276 REPORTS FROM THE SECTIONS. 
from the subject imitated. Whereas in photography the materials 
are not plastic, being unyielding scientific facts, which in their 
workings are not subject to plastic emotional feelings, and hence 
the imitation is dependent on, and cannot differ from, the subject 
imitated.” This is true only in part, and I claim for photography | 
such emotional feeling as guides it in the difficult task of imitating, 
and the plastic power according to the nature of the materials | 
necessary for the carrying out of the task. How, I would ask, is 
this power of altering nature at will, to serve our likes and dis- 
likes, worthy of the appellation of fine art? Cultivated minds 
differ as well. as uncultivated ones, and painters are no exception 
to the rule. One will pronounce a piece of work a marvel, and 
another will disclaim it. This being so, and following out the 
and studied the original, and so becomes but a bad imitation. We 
surely do not presume to improve upon nature, for what could we 
produce even equal to the colouring of a simple wild flower? We 
can only imitate. Composition is simply an imitation of nature, 
and he who keeps nearest to her is the most faithful representa- 
tive of fine art. The colourist can doa great deal; but he can 
only copy nature, and in attempting more shows weakness. What- 
ever combinations we may choose to make and call them creations, 
they are, if opposed to nature, simply dull and meaningless imagi- 
nations, proceeding from a wandering, if not a diseased brain. 
‘ 
plastic, by which I presume is meant that they are not under the 
materials, and the necessary amount of brains to use them to 
en as 
Mundi, Wilson, England, and others ; see them up with the lark, 
Searching after the beauties of nature, watehing all the 
