EDITOR'S TABLE. 



697 



constantly changing until it disappeared in 

 the approaching darkness. I have never 

 before observed a meteor whose " tail " re- 

 mained visible so long. The appearance of 

 this meteor created great consternation 

 among the negroes, and many of them im- 



agined that the "last day" had arrived. 

 Nothing has ever been seen to equal it by 

 any one in this neighborhood. 



Yours respectfully, 



John Hawkins. 

 Prosperity, S. C, December 10, 1S80. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



EVOLUTION' AND ORIGINALITY IN ART. 



\ I THEN" we compare pictures of the 

 V V sixteenth and of the nineteenth 

 centuries at the Metropolitan Museum 

 of Art, New York, we are conscious 

 that the charm of modern work is in 

 the truthful delineation of scenery and 

 character, in a certain reflection of our 

 experiences, and in fitness as related to 

 the drift of our imagination. We see a 

 reality and daylight effect which we 

 miss in allegorical and other subjects 

 by artists of the fifteenth and sixteenth 

 centuries. The coloring in pictures by 

 Eubens and Murillo may be impressive, 

 but not even this can obscure the truth 

 that the result is not suited to the mod- 

 ern eye and taste. Most of us prefer 

 nature mirrored by some of our modern 

 masters. In fact, the disposition to ap- 

 preciate work that seems practical does 

 not favor the introduction of ancient 

 methods. The pursuit of a highly de- 

 veloped sense of humor must impress 

 artists with the importance of close at- 

 tention to propriety and probability in 

 every design. The fact that ancient 

 art is not suited to present standards 

 of taste was hinted at by Thackeray 

 in "The Newcomes," in the artist who 

 painted immense figures, and whose 

 ideas of art were expressed in a pic- 

 ture fourteen feet high. The novelist 

 intimates that this was high art in a 

 literal sense ; but the principal force of 

 his satire is shown in the following re- 

 marks from the artist: " The models of 

 the hancient Britons in that pictur' 

 alone cost me thirty pound. . . . You 

 recognize Boadishia, colonel, with the 

 Roman 'elraet, cuirass, and javeling of 



the period all studied from the han- 

 tique, sir, the glorious hantique." 



We also find a ludicrous contrast 

 when ancient art is subjected to the 

 practical test of modern scientific criti- 

 cism, as seen in the disregard of the 

 laws of equilibrium when angels are 

 represented with arms as well as wings.* 



The phrase " school of art " seems 

 objectionable when it means more than 

 a preparatory course by which the rudi- 

 ments are mastered. An artist ought 

 to be independent of all schools, or 

 have a touch of all in his work, be- 

 cause otherwise his liberty will be re- 

 stricted. 



The advantage of originality appears 

 in strong relief when we examine the 

 negative work of imitators. While it is 

 seen that artists having genius can pro- 

 duce striking effects, using apparently 

 commonplace subjects, it is yet clear 

 that imitators can not produce the same 

 effects, because they fail to see them in 

 nature. The picture painted by a great 

 artist and the original in nature always 

 produce two distinct and very different 

 impressions upon the observer. Owing 

 to some subtile change, which it is im- 

 possible for an imitator to follow, the 

 picture has an indefinable effect of which 

 we are not conscious in tlie natural oc- 

 currence or object. For this reason the 

 imitators of original work must always 

 fail. They see the effect after it has 

 been rendered, but they can not per- 

 ceive similar effects in the outer world 

 of nature, as distinguished from the 



* See "Popular Science Monthly," April, 

 1879: "The Monstrous in Art," by Samuel 

 Kneeland, M.D. 



