Art principles with special reference to painting; together with notes on the illusions produced by the painter

Preface

This book is put forward with much diffidence, for I am well aware of its insufficiencies. My original idea was to produce a work covering all the principles of painting, but after many years spent in considering the various recorded theories relating to aesthetic problems, and in gathering materials to indicate how the accepted principles have been applied, I came to the conclusion that a single life is scarcely long enough for the preparation of an exhaustive treatise on the subject. Nevertheless, I planned a work of much wider scope than the one now presented, but various circumstances, and principally the hindrance to research caused by the war, impelled me to curtail my ambition. Time was fading, and my purpose seemed to be growing very old. I felt that if one has something to say, it is better to say it incompletely than to run the risk of compulsory silence. The book will be found little more than a skeleton, and some of its sections, notably those dealing with illusions in the art, contain only a few suggestions and instances, but perhaps enough is said to induce a measure of further inquiry into the subject.

That part of the work dealing with the fine arts generally is the result of long consideration of the ivi65G4r^ iv Preface

apparent contradictions involved in the numerous suggested standards of art. In a little book on The Position of Landscape in Art (published under a nom de plume a few years ago), I threw out, as a ballon d'essai, an idea of the proposition now elaborated as the Law of General Assent, and I have been encouraged to affirm this proposition more strongl}^ by the fact that its validity was not questioned in any of the published criticism of the former work; nor do I find reason to vary it after years of additional deliberation. I have not before dealt with the other propositions now put forward.

The notes being voluminous I have relegated them to the end of the book, leaving the feet of the text pages for references only.

Where foreign works quoted have been translated into English, the English titles are recorded, and foreign quotations are given in English, save in one or two minor instances where the sense could not be precisely rendered in translation.

E. G.

New York, January, 1919-

Contents

PAGE

Introduction ...... i

Definitions of "Art" and "Beauty" — .^^Isthetic systems — The earliest Art — Art periods — The Grecian and Italian developments — National and individual "Inspiration"— Powers of imagination and execution — Nature of "Genius" — The Impressionist Movement — Sprezzatura — The broad manner — Position in art of Rembrandt and Velasquez — Position of Landscape in art.

BOOK I CHAPTER I. — Classification of the Fine Arts . 52

The Arts imitative of Nature — Classified according to the character of their signs — Relative value of form in Poetry — Scope of the Arts in the production of beauty.

II. — Law of Recognition in the x\ssociated Arts. ...... 59

Explanation of the Law — Its application to Poetry — To Sculpture — To Painting — To Fiction.

III. — Law of General Assent ... 72

General opinion the test of beauty in the Associated Arts.

IV. — Limitations of the Associated Arts 78

Production of beauty in the respective Arts — Their limitations.

V. — Degrees of Beauty in the Painter's Art 83

V vi Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

VI. — Expression. Part i. — The Ideal . . 86

VII. — Expression. Part 2. — Christian Ideals 91

The Deity — Christ — The Madonna — Madonna and Child.

VIII. — Expression. Part 3. — Classical Ideals 106

Ideals of the Greeks — Use of the ancient divinities by the Painter.

IX. — Expression. Part 4. — General Ideals 135 X. — Expression. Part. 5. — Portraiture , 141

Limitations of the Portrait Painter — Emphasis and addition of quaUties in portrait painting — Practice of the ancient Greeks — Dignity — Importance of Simplicity — Some of the great masters — Portraiture of women — The English masters — The quality of Grace — The necessity for Repose.

XI. — Expression. Part 6. — Miscellaneous 167

Grief— The Smile — The Open Mouth — Contrasts- Representation of Death.

XII. — Landscape ...... 192

Limitations of the Landscape Painter — Illusion of opening distance — Illusion of motion in Landscape — Moonlight scenes — Transient conditions.

XIII.— Still-life 214

XIV. — Secondary Art . . . .219

Paintings of record — Scenes from the Novel — From the written drama — From the acted drama — Humorous subjects — Allegorical paintings.

XV.— Colour 228

Contents vii

Book II Page

Introductory. — Illusion in the Painter's Art 236

CHAPTER

I. — Illusion of Relief .... 239

II. — Illusion of Motion with Men and Animals ....... 249

III. — Illusion of Suspension and Motion in the Air ....... 259

Index of Artists and Works of Art Mentioned

in this Book ...... 357

LIST OF PLATES

PAGE

Frontispiece. — Detail from Fragonard's The Pursuit (Frick Collection, New York).

This work, which is one of the celebrated Grasse series of panels, offers a very fine example of the use of an ideal head in a romantic subject. (See Page 139.)

Plate I. — The Earliest Great Sculptures . 6

(a). Head from a statue of Chefren, a king of the 4th Egyptian Dynasty, about 3000 B.C. (Cairo Museum.)

(b). Head from a fragmentary statuette of Babylonia, dating about 2600 B.C. (Louvre: from Spearing's "Childhood of Art.")

The first head is generally regarded as the finest example of Egyptian art extant, and certainly there was nothing executed in Egypt to equal it during the thirty centuries following the 5th Dynasty. The Babylonian head is the best work of Chaldean art known to us, though there are some fine fragments remaining from the period of about a thousand years later. It will be observed that the tendency of the art in both examples is towards the aims achieved by the Greeks. (See Page 7.)

Plate 2. — "Le Bon Dieu d'Amiens", in the

North Porch, Amiens Cathedral . . 18

This figure by a French sculptor of the thirteenth century, was considered by Ruskin to be the finest ideal of Christ in existence. It is another example of the universality of ideals, for the head from the front view might well have been modelled from a Grecian work of the late fourth or early third century b.c. (See Page 319.)

X List of Plates

PAGE

Plate 3. — After an Ancient Copy of the Cnid-

lAN Venus of Praxiteles. (Vatican). . 30

It is commonly agreed that this is the finest model in existence after the great work of Praxiteles, which itself has long disappeared. The figure as it now stands at the Vatican, has the right arm restored, and the hand is made to hold up some metallic drapery with which the legs are covered, the beauty of the form being thus seriously weakened. (See Pages iii et seq.)

Plate 4. — Venus Anadyomene ... 42

(a). Ancient Greek sculpture from the design of Venus in the celebrated picture of Apelles. (Formerly Chessa Collection, now in New York.)

The immense superiority of the sculpture over the painting (Plate 5), from the point of view of pure art, is visible at a glance. It is an indication of the far-reaching scope of the sculptor when executing ideals. (See Page 113.)

Plate 5. — Venus Anadyomene, from the Painting BY Titian. (Bridgewater Collection.) Compare with the Sculpture on Plate 4. (See Page 115) 42

Plate 6. — Venus Reposing, by Giorgione.

(Dresden Gallery) 54

This is the finest reposing Venus in existence in painting. It was the model for the representation of the goddess in repose used by Titian, and many other artists who came after him. (See Page 116.)

Plate 7. — Demeter ..... 66

(a). Head from the Cnidos marble figure of the fourth century B.C., attributed to Scopas. (British Museum.)

(b). Small head in bronze of the third century B.C. (Private Collection.)

In each of these heads the artist has been successful in maintaining the ideal, while indicating a suggestion of the sorrowful resignation with which Grecian legend has enveloped the mind picture of Demeter. Nevertheless, even this slight departure from the established rule tends to lessen the art, though in a very smaU degree. (See Page 122.)

List of Plates xi

PAGE

Plate 8. — Raphael's Sistine Madonna (Dresden Gallery), with the Face of the Central Figure in Fragonard's The Pursuit Substituted for that of the Virgin 8o

This and the two following plates show very clearly that in striving for an ideal, artists must necessarily arrive at the same general type. (See Pages 138 et seq.)

Plate 9. — Raphael's Virgin of the Rose (Madrid), with the Face of the Figure Representing Profane Love in Titian's Picture Substituted for that of the Virgin ....... 92

Plate 10. — Raphael's Holy Family (Madrid), WITH the Face of Luini's Salome Substituted FOR THAT OF THE ViRGIN . .102

Plate ii. — The Pursuit, by Fragonard. (Frick

Collection, N. Y.). . 114

A detail from this picture forms the Frontispiece. It will be observed that in the complete painting the central figure apparently wears a startled expression, but that this is entirely due to the surroundings and action, is shown by the substitution of the face of the central figure for that of the Virgin in the Sistine Madonna, Plate 8. (See Page 139.)

Plate 12. — Portrait Heads of the Greek Type,

Fourth Century, b. c. (See Page 145) . 130

(a). Head of Plato. (Copenhagen Museum.) (b). Term of Euripides. (Naples Museum.)

Plate 13. — Portrait Heads of the Time of Imperial Rome. (See Page 145) . . . 146

(a). Vespasian. (Naples Museum.) (b). Hadrian. (Athens Museum.)

xii List of Plates

PAGE

Plate 14. — Sacrifice of Iphigenia, from a

LANUM et Pompei, Vol. Ill) . . 1 6o

This work is presumed to' be a copy of the celebrated picture of Timanthes, in which the head of Agamemnon was hidden because the artist could see no other way of expressing extreme grief without distorting the features. (See Pages 168 and 339.)

Plate 15. — All's Well, by Winslow Homer.

(Boston Museum, U. S. A.) . .176

An instance where the permanent beauty of a picture is killed by an open mouth. After a few moments' inspection, it will be observed that the mouth appears to be kept open by a wedge. (See Page 176.)

Plate 16. — Hercules Contemplating Death, BY A. Pollaiuolo. (Frick Collection, New York.) 190

The only known design of this nature which appears to exist in any of the arts. (See Pages 190 and 343.)

Plate 17. — Arcadian Landscape, by Claude

Lorraine. (National Gallery, London) . 198

A fine illusion of opening distance created by the precise rendering of the aerial perspective. The illusion is of course unobservable in the reproduction owing to its small size and the want of colour. (See Page 198).

Plate 18. — Landscape, by Hobbema. (Met.

Museum, New York) . .210

A fine example of Hobbema's work. A strong light is thrown in from the back to enable the artist to multiply his signs for the purpose of deepening the apparent distance. (See Page 202.)

Plate 19. — Landscape, by Jacob Ruysdael,

(National Gallery, London) . 220

Example of an illusion of movement in flowing water. (See Page 204.)

List of Plates xiii

PAGE

Plate 20. — The Storm, by Jacob Ruysdael.

(Berlin Gallery) ..... 232

Exhibiting an excellent illusion of motion, due to the faithful representation of a series of consecutive movements of water as the vessel passes through it. The illusion is practically lost in the reproduction, but the details of design may be observed. (See Page 206.)

Plate 21. — The Litta Madonna, by Lionardo

da Vincl (Hermitage) .... 240

This is perhaps the best example known of an illusion of relief secured by shading alone. (See Page 240.)

Plate 22. — Christ on the Cross, by Van Dyck.

(Antwerp Museum) . . . . .252

A superb example of relief obtained by the exclusion of accessories. Van Dyck took the idea from Rubens, who borrowed it from Titian, this artist improving on Antonella da Messina. The relief of course is not well observed in the reproduction because of its miniature form. The work is usually regarded as the finest of its kind in existence. (See Page 244.)

Plate 23. — Patricia, by Lydia Emmet. (Private

Possession, N. Y.) ..... 264

A very excellent example of the plan of securing relief described in Book II, Chap. I. Here also the relief is not observed in the reproduction, but the original is of life size and provides an illusion as nearly perfect as possible. (See Page 247.)

Plate 24. — The Creation of Adam, by Michelangelo. (Vatican) . . . .276

Instance of the use of an oval form of drapery to assist in presenting an illusion of suspension in the air. (See Page 260.)

Plate 25. — The Pleiads, by M. Schwind. (Den- NER Collection.) . . , . .288

One of the finest examples of illusion of motion in the air. (See Page 269.)

xiv List of Plates

PAGE

Plate 26. — St. Margaret, by Raphael. (Louvre) 302

Perhaps the best example in existence of a painted human figure in action. It will be seen that every part of the body and every fold of the drapery are used to assist in the expression of movement. (See Page 250.)

Plate 27. — Diana and Nymphs Pursued by Sa- - TYRS, by Rubens. (Prado) . . . 318

A good example of an illusion of motion created by showing a number of persons in different stages of a series of consecutive actions. (See Page 254.)

Plate 28. — Automedon with the Horses of Achilles, by H. Regnault. (Boston Museum, U. S. A.) 334

The extraordinary spirit and action of these horses are above the experience of life, but they do not appear to be beyond the bounds of possibility. In any case the action is perfectly appropriate here, as the animals are presumed to be immortal. (See Page 256.)

Plate 29. — Marble Figure of Ariadne. (Vatican) 348

This work, of the Hellenistic period, illustrates the possibility of largely varying the regular proportions of the human figure without injury to the art, by the skilful use of drapery. (See Page 329.)

Introduction

In view of the many varied definitions of "Art" which have been put forward in recent times, and the equally diverse hypotheses advanced for the solution of aesthetic problems relating to beauty, it is necessary for one who discusses principles of art, to state what he understands by the terms "Art" and "Beauty."

Though having a widely extended general meaning, the term "Art" in common parlance applies to the fine arts only, but the term "Arts" has reference as well to certain industries which have utility for their primary object. This work considers only the fine arts, and when the writer uses the term "Art" or "Arts" he refers to one or more of these arts, unless a particular qualification is added. The definition of "Art" as applied to the fine arts, upon which he relies, is "The production of beauty for the purpose of giving pleasure," or as it is more precisely put, "The beautiful representation of nature for the purpose of giving disinterested pleasure." This is, broadly, the definition generally accepted, and is certainly the understanding of art which has guided the hands of all the creators of those great works in the various arts before which men have bowed as triumphs of human skill.

There has been no satisfactory definition of "Beauty," nor can the term be shortly interpreted until there is a general agreement as to what it covers. Much of the confusion arising from the contradictory theories of aestheticists in respect of the perception of beauty is apparently due to the want of separate consideration of emotional beauty and beauty of mind, that is to say, the beauty of sensorial effects and beauty of expression respectively. ' There are kinds of sensorial beauty which depend for their perception upon immediately preceding sensory experience, or particular coexistent surroundings which are not necessarily permanent, while in other cases a certain beauty may be recognized and subsequently appear to vanish altogether. From this it is obvious that any aesthetic system based upon the existence of an objectivity of beauty must fall to the ground. On the other hand, without an objectivity there can be no system, because in its absence a hne of reasoning explaining cause and effect in the perception of beauty, which is open to demonstration, is naturally impossible. Nor may we properly speak of a philosophy of art. ^ We may reasonably consider aesthetics k branch of psychology, but the emotions arising from the recognition of beauty vary only in degree and not in kind, whether the beauty be seen in nature or art. Consequently there can be no separate psychological enquiry into the perception of beauty created by art as distinguished from that observable in nature.

It must be a natural attraction for the insoluble mysteries of life that has induced so many philosophers during the last two centuries to put forward aesthetic systems. That no two of these systems agree on important points, and that each and every one has crumbled to dust from a touch of the wand of experience administered by a hundred hands, are well-known facts, yet still the systems continue to be calmly presented as if they were valuable contributions to knowledge. Each new critic in the domain of philosophy carefully and gravely sets them up, and then carefully and gravely knocks them down. ^ An excuse for the systems has been here and there offered, that the explanations thereof sometimes include valuable philosophical comments or suggestions. This may be, but students cannot reasonably be expected to sift out a few oats from a bushel of husks, even if the supply be from the bin of a Hegel or a Schopenhauer. Is it too much to suggest that these phantom systems be finally consigned to the grave of oblivion which has yawned for them so long and so conspicuously? Bubbles have certain measurements and may brilliantly glow, but they are still bubbles. It is as impossible to build up a system of philosophy upon the perception of beauty, which depends entirely upon physical and physiological laws, as to erect a system of ethics on the law of gravitation, for a feasible connection between superstructure and foundation cannot be presented to the mind.

We may further note that a proper apprehension of standards of judgment in art cannot be obtained unless the separate and relative aesthetic values of the two forms of beauty are considered, because the beauty of a work may appear greater at one time than at another, according as it is more or less permanent or fleeting, that is to say, according as the balance of the sensorial and intellectual elements therein is more or less uneven; or if the beauty present be almost entirely emotional, according as the observer may be affected by independent sensorial conditions of time or place. Consequent upon these considerations, an endeavour has been made in this work to distinguish between the two forms of beauty in the various arts, and the separate grades thereof.

It will be noticed that the writer has adopted the somewhat unusual course of including fiction among the fine arts. Why this practice is not commonly followed is hard to determine, but no definition of a fine art has been or can be given which does not cover fiction. In the definition here accepted, the art is clearly included, for the primary object of fiction is the beautiful representation of nature for the purpose of giving disinterested pleasure.

Art is independent of conditions of peoples or countries. Its germ is unconnected with civilization, politics, religion, laws, manners, or morals. It may appear like a brilliant flower where the mind of man is an intellectual desert, or refuse to bloom in the busiest hive of human energy. Its mother is the imagination, and wherever this has room to expand, there art will grow, though the ground may be nearly sterile, and the bud wither away from want of nourishment. Every child is bom a potential artist, for he comes into the world with sensorial nerves, and a brain which directs the imagination. The primitive peoples made beautiful things long before they could read or write, and the recognition of harmony of form appears to have been one of the first understandings in life after the primal instincts of self-preservation and the continuation of the species. Some of the sketches made by the cave men of France are equal to anything of the kind produced in a thousand years of certain ancient civilizations, commencing countless centuries after the very existence of the cave men had been forgotten ; and even if executed now, would be recognized as indicating the possession of considerable talent by the artists. The greatest poem ever written was given birth in a country near which barbaric hordes had recently devastated populous cities, and wrecked a national fabric with which were interwoven centuries of art and culture. That the author of this poem had seen great works of art is certain, or he could not have conceived the shield of Achilles, but the laboured sculpture that had fiired his imagination, and the legends which had perhaps been the seed of his masterpieces were doubtless buried with his own records beneath the tramp of numberless mercenaries. Fortunately here and there the human voice could draw from memory's store, and so the magic of Homer was whispered by the dying to the living; but even his time and place are now only vaguely known, and he remains like the waratah on the bleached pasture of some desert fringe — a solitary blaze of scarlet where all else is drear and desolate.

Strong is the root of art, though frail the flower. Stifled in sun-burnt ground ere it can welcome the smile of light ; fading with the first blast of air upon its delicate shoots; shrivelling back to dust when the buds are ready to break ; or falling in the struggle to spread its branches after its beautiful blossoms have scattered their fragrance around: whatever condition has brought it low, it ever fights again — ever seeks to assure mankind that while it may droop or disappear, its seed, its heart, its life, are imperishable, and surely it will bloom again in all its majesty. Sometimes with decades it has run a fitful course; sometimes with centuries; sometimes with millenniums. It has heralded every civilization, but its breath is freedom, and it flourishes and sickens only with liberty. Trace its course in the life of every nation, and the track will be found parallel with the line of freedom of thought. A solitary plant may bloom unimpeded far from tyranny's thrall, but the art and soul of a nation live, and throb, and die, together.

Egypt, Babylon, Crete, Greece, Rome, tell their stories through deathless monuments, and all are alike in that they demonstrate the dependence of art expansion upon freedom of action and opinion. An art rises, develops another and another, and they proceed together on their way. Sooner or later comes catastrophe in the shape of crushing c

O c

C

c

.2

a u

S

W

o tyranny which curbs the mind with slavery, or steelbound sacerdotal rules which say to the artist "Thou shalt go no further," or annihilation of nation and life. What imagination can picture the expansion of art throughout the world had its flight been free since the dawn of history? Greece reached the sublime because its mind was unfettered, but twenty or thirty centuries before Phidias, Egyptian art had arrived at a loftier plane than that on which the highest plastic art of Greece was standing but a few decades before the Olympian Zeus uplifted the souls of men, while whole civilizations with their arts had lived and died, and were practically forgotten.

It is to be observed that while in its various isolated developments, art has proceeded from the immature to the mature, there has been no general evolution, as in natural life, but on the other hand there seems to be a limit to its progress. So far as our imagination can divine, no higher reaches in art are attainable than those already achieved. The mind can conceive of nothing higher than the spiritual, and this cannot be represented in art except by means of form; while within the range of human intelligence, no suggestion of spiritual form can rise above the ideals of Phidias. Of the purely human form, nothing greater than the work of Praxiteles and Raphael can be pictured on our brains. There may be poets who will rival Homer and Shakespeare, but it is exceedingly doubtful. In any case we must discard the law of evolution as applicable to the arts, with the one exception of music, which, on account of the special functioning of its signs, must be put into a division by itself.*

But although there has been no general progression in art parallel with the growth of the sciences and civilization, there have been, as already indicated, many separate epochs of art cultivation in various countries, sometimes accompanied by the production of immortal works, which epochs in themselves seem to provide examples of restricted evolution.'* It is desirable to refer to these art periods, as they are commonly called, for the purpose of removing, if possible, a not uncommon apprehension that they are the result of special conditions operating an aesthetic stimulus, and that similar or related conditions must be present in any country if the flame of art there is to bum high and brightly. ^ The well-defined periods vary largely both in character and duration, the most important of them — the Grecian development and the Italian Renaissance— covering two or three centuries each, and the others, as the French thirteenth century sculpture expansion, the English literary revival in the sixteenth century,^ and the Dutch development in painting in the seventeenth, lasting only a few decades. These latter periods can be dispensed with at once because they were each concerned with one art only, and therefore can scarcely have resulted from a general aesthetic stimulus. But the Grecian and Italian movements applied to all the arts. They represented natural developments from the crude to the advanced, of which all nations

a See Chap. III.

produce examples, and were only exceptional in that they reached higher levels in art than were attained by other movements. But there is no evidence to show that they were brought about by special circumstances outside of the arts themselves. While there were national crises preceding the one development, there was no trouble of consequence to herald the other, nor was there any parallel between the conditions of the two peoples during the progress of the movements. A short reference to each development will show that its rise and decline were the outcome of simple matter-of-fact conditions of a more or less accidental nature, uninfluenced by an aesthetic impulse in the sense of inspiration.

The most common suggestion advanced to account for the rise in Grecian art, is that it was due to the exaltation of the Greek mind through the victories of Marathon, Platsea, and Salamis. That a people should be so trampled upon as were the Greeks; that their cities should be razed, their country desolated, and their commerce destroyed; that notwithstanding all this they should refuse to give way before enemies outnumbering them twenty, fifty, or even a hundred to one; and that after all they should crush these enemies, was no doubt a great and heroic triumph, likely to exalt the nation and feed the imagination of the people for a long time to come; but that these victories were responsible for the lofty eminence reached by the Greek artists, cannot be maintained. From what we know of Calamis, Myron, and others, it is clear that Grecian art was already on its way to the summit reached lo Art, Principles

by Phidias when Marathon and Salamis were fought, though the victories of the Greek arms hastened the development for the plain reason that they led to an increased demand for works of art. And the decline in Grecian art resulted purely and simply from a lessened demand. Though this was the reason for the general decay, there was a special cause for the apparent weakening with the commencement of the fourth century B.C. In the fifth century Phidias climbed as high in the accomplishment of ideals as the imagination could soar. He reached the summit of himian endeavour. Necessarily then, unless another Phidias arose, whatever in art came after him would appear to mark a decline. But it is scarcely proper to put the case of Phidias forward for comparative purposes. He carried the art of sculpture higher than it is possible for the painter to ascend, and so we should rather use the giants of the fourth century — Scopas, Praxiteles, Lysippus, Apelles — as the standards to be compared with the foremost spirits of the Italian Renaissance — Raphael and Michelangelo — for each of these groups achieved the human ideal, though failing with the spiritual ideal established by Phidias.

It must be remembered that all good art means slow work — long thinking, much experiment, tedious attention to detail in plan, and careful execution. Meanwhile men have to live, even immortal artists, and rarely indeed does one undertake a work of importance on his own account. It is true that in the greater days of Greece the best artists were almost entirely employed by a State, or at least to