THE ARTIST AND THE ATOM — BLANC 429 



There are three distinctions in the kinds of bodies, or three states, which liavc 

 more specifically claimed the attention of philosophical chemists, namely, those 

 which are marked by the term elastic fluids, liquids, and solids. A very famous 

 instance is exhibited to us in water, of a body, which, in certain circumstances, 

 is capable of assuming all three states. In steam we recognize a perfectly 

 elastic fluid, in water a perfect liquid, and in ice a complete solid. Tiiesc ob.ser- 

 vations have tacitly led us to the conclusion which seems universally adopted, 

 that all bodies of sensible magnitude, whether liquid or solid, are constituted 

 of a vast number of extremely small particles, or atoms of matter bound together 

 by a force of attraction, which is more or less powerful according to 

 circumstances. . . . 



Dalton was somewhat overoptimistic about the universal adoption 

 of his atomic theory of matter. The lack of distinction between the 

 chemical atom (the smallest particle of matter which can enter into 

 combination) and the physical molecule (the smallest particle which 

 can exist in a free state and Avhich may consist of one or more atoms) 

 caused dire confusion and conflict among scientists until the inter- 

 national convention of chemists held at Karlsruhe in 1860. Only 

 then, after a debate of fifty-odd years, did Dalton's atomic theory 

 achieve universal recognition. It seems more than a coincidence that 

 during the very decade in which the scientific world recognized that 

 the universe and all that it contained was composed of tiny dots and 

 dabs of matter, the impressionists first painted pictures composed 

 solely of tiny dots and dabs of pigment. 



The writer is not suggesting that the impressionists consciously and 

 deliberately sought to imitate the dance of the atoms when they 

 painted canvases composed of vibrating particles. Ostensibly their 

 interest was in light, in the reflections of light, and even in the "reflec- 

 tions of reflections." But it cannot be denied that in pursuing this 

 objective they succeeded in producing paintings which did, in fact, 

 poetically evoke the image of the world which the scientists had 

 created, and that they produced these paintings immediately after 

 that image had been finally accepted by science as factually correct 

 and had been given widespread publicity in books, articles, and lec- 

 tures throughout the world. It is more than possible that a less con- 

 scious and deeper motivation joined with their consciously assumed 

 purpose to develop the impressionist style of painting. As Pissarro 

 wrote in 1895 : 



Impressionist art is still too misunderstood to be able to realize a coniplcte 

 synthesis ... I remember that, although I was full of ardor, I didn't conceive, 

 oven at forty, the deeper side of the movement we followed instinctively. It was 

 in the air! [Letters to His Son Lucien, New York, 1943.] 



What was in the air in the 1860's was the atomic theory, and it can- 

 not be seriously doubted that the impressionist painters were familiar 

 with it, for their interest in science and their scientific studies would 

 inevitably have brought this new development to their attention. 



