THE WOMBAT. 35 



sketch in black and white or in monochrome, to say nothing. 

 of a good study in colour. I think few will disagree with me, 

 and though it was asserted in a recent leading article in one of 

 our august "Dailies" that in all probability colour photography 

 will in course of time supersede the art of painting, I for one 

 very much doubt whether, it will do so, and more, devoutly 

 hope it will not. 



Doubtless, colour photography would give us exquisitely 

 beautiful and realistic representations of nature and of the 

 human form and face divine ; but it could, I think, never rise 

 above positivism and achieve the subtle and to a great extent 

 indefinable charm which a genius in art such as Raphael, 

 Michael Angelo, Leighton, Landseer, or Turner breathes 

 into his work. The camera and all its scientific family are 

 too matter of fact, indiscriminating, devoid of taste, non- 

 poetical, and altogether unemotional to be capable of 

 producing something which shall most effectively appeal through 

 the eye to the soul and inner sympathies of man. It may 

 appeal to his grosser senses, or it may provide the inspiration 

 for the artistic mind that nature or any beautiful object itself 

 would to the mind of an artistic genius; but in itself its best work 

 would lack that fascination which the hand of genius would 

 impart, and there would remain all the difference that there 

 is between, say, a romance in real life and its embodiment 

 in poetry by a Moore or a Scott. 



But we must haul up on this tack, although it is necessary- 

 to our course, which is in the first place to get at the true 

 province and capabilities of photography. 



Other reasons why photographic pictures, especially land 

 and sea-scapes are, as I contend, relatively unsatisfactory 

 may be found first in the fact that it is seldom that every- 

 thing within the range of vision possesses spectacular, aesthetic, 

 or other interest, (or if it does it is because the interest lies- 

 rather in some general effect of colour, or of light and shade, 

 or of grouping, than in the objects in detail) and if the interest 

 be confined to a limited object or area, the eye, or at all events 

 the mind behind it, has the faculty of focussing upon that object 

 or area alone, everything else even in the same focal plane being 

 practically out of focus, whereas a photographic lens has not 

 the same extent of adjustability, but within a certain angle 

 everything in the focal plane is in focus ; and on the other hand 

 when the eye adjusts itself to take in a general effect it sees 

 nothing in detail, whereas the camera lens (unless its definition 

 is "diffused") records all details according to its sharpness, 

 depth of focus, and the colour and lighting of the subject- 

 Thus in either case the camera sees too much for the eye's 

 artistic gratification. 



