EFFECTS OF FAULTY VISION IN PAINTING. 187 



vision of the naked eye does not suffice to analyze the colors of a 

 picture. 



When I had the pleasure of showing this experiment with Mul- 

 ready's pictures to Prof. Tyndall, he drew my attention to the fact 

 that one single color, namely, the blue of the sky, was not affected by 

 the yellow glass. The blue of the sky was almost the same in both 

 pictures. I could not at once explain the cause of this, but I dis- 

 covered it afterward. The fact is, it is impossible to change the sky- 

 blue of the first picture so as to form a color that looks like it when 

 seen through a yellow glass. If more white is added, the sky becomes 

 too pale ; if a deeper blue is used, it becomes too dark. Mulready 

 was thus forced to content himself by giving to the sky in his later 

 pictures the same color as in the earlier ones. 



If we look at Mulready's earlier works through the same yellow 

 glass, they lose considerably in beauty of coloring : the tone appears 

 too weak; the shadows brown; the green, dark and colorless; we see 

 them as he saw them, and understand why he became dissatisfied with 

 them and changed his coloring. 



It would be more important to correct the abnormal vision of the 

 artist, than to make a normal eye see as the artist saw when his sight 

 had suffered. This, unfortunately, can only be done to a certain extent. 



If it is the dispersion of light which, as in Turner's case, alters the 

 perception of Nature, it can be partly rectified by a kind of diaphragm 

 with a small opening (Donders's sthenopeical spectacles). 



In cases of astigmatism, the use of cylindrical glasses will com- 

 pletely correct the aspect of Natui-e, as well as of the picture. Certain 

 anomalies in the sensation of color may also be counteracted to some 

 extent by the use of colored glasses ; for instance, by a blue glass, 

 when the lens has become yellow, as in Mulready's case. 



If science aims at proving that certain works of art offend against 

 physiological laws, artists and art-critics ought not to think that, by 

 being subjected to the material analysis of physiological investigation, 

 that which is noble, beautiful, and purely intellectual, will be dragged 

 into the dust. They ought, on the contrary, to make the results of 

 these investigations their own. In this way art-critics will often 

 obtain an explanation of the development of the artist, while artists 

 will avoid the inward struggles and disappointments which often arise 

 through the difference between their own perceptions and those of the 

 majority of the public. Never will science be an impediment to the 

 creations of genius. Macmillari's Magazine. 



