122 April — Criticism of Nature. 



does not always succeed in doing so. I have met with 

 people who consider any criticism of Nature as a sort 

 of heresy, who, having adopted the theory that Nature 

 is infallible, will not listen to any reasoning on the sub- 

 ject, and tell. you that a field of cabbages is a finer sight 

 than a gallery of masterpieces in painting ; but if such 

 persons could understand what art is they would aban- 

 don this fanaticism. All who have practised art are 

 well aware that natural composition, though a suggestion 

 of artistic composition, is never quite good of itself, and 

 has always to be altered by the artist ; and why should 

 Nature be more artistic in her color ? I believe the 

 truth to be, that artistic color is as far removed from 

 natural color as artistic composition -is from natural 

 composition, and that it will be found on investigation 

 impossible to produce what artists call fine color by 

 the simple copyism of Nature. It has been a vulgar 

 error of the uneducated, whether practically painters or 

 not, to imagine that things in Nature were suitable for 

 painting which in fact were altogether outside its prov- 

 ince, to believe that they had only to paint whatever 

 struck their fancy out-of-doors, and that toute verity was 

 bonne a dire. There could not be a greater mistake. It is 

 true that Art finds her materials in nature, but she chooses 

 them as we choose mushrooms for the table, and if she 

 were not careful in her selection it would be at hei own 

 great peril. And even when the material has been judi- 

 ciously chosen it is only raw material still, but the finished 

 work of art is material that has been both modified and re- 

 organized by human taste, intelligence, and invention. 



