304 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[September, 



jects, may be therefore considered as an additional proof that the 

 artists of England want only the opportunities which those of other 

 nations have enjoyed, in order to distinguish themselves in the wor- 

 thiest undertakings. But to place this question in its proper light, it 

 will be necessary to take into consideration the peculiar circumstances 

 under which the English school has been formed. 



The great impediments to the cultivation of the higher branches of 

 art have been alreadv adverted td. With few exceptions, painting in 

 England has not been admitted into churches, (a subject which it is 

 not intended here to discuss) nor has it been employed to any extent 

 in the embellishment of public buildings. Other difficulties have 

 existed, owing to various accidental circumstances. 



The perfection which the great Italian masters arrived at, was the 

 result, it is true, of slow experience, but happily for them the more 

 ornamental and fascinating qualities of the art were attained last. 

 With the English school it was the reverse. Its rise in the last cen- 

 tury was remarkable for sudden excellence in colouring and chiaro- 

 scuro, an excellence so great, as to eclipse contemporary efforts in a 

 severer style, while it gave a bias to the school. The peculiar union 

 of what are called the ornamental parts of the art, with those essential 

 to history, which has prevailed in England, not unattended with some 

 sacrifice of more solid qualities, has been generally attributed to this 

 influence. 



This mixed character became more decided in consequence of the 

 circumstances under which the school was developed ; namely, the 

 subsequent introduction and prevalence of a style suited to small di- 

 mensions. Most of the distinguished English artists in the time of 

 Reynolds painted the size of lile. The experiment, as regards private 

 patronage, seems to have been then fairly made, and the gradual 

 change to reduced dimensions, appears to have been the consequence 

 of the insufficient demand for large works, arising in a great degree 

 from the limited size of English dwelling-houses. 



Hence the execution of small historical pictures ; a practice recom- 

 mended by the occasional example of the best masters of every school. 

 But where the subject is dignified, smallness of dimensions cannot 

 consistently be accompanied by smallness of treatment. Alinute imi- 

 tation is not found in Corregio's Gethsemane, nor in Raphael's Vision 

 of Ezekiel, diminutive as they are. The breadth of manner which is 

 indispensable in such elevated themes is not, however, essential in 

 familiar subjects, and hence, when specimens of both styles, similar in 

 size, but widely different in their technical conditions, are placed 

 together, the impression produced by so marked a contrast is unsatis- 

 factory, without reference to the difference of subject. 



Thus, partly through the influence of the "ornamental" character 

 of the school, and partly to prevent this abrupt contrast of treatment 

 in pictures which are to hang together in galleries, (for under such 

 circumstances, the more abstract style appears to disadvantage,) the 

 kind of historic art chiefly followed, is that which admits picturesque 

 materials, thus combining' the attractions of familiar subjects, with the 

 dignity of the historic style. Under such influences has been formed 

 an interesting portion of the more modern English school, distinguished 

 on the one liand from the Dutcli, and on the other, from the small 

 works of the Italian masters, embracing a great variety of subjects, 

 sometimes scarcely removed from the familiar, sometimes approach- 

 ing the grandest aim. 



The circumstances that have led to the general adoption of a small 

 size are thus it appears, accidental, and the actual practice of our 

 painters cannot be adduced as a proof of their original choice of such 

 conditions. The frequent eHbrts on their part, amid various difficul- 

 ties, to recommend larger dimensions, are a sufficient proof of the real 

 inclination of the artists. These efforts have not been confined to the 

 ardour of youthful inexperience ; many of our best artists have re- 

 turned to, or persevered in such undertakings to the last; with some, 

 the ambition to encounter the difficulties of this style was first kindled 

 at an advanced period of their career. In the last century all the 

 principal English artists, notwithstanding Hogarth's success in small 

 pictures, were in the habit, as already observed, of painting the size 

 of life — Reynolds (considered as an historical painter), West, Barry, 

 Fuseli, Copley, Northcote, Opie, and others. 



It cannot therefore be admitted that the artists of England are, by 

 their ovin choice, confined to small dimensions ; but the questions 

 now are — 



Whether it is possible to aflTord more favourable opportunities than 

 those which have hitherto existed for the adequate display of historic 

 art? 



Whether such opportunities will be sufficiently numerous ? for 

 if not, the school, after attaining the excellence which honourable 

 employment will assuredly call forth, may again languish ; and, 

 lastly, 



Whether such encouragement will be in danger of diverting the 



taste and practice of some artists from that domestic art which is now 

 so successfully cultivated ? 



The first of these questions, while it is immediately connected with 

 the special object of the Commission, involves the consideration of the 

 abstract relation of dimensions to styles of art. This subject has been 

 often discussed on grounds independent of technical requisites, and as 

 very different opinions have been the result, it may here be allowable, 

 without undervaluing the conclusions derived from other conside- 

 rations, to refer to the mere physical or external conditions which 

 must necessarily affect the question. 



In comparing the treatment of cabinet pictures with that of works 

 of tlie largest size — for example, where the figures are colossal — it 

 may be observed that the small picture, besides being executed with 

 delicacy, generally exhibits a certain fulness of detail, while the large 

 work is not only less elaborate, but is composed of fewer parts. Even 

 assuming the same subject, and one requiring a variety of minute ac- 

 cessories, to be represented on a colossal and on a small scale, it may 

 be safely affirmed that the degree of detail which vv'ould be admissible 

 in the small picture would be objectionable in the larger. In a grander 

 and more ideal subject, where such detail would be inadmissible under 

 any circumstances, the comparison could be less fairly made, but a 

 similar influence would be more or less apparent. Thus, assuming 

 other conditions to be common, the greater space never allows the 

 introduction of more detail than the smaller, but generally, if not 

 always, requires leisi. 



Without entering into the examination of this question as connected 

 with the laws of vision, it may be remarked that although the indis- 

 tinctness arising from distance may be counteracted, as regards the 

 most important qualities in art, by increased dimensions, and by ap- 

 propriate style and treatment, it must still tend to exclude certain 

 refinements of imitation which are appreciable in pictures requiring 

 to be seen near— refinements capable of conferring an interest on de- 

 tails that may be unimportant in themselves. The inference is at 

 once applicable to the question proposed. The familiar subject, as 

 fullest of accidental circumstance, must be best displayed in dimensions 

 fitted for near inspection, and, in an advanced state of art as regards 

 imitative excellence, must be a consequence of the habitual adoption 

 of such dimensions. On the other hand, the larger the figures in a 

 picture, the greater the distance at which the work must be seen; and 

 as the omission of detail is a consequence of that reduced scale of 

 gradation which distance supposes — as the absence of minute par- 

 ticulars is felt to be the attribute of distance without reference to the 

 size of objects, so the accessories in the larger work of art require to 

 be few and important. Thus, again, increased dimensions, by involving 

 the suppression of detail, suggest subjects of corresponding dignity. 



Such appears to be the relation of dimensions to style and subject, 

 considered with reference to technical results ; as regards the question 

 of taste, it may be observed that the involuntary conclusions derived 

 from the influence of association agree with the practice of art. The 

 analogy between grandeur and the absence of detail, and between 

 minute circumstance and familiar incidents, is sufficiently apparent. 

 With these analogies, the impressions produced by magnitude and its 

 attributes, and by the opposite qualities, respectively correspond. 



The general relation thus defined has often been reversed in works 

 of art, but not with equally good results, for it may be remarked that 

 large works, when elaborate in detail, and lull of accidental circum- 

 stance, have the unpleasing eft'ect of magnified cabinet pictures ; on 

 the other hand, diminutive historical works, when treated with that 

 breadth which belongs to the grandest style, must give the impression 

 of large works diminished. The last-mentioned inconsistency can 

 hardly be objected to; grandeur of conception and treatment must 

 unquestionably be acceptable in any form, but nevertheless the abstract 

 breadth of imitation which is indispensable in elevated subjects is, 

 under the circumstances supposed, a kind of contradiction, inasmuch 

 as the vague generalization of a distant or ideal effect is submitted to 

 close inspection, and can only be so viewed. The small pictures by 

 Raphael and Coreggio, before referred to, are of this description; but 

 the instances of such subjects being treated on so minute a scale are 

 not frequent. 



It is unnecessary to enumerate other exceptions, or to refer to 

 larger works in which a just adaptation of style may have tended to 

 obviate an incongruity between subject and dimensions. It may be 

 sufficient to have dwelt on those plainer principles which result from 

 the technical and external conditions that have been considered, but 

 which may afford a criterion with regard to some of the more arbitrary 

 conventions of wiirks of art. 



It may be added that even the extreme conclusions which might be 

 deduced from the conditions referred to, are strictly conformable to 

 the authority of the grandest examples of art. The loftier aim of 

 mitation thus defined, may seldom be literally compatible with the 



