several parts of these pictures exist in relation to
each other cannot be overstated.

In response to my inquiry regarding the most important quality in
the art of the painter, Whistler said: “Art is the science of the
beautiful. The parts of nature bear a certain relation to each other,
and this relation is as true as a mathematical fact. People sometimes
say my pictures are dark. That depends upon whether or not the subject
was dark; whether the conditions made it dark. If a dark or low toned
phase of nature is selected, then the picture must be absolutely true
to those conditions.”

“There it is, the subject. Certain relations exist between the value
notes, and these relations must be reproduced absolutely. Two and two
make four--that is a simple truth in mathematics as it is in nature.
Two and two make four--the trouble is that many painters do not see
that two and two make four. They do not see this fine relationship
which results in a simple truth. Not seeing, they try all kinds of
numbers.”

Turning from the easel in front of which we were standing, Whistler
lifted a book from the table with a quick, almost nervous action, and
as he opened it said with a quizzical expression, “It is all in here.”
The book was the “Gentle Art of Making Enemies.” Tuning quickly to the
paragraph he had in mind, he read, “Nature contains the elements, in
colour and form, of all pictures, as the keyboard contains the notes
of all music. But the artist is born to pick, and choose, and group
with science, these elements, that the result may be beautiful.” He
continued to read for a good part of an hour. Whistler by Whistler
was an inimitable and rare treat. The slightest shade of meaning was
expressed with great delicacy, by inflection and gesture.

At the end of very many years of study and observation, Whistler’s
sensitive appreciation and power of selection were extraordinary. The
most subtle and harmonious qualities in nature made an irresistible
appeal to him. He has described this faculty as the power to pick and
choose. By the very choice of many of his subjects he was enabled to
eliminate all insignificant details and thereby to render the harmonies
of nature as they appeared to him. He described his method or mental
attitude with reference to nature when he said: “As the light fades and
the shadows deepen all petty and exacting details vanish, everything
trivial disappears, and I see things as they are, in great strong
masses.”

This represents Whistler in the presence of subdued and gentle
qualities in nature, but it was the same Whistler, without modification
or change in his attitude with respect to nature, who rendered with
such startling realism and absolute fidelity to truth in his marvellous
etchings the shipping, the city, and the river Thames. Under the
blazing light of noonday the masts and rigging of the ships, the forms
and details of the hulls, even the tile upon the roofs of the city
houses were distinctly seen. He recorded his impressions manifestly
without the slightest deviation from the simple truth of form and
value. No one who has studied Whistler’s set of the Thames etchings
will for an instant dispute this statement. The quality of simple truth
is so astonishingly present in every line and form in these works that
no argument is needed touching this point. The Whistler who made these
etchings, the Whistler who painted the “White Girl” and the “Girl
at the Piano,” must be reconciled with the Whistler who painted the
evening symphonies representing the river, the “Portrait of Sarasate,”
and other works of subdued and gentle qualities. The simple truth is
that Whistler was as faithful and scientific in the one case as in the
other, and that the result depended upon his choice of subject, and
the time, and effect observed. I am told that in his later period
he sought after and discovered means of securing the more gentle
aspects of nature; that he toned and diffused the light in his studio
scientifically by the use of semi-transparent window curtains. However
this may be, it is undoubtedly true that he did rely upon the effect
actually before him and that he sought to represent the subdued effect
in his studio or the gentle light of evening so beautifully described
by him in his “Ten O’Clock.” It would be difficult to imagine a more
beautiful pen picture than this description by Whistler. It indicates
his love for the gentle and harmonious qualities in nature.

“When the evening mist clothes the riverside with poetry, as with a
veil, and the poor buildings lose themselves in the dim sky, and the
tall chimneys become campanili, and the warehouses palaces in the
night, and the whole city hangs in the heavens, and fairyland is before
us--then the wayfarer hastens home; the workingman and the cultured
one, the wise man and the one of pleasure, cease to understand, as they
have ceased to see, and Nature, who, for once, has sung in tune, sings
her exquisite song to the artist alone, her son and her master--her son
in that he loves her, her master in that he knows her.”

[SN: _Abbott Thayer_]

This power to select and represent the beautiful qualities in nature,
a power which is the result of repeated efforts, has been defined by
Abbott H. Thayer with rare skill and poetic beauty. “It is as though
a man were shown a crystal, a perfect thing, gleaming below depths of
water--far down beyond reach. He would dive and dive again, driven by
his great desire to secure it, until finally, all dripping, he brought
it up. But that in the end he could bring it--a perfect thing--to us,
was possible solely because he had first seen it, gleaming there.
Others might dive and dive, might work and labor with endless patience
and endless pain, but unless they had first seen the crystal--unless
they had been given this divine gift of seeing--this vision--they would
come up empty-handed. The occasional so-called genius does not make
the crystal, but he alone sees it, where it lies gleaming below depths
of water, and by his effort brings it to us. The whole question is how
absolutely, how perfectly, the artist sees this vision.”

“After the artist has lived, for a certain period, in worship of some
particular specimen or type of the form of beauty dearest to him,
this crystal-like vision forms, clearer and clearer, at the bottom
of his mind, which is, so to speak, his sea of consciousness, until
at last the vision is plainly visible to him, and the all-strain and
danger-facing time has come for putting it into the form in which as
one of the world’s treasures it is to live on.”

When asked whether the artist has ever been granted a vision of any
beauty which is not based upon the beauty of nature, Thayer exclaimed
emphatically, “No, no, no! I don’t see the slightest material for any
such conception.”

And when the question was further put--granted that the artist has
the gift of seeing beauty in nature to which others are blind, is
his picture Art in proportion as he truthfully records the beauty of
the nature that he sees? Mr. Thayer answered, “Yes. Everything in
art, in poetry, music, sculpture, or painting, however fantastic it
looks to people who are not far enough on that road, is nothing but
truth-telling, true reporting of one or another of the great facts of
nature--of the universe.”

The ability to see, as Thayer suggests, is the very foundation of
the artist’s power. It is this power of seeing which enables him to
discover truth and beauty, and it is the skill of the trained master
which enables him to reproduce these for the delight and inspiration of
his fellows.

That men are endowed by inheritance with varying degrees of mental
power is a self-evident fact. No one will dispute this; it comes within
our common experience. Providence has been lavish in the bestowal of
extraordinary powers upon the few, but it remains everlastingly true
that even with these success depends upon effort. Nothing is more fully
established than this truism. The records of successful men in all
periods and in every avenue of life bear testimony to this fact.

To the artist, seeing is the all important thing, and to him there is
no mystery either in the development of this power or in the result
obtained. To him it is simply a matter of logical evolution, the result
of the day’s work well done. He begins his career as a student by
laboriously copying nature. His first studies are, as a rule, hard and
unsympathetic. I have not discovered an exception to this rule. In the
beginning the art student does not even see colour in its fullness and
beauty. Gradually he acquires greater power of perception. He discovers
beautiful and harmonious colours in nature which were unseen at first.
He realizes the exquisite grace of line to be found on every hand but
unperceived before--the movement, charm, and beauty of natural forms.
New beauties are revealed from day to day; new harmonies are seen
and felt. Presently the inharmonious becomes distasteful; the ugly,
intolerable; the offensive, a distress. He comes into the presence of
nature with a new vision. Her beauties are revealed to him. He feels a
thrill in the love he bears for the exceptional and profound beauty of
an evening sky or a grey day. He never talks about inspiration or soul,
although he has searched out the very soul of the landscape. He simply
seeks with every power at his command, as Constable, borrowing the
thought from Wordsworth, expressed it, “to give ‘to one brief moment
caught from fleeting time’ a lasting and sober existence, and to render
permanent many of those splendid but evanescent Exhibitions which are
ever occurring in the endless varieties of Nature.”

The sculptor, I think, in some such manner lies in wait for the grace
and charm of movement, the supreme expression of character and of
harmony, as an animal lies in wait for its prey. When one or all of
these qualities are seen he seizes his chisel and strives to fix what
he has discovered in permanent form.

The artist, looking back over twenty or thirty years of continuous and
earnest study, of repeated and laborious effort, and of failures and
successes, realizes that the power of perception and selection which he
now possesses is the result of these years of observation and labor. He
also realizes that he has never quite attained to the full height of
his ambition to represent truthfully the supreme qualities of beauty
which he has learned to discover in nature.

In the selection of subjects for his works and in the production of
arrangements or combinations representing either grace, beauty of
colour and form, or essential character, the painter or sculptor is
aided by two very powerful influences.

The first of these is his inherited or acquired taste. Step by step,
precept upon precept, first as a student in the art school, then as
an artist, this faculty known as taste is cultivated, increased,
until with rare discrimination and judgment he selects, “picks and
chooses,” as Whistler said, the things of beauty and harmony, being
guided all the while by the unwritten law of harmony of which we are
all conscious. To arrive at this consummation of the artist’s highest
endeavors is not an easy task.

His course may be, and often is, a very delightful and agreeable
one, but it is one of infinite effort and labor. Before the painter
acquires this knowledge or power which enables him to discriminate
with judgment and taste, selecting those forms and colours expressive
of harmony, grace and beauty, he must have served an apprenticeship of
many long years. The sculptor who would aspire to the exquisite and
discriminating taste of a Rodin, who observes with patience and who
seizes with marvellous skill upon the very essence of grace as it is
expressed by the human figure, must travel the same tedious road. If
the sculptor would read and know character as does a Saint-Gaudens, he
must travel many a weary mile over the path which leads to perfection
in art.

The second powerful influence helping the artist to acquire knowledge
is, as Constable suggested, art itself. The student while pursuing the
plodding course of training in the art school and later in a wider
field as an artist, is not only searching out in nature the qualities
of grace and harmony, but his eyes are constantly turned in the
direction of the accumulated records of art. He studies with assiduous
care and thought in the great works of all times, the qualities, the
harmonies, the character wrested from nature by the able painters
and sculptors of the past. Myriads have tried and failed to know and
master nature during the past few hundred years, and only the few who
have succeeded have left the record of their success. All the weak
productions have gone into oblivion. To these really great works the
painter and sculptor turn again and again, patiently, persistently,
unfalteringly, sometimes through hours of silent study at other times
by earnest effort to copy, but always with a single purpose in
mind--to know and master the secrets of the masters. Little by little,
always referring the master to nature for confirmation or proof, the
artist struggles upward to a more consummate understanding of the works
of nature, but he never forsakes or belittles this supreme source of
all his power and knowledge.

[SN: _Winslow Homer_]

I recall asking Winslow Homer if he did not think the beauty existing
in nature must be discovered and reproduced by the painter. Quick as a
flash he answered: “Yes, but the rare thing is to find a painter who
knows a good thing when he sees it.”

On another occasion we were picking our way along the Maine coast, over
the shelving rocks he painted so often and with such insight and power,
when I suddenly said: “Homer, do you ever take the liberty, in painting
nature, of modifying the colour of any part?”

I recall his manner and expression perfectly. He stopped quickly and
exclaimed: “Never! Never! When I have selected the thing carefully I
paint it exactly as it appears.”

During our talk he emphasized, however, the importance of selection.
“You must not paint anything you see--you must wait and wait patiently
for a particular effect, and then when it comes, if you have sense
enough to know it when you do see it--well, that’s all there is to
that.”

At another time, referring contemptuously to the calm ocean under a
vacant sky, he said: “I take no interest in that.” There came, however,
one morning while I was at Prout’s Neck a misty and threatening sky.
Grey clouds bewitching in their silvery tones went hurrying across the
troubled sea. By noon it was blowing a gale and the waves were lashing
the coast, sending spray high into the air. Once and again great clouds
of mist drove across the deserted rocks, and the music of old ocean
rose to an ominous and resounding tone. Presently Homer hurried into
my room, clad from head to foot in rubber, and carrying in his arms a
storm coat and a pair of sailor’s boots. “Come,” he said, “quickly! It
is perfectly grand.”

For an hour we clambered over rocks, holding fast to the wiry shrubs
which grew from every crevice, while the spray dashed far overhead.
This placid, reserved, self-contained little man was in a fever of
excitement, and his delight in the beautiful and almost overpowering
expression of the ocean as it foamed and rioted was inspiring. To him
this was the supreme expression of beauty and power. The moment he had
patiently waited for had come.

Homer’s love for and appreciation of those rugged, elemental qualities
in nature resulted in the production of forceful works of great beauty.
In the selection of subjects he expressed his individual taste.

[SN: _Henry W. Ranger_]

I recall an opinion expressed by the late Henry W. Ranger to the
effect that Tolstoi’s definition of art had never been excelled. He
referred to Tolstoi’s definition of art as the power to pass on a
sensation. Ranger maintained the opinion that art is the expression
of the individual’s feeling, that the artist uses the facts of nature
to express his own sensation and that no great landscape was ever
painted directly from nature. “The technical difficulties,” he said,
“and the rapidly changing effects made it hard to paint out of doors.
He could do better by depending upon his memory.” It was his opinion
that the deeper qualities were secured in the studio; that nature only
furnishes the hooks upon which the painter hangs his work; that he
in reality expresses his own feeling, the poetry or sentiment which
is in himself. Ranger here describes a vague or not clearly defined
quality which is referred to as personal temperament. His opinion is
in direct contradiction to the almost universal testimony of painters
and sculptors, and Ranger himself in his practice failed to maintain
it. Although he did not complete his works in the presence of nature,
he made many sketches from nature and copied his larger canvases from
these.

I think Ranger at the end of a long career had the power of discovering
beautiful qualities in nature and of seeing them profoundly. I knew
him well, and many times we discussed art and artists. I found his
knowledge broad and intimate. His view that a painter simply passes
on a sensation was repeated to me many times. I think one may frankly
agree with this opinion, but I do not think a painter originates or
creates a sensation. In the presence of nature he simply receives it
and then transmits it, the result being dependent upon his natural or
acquired power of perception, his memory, and his technical ability.

Ranger’s paintings are characterized by an understanding of nature,
and this was the result of a lifetime of the most earnest, patient,
and persistent study. Probably no modern artist was more industrious,
for his studio was filled with studies in colour and many thousands
of pencil drawings. Indeed, so familiar was he with the colours and
characteristic forms of nature that he frequently reproduced these
with much delicacy, relying solely upon his memory and a few accurate
pencil notes. In discussing his method, I recall his remark that he
painted in the studio because he could get closer to nature that way
than by painting out of doors. Painters universally understand the
difficulties of painting in the open because of conflicting lights.
They also realize the more certain judgment of the experienced eye when
painting in a quiet or more subdued light; but to do this requires
great knowledge and a retentive memory.

As illustrating Ranger’s method of study and his reliance upon memory,
I recall an occasion when he studied long and patiently the union
or combination of two colour notes, the sky and water--for we were
sailing at the time. He remarked upon the beautiful harmony expressed
by these colours. He studied them intently, evidently with the thought
of reproducing them later. I also remember a painting expressive of the
charm and beauty of a moon-light night. It was painted at his Noank
home. I believe this picture was painted almost wholly in his studio. I
think it was the result of an infinite number of impressions received
as he studied, evening after evening, the ocean and the sky. By this I
mean that while Ranger in this painting was passing on a sensation, he
was only passing on the truth and beauty of nature as realized by him
night after night, and recorded in his memory.

The point here raised is one of vital importance with reference to the
subject under consideration. It is that the painter does not express
anything he has not received. He pursues one of two methods: he either
secures beautiful qualities in the presence of nature or he reproduces
qualities stored in his memory.

[SN: _John La Farge_]

John La Farge referred to these two methods, the one by which the
painter works directly from nature and the other by which he depends
upon his memory, and his opinion bears directly upon the point raised.
La Farge wrote: “He [the painter] will then go again to nature, perhaps
working directly from it, perhaps only to his memory of sight, for
remember, that in what we call working from nature--we painters--we
merely use a shorter strain of memory than when we carry back to our
studios the vision that we wish to note. And more than that, the very
way in which we draw our lines, and mix our pigments, in the hurry of
instant record, in the certainty of successful handling, implies that
our mind is filled with innumerable memories of continuous trials.”

As La Farge points out, the difference between painting in the presence
of nature and painting from memory is only a different span of memory.
One painter pursues one way, another a different method. The end sought
is the same.

[SN: _Segantini_]

Giovanni Segantini’s method was to go to nature _finally_. He began his
paintings in the studio, working from studies, and finished them in the
presence of nature. I recall a delightful visit with this able Italian
painter at his home at Maloja, and also his interesting description of
his method. His art was little known at that time, some twenty years
ago. His works are now well known to art lovers throughout the world.

I had but recently seen his “Ploughing in the Engadine” at an
exhibition in the Bavarian capital. It impressed me as possessing a
very vital quality. The technical manner seemed at that time strange
and unusual. Like worsted, the colours stretched across the sky.
The earth clods were small strands of colour, revealing, on close
examination, a rarely prodigal palette. This phase of Segantini’s art
interested me on the purely technical side. The effect of the picture
was startling. It was like a breath of fresh and fragrant air from the
mountains of Switzerland.

It was following this impression received from his painting that I
visited the painter at Maloja. Leaving Chiavenna early one morning,
the coach slowly climbed the mountainside and, presently, crossed the
apex of the range. There lay at our feet the beautiful valley of the
Engadine. I carried away from Maloja many delightful impressions,
but the two dominating all others were these: the earnestness of the
painter, and his unwavering dependence upon nature.

He showed me large drawings or cartoons of some of his well known
subjects representing the arrangement of the compositions and the
balancing of the various parts of his pictures. The drawings were
made in crayon and suggested in line the technical treatment of
his paintings. From these sketches he transferred the drawings to
canvas. In this way he saved time and labor. When a drawing was thus
transferred to a canvas he carried the canvas to the scene of his
subject, where he painted invariably directly from nature. When I asked
if he ever completed a picture in the studio, he said: “Absolutely no!
I always finish my pictures in the presence of nature.”

Segantini spoke his last word, if I may adopt this form of expression,
in the very presence of and under the influence of nature. This to him
was the supreme moment in the execution of his work.

[SN: _Anton Mauve_]

Another illustration of the method of a great painter in relying upon
his memory for the truths and facts of nature is found in Anton Mauve.
Mauve’s power is unquestioned. He was one of the great modern Dutch
painters. His pictures are always direct and forceful. His knowledge
of nature was profound. This knowledge was the result of effort and
study. Among his early drawings are found studies from nature which,
in spirit, are wholly unlike his later productions. They reveal Mauve
as a student of nature who was untiring in his effort to draw minute
details with unflinching accuracy. I recall pencil studies of sheep,
horses, cows, and plants which have rarely ever been excelled in the
delineation of detail, not even by a master draughtsman like Barque.
Mauve’s knowledge of nature acquired by this method was intimate and
deep. His later manner was based upon a solid foundation. It was
by this knowledge he was enabled to depict the more characteristic
forms with a few hastily drawn lines. He knew well how important are
broad, essential masses in art and he rendered these, eliminating
non-essentials and trivial details. His sense of design or appropriate
balance of parts was keen and sure; nearly all his pictures possess
the distinguishing quality of simplicity. Like Ranger, he preferred to
paint his pictures in the studio, but his reliance was, in the highest
sense, upon nature.

I recall a visit to Mauve’s country, a country of sand dunes and
pastures. These he loved and painted. One of Mauve’s students, an able
etcher, was probably more familiar with the artist’s method than any
other person. “His [Mauve’s] best pictures, before Laren,” he wrote me,
“were all made in his studio from memory, aided with sketches in chalk.
Then he went every day, if possible, to the spot he had sketched, to
study the effect, the ‘moment,’ and he tried to fix that impression on
his canvas when back home.”

[SN: _Rodin_]

Let us turn from the art of the painter to the art of the sculptor.
Probably no modern sculptor has taken a higher place in the estimation
of his fellow artists than has Rodin. As expressions of his art, his
“Thinker” stands at one extreme end of the scale and such graceful and
beautiful forms as “Eternal Spring” at the other. It is interesting,
therefore, to know that Rodin has acknowledged his absolute dependence
upon nature for the widely divergent expressions of character rendered
by him. He is quoted as saying: “Seeker after truth and student of
life as I am, ... I obey Nature in everything, and I never pretend to
command her. My only ambition is to be servilely faithful to her.”

“I have not changed it [nature]. Or, rather, if I have done it, it was
without suspecting it at the time. The feeling which influenced my
vision showed me nature as I have copied her.”

“If I had wished to modify what I saw and to make it more beautiful I
should have produced nothing good.”

“The only principle in Art is to copy what you see. Dealers in
aesthetics to the contrary, every other method is fatal. There is no
recipe for improving Nature.”

“The only thing is _to see_.”

“The ideal! The dream! Why, the realities of Nature surpass our most
ambitious dreams.”




_Opinions of Philosophers and Writers_


The opinions here referred to are those of masters who have produced
works of art. They seem to be supported by the opinions of able
writers and philosophers who have dealt with this subject. If the
opinions of these writers are less authoritative, they are nevertheless
important as representing the thought of profound scholars. They cover
practically the entire period of writing upon art. While diversified in
the manner of approach, they will be found to unite in a common theory.
These writers naturally deal with mental processes; with the attributes
of the mind; with the philosophy of the subject.

[SN: _Schopenhauer_]

Schopenhauer defines genius as pre-eminent capacity for contemplation
which ends in the object. “Now,” he says, “as this requires that a
man should entirely forget himself and the relations in which he
stands, genius is simply complete objectivity, i.e., the objective
tendency of the mind, as opposed to the subjective, which is directed
to one’s own self--in other words, to the will. Thus genius is the
faculty of continuing in the state of pure perception, of losing one’s
self in perception, and of enlisting in this service the knowledge
which originally existed only for the service of the will; that is
to say, genius is the power of leaving one’s own interests, wishes,
and aims entirely out of sight, and thus of entirely renouncing one’s
own personality for a time, so as to remain pure knowing subject,
clear vision of the world--and this not merely at moments, but for a
sufficient length of time and with sufficient consciousness to enable
one to reproduce by deliberate art what has thus been apprehended, and
‘to fix in lasting thoughts the wavering images that float before the
mind.’”

Schopenhauer’s definition of genius is probably more accurate and more
logical than that of any other writer. In his opinion, genius is the
power of pre-eminent perception. The artist only exceeds his fellows in
that his perception is keener; that he is able to see and understand
more perfectly than others. When an able painter approaches nature in
this spirit, forgetting all else, as Schopenhauer suggests, the result
is usually a masterpiece. To such a painter is attributed the quality
known as genius.

[SN: _Taine_]

Taine defines art as the power of perceiving the essential character
of an object. Taine says: “The character of an object strikes him
[the artist] and the effect of this sensation is a strong, peculiar
impression.... But art itself, which is the faculty of perceiving and
expressing the leading character of objects, is as enduring as the
civilization of which it is the best and earliest fruit.... To give
full prominence to a leading character is the object of a work of art.
It is owing to this that the closer a work of art approaches this
point the more perfect it becomes; in other words, the more exactly
and completely these conditions are complied with, the more elevated
it becomes on the scale. Two of these conditions are necessary; it
is necessary that the character should be the most notable possible
and the most dominant possible.... The masterpiece is that in which
the greatest force receives the greatest development. In the language
of the painter, the superior work is that in which the character
possessing the greatest possible value in nature receives from art
all the increase in value that is possible.... It is essential, then,
to closely imitate something in an object; but not everything.” After
defining the essential quality by two illustrations--the illustration
of the lion and the illustration of the dominant characteristics of a
flat country like Holland, Taine continues: “Through its innumerable
effects, you judge of the importance of this essential character. It
is this which art must bring forward into proper light, and if this
task devolves upon art it is because nature fails to accomplish it. In
nature this essential character is simply dominant; it is the aim of
art to render it predominant.... Man is sensible of this deficiency,
and to remove it he has invented art.”

[SN: _Froude_]

Froude touches upon this point in his reference to the art of the
writer. He said he would turn to Shakespeare for the best history of
England because of his (Shakespeare’s) absolute truth to character and
event. “We wonder,” Froude wrote, “at the grandeur, the moral majesty,
of some of Shakespeare’s characters, so far beyond what the noblest
among ourselves can imitate, and at first thought we attribute it to
the genius of the poet, who has outstripped Nature in his creations.
But we are misunderstanding the power and the meaning of poetry in
attributing creativeness to it in any such sense. Shakespeare created,
but only as the spirit of Nature created around him, working in him
as it worked abroad in those among whom he lived. The men whom he
draws were such men as he saw and knew; the words they utter were
such as he heard in the ordinary conversations in which he joined. At
the Mermaid with Raleigh and with Sidney, and at a thousand unnamed
English firesides, he found the living originals for his Prince Hals,
his Orlandos, his Antonios, his Portias, his Isabellas. The closer
personal acquaintance which we can form with the English of the age of
Elizabeth, the more we are satisfied that Shakespeare’s great poetry is
no more than the rhythmic echo of the life which it depicts.”

[SN: _Baumgarten_]

Baumgarten concluded, from Leibnitz’ theory of a pre-established
harmony and its consequence, that the world is the best possible, that
nature is the highest embodiment of beauty, and that art must seek as
its highest function the strictest possible imitation of nature.

[SN: _Leibnitz_]

Bosanquet says: “The greatest degree of perfection was to be found,
according to Leibnitz, in the existing universe, every other possible
system being as a whole less perfect.”

[SN: _Kant_]

Kant deals with a phase of this subject which is of great interest.
In many strong works of art there remain incomplete and often
unsatisfactory details. These are permitted to remain because the
artist knows that to remove them would weaken or affect the strength
of the whole. These, Kant says, are “only of necessity suffered to
remain, because they could hardly be removed without loss of force
to the idea. This courage has merit only in the case of a genius. A
certain boldness of expression, and, in general, many a deviation from
the common rule becomes him well; but in no sense is it a thing worthy
of imitation. On the contrary it remains all through intrinsically a
blemish which one is bound to try to remove, but for which the genius
is, as it were, allowed to plead a privilege, on the ground that a
scrupulous carefulness would spoil what is inimitable in the impetuous
ardor of his soul.”

The genius here referred to by Kant is well understood and his power
is fully recognized, but he is not separated from his fellow craftsmen
except in the degree of his knowledge and ability. He is a man of
superior ability and power who, driving straight to the object of
his labor, represents character in a direct and forceful way. To
this end he brings to his assistance his superior technical skill,
but often in the very impetuosity of his ardor, as Kant suggests, he
leaves unfinished parts because he well understands that to labor over
these parts would be to reduce the force or power of the whole. This
impetuous manner which strives to render the character of the object
or person, or of the scene, or of the ephemeral effects of nature,
quickly and directly, is well understood by the painter. I recall a
large sketch of Daubigny’s owned by Mesdag, probably purchased from
the painter. This sketch represents a green hillside with a canal and
horses in the foreground. For absolute power and truth of beautiful
quality and colour it was probably never surpassed by Daubigny, but it
is what the public would call an unfinished picture. In truth, force,
and beauty, it might fairly be considered “inspired” as compared with
Daubigny’s finished or carefully painted pictures so widely known.
In this painting there are many unsatisfactory parts, such as are
referred to by Kant as “deformities,” but Daubigny well understood
that to remove them or to work over this sketch, which was doubtless
made rapidly in the presence of nature and under the influence of the
particular mood expressed by nature, would have weakened its power.

I recall another painting that will illustrate this point--a study by
Anton Mauve. This study was found among Mauve’s possessions after his
death, and was probably never offered for sale during his lifetime
because, in minor parts, it is incomplete. Rough lines of the original
drawing were permitted to remain. These are the kind of blemishes to
which Kant refers, but they do not detract from the supreme beauty
and power of the study. Indeed, this picture is considered by many
painters to be one of Mauve’s masterpieces, so true and just is it in
the representation of a momentary effect in nature. Mauve doubtless
recognized the importance of the study and refused to make corrections
of minor defects. I have been told that he replied to Weissenbrouck, a
fellow painter who urged him to finish this work: “I will leave it as
God made it in nature. It is finished.” Mauve had secured the broad,
essential truth of nature and with this he was content.

[SN: _Maeterlinck_]

Maurice Maeterlinck tersely expressed the same thought when he said:
“I myself have now for a long time ceased to look for anything more
beautiful in this world, or more interesting, than the truth....”

The reader will not have failed to observe the significant note of
agreement running through these opinions touching the importance of
selection, the power to perceive and select from among the multitude of
forms those which are exceptional or dominant.

“Pure perception”; “the faculty of perceiving and expressing the
leading character of objects”; “In nature this essential character is
simply dominant; it is the aim of art to render it predominant ...”;
these expressions of philosophers are in perfect accord with the
expressions of painters, as for instance, “The only thing is _to see_”;
or “our only chance lies in selection and combination.”




_Symmetry_


If what has been written is true, if art is but the revelation of grace
and beauty inherent in nature, the making plain that which is revealed
to the artist and obscure to the less observant, or to those with less
power, it still remains to account for the universal distinction in
form which characterizes all great works of art. Reference has been
made to the common factor of truth, but there is a second factor or
quality possessed by works of art, that of symmetry. This attribute
lifts a work above the commonplace and, combined with truth, places it
among the masterpieces of art.

There are certain fundamental laws of symmetry existing in nature and
these, consciously or unconsciously, govern the masters of art in the
production of their works. These undefined laws have been recognized
from the earliest time, and the artist who is governed by them in the
selection of his subjects and controlled by them in the execution of
his work makes a universal appeal to which the aesthetic sense in man
responds. These laws are not of man’s creation. They belong to nature.
They exist in form and colour. They also exist in sound. Whether or not
the Greeks had reduced these laws to definite principles or rules, and
were governed by them in the construction of their temples and in the
creation of their masterly works in sculpture, is a doubtful question;
but certain it is that Hambidge has shown quite conclusively that
certain fundamental proportions existing in natural forms are repeated
in the Parthenon and in other great architectural structures belonging
to the Grecian period.

This does not mean that every great work of art must of necessity be
based upon clearly defined, rigid rules of proportion, on what is
called Dynamic Symmetry, but rather that works made to conform to these
rules do possess a degree of distinction and that the result is an
orderliness of arrangement or an agreeable disposition of spaces with
relation to each other which produces an aesthetic effect upon the
human mind.

Therefore, while truth is essential, it is conceded that symmetry must
be added to secure distinction. Commonplace expressions of nature,
while satisfying the ignorant, have never been accepted as art by
those who have given this subject serious thought.

The quality of design, of pattern, of appropriate and harmonious
arrangement, must be taken into account in any discussion touching
the philosophy of art. The universal appreciation and enjoyment of
design as revealed in rugs, in tapestries, and in a hundred other art
forms, may only be accounted for upon the theory of the existence of a
universal law of nature governing the judgment of man with reference to
these things.

This law is found in nature just as certainly as is found the law of
gravitation. The art of design when not literally transcribed from
the beautiful forms presented by nature herself is found to rest upon
some adaptation of this universal law of symmetry and harmony. With
symmetrical forms in nature we become familiar even in our childhood.
Take for instance the symmetrical forms of leaves. The grace and
symmetry of the leaf of the elm tree is well known, as is also the
character of the oak leaf and its almost invariable symmetrical form.
When a form that is not symmetrical appears, such, for instance,
as that of the leaf of the sassafras tree--one of the three leaf
forms borne by this tree being shaped like a mitten--we instantly
recognize this exception to the almost universal rule and reject it
as unsymmetrical and inharmonious. Illustrations of symmetry might
be multiplied, because they are found in flower and animal forms
everywhere. With harmony and colour we are made familiar by the passing
seasons. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter are successive expressions
of harmony.

How far this universal law of symmetry extends throughout nature and
what influence it has upon the human mind in its appreciation of the
beautiful in nature it would be difficult to estimate. It is sufficient
for our purpose to know that it is universal and far reaching in its
application and influence. [SN: _J. Henri Fabre_] It is interesting
in this connection to note that J. Henri Fabre, the eminent French
naturalist, makes reference to this law in describing the uniformity
with which certain bees act, their actions seeming to be governed by a
mysterious law. In his book on “Bramble Bees and Others” Fabre says:
“The first time that I prepared one of these horizontal tubes [for
bramble bees] open at both ends, I was greatly struck by what happened.
The series consisted of ten cocoons. It was divided into two equal
batches. The five on the left went out on the left, the five on the
right went out on the right, reversing, when necessary, their original
direction in the cell. It was very remarkable from the point of view
of symmetry; moreover, it was a very unlikely arrangement among the
total number of possible arrangements, as mathematics will show us.”
Fabre elucidates this fact by mathematical calculation proving that
there had been a spontaneous decision, one half in favor of the exit
on the left, one half in favor of that on the right, when the tube was
horizontal and gravity ceased to interfere.

This law of harmony has been recognized and to some extent defined by
early philosophers and writers as well as by those of recent date.

[SN: _Plato_]

It was recognized and referred to by Plato, who said that the world
offers the material in graceful and beautiful forms; or again that
there is no difficulty in seeing that grace or the absence of grace is
an effect of good or bad rhythm ... that beauty of style and harmony
and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity. He also refers to art
as representing proportion, harmony, or unity among the parts. His
thought is that there is an absolute principle of beauty which reveals
itself in natural objects. [SN: _Aristotle_] Aristotle expressed the
opinion that the essential qualities of beauty are order and symmetry.
[SN: _Knight_] Knight refers to the appreciation of symmetry and
proportion on the part of the Greek people and he concludes that the
knowledge of this same law of symmetry and its appreciation was
doubtless the basis of Greek art. [SN: _Kant_] Kant in his philosophy
refers to this same law of symmetry, grace, and beauty in nature. He
says: “The beautiful forms displayed in the organic world all plead
eloquently on the side of the realism of the aesthetic finality
of nature in support of the plausible assumption that beneath the
production of the beautiful there must lie a preconceived idea in the
producing cause--that is to say, an end acting in the interest of our
imagination. Flowers, blossoms, even the shapes of plants as a whole,
the elegance of animal formations of all kinds, unnecessary for the
discharge of any function on their part, but chosen as it were with an
eye to our taste; and, beyond all else, the variety and harmony in the
array of colours (in the pheasant, in crustacea, in insects, down even
to the meanest flowers) so pleasing and charming to the eye, but which,
inasmuch as they touch the bare surface and do not even here in any way
affect the structure of these creatures--a matter which might have a
necessary bearing on their internal ends--seem to be planned entirely
with a view to outward appearance: all these lend great weight to the
mode of explanation which assumes actual ends of nature in favor of
our aesthetic judgment.” [SN: _Blackie_] John Stuart Blackie refers
to qualities in nature which create spontaneously in the mind a degree
of pleasure because of their symmetry and beauty. He says: “There must
be, therefore, in nature and in the constitution of things certain
qualities which, being superinduced upon the useful, or mere fitness
to achieve a practical end, create in the mind the pleasant sensations
which arise spontaneously on the perception of a beautiful object.”

It would seem, therefore, that nature has furnished those forms and
colours which are symmetrical and harmonious, and that familiarity with
these has created in man, in varying degrees, a love for the beautiful
and an appreciation of the symmetrical and orderly. This law of
symmetry and proportion not only appeals to our own consciousness but
has become a part of our daily life.

It frequently happens that the repetition of beautiful forms results in
what comes to be recognized as a conventional or national expression of
art. This is especially true of Chinese and Japanese art. Conventional
forms adopted by one generation of Chinese or Japanese artists were
often handed down to succeeding generations of artists. Not only was
this true, but the repetition of these conventional forms, generation
after generation, resulted in the adoption of certain arbitrary
rules governing the composition and construction of their works of
art. [SN: _Sei-ichi Taki_] Sei-ichi Taki in his “Three Essays on
Oriental Painting” noted eighteen rules for the painting of “mountain
wrinkles.” Among these rules the following may be mentioned: “Wrinkled
like eddying water.” “Wrinkled like a horse’s tooth.” “Wrinkled like
bullock’s hair.” “Wrinkled like the veins of a lotus leaf.”

Notwithstanding these conventions, the fundamental or underlying
qualities in Chinese and Japanese art do not differ from those
characterizing works by artists of other nations. There was the same
reliance upon nature and insistence upon selection and the expression
of essential character. [SN: _Kuo Hsi_] For instance, Kuo Hsi, himself
a landscape painter, in his work on art criticism, “Noble Features
of the Forest and Stream,” wrote as follows: “Observe widely and
comprehensively.” And again: “Take in the essentials of a scene and
discard the trivialities.”

[SN: _Lafcadio Hearn_]

With Chinese and Japanese artists it was always a question of
discriminating selection. Lafcadio Hearn, a keen observer and a
charming writer upon Japanese life and art, referred with unusual
penetration to the importance of selection when he wrote: “The artist
looked for dominant laws of contrast and colour, for the general
character of nature’s combinations, for the order of the beautiful. He
drew actualities but not repellent or meaningless actualities, proving
his rank even more by his refusal than by his choice of subjects.”
It will be seen from these expressions that Chinese and Japanese art
was in fact based upon an intimate and thorough knowledge of nature,
influenced by certain conventions which were clearly defined and
understood.

[SN: _La Farge_]

John La Farge, the American artist who was a profound student of
oriental art, suggests this undefined law of harmony in the universe
when he says: “I might acknowledge that I have far within me a belief
that art is the love of certain balanced proportions and relations
which the mind likes to discover and to bring out in what it deals
with, be it thought, or the action of man, or the influences of nature,
or the material things in which the necessity makes it to work. I
should then expand this idea until it stretched from the patterns of
earliest pottery to the harmony of the lines of Homer. Then I should
say that in our plastic arts the relations of lines and spaces are, in
my belief, the first and earliest desires. And again, I should have to
say that, in my unexpressed faith, these needs are as needs of the soul
and echoes of the laws of the universe, seen and unseen, reflections
of the universal mathematics, cadences of the ancient music of the
spheres.”

“For I am forced to believe that there are laws for our eyes as well as
for our ears, and that when, if ever, these shall have been deciphered,
as has been the good fortune with music, then shall we find that all
best artists have carefully preserved their instinctive obedience to
these, and have all cared together for this before all.”

“For the arrangements of line and balances of spaces which meet these
underlying needs are indeed the points through which we recognize the
answer to our natural love and sensitiveness for order, and through
this answer, we feel, clearly or obscurely, the difference between what
we call great men and what we call the average, whatever the personal
charm may be.”




_Conclusion_


It may seem ruthless to destroy the old conception which attributed to
the works of the painter and sculptor a place superior to or above the
works of men in the field of science or in other spheres of activity,
but this, I think, is rapidly being done. The idea that man is capable
of adding anything to or improving upon the supreme qualities of beauty
as these exist in nature is disappearing. The spirit of a scientific
age is dispelling the old conception of art. Men now realize in art as
in science that the quality of truth is the sole object to be sought.

[SN: _Lord James Bryce_]

Lord James Bryce, the eminent English statesman and author, recently
called attention to the dominating influence of the scientific spirit
as felt in the various activities of our time. He referred to the
effect which the enormous increase in knowledge in the scientific world
has had upon our intellectual life and upon the ideas, the habits and
ways of thought of mankind. He said that the scientific investigations
during the past century and a half have occupied a larger proportion
of the energetic intellects of the world than ever before. The
results of these investigations have been more read than they ever
were before, and by a widening circle. They have more affected men’s
minds and become part of our thinking--part of the mental furniture
of educated men and women. Lord Bryce pointed out that through the
everlasting searching after truth and the facts of nature “the methods
and the spirit of science have undoubtedly affected such subjects as
metaphysical and ethical philosophy, as economic science and history,
as political theory, as oratory, as philology, as literature.” And he
added that for some reason (he would not call it inscrutable, because
he said that everything is more or less discoverable by sufficient
study and attention--everything in the human sphere at least) he
believed that there did, in the Eighteenth Century, begin to come over
the human mind a change, the results of which are seen in all these
fields. The novelty of this method, Lord Bryce said, “lies in the
scrupulous care which we bestow upon phenomena, in the determination to
examine the minutest details and to record exactly what we see, that
and nothing more.” Lord Bryce had also expressed the thought that
with all careful study we must strive to communicate an impression,
which is much more difficult than merely to state facts. For example,
he says, the historian’s general impression of a people is no less an
expression of truth and no less accurate than is the presentation of
many minor facts. Lord Bryce here states a profound truth, namely, that
the impression of the whole is of greater importance than the literal
representation of detail. This truth applies to art. The elimination of
trifling details but emphasizes the power and beauty of the whole.

I think it is this scientific spirit which has influenced modern art
and which is very clearly exemplified in the history of the School of
Impressionists. This school has exerted a powerful influence upon the
art of painting of the present day. I know that the general opinion has
been that the so-called Impressionist painters have departed from the
representation of the truths of nature and that their paintings are not
faithful representations of nature; but I believe the very reverse of
this to be true. I think, in their search for the essential truth of
nature, or the essential fact, that they have, in their very intensity
of effort, departed from the representation of minute details and of
many forms, in order that they might the more fully and perfectly
represent the less obvious and more subtle truth.

Take, for instance, the purpose which actuated Monet, probably the
leader of this group of painters, in his effort to represent the very
truth of nature by a few masses of vibrating colour. For example,
his haycock series of pictures was but an effort to represent the
most essential qualities of the subjects which he had chosen for his
experiment. I recall very well the first painting by Monet which I had
the opportunity to see, some thirty years ago, and the impression I
received then remains fresh in my memory. It was not the pleasurable
or childish sensation created by recognizing the forms of familiar
objects, but rather the delight created by an impression of vibrating,
sunlit atmosphere. This effect was the result of scientific research.
Monet simply applied his power and his wealth of technical ability
to reproduce another kind of truth, the truth of nature as broadly
represented by beautiful colours in relation to each other. I mention
Monet in this connection because he seems to represent, in an important
sense, the influence of a scientific age upon the art of the painter.

This view of Claude Monet’s art and the art of the so-called
Impressionists is the very opposite of that entertained by many writers
who have attributed to these painters careless rather than scientific
methods.

If the principles laid down in this work are true, they become of vital
importance. We will not think less of art, but we will be inspired by
a new devotion to nature and the great laws which govern her. We will
seek more diligently after the subtle harmonies and beauties in nature,
those qualities which have been discovered by the great masters and
translated with measurable success. We will go to nature with more
intelligence and devotion, that we may there enjoy these things for
ourselves at the source of all beauty. The student may lay aside all
preconceived notions with reference to inspiration and creation, and
address himself to his task as would any other workman. The result
should be a more profound appreciation of all beauty and more joy in a
world too often made commonplace by man.




_References_


  ARISTOTLE

  p. 61     William Angus Knight, “Philosophy of the
            Beautiful,” Part 1, p. 28.

  BAUMGARTEN, ALEXANDER GOTTLIEB

  p. 52     Enc. Brit. 9th Ed., Vol. 1, “Aesthetics.”

  BLACKIE, JOHN STUART

  p. 62-63  The Contemporary Review, Vol. 43, June, 1883,
            pp. 821-822.

  BRYCE, LORD JAMES

  p. 67-69  Founder’s Day Book, Carnegie Institute, 1908,
            pp. 12-16.

  CONSTABLE, JOHN

  p. 17-18  C. R. Leslie, R. A., “Memoirs of the Life of John
            Constable, Esq., R. A.,” 1843, pp. 147-148.

  p. 23-25  C. R. Leslie, R. A., “Memoirs of the Life of John
            Constable, Esq., R. A.,” 1843, p. 66.

  p. 34     C. J. Holmes, “Constable and His Influence on
            Landscape Painting,” 1902, p. 131.

  COROT, JEAN-BAPTISTE CAMILLE

  p. 25     Mrs. Schuyler Van Rensselaer, “Six Portraits,”
            p. 160.

  DÜRER, ALBRECHT

  p. 20-21  Wm. Angus Knight, “Philosophy of the Beautiful,”
            Part 1, p. 48, and Moriz Thausing, “Albert Dürer,
            His Life and Works,” 1882, p. 319.

  FABRE, JEAN HENRI

  p. 60-61  J. Henri Fabre, “Bramble Bees and Others,” p. 42.

  FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY

  p. 51-52  James Anthony Froude, “England’s Forgotten
            Worthies,” pub. in “Short Studies on Great
            Subjects,” Vol. 1, First Series, 1894, p. 360.

  HAMBIDGE, JAY

  p. 58     Jay Hambidge, “Dynamic Symmetry: The Greek Vase.”

  HEARN, LAFCADIO

  p. 64-65  Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 78, August, 1896, p. 224.

  HEGEL, GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH

  p. 13-15  “The German Classics of the Nineteenth and
            Twentieth Centuries,” trans. by Kuno Francke
            and Wm. G. Howard, Vol. 7, pp. 112-113.

  p. 15     “Philosophy of Fine Art,” trans. by Bernard
            Bosanquet, p. 105.

  HOGARTH, WILLIAM

  p. 22     William Hogarth, “Anecdotes of William Hogarth,”
            1833, p. 47.

  HOMER, WINSLOW

  p. 37-39  Author’s Notebook.

  KANT, IMMANUEL

  p. 52-55  Immanuel Kant, “Critique of Aesthetic Judgment,”
            trans. by James Creed Meredith, 1911, p. 181.

  p. 62     Immanuel Kant, “Critique of Aesthetic Judgment,”
            trans. by James Creed Meredith, 1911, pp. 216-217.

  KNIGHT, WILLIAM ANGUS

  p. 61-62  Wm. Angus Knight, “Philosophy of the
            Beautiful,” Part 1, pp. 40-41 and page 19.

  KUO HSI

  p. 64     Sei-ichi Taki, “Three Essays on Oriental
            Painting,” pp. 43-45, quoting from Kuo
            Hsi, “Noble Features of the Forest and Stream.”

  LA FARGE, JOHN

  p. 42     John La Farge, “An Artist’s Letters
            From Japan,” p. 141.

  p. 65-66  John La Farge, “An Artist’s Letters
            From Japan,” p. 145.

  LAWRENCE, SIR THOMAS

  p. 25     C. R. Leslie, R. A., “Memoirs of the Life
            of John Constable, Esq., R. A.,” 1843, p. 148.

  LEIBNITZ, BARON GOTTFRIED WILHELM VON

  p. 52     Bernard Bosanquet, “A History of Aesthetics,”
            1892, p. 185.

  LEONARDO DA VINCI

  p. 21     “Leonardo da Vinci’s Notebooks,” trans.
            by Edward McCurdy, p. 156 and p. 160.

  MAETERLINCK, MAURICE

  p. 55-56  Maurice Maeterlinck, “The Life of the Bee,” p. 5.

  MAUVE, ANTON

  p. 44-46  Author’s Notebook.

  MICHELANGELO BUONAROTTI

  p. 19-20  Francisco D’Ollanda, “Third Dialogue on Painting,”
            pub. in “Michael Angelo Buonarotti,” by Charles
            Holroyd, Appendix, p. 323.

  MILLET, JEAN FRANÇOIS

  p. 25-26  Romain Rolland, “Millet,” trans. by Clementina
            Black, pp. 383-385, 162, and 180.

  PLATO

  p. 61     Plato’s Republic, pub. in “Dialogues of Plato,”
            trans. by B. Jowett, Vol. 3, pp. 86-87, and Enc.
            Brit. 9th Ed., Vol. 1, “Aesthetics.”

  RANGER, HENRY WARD

  p. 39-41  Author’s Notebook.

  REYNOLDS, SIR JOSHUA

  p. 22-23  Henry William Beechy, “The Literary Works of Sir
            Joshua Reynolds,” Vol. 1, pp. 385 and 317, and
            G. Clausen, “Royal Academy Lectures on Painting,”
            p. 137.

  RODIN, AUGUSTE

  p. 46-47  Auguste Rodin, “Art,” trans. from the French of
            Paul Gsell by Mrs. Romilly Fedden, pp. 30-33,
            and Literary Digest, June 4, 1910, p. 1127.

  SCHOPENHAUER, ARTHUR

  p. 48-49  “The German Classics of the Nineteenth and
            Twentieth Centuries,” trans. by Kuno Francke
            and Wm. G. Howard, Vol. 15, p. 48.

  SEGANTINI, GIOVANNI

  p. 43-44  Author’s Notebook.

  SOCRATES

  p. 15-16  Enc. Brit. 9th Ed., Vol. 1, “Aesthetics.”

  STUART, GILBERT

  p. 25     George C. Mason, “The Life and Works of Gilbert
            Stuart,” 1894, pp. 68-69.

  TAINE, HIPPOLYTE ADOLPHE

  p. 50-51  H. Taine, “Philosophy of Art,” trans. by Durand,
            1865, pp. 41, 57, 73, and H. Taine, “Lectures on
            Art,” Vol. 1, 1889, pp. 163, 197, and 353.

  TAKI, SEI-ICHI

  p. 64     Sei-ichi Taki, “Three Essays on Oriental
            Painting,” p. 48.

  THAYER, ABBOTT HANDERSON

  p. 30-32  Carnegie Institute Catalogue, Abbott H.
            Thayer Exhibition, 1919, p. 9.

  TOLSTOI, L. N.

  p. 39     L. N. Tolstoi, “What is Art,” p. 43.

  WHISTLER, JAMES ABBOTT MCNEILL

  p. 26-30  Author’s Notebook, and James McNeill Whistler,
            “The Gentle Art of Making Enemies,” pp. 142-143,
            and James McNeill Whistler, “Ten O’clock,”
            pp. 13-14.

  WORDSWORTH, WILLIAM

  p. 34     Wm. Wordsworth, “Upon the Sight of a Beautiful
            Picture,” lines 12-14.

       *       *       *       *       *

  NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY COPIES PRINTED
  AT THE PRESS OF WILLIAM EDWIN RUDGE
  MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK

  TYPOGRAPHY BY BRUCE ROGERS

       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber’s Notes:

Punctuation has been made consistent.

Variations in spelling and hyphenation were retained as they appear in
the original publication, except that obvious typographical errors have
been corrected.





End of Project Gutenberg's The Relation of Art to Nature, by John W. Beatty