PROBLEMS OF STUDY OF MODERN PAINTING 661 



Giotto used only great, impressive lines, and arranged mighty com- 

 plexes of color in accordance with simple decorative laws. All 

 naturalistic effects are avoided; all belittling detail, as well in the 

 fall of the drapery as in the structure of the landscape, is eliminated; 

 only the clear silhouette speaks. The pictures must be visible from 

 a distance, and at the same time correspond, in all their lines, with 

 the lines of the building. 



Quite a different sort of painting arose in the Netherlands at a 

 later period. In abrupt contrast to the monumental work of the 

 Italians, the small pictures of Jan van Eyck are painted stroke by 

 stroke, with minute exactness; the stubble of the beard, every vein of 

 the hand, every ornament of clothing, is rendered with naturalistic 

 accuracy. Jan van Eyck could indulge himself in such fine brush- 

 work, because his pictures made no pretense of effect at a distance, but, 

 like the miniatures of the prayer-books, were destined to be inspected 

 at close quarters. They were altar-pieces for domestic use, before 

 which the observer, after he had drawn away the curtain, knelt or 

 stood. In like manner we may explain the style of later Dutch 

 cabinet pictures. Placed for the most part upon easels, they hinted 

 to the spectator that their delicacies could best be seen by close 

 inspection. Even when they served as decoration for a wall, the 

 delicate work of a Don or a Mieris was calculated in accordance with 

 the proportions of the small Dutch rooms. If any of these Dutchmen, 

 as, for example, Koning, exceptionally received a commission in 

 Flemish palaces, he immediately changed his style; for he knew that 

 a picture for a large room must be differently treated, not only in 

 style, but also in composition, from his accustomed work. 



The weakness of the nineteenth century was most clearly revealed 

 in the circumstance that it had lost every feeling for the relation 

 of the picture to space. What awful performances did not mural 

 painters perpetrate in our public buildings! In accordance with 

 the literary trend of painting of the first half of the century there 

 was no thought of beauty in form and color, but only of the didactic 

 value of the works. Instead of proceeding on the supposition that 

 a picture should really adorn, they endeavored to give historical 

 instruction to the public, and tacked historical genre paintings on the 

 walls. As to art in the home, we have not yet forgotten the time 

 when small photographs and line engravings, instead of being kept 

 in portfolios, were fastened to the walls, where they naturally had 

 the effect of dead white and black spots. Museums and exhibitions 

 also contributed to confuse public taste by juxtaposing the most 

 heterogeneous things on the walls: little cabinet pieces of Brouwer 

 and Ostade alongside of a great altar-piece by Rubens, and a mighty 

 Delacroix flanked by dainty Meissoniers. In this way the feeling for 

 the decorative importance of art was more and more lost. The pur- 



