228 



NATURE 



[July 9, 1891 



pictures is impussible—SAZ, 1028, 176, 192, 5 15 ; •* is bad 

 in 203, 498, 586, 602, 1044, 1071. 



The cloud forms in 498, 536, and 966 are unlike any- 

 thing I have seen in any quarter of the world. 



But cloud is not the only thing we have to deal with. 

 There is a still finer form of aqueous vapour which shows it- 

 self as atmosphere; its function is to soften distant outlines, 

 to gradually assimilate colours, laying, so to speak, its 

 own upon them, and then, again, to soften even this. So 

 that distant vistas of hills and vales first become blue in 

 prevailing tone, but the most distant ones lose this, and 

 fade to a more neutral tint. 



These things this year are admirably rendered in 1 1 30 

 293 ofifends by the impossible hardness of the hill on the 

 right of the picture. 



To most of you the terms selective absorption and 

 selective reflection of colour are fam'iliar ; of the latter an 

 admirable study is to be found in 1062. For reflection 

 badly managed, study 145 in the New Gallery. The artist 

 seems to be under the impression that some birds have a 

 special capacity for reflecting colour. 



Of special studies of various natural objects, I think 

 the following in the German Exhibition are worth exa- 

 mination : a glacier (287) ; cloudy moonlight (433) ; 

 careful study of hght-grading (but sun should be more 

 luminous in the latter) (52, 343). 



It is not a little singular that we should find such 

 a close association between bad cloud forms and bad 

 colour. It was a true instinct which led Mr. Ruskin to 

 treat of these matters in his " Modern Painters," but why 

 did he not go further into the real basis— the real grit of 

 it all, instead of confining himself to the mere fringe of 

 these great subjects? It was, I expect, because the 

 possible connection between science and art was less 

 recognized then even than it is now. But is it too late ? 

 No one could touch the questions still with more sympathy 

 than Mr. Ruskin. 



But to come back to the pictures. Almost, if not quite 

 as good as 600, is No. 50 in the German Exhibition We 

 find in 630 a careful study of colour. The most wonderful 

 colour which can be got on nearly still water is that you some- 

 times see at sunrise or sunset with a good green or yellowish 

 sky near the horizon, and a perfectly blue sky overhead. 

 In that case every unit of the surface (every undulation) 

 will reflect to your eye a certain amount of horizon-light 

 and a certain amount of blue sky, and the total result will 

 be a sea of molten steel. Another point in this connection 

 is this : if your surface is even, you can get a reflection of 

 this kind from several surfaces besides water. I was in 

 Egypt last winter, and I saw a wonderful sunset, looking 

 out from the little quay at Ismailia. The sand of the 

 desert lay beyond and round the water in the fore- 

 ground, which was more or less bluish ; the lake, in fact, 

 is bounded by sandbanks of no great elevation, the canal 

 coming in at one end and running out at the other. 



In the day-time in full sunshine the sand is yellow, as 

 yellow as it can be, and at sunset it is grey-white. There is 

 nothing very remarkable in the sky, but the intense blue in 

 the sky overhead. There is no aqueous vapour to absorb, 

 and therefore there is no colour. But wait for the after- 

 glow ! when you get sunlight, reflected from the clouds or 

 sky, which reaches your eye after two transmissions 

 through the lower air ; then you can get colour, and you do 

 get it. What you see is the most exquisite violet halo, and 

 the colours with which we are familiar here more or less ; 

 but the striking thing is the intense violet halo in the sky, 

 and the warming up of colour till the sunset place is 

 reached. Well, now, what is the effect of that upon the 

 landscape? Everything is turned green, for the simple 

 reason that the only constituent common to the colour 

 which reaches, and is reflected most readily by, the sand, is 

 the tint of green : ihe sands change, as if by magic, into a 

 wonderful chlorophyll green. Now, I venture to think 

 that the artist who endeavours to work out problems of 



NO. 1 132, VOL. 44] 



this kind will be more likely to paint a beautiful picture 

 than the one who copies nature merely, and this brings 

 me into strict harmony with the Academy motto. It 

 seems to me that physical science may in this way, if 

 associated with the study of art, give us new possibilities 

 in the art future that will transcend anything that we 

 know of now, and the time will certainly come, ultimately, 

 when the highest art will result from the study of natural 

 science and the science of the human form. 



Seeing that already artists spend years in the study of 

 only one part of the field of observation, they must surely 

 in time come to the conclusion that it would be better to 

 annex other branches. 



It would not be right if I concluded what I have to say 

 without calling attention to the important remarks made 

 by Mr. Briton Riviere, on science in relation to painting, 

 at the Edinburgh Art Congress : — 



" Whatever may have been done in other lines of 

 human energy during the Victorian age, there can be no 

 question that its most remarkable achievements, both 

 theoretical and practical, have been those of science. . . . 

 The art of the painter has not escaped its influence. On 

 one side, and a very important one—that of realism— the 

 side which furnishes the language — z'.^. the signs and 

 symbols which express the idea of the artist — there is a 

 wide front open to the influence of science ; and on that 

 side art has not been slow or unwilling to follow the 

 advice of science, or ungrateful for the valuable help it 

 has afforded. According to my theory, this supremacy 

 of science would have influenced art under any circum- 

 stances, but it has been able to do so through the very 

 method and language of art itself. 



" Will this influence help or retard the influence of art ? 

 My answer is, it may do either, according to the manner 

 in which it is received and used by the artist. If the 

 painter resolutely holds the belief that painting is a 

 language, and a work of art the expression of an idea, 

 and uses science, and all that it has discovered and 

 teaches, to enable him better to understand his signs and 

 symbols, viz. the material facts of n.ilure, so that by 

 means ot them he may express himself correctly, just as 

 a writer has behind him the philologist to busy himself 

 about the derivation and meaning of words, and the 

 grammarian to show him how to place these words so as 

 to produce the meaning he requires — if, I say, the painter 

 so receives and uses the knowledge and appliances of 

 science, then I think the cause of art will be much 

 advanced by science, and works produced under its 

 influence will be stronger and richer than they could 

 possibly have been without it. On the other hand, if the 

 painter allows this scientific knowledge of the material 

 or realistic part of his work to obscure the purely artistic 

 or ideal part of it, to obscure instead of to intensify the 

 idea ; and if, carried away by the material wonders of 

 the 'thing' which science has unfolded, he forgets the 

 'thought' altogether, then assuredly, however true he 

 may have shown himself to be to the cause of srience, 

 that of art will suffer at his hands — indeed, may be lost 

 altogether. For I feel sure that most of my brother 

 artists will agree with me that it is possible for a picture 

 to be scientifically true and have no art at all in it . and, 

 on the other hand, to contain several scientific blunders 

 and yet be a gteat work of art." 



It will be seen, then, that I have ventured to-day to 

 preach no new doctrine to you ; ^ven my gloss on the 

 Academy motto is endorsed by Mr. Briton Riviere. 



But I can go further than this, and quote Prof. Helm- 

 holtz in support of the gloss. S^ou should all read his 

 admirable lecture " On the Relation of Optics to Paint- 

 ing." 1 In it he remarks, "The artist cannot transcribe 

 Nature: he must translate her;" and he adds, "This 

 translation may give us an impression, in the highest 



' "Popular Scientific Lecture';," Helmholtz, 2iid Series, p. 135. (Long- 

 mans. 1881.) 



