476 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVIII. No. 719 



strueted light of a window. It is quite 

 true that any one would know what sort 

 of an object the artist intended to picture, 

 if only the correct, bare outlines of this 

 bottle were drawn. These outlines would 

 suggest a bottle , nothing but a bottle, 

 yet with very little of its special char- 

 acteristics. But an outline drawing of it 

 would not be a type of realistic drawing, 

 for even the most imaginative person could 

 not find any similarity between the bottle 

 and the drawing, save in the outline. Now- 

 suppose that the outline drawing be filled 

 in with the proper shading to give it the 

 appearance of being round, a step towards 

 realism would therewith have been taken; 

 but, in spite of that, the drawing is still 

 far from being a good example of graphic 

 art. Comparing it with the bottle in a 

 critical way, one could not honestly and 

 irrefutably identify one with the other, 

 for, as example, this shading, directed 

 alone towards showing that the bottle is 

 round, does not develop the fact that the 

 bottle's surface is highly polished and 

 hence reflective. Continuing, however, the 

 subtleties of shading to the degree where 

 the light reflected from the table on to the 

 bottle, and vice versa, is shown, to where 

 the source of light, namely, the window, 

 with its typical cross sashes, is seen in 

 miniature upon the smooth glass, and to 

 where other characteristics have been 

 added, the drawing has at last reached the 

 fullness of realism, it has become, in a 

 manner, a portrait. Any one now would 

 recognize at a glance what particular 

 bottle the drawing was intended to repre- 

 sent, providing, of course, that one com- 

 pared it with the bottle under the same 

 conditions of position and lighting. 



This very humble subject, a smooth, 

 highly polished bottle, has been taken to 

 illustrate realistic drawing, since its char- 

 acteristic of reflection is shared by some 

 forms of laboratory specimens subjected to 



certain conditions. Yet, the greatest scien- 

 tiflc artist in this country has been severely 

 criticized by some investigators because, 

 at times, he allows his source of light, a 

 near-by window, to appear in his drawings, 

 as it clearly did on the reflective surfaces- 

 of the objects drawn. 



There is a common enough belief in 

 scientific circles that any feature of a 

 drawing not directly contributing to the 

 main idea which an investigator wishes 

 to express, must be looked upon as a 

 blemish. And this is true to some extent. 

 But the main idea seldom exists severely 

 alone, unsupported by secondary ones. 

 As a matter of fact, in nearly all instances, 

 a main idea might be considered as an ac- 

 cumulation of associating secondary ideas. 

 The particular artist mentioned above 

 realizes this truth, and for those who share 

 his belief, the delineation of secondary 

 ideas never disturbs, but, on the contrary, 

 markedly assists in his forcible expression 

 of the central thought. To cite an 

 example : 



Turning to a certain page of a recent, 

 scientific text-book, we find a drawing of 

 a cyst by this particular artist whose 

 realism has been, as remarked, criticized 

 by a number of competent investigators. 

 In the text describing the cyst, from 

 which this drawing was made, the 

 author states that its surface was very 

 smooth and moist. For the benefit of 

 those who do not know what a cyst is, it 

 might be generally described as a closed 

 sack, more or less globular in form, its 

 walls consisting of organic matter, and 

 filled with more or less fluid contents. Any 

 surface, whether organic or inorganic, if 

 it be very smooth and moist, is boimd to be- 

 reflective. Now, whether this surface re- 

 flect the source of light, to which it is sub- 

 jected while being drawn, or some feature 

 of the plane upon which it rests, or some 

 other near or distant object, is quite a 



