18-lG.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



113 



with these requisites — when we find that such apparenlly unpromisin;; 

 conditions had the eflect of raising even Raphael above himself, we can 

 hardly refuse to admit that a due eniploynieot of liniiled means of repre- 

 sentation may, at least, invite atlentioa to the most important attributes 

 of art. 



In cases like those that have been adduced it is probable that the qua- 

 lities which might fit the worlss for the circumsianees of place, light, or 

 materials for which they had been calculated, would be looked upon as 

 defects on near inspection. The critics on art who have had the best 

 right to exercise an unrestricted judgment, have ever dwelt on the neces- 

 sity of inquiring what qualities are to be chiefly looked for in the subjects 

 of our observation.'" It may be sometimes requisite even for persons of 

 cultivated judgment to bear in mind that the excellencies on which the 

 highest reputation of great anists is founded, are to be sought, not so much 

 in the beauty of parts as in the grand or tasteful arrangement of the com 

 bined work, in the harmonious relation of entire masses, and the grace of 

 entire forms. These qualities, which suppose the labour of the mind be- 

 cause they have reference to a whole, have ever constituted the worthiest 

 criterions of merit, in the practice of the arts. 



The influence of conditions, similar to those in question, on every depart- 

 ment of painting, may be traced in the works of great artists ; for, from 

 whatever cause the sense of vision is imperfectly addressed, the selection 

 both of qualities in nature and of the technical means fitted to represent 

 tbein, will be influenced accordingly. But, before pursuing the inquiry, 

 it may be desirable to state the elementary facts connected with visible 

 distinctness, since these, though familiar in reference to nature, are more 

 complex in relation to works of art when seen under particular circum- 

 (tances. 



Causes of Distinctness in Nature. 

 They have been defined as follows : an object in Nature can only be ap- 

 parent, by ditfering in its visible attributes from what surrounds it. The 

 chief causes of this distinctness are — dilTerence of position ; of mere niag- 

 nitude ; of light and shade ; of form, and of colour. 



Accordingly these attributes constitute the general resources of the artist ; 

 but it will be for him to inquire which of those means are more especially 

 calculated, under any extraordinary conditions, to produce a result which 

 shall satisfy the eye. The nature of the resources themselves will require 

 to be first considered. 



Position. 

 The differences of Position exist either superficially or in depth. In 

 basso-rilievo. for instance, they are (eitlier in the horizontal or perpen- 

 dicular sense) superficial. In painting, on the other hand, alllioiigii they 

 are superficial as regards the actual plane, they are chiefly sought and 

 expressed in (apparent) depth ; one of the great aims of this art being to 

 conceal the flat surface and to represent space. Various practical and 

 other considerations, presently to be noticed, tend, however, to limit this 

 attribute iu works executed under the conditions before supposed. 



Magnitude, 



The difl^erences of Magnitude are either real, "^ as at one and the same 

 distance; or may be only apparent, as the result of perspective. The 

 Bubdivisions of the remaiuing causes of distinctness above enumerated will 

 be referred to hereafter. 



It must be evident that gradations in magnitude will be more full and 

 Taried when they comprehend, if only in a limited d' gree, the perspective 

 diminution of forms. The great Italian artists seem to have considered 

 this essential to distinguish painting, however severe in style, from basso- 

 rilievo, in which the varieties of magnitude are real.'^ But iu the works 

 before referred to by Michael Angelo and Raphael, this perspective dimi- 

 nution of figures is confined to narrow limits ; partly because the technical 

 means may have been wanting to mark the relative distances of objects 

 when the work was seen under the conditions required ; but chiefly because 

 figures much reduced in size cannot be consisiently rendered expressive as 

 actors or spectators. In the second compartment of the celling in the 

 hisline Chapel before mentioned, the effects of tlie perspective .ire expressed 

 without restraint ; hut the indistinctness which was the consequence was 

 probably among the causes that induced Michael Angelo to reduce the 

 space in depth in the other comparlments (as regards the figures) almost 

 to the conditions of sculpture. In Raphael's Transfiguration the figures 

 on the Mount are supposed to be distant with reference to tlose below; 

 but, had they been so represented, they would have been devoid of 

 meaning and importance: they are, therefore, by a judicious liberty, 

 brought within that range of vision where expression, acluin, and form are 

 cognizable. 



On great exception is, however, not lo be overlooked. Correggio, who 

 was devoted to picturesque gradation under all circumstances, and some- 

 times at any sacrifice, adopted a dillerent course. The perspective 

 diminution in the cupolas at Parma (to say nothing of the objects being 



10 See Reynolds, Fourth DiscoHrse, and the Idler, No. 79. 



li Position is added by Proft-ssor Wheivetl (Bridgewaler Treatise, p. 130). Abstract 

 inaf»iiitudt may be allowed to form a separate class, as splieres (for eiample; of ditfercnt 

 sizes may be said to dllfer rathur in magnitude than in torn). 



i - The term ' real magnitude,' in painting, is restricted to such superficial dimensions 

 as have a permanent relation to each other. Undef this category may be classed propor- 

 tion or symmetry. 



» 3 The style of basso-rihevo, as generally practised t-y the Italians, was not strictly in 

 eonforniity with this definition, as they injudiciously endeavoured to represent in it the 

 effects of perspective. 



represented as if above the eye) is extreme; so that even the principal 

 figures are altogether subservient lo the expression of space. This was the 

 chief object; but the grandeur of form and characti r which the nearer 

 figures exhibit has been justly considered to place these works far above 

 subsequent elTorts of the kind, which, iu the hands of the ''machinists,'' 

 soon degenerated to mere decoration. 



If the criticisms which the frescoes in the Duomo at Parma called forth 

 on their completion had any foundation, it may be inferred that the great 

 distance at wh.cli the figures were seen rendered it impossible, in some 

 cases, to discern the nicer grarlations of light and ^hade which are essential 

 to make perspective appearances intelli.;ible. Such considerations most, 

 at all events, operate to restrict foreshortening under similar circumstances. 

 But here, again, it is to be rememliered that painting is siill distinguished 

 from basso-rilievo. Examples of foreshortening are accordingly to lie met 

 with in works intended to be seen at a consideralile distnnce. and in which 

 the technical resources were very liiiiitert; tor instance, in the Cartoons of 

 Raphael. The amount of fo^e^horteniug which is introduced in them may 

 be considered to be the just medium. Its effect in rounding and connecting 

 the groups, and in giving a due impression of depth, is in accordance with 

 the troth of those works in other respects, and (even in the tapestries, 

 while iu their unfaded state.) may have beeu quite compatible with dis- 

 tinctness. 



The transition from this picturesque treatment, and still more from the 

 unlimited depth of Correggio's compositions, to ihe flatness of a style re- 

 sembling that of the early mo-aics, is violent indeed.** In cases where a 

 gold ground is introduced behind the figures, painting really approximates 

 to basso-rilievo, and to the conditions of the Greek monochronis, \\itliout 

 even Ihe advantage of the figures and the ground being of the same quality. 

 Under such circumstances, neither [lerspective nor foieshorlening can be 

 introduced to any extent. Tiie varieties of *' Position" are almost con- 

 fined to one and the same plane, and consequenfly the relations of Magnitude 

 are real. The splendour of the gilt field, though subdued by being 

 roughened (for this is absolutely necessary), betrays Ihe comparative 

 dulness of the painted surface, and the final outlines on the ground (even 

 making allowance for the gradation of real light on a large resplendent 

 surface) are in danger of being too uniformly distinct, unless a daikeuing 

 colour be partially added to the gold. 



The union of absolute reality with imitation is rarely, if ever, satisfactory, 

 as it is essential that the most Imporlaut qualities should exhibit the nearest 

 approach to nature. As an accompaniment to paiuting, there is, therefore, 

 no defence for the gilt ground, when it appears as such. For the rest, it 

 cannot be admitied, on the one hand, that art newd be reduced to mediaM al 

 penury in order to agree with this hard condition, if adopted ; nor on the 

 other, that even the extreme restrictions in repre?enlatiou which it actually 

 involves, considered in IheiuseUes, necessarily suppose incompleteness. 

 An analogous style springs from those restrictions which, in adhering to 

 its own resources, may still have its charai teristic perfection. Wherever 

 there is gradation, wherever a greater quality becomes conspicuous by 

 comparison with the lesser (even if abstract lines alone be the means of 

 representation), we recognize an imporlaut principle of art. 

 Light and iShade. 

 The influence of the general conditions before mentioned may next be 

 considered with reference to Light and Shade. The varieties of this 

 source of distinctness, though inlinite, are, like those of Magnitude, merely 

 differences of degree. The circumstances best calculated to display it will 

 be again considered in examining its relation to colour. 



The example of Correggio, which was adduced with reference to per- 

 spective and foreshorteuiug, may also appearlo recommend the employment, 

 of chiaro-scuro without restriction, under any circumstances ; but this, his 

 favourite attribute, was confined, in the instances of the cupolas at Parma 

 as compared with his oil pictures, to a light scale, especially iu the upper 

 portions of those cupolas, it is evident that a dark etfect would have ill 

 suited both the places and the subjects. 



The instances are rare, and not always successful, in which extensive 

 surfaces, whether on canvas or on walls, have been covered with masses of 

 low half light and deep shade. Such masses, as is well known, are 

 especially ill adapted for fresco, on account of its tendency to reflect light 

 only from its sur lace.'* Among larger works of the kind, one of the best 

 S|peciniens is perhaps Raphael's fresco of the Deliverance of Peter from 

 Prison. But, although successful iu this instance (as far as the material 

 permitted), the great artist did not resort to tlie same style on other 

 occasions ; on the contrary, in a subsequent work, the Incendio del Borgo, 

 in which the subject might have justified a free use of chiaro-scuro, he did not 

 employ it to any great extent. The reasons for employing it in the first 

 instance appear to ha\e been accidental.'" 



1 4 The general predilection for all the modes of ilecoration which belong to the '* re- 

 naissance" may be an excuse for here briefly reconsidering the claims ol the gilt ground 

 in itself, and with relerence to peculiar conditions in representation. 



1 5 It may at tirst appear that all pictures reflect light trom their mere surface, but this 

 is not, stiiclly speaking, the case. One great ctiarm of oil-painting is its power to reflect 

 light from an internal surface, throuch superpi'seii substances more or less (li;iphanous. 



• s Among the painters whose frescoes, previously executed on the walls of the same 

 apartment, were destroyed to make room fur the superior worbs of Kaphael, Vasari men- 

 tions Pietro riella Francesca. This artist was remarkable for his study of chiaro-MCuro, 

 and in that department of art had probably considerable influence on his contetnpoiaiic s 

 and successors. The sulject of his work here referred to is unknown, but supposing it to 

 have exhibited a striking effect of light (like bis Vision ot Constantine), it is quite con- 

 ceivable that Raphael sliould aim at sin ilar qualities in substituting for ita wuik of his 

 own, — See Vasari, -Vita di Piero della Francesca, and Vila to Raflaello, and Passavaut, 



15 



