230 



CURSORY OBSERVATIONS 



ON CERTAIN INCONSIDERATE CRITICISMS RESPECTING 

 PAINTING AND SCULPTURE. 



By William Carey. 



- There is no mistake more common^ in forming a judgment of 

 fine ideal works of art, or those which are imaginative representa- 

 tions of incidents in general nature, than that of approving or cen- 

 suring those performances by comparisons which the critics have 

 founded on their own views of particular nature. They set up 

 whatever they have seen and been struck with, in ordinary or fa- 

 miliar life, as a standard for art, every deviation from which they 

 conceive to be a defect in the picture, and a want of judgment or 

 genius in the painter. But, in passing this censure, they overlook 

 the fact that there are various modifications of persons, manners, 

 and accessories, in every rank and degree of society. They also 

 forget that unless the artist had been always, or generally, present 

 with them, he could not have seen those particulars, which they re- 

 quire, or, by any possibility, have painted them. Even if he had 

 been with the censors, there are very few who agree in their views 

 or relish for the same objects, and, in case of such a disagreement, 

 the designer must either exercise his own judgment, or servilely 

 follow that of another contrary to his sentiments. 



The misconception to which I have adverted is very prevalent, 

 and I am induced to notice it particularly, because it has proved an 

 obstacle to the progress of taste and patronage, and the best interests 

 of the British school. Unfortunately, it is not confined to indivi- 

 duals of a limited understanding and education, or such as are new 

 to the inspection of painting and sculpture. Very many persons of 

 liberal education, good abilities, and extensive acquirements in other 

 intellectual departments, on visiting the exhibitions of modern art, 

 adopt this erroneous mode of comparison, in judging the perform- 

 ances under their inspection. It is certain that great scholastic at- 

 tainments alone, even of the highest order, do not constitute a qua- 

 lification to judge correctly of the productions of the pencil and 



