This is a modern-English version of The Elements of Drawing, in Three Letters to Beginners, originally written by Ruskin, John. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

 

 

Transcriber's note: One typographical error has been corrected. It appears in the text like this, and the explanation will appear when the mouse pointer is moved over the marked passage.

  Error #1: Page 58: 'Thus, the outline a and the outline d.' 'd' replaced by 'b.'

 


 

 
Library Edition

THE COMPLETE WORKS

OF

JOHN RUSKIN

ELEMENTS OF DRAWING AND
PERSPECTIVE
THE TWO PATHS
UNTO THIS LAST
MUNERA PULVERIS
SESAME AND LILIES
ETHICS OF THE DUST

NATIONAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

NEW YORK

CHICAGO

 

THE ELEMENTS OF DRAWING

IN
THREE LETTERS TO BEGINNERS.

CONTENTS.


  page
Intro ix
LETTER I.
At First Practice 1
LETTER II.
Nature Sketching 65
LETTER III.
On Color and Design 106

APPENDIX I.
Illustration Notes 183
APPENDIX II.
Topics to Study 188
 

["The Elements of Drawing" was written during the winter of 1856. The First Edition was published in 1857; the Second followed in the same year, with some additions and slight alterations. The Third Edition consisted of sixth thousand, 1859; seventh thousand, 1860; and eighth thousand, 1861.

["The Elements of Drawing" was written during the winter of 1856. The First Edition was published in 1857; the Second followed in the same year, with some additions and slight changes. The Third Edition included six thousand copies in 1859; seven thousand in 1860; and eight thousand in 1861.]

The work was partly reproduced in "Our Sketching Club," by the Rev. R. St. John Tyrwhitt, M.A., 1874; with new editions in 1875, 1882, and 1886.

The work was partly reproduced in "Our Sketching Club," by Rev. R. St. John Tyrwhitt, M.A., 1874; with new editions in 1875, 1882, and 1886.

Mr. Ruskin meant, during his tenure of the Slade Professorship at Oxford, to recast his teaching, and to write a systematic manual for the use of his Drawing School, under the title of "The Laws of Fésole." Of this only vol. i. was completed, 1879; second edition, 1882.

Mr. Ruskin aimed to reshape his teaching while he held the Slade Professorship at Oxford and to write a comprehensive guide for his Drawing School, titled "The Laws of Fésole." Only volume 1 was finished, published in 1879; second edition, 1882.

As, therefore, "The Elements of Drawing" has never been completely superseded, and as many readers of Mr. Ruskin's works have expressed a desire to possess the book in its old form, it is now reprinted as it stood in 1859.]

As a result, "The Elements of Drawing" has never been entirely replaced, and many readers of Mr. Ruskin's works have shown interest in having the book in its original format, so it is now being reprinted as it was in 1859.


ADVERTISEMENT

TO

THE SECOND EDITION.

As one or two questions, asked of me since the publication of this work, have indicated points requiring elucidation, I have added a few short notes in the first Appendix. It is not, I think, desirable otherwise to modify the form or add to the matter of a book as it passes through successive editions; I have, therefore, only mended the wording of some obscure sentences; with which exception the text remains, and will remain, in its original form, which I had carefully considered. Should the public find the book useful, and call for further editions of it, such additional notes as may be necessary will be always placed in the first Appendix, where they can be at once referred to, in any library, by the possessors of the earlier editions; and I will take care they shall not be numerous.

Since a couple of questions have come up since this work was published, I've added some brief notes in the first Appendix to clarify those points. I don't think it's a good idea to change the structure or add content to a book as it goes through different editions. So, I've only revised the phrasing of a few unclear sentences; aside from that, the text remains, and will remain, in its original form, which I carefully considered. If readers find the book helpful and request more editions, any additional notes that may be needed will always be included in the first Appendix, where they can easily be accessed by anyone with previous editions; I’ll make sure they’re not too many.

August 3, 1857.

August 3, 1857.


ix

ix

PREFACE.

i. It may perhaps be thought, that in prefacing a manual of drawing, I ought to expatiate on the reasons why drawing should be learned; but those reasons appear to me so many and so weighty, that I cannot quickly state or enforce them. With the reader's permission, as this volume is too large already, I will waive all discussion respecting the importance of the subject, and touch only on those points which may appear questionable in the method of its treatment.

i. You might think that in the introduction to a drawing manual, I should elaborate on why learning to draw is important; however, the reasons seem so numerous and significant that I can't easily outline or emphasize them. With the reader's permission, since this volume is already quite lengthy, I'll skip the discussion about the importance of the subject and focus only on the points that might seem questionable in the way it's presented.

ii. In the first place, the book is not calculated for the use of children under the age of twelve or fourteen. I do not think it advisable to engage a child in any but the most voluntary practice of art. If it has talent for drawing, it will be continually scrawling on what paper it can get; and should be allowed to scrawl at its own free will, due praise being given for every appearance of care, or truth, in its efforts. It should be allowed to amuse itself with cheap colors almost as soon as it has sense enough to wish for them. If it merely daubs the paper with shapeless stains, the color-box may be taken away till it knows better: but as soon as it begins painting red coats on soldiers, striped flags to ships, etc., it should have colors at command; and, without restraining its choice of subject in that imaginative and historical art, of a military tendency, which children delight in, (generally quite as valuable, by the way, as any historical art delighted in by their elders,) it should be gently led by the parents to try to draw, in such childish fashion as may be, the things it can see and likes,—birds, or butterflies, or flowers, or fruit.

ii. First of all, this book isn't meant for kids under twelve or fourteen. I don't think it's a good idea to get a child involved in art unless they really want to. If they have a knack for drawing, they'll be doodling on whatever paper they can find, and they should be allowed to do so freely. They should get praise for any effort that shows care or accuracy. As soon as they have the sense to want them, they should be able to play with inexpensive colors. If they just make random splashes on the paper, the color set can be put away until they show some improvement. But once they start painting things like red coats on soldiers or striped flags for ships, they should have colors available whenever they want. Without limiting their choices in those imaginative and historical themes kids love—often just as valuable as the historical subjects admired by adults—they should be gently encouraged by their parents to try drawing whatever they can see and enjoy, like birds, butterflies, flowers, or fruit.

iii. In later years, the indulgence of using the color should only be granted as a reward, after it has shown care and x progress in its drawings with pencil. A limited number of good and amusing prints should always be within a boy's reach: in these days of cheap illustration he can hardly possess a volume of nursery tales without good wood-cuts in it, and should be encouraged to copy what he likes best of this kind; but should be firmly restricted to a few prints and to a few books. If a child has many toys, it will get tired of them and break them; if a boy has many prints he will merely dawdle and scrawl over them; it is by the limitation of the number of his possessions that his pleasure in them is perfected, and his attention concentrated. The parents need give themselves no trouble in instructing him, as far as drawing is concerned, beyond insisting upon economical and neat habits with his colors and paper, showing him the best way of holding pencil and rule, and, so far as they take notice of his work, pointing out where a line is too short or too long, or too crooked, when compared with the copy; accuracy being the first and last thing they look for. If the child shows talent for inventing or grouping figures, the parents should neither check, nor praise it. They may laugh with it frankly, or show pleasure in what it has done, just as they show pleasure in seeing it well, or cheerful; but they must not praise it for being clever, any more than they would praise it for being stout. They should praise it only for what costs it self-denial, namely attention and hard work; otherwise they will make it work for vanity's sake, and always badly. The best books to put into its hands are those illustrated by George Cruikshank or by Richter. (See Appendix.) At about the age of twelve or fourteen, it is quite time enough to set youth or girl to serious work; and then this book will, I think, be useful to them; and I have good hope it may be so, likewise, to persons of more advanced age wishing to know something of the first principles of art.

iii. In later years, using color should only be given as a reward, after the child has shown care and x progress in drawing with a pencil. A limited number of good and fun prints should always be available to a boy: in today’s world of inexpensive illustrations, he can hardly have a collection of nursery tales without good woodcuts in them, and he should be encouraged to copy what he likes best in this style; but he should be firmly limited to a few prints and a few books. If a child has too many toys, they will get bored with them and break them; if a boy has too many prints, he will just dawdle and scribble on them; it is through limiting what he owns that his enjoyment of them is enhanced, and his focus sharpened. Parents don't need to worry about teaching him drawing, beyond making sure he uses his colors and paper neatly and economically, showing him the best way to hold a pencil and ruler, and, as they observe his work, pointing out where a line is too short, too long, or too crooked compared to the reference; accuracy is the first and last thing they should prioritize. If the child shows talent for inventing or grouping figures, parents shouldn’t discourage or overly praise it. They can laugh with him openly or express enjoyment in what he has done, just as they would when they see him happy or doing well; but they shouldn’t praise him for being clever, any more than they would for being well-built. They should praise him only for what requires self-discipline, like attention and hard work; otherwise, they’ll encourage him to perform for the sake of vanity, which will lead to poor results. The best books for him to use are those illustrated by George Cruikshank or Richter. (See Appendix.) Around the age of twelve or fourteen, it’s the right time to set the youth or girl to serious work; and at that point, this book should, I believe, be useful to them, and I hope it may also benefit older individuals wishing to learn the basics of art.

iv. Yet observe, that the method of study recommended is not brought forward as absolutely the best, but only as the best which I can at present devise for an isolated student. It is very likely that farther experience in teaching may xi enable me to modify it with advantage in several important respects; but I am sure the main principles of it are sound, and most of the exercises as useful as they can be rendered without a master's superintendence. The method differs, however, so materially from that generally adopted by drawing-masters, that a word or two of explanation may be needed to justify what might otherwise be thought willful eccentricity.

iv. However, please note that the study method I suggest isn’t presented as the absolute best option, but rather as the best one I can currently come up with for a self-taught student. It’s quite possible that more experience in teaching will allow me to improve it in several key areas; however, I’m confident that the core principles are solid, and most of the exercises are as beneficial as they can be without an instructor's oversight. The method is quite different from the typical approach used by drawing instructors, so a brief explanation might be necessary to clarify what could otherwise be seen as deliberate oddity.

v. The manuals at present published on the subject of drawing are all directed, as far as I know, to one or other of two objects. Either they propose to give the student a power of dexterous sketching with pencil or water-color, so as to emulate (at considerable distance) the slighter work of our second-rate artists; or they propose to give him such accurate command of mathematical forms as may afterwards enable him to design rapidly and cheaply for manufactures. When drawing is taught as an accomplishment, the first is the aim usually proposed; while the second is the object kept chiefly in view at Marlborough House, and in the branch Government Schools of Design.

v. The manuals currently available on the topic of drawing are mostly focused on one of two goals, as far as I know. Either they aim to teach the student how to sketch skillfully with pencil or watercolor, trying to mimic (from a distance) the simpler works of our mid-tier artists; or they seek to provide the student with a precise understanding of mathematical forms that will later allow them to design quickly and affordably for industry. When drawing is taught as a skill, the first goal is usually emphasized; while the second is the main focus at Marlborough House and in the associated Government Schools of Design.

vi. Of the fitness of the modes of study adopted in those schools, to the end specially intended, judgment is hardly yet possible; only, it seems to me, that we are all too much in the habit of confusing art as applied to manufacture, with manufacture itself. For instance, the skill by which an inventive workman designs and molds a beautiful cup, is skill of true art; but the skill by which that cup is copied and afterwards multiplied a thousandfold, is skill of manufacture: and the faculties which enable one workman to design and elaborate his original piece, are not to be developed by the same system of instruction as those which enable another to produce a maximum number of approximate copies of it in a given time. Farther: it is surely inexpedient that any reference to purposes of manufacture should interfere with the education of the artist himself. Try first to manufacture a Raphael; then let Raphael direct your manufacture. He will design you a plate, or cup, or a house, or a xii palace, whenever you want it, and design them in the most convenient and rational way; but do not let your anxiety to reach the platter and the cup interfere with your education of the Raphael. Obtain first the best work you can, and the ablest hands, irrespective of any consideration of economy or facility of production. Then leave your trained artist to determine how far art can be popularized, or manufacture ennobled.

vi. It's hard to judge how suitable the study methods in those schools are for their intended purpose; however, it seems to me that we often mix up art as applied to manufacturing with manufacturing itself. For example, the skill an inventive craftsman uses to design and create a beautiful cup is true artistic skill, while the skill used to replicate that cup a thousand times is manufacturing skill. The abilities that allow one craftsman to design and refine an original piece can't be developed by the same teaching methods that help another create a large number of similar copies in a given time. Moreover, it’s definitely unwise for any manufacturing goals to interfere with the artist's education. First, try to create a Raphael; then let Raphael guide your production. He'll design a plate, cup, house, or palace whenever you need it, and do so in the most efficient and sensible way. But don't let your eagerness to produce the plate and cup get in the way of training your Raphael. First, aim to get the best work possible and the most skilled hands, without worrying about cost or ease of production. Then, allow your trained artist to figure out how far art can be made accessible or manufacturing elevated.

vii. Now, I believe that (irrespective of differences in individual temper and character) the excellence of an artist, as such, depends wholly on refinement of perception, and that it is this, mainly, which a master or a school can teach; so that while powers of invention distinguish man from man, powers of perception distinguish school from school. All great schools enforce delicacy of drawing and subtlety of sight: and the only rule which I have, as yet, found to be without exception respecting art, is that all great art is delicate.

vii. I believe that, regardless of individual differences in temperament and character, the greatness of an artist relies entirely on their refined perception. It is primarily this quality that a master or a school can impart. While creative abilities set individuals apart, perceptual skills differentiate schools from one another. All great schools emphasize the importance of delicate drawing and a keen eye for detail. The only unwavering rule I've discovered about art is that all great art is delicate.

viii. Therefore, the chief aim and bent of the following system is to obtain, first, a perfectly patient, and, to the utmost of the pupil's power, a delicate method of work, such as may insure his seeing truly. For I am nearly convinced, that when once we see keenly enough, there is very little difficulty in drawing what we see; but, even supposing that this difficulty be still great, I believe that the sight is a more important thing than the drawing; and I would rather teach drawing that my pupils may learn to love Nature, than teach the looking at Nature that they may learn to draw. It is surely also a more important thing, for young people and unprofessional students, to know how to appreciate the art of others, than to gain much power in art themselves. Now the modes of sketching ordinarily taught are inconsistent with this power of judgment. No person trained to the superficial execution of modern water-color painting, can understand the work of Titian or Leonardo; they must forever remain blind to the refinement of such men's penciling, and the precision of their thinking. But, however slight a degree xiii of manipulative power the student may reach by pursuing the mode recommended to him in these letters, I will answer for it that he cannot go once through the advised exercises without beginning to understand what masterly work means; and, by the time he has gained some proficiency in them, he will have a pleasure in looking at the painting of the great schools, and a new perception of the exquisiteness of natural scenery, such as would repay him for much more labor than I have asked him to undergo.

viii. Therefore, the main goal of the following system is to develop, first, a completely patient, and as delicate a method of working as the student can manage, which will ensure they see accurately. I am almost convinced that once we see clearly enough, there's very little difficulty in drawing what we observe; but even if that difficulty remains considerable, I believe that seeing is more important than drawing. I would prefer to teach drawing so that my students may learn to appreciate Nature, rather than teaching them to look at Nature just to learn to draw. It’s certainly more important for young people and non-professional students to understand how to appreciate the art of others than to become highly skilled in art themselves. Now, the typical methods of sketching taught don't support this ability to judge art. No one trained in the shallow techniques of modern watercolor can truly grasp the work of Titian or Leonardo; they will always be unable to recognize the subtlety of such masters' drawing and the clarity of their ideas. However, no matter how limited the student's technical ability may be through the methods suggested in these letters, I assure you that they won’t complete the recommended exercises without starting to understand what masterful work means; and by the time they improve in these skills, they will find joy in observing the paintings from the great schools and a new appreciation for the beauty of natural landscapes, which would repay them for much more effort than I have asked of them.

ix. That labor is, nevertheless, sufficiently irksome, nor is it possible that it should be otherwise, so long as the pupil works unassisted by a master. For the smooth and straight road which admits unembarrassed progress must, I fear, be dull as well as smooth; and the hedges need to be close and trim when there is no guide to warn or bring back the erring traveler. The system followed in this work will, therefore, at first, surprise somewhat sorrowfully those who are familiar with the practice of our class at the Working Men's College; for there, the pupil, having the master at his side to extricate him from such embarrassments as his first efforts may lead into, is at once set to draw from a solid object, and soon finds entertainment in his efforts and interest in his difficulties. Of course the simplest object which it is possible to set before the eye is a sphere; and, practically, I find a child's toy, a white leather ball, better than anything else; as the gradations on balls of plaster of Paris, which I use sometimes to try the strength of pupils who have had previous practice, are a little too delicate for a beginner to perceive. It has been objected that a circle, or the outline of a sphere, is one of the most difficult of all lines to draw. It is so;[A] but I do not want it to be drawn. All that his study of the ball is to teach the pupil, is the way in which shade gives the appearance of projection. This he learns most satisfactorily from a sphere; because any solid form, terminated by straight lines or flat surfaces, owes some of its appearance of projection to xiv its perspective; but in the sphere, what, without shade, was a flat circle, becomes, merely by the added shade, the image of a solid ball; and this fact is just as striking to the learner, whether his circular outline be true or false. He is, therefore, never allowed to trouble himself about it; if he makes the ball look as oval as an egg, the degree of error is simply pointed out to him, and he does better next time, and better still the next. But his mind is always fixed on the gradation of shade, and the outline left to take, in due time, care of itself. I call it outline, for the sake of immediate intelligibility,—strictly speaking, it is merely the edge of the shade; no pupil in my class being ever allowed to draw an outline, in the ordinary sense. It is pointed out to him, from the first, that Nature relieves one mass, or one tint, against another; but outlines none. The outline exercise, the second suggested in this letter, is recommended, not to enable the pupil to draw outlines, but as the only means by which, unassisted, he can test his accuracy of eye, and discipline his hand. When the master is by, errors in the form and extent of shadows can be pointed out as easily as in outline, and the handling can be gradually corrected in details of the work. But the solitary student can only find out his own mistakes by help of the traced limit, and can only test the firmness of his hand by an exercise in which nothing but firmness is required; and during which all other considerations (as of softness, complexity, etc.) are entirely excluded.

ix. That work is, after all, pretty annoying, and it can’t be any different as long as the student is working alone without a teacher. The smooth and straightforward path that allows for unimpeded progress must, unfortunately, be dull as well as smooth; and the boundaries need to be neat and close when there’s no guide to correct or redirect the wandering traveler. The approach taken in this work will, at first, somewhat sadly surprise those who are used to the way things are done at the Working Men's College; there, the student has the teacher at their side to help them out of any difficulties their early attempts might lead them into, and they’re immediately set to draw from a solid object, quickly finding enjoyment in their efforts and engagement in their challenges. Naturally, the simplest object to place in front of someone’s eyes is a sphere; practically, I find that a child's toy, a white leather ball, works better than anything else; the subtle features on plaster of Paris balls, which I sometimes use to test the skills of students with prior experience, can be a bit too fine for a beginner to notice. It has been said that a circle, or the outline of a sphere, is one of the hardest lines to draw. It is, indeed, but I don't want it to be drawn. The goal of studying the ball is to teach the student how shading creates the impression of depth. This is best understood by using a sphere; because any solid shape defined by straight lines or flat surfaces gets some of its 3D look from perspective, but with the sphere, what was just a flat circle without shading transforms, through added shade, into the image of a solid ball; and this change is just as evident to the learner, regardless of whether their circular outline is correct or not. Therefore, they are never allowed to stress over it; if they make the ball look as oval as an egg, the amount of error is simply pointed out to them, and they improve next time, and even more so the time after that. But their focus remains on the gradation of shade, while the outline is allowed to take care of itself in due course. I refer to it as an outline for clarity—technically, it's just the edge of the shade; no student in my class is ever allowed to draw an outline in the conventional sense. From the beginning, it’s emphasized that Nature differentiates one mass or shade from another, but does not outline any of them. The outline exercise, the second one suggested in this letter, is recommended not to help the student draw outlines, but as the only way for them to independently check their accuracy of vision and train their hand. When the teacher is present, mistakes in the shape and extent of shadows can be pointed out as easily as with outlines, and the handling can be gradually refined in finer details of the work. But a solitary student can only discover their own mistakes through the traced boundary and can only assess the steadiness of their hand through an exercise that requires only steadiness; during which all other factors (like softness, complexity, etc.) are completely excluded.

x. Both the system adopted at the Working Men's College, and that recommended here, agree, however, in one principle, which I consider the most important and special of all that are involved in my teaching: namely, the attaching its full importance, from the first, to local color. I believe that the endeavor to separate, in the course of instruction, the observation of light and shade from that of local color, has always been, and must always be, destructive of the student's power of accurate sight, and that it corrupts his taste as much as it retards his progress. I will not occupy the reader's time by any discussion of the principle here, but I wish him xv to note it as the only distinctive one in my system, so far as it is a system. For the recommendation to the pupil to copy faithfully, and without alteration, whatever natural object he chooses to study, is serviceable, among other reasons, just because it gets rid of systematic rules altogether, and teaches people to draw, as country lads learn to ride, without saddle or stirrups; my main object being, at first, not to get my pupils to hold their reins prettily, but to "sit like a jackanapes, never off."

x. Both the approach used at the Working Men's College and the one suggested here share a key principle, which I think is the most important aspect of my teaching: recognizing the significance of local color from the start. I believe that trying to separate the observation of light and shadow from local color in the teaching process has always been, and will always be, harmful to a student's ability to see accurately, and it damages their taste while hindering their progress. I won’t take up the reader's time with a discussion of this principle here, but I want them to notice it as the only distinctive element in my approach, at least as far as it is an approach. The advice to students to faithfully replicate, without alteration, any natural object they choose to study is beneficial for many reasons, particularly because it eliminates systematic rules altogether and teaches people to draw, like country boys learn to ride, without saddle or stirrups; my main aim, initially, is not to have my students hold their reins nicely, but to "sit like a jackanapes, never off."

xi. In these written instructions, therefore, it has always been with regret that I have seen myself forced to advise anything like monotonous or formal discipline. But, to the unassisted student, such formalities are indispensable, and I am not without hope that the sense of secure advancement, and the pleasure of independent effort, may render the following out of even the more tedious exercises here proposed, possible to the solitary learner, without weariness. But if it should be otherwise, and he finds the first steps painfully irksome, I can only desire him to consider whether the acquirement of so great a power as that of pictorial expression of thought be not worth some toil; or whether it is likely, in the natural order of matters in this working world, that so great a gift should be attainable by those who will give no price for it.

xi. In these written instructions, I've always felt regret about needing to suggest anything that feels dull or overly formal. However, for the student working alone, some structure is essential, and I hope that the feeling of making steady progress and the satisfaction of working independently can make even the more tedious exercises proposed here manageable for the solitary learner without feeling overwhelming. But if that's not the case, and the initial steps feel painfully tedious, I can only urge them to think about whether gaining the significant skill of visually expressing thoughts is worth the effort; or if it's reasonable to expect that such a valuable skill can be obtained without any investment.

xii. One task, however, of some difficulty, the student will find I have not imposed upon him: namely, learning the laws of perspective. It would be worth while to learn them, if he could do so easily; but without a master's help, and in the way perspective is at present explained in treatises, the difficulty is greater than the gain. For perspective is not of the slightest use, except in rudimentary work. You can draw the rounding line of a table in perspective, but you cannot draw the sweep of a sea bay; you can foreshorten a log of wood by it, but you cannot foreshorten an arm. Its laws are too gross and few to be applied to any subtle form; therefore, as you must learn to draw the subtle forms by the eye, certainly you may draw the simple ones. No great painters ever trouble themselves about perspective, and very few of xvi them know its laws; they draw everything by the eye, and, naturally enough, disdain in the easy parts of their work rules which cannot help them in difficult ones. It would take about a month's labor to draw imperfectly, by laws of perspective, what any great Venetian will draw perfectly in five minutes, when he is throwing a wreath of leaves round a head, or bending the curves of a pattern in and out among the folds of drapery. It is true that when perspective was first discovered, everybody amused themselves with it; and all the great painters put fine saloons and arcades behind their Madonnas, merely to show that they could draw in perspective: but even this was generally done by them only to catch the public eye, and they disdained the perspective so much, that though they took the greatest pains with the circlet of a crown, or the rim of a crystal cup, in the heart of their picture, they would twist their capitals of columns and towers of churches about in the background in the most wanton way, wherever they liked the lines to go, provided only they left just perspective enough to please the public.

xii. One task that may be a bit challenging, the student will see I haven’t assigned: learning the laws of perspective. It would be worthwhile to learn them if it were easy, but without a teacher's assistance, and given how perspective is currently explained in books, the difficulty outweighs the benefits. Perspective is hardly useful except for basic work. You can draw the curved outline of a table in perspective, but you can't capture the sweep of a sea bay; you can foreshorten a log of wood, but you can't foreshorten an arm. Its rules are too basic and limited to be applied to any nuanced form; hence, since you must learn to draw nuanced forms by looking, you can certainly draw the simpler ones. No great painters ever worry about perspective, and very few of them understand its rules; they draw everything by eye, and understandably, they disregard in the easier parts of their work rules that don’t aid them in the more challenging ones. It would take about a month's effort to draw something imperfectly by the laws of perspective, while any great Venetian can draw it perfectly in five minutes, whether he’s adding a wreath of leaves around a head or shaping the curves of a pattern among the folds of fabric. It's true that when perspective was first discovered, everyone had fun with it; and all the great painters included elaborate salons and arcades behind their Madonnas just to show they could draw in perspective. But even this was typically done only to attract the public's attention, and they looked down on perspective to such an extent that while they carefully crafted the details of a crown or the rim of a crystal cup at the forefront of their work, they would randomly twist the columns and church towers in the background in whatever direction they preferred, as long as they left just enough perspective to satisfy the audience.

xiii. In modern days, I doubt if any artist among us, except David Roberts, knows so much perspective as would enable him to draw a Gothic arch to scale at a given angle and distance. Turner, though he was professor of perspective to the Royal Academy, did not know what he professed, and never, as far as I remember, drew a single building in true perspective in his life; he drew them only with as much perspective as suited him. Prout also knew nothing of perspective, and twisted his buildings, as Turner did, into whatever shapes he liked. I do not justify this; and would recommend the student at least to treat perspective with common civility, but to pay no court to it. The best way he can learn it, by himself, is by taking a pane of glass, fixed in a frame, so that it can be set upright before the eye, at the distance at which the proposed sketch is intended to be seen. Let the eye be placed at some fixed point, opposite the middle of the pane of glass, but as high or as low as the student likes; then with a brush at the end of a stick, and a little body-color xvii that will adhere to the glass, the lines of the landscape may be traced on the glass, as you see them through it. When so traced they are all in true perspective. If the glass be sloped in any direction, the lines are still in true perspective, only it is perspective calculated for a sloping plane, while common perspective always supposes the plane of the picture to be vertical. It is good, in early practice, to accustom yourself to inclose your subject, before sketching it, with a light frame of wood held upright before you; it will show you what you may legitimately take into your picture, and what choice there is between a narrow foreground near you, and a wide one farther off; also, what height of tree or building you can properly take in, etc.[B]

xiii. Nowadays, I doubt any artist among us, except David Roberts, understands perspective well enough to draw a Gothic arch accurately at a specific angle and distance. Turner, despite being a professor of perspective at the Royal Academy, didn’t really grasp what he taught and, as far as I know, never drew a single building in true perspective during his life; he illustrated them only with as much perspective as he found suitable. Prout also didn’t comprehend perspective and twisted his buildings into whatever shapes he preferred, just like Turner. I don’t endorse this; I would recommend that students at least treat perspective with basic respect but not fawn over it. The best way to learn it independently is by taking a pane of glass, fixed in a frame so it can stand upright in front of you, at the distance from which the proposed sketch will be viewed. Position your eye at a fixed point, opposite the middle of the pane, at whatever height you choose; then, using a brush on the end of a stick and a bit of body color that will stick to the glass, trace the lines of the landscape as you see them through it. Once traced, they are all in true perspective. If the glass is tilted in any direction, the lines still represent true perspective, but it's perspective calculated for a sloping plane, while standard perspective assumes the picture plane is vertical. In early practice, it's helpful to get into the habit of framing your subject with a light wooden frame held upright in front of you before sketching; this will show you what you can legitimately include in your picture and the choices available between a narrow foreground nearby and a broader one farther away, as well as what height of trees or buildings you can appropriately capture, etc.[B]

xiv. Of figure drawing, nothing is said in the following pages, because I do not think figures, as chief subjects, can be drawn to any good purpose by an amateur. As accessaries in landscape, they are just to be drawn on the same principles as anything else.

xiv. The following pages don't discuss figure drawing because I believe that amateur artists can't effectively draw figures as main subjects. When they're part of a landscape, they should be drawn using the same principles as anything else.

xv. Lastly: If any of the directions given subsequently to the student should be found obscure by him, or if at any stage of the recommended practice he find himself in difficulties which I have not enough provided against, he may apply by letter to Mr. Ward, who is my under drawing-master at the Working Men's College (45 Great Ormond Street), and who will give any required assistance, on the lowest terms that can remunerate him for the occupation of his time. I have not leisure myself in general to answer letters of inquiry, however much I may desire to do so; but Mr. Ward has always the power of referring any question to me when he thinks it necessary. I have good hope, however, xviii that enough guidance is given in this work to prevent the occurrence of any serious embarrassment; and I believe that the student who obeys its directions will find, on the whole, that the best answerer of questions is perseverance; and the best drawing-masters are the woods and hills.

xv. Lastly: If any of the instructions given later to the student are unclear, or if at any point during the advised practice he encounters difficulties that I haven’t sufficiently addressed, he can send a letter to Mr. Ward, who is my assistant drawing teacher at the Working Men's College (45 Great Ormond Street). He will provide any needed help for a minimal fee that compensates him for his time. I usually don’t have the time to respond to inquiry letters, no matter how much I wish I could; however, Mr. Ward can always refer any question to me if he thinks it’s necessary. I remain hopeful that this work offers enough guidance to prevent any significant issues; and I believe that the student who follows its advice will find that perseverance is the best way to answer questions, and that the best drawing teachers are the woods and hills.

[1857.]

[1857.]


[A] Or, more accurately, appears to be so, because any one can see an error in a circle.

[A] Or, to be more precise, it seems that way, because anyone can spot an error in a circle.

[B] If the student is fond of architecture, and wishes to know more of perspective than he can learn in this rough way, Mr. Runciman (of 49 Acacia Road, St. John's Wood), who was my first drawing-master, and to whom I owe many happy hours, can teach it him quickly, easily, and rightly. [Mr. Runciman has died since this was written: Mr. Ward's present address is Bedford Chambers, 28 Southampton Street, Strand, London, W.C.]

[B] If a student loves architecture and wants to learn more about perspective than what they can pick up through this rough method, Mr. Runciman (at 49 Acacia Road, St. John's Wood), who was my first drawing teacher and to whom I owe many enjoyable hours, can teach it to them quickly, easily, and correctly. [Mr. Runciman has passed away since this was written: Mr. Ward's current address is Bedford Chambers, 28 Southampton Street, Strand, London, W.C.]


1

1

THE

ELEMENTS OF DRAWING.


LETTER I.

ON FIRST PRACTICE.

1. My dear Reader,—Whether this book is to be of use to you or not, depends wholly on your reason for wishing to learn to draw. If you desire only to possess a graceful accomplishment, to be able to converse in a fluent manner about drawing, or to amuse yourself listlessly in listless hours, I cannot help you: but if you wish to learn drawing that you may be able to set down clearly, and usefully, records of such things as cannot be described in words, either to assist your own memory of them, or to convey distinct ideas of them to other people; if you wish to obtain quicker perceptions of the beauty of the natural world, and to preserve something like a true image of beautiful things that pass away, or which you must yourself leave; if, also, you wish to understand the minds of great painters, and to be able to appreciate their work sincerely, seeing it for yourself, and loving it, not merely taking up the thoughts of other people about it; then I can help you, or, which is better, show you how to help yourself.

1. Dear Reader,—Whether this book will be useful to you really depends on why you want to learn to draw. If you just want to have a nice skill, to talk easily about art, or to kill time during dull moments, I can’t help you. But if you want to learn drawing so you can clearly and effectively record things that can’t be put into words, either to help you remember them or to share clear ideas with others; if you want to develop a quicker appreciation for the beauty of the natural world and capture the true essence of beautiful things that fade away or that you will leave behind; if you also want to grasp the thoughts of great artists and genuinely appreciate their work by seeing it for yourself and loving it, rather than simply echoing what others say about it; then I can help you, or even better, show you how to help yourself.

2. Only you must understand, first of all, that these powers, which indeed are noble and desirable, cannot be got without work. It is much easier to learn to draw well, than it is to learn to play well on any musical instrument; but you 2 know that it takes three or four years of practice, giving three or four hours a day, to acquire even ordinary command over the keys of a piano; and you must not think that a masterly command of your pencil, and the knowledge of what may be done with it, can be acquired without painstaking, or in a very short time. The kind of drawing which is taught, or supposed to be taught, in our schools, in a term or two, perhaps at the rate of an hour's practice a week, is not drawing at all. It is only the performance of a few dexterous (not always even that) evolutions on paper with a black-lead pencil; profitless alike to performer and beholder, unless as a matter of vanity, and that the smallest possible vanity. If any young person, after being taught what is, in polite circles, called "drawing," will try to copy the commonest piece of real work—suppose a lithograph on the titlepage of a new opera air, or a wood-cut in the cheapest illustrated newspaper of the day,—they will find themselves entirely beaten. And yet that common lithograph was drawn with coarse chalk, much more difficult to manage than the pencil of which an accomplished young lady is supposed to have command; and that wood-cut was drawn in urgent haste, and half spoiled in the cutting afterwards; and both were done by people whom nobody thinks of as artists, or praises for their power; both were done for daily bread, with no more artist's pride than any simple handicraftsmen feel in the work they live by.

2. You need to realize, first of all, that these abilities, which are indeed valuable and sought after, can't be gained without hard work. It's much easier to learn to draw well than to learn to play a musical instrument well; however, you know that it takes three or four years of practice, dedicating three or four hours a day, to gain even a basic skill in playing the piano. Don’t assume that having skilled control over your pencil and knowing how to use it can be achieved without effort or in a very short time. The kind of drawing that's taught, or claimed to be taught, in our schools in just one or two terms, perhaps with only an hour of practice a week, isn’t real drawing at all. It’s merely the execution of a few clever (and not always that) moves on paper with a pencil; it benefits neither the artist nor the viewer unless it’s just for a small sense of vanity. If any young person, after being instructed in what is politely termed "drawing," attempts to replicate the simplest piece of actual work—like a lithograph on the title page of a new opera song or a woodcut in today’s cheapest illustrated newspaper—they will find themselves completely outmatched. Yet that common lithograph was created using coarse chalk, which is much harder to handle than the pencil that a supposedly skilled young lady is expected to master; and that woodcut was made in a rush, and poorly finished in the cutting process later on; both were produced by people who aren’t regarded as artists and aren’t praised for their talent; they were both done to earn a living, with no more artistic pride than any ordinary craftsman feels in the work they depend on.

3. Do not, therefore, think that you can learn drawing, any more than a new language, without some hard and disagreeable labor. But do not, on the other hand, if you are ready and willing to pay this price, fear that you may be unable to get on for want of special talent. It is indeed true that the persons who have peculiar talent for art, draw instinctively, and get on almost without teaching; though never without toil. It is true, also, that of inferior talent for drawing there are many degrees: it will take one person a much longer time than another to attain the same results, and the results thus painfully attained are never quite so satisfactory as those got with greater ease when the faculties are 3 naturally adapted to the study. But I have never yet, in the experiments I have made, met with a person who could not learn to draw at all; and, in general, there is a satisfactory and available power in every one to learn drawing if he wishes, just as nearly all persons have the power of learning French, Latin, or arithmetic, in a decent and useful degree, if their lot in life requires them to possess such knowledge.

3. So, don't think you can learn to draw any more than you can learn a new language without putting in some hard and often unpleasant work. But also, if you're ready and willing to pay this price, don't worry that you might not have special talent. It's true that some people have a natural talent for art; they can draw instinctively and progress almost without instruction, but they still have to put in effort. It's also true that there are varying levels of drawing talent; some people will take much longer than others to achieve the same results, and the results that come with effort may not be as satisfying as those achieved more easily when someone's skills are well-suited to the study. However, I have never encountered anyone in my experience who couldn't learn to draw at all. Generally, everyone has a decent capacity to learn drawing if they want to, just like almost anyone can learn French, Latin, or arithmetic to a reasonable and useful level if their life circumstances require it.

4. Supposing then that you are ready to take a certain amount of pains, and to bear a little irksomeness and a few disappointments bravely, I can promise you that an hour's practice a day for six months, or an hour's practice every other day for twelve months, or, disposed in whatever way you find convenient, some hundred and fifty hours' practice, will give you sufficient power of drawing faithfully whatever you want to draw, and a good judgment, up to a certain point, of other people's work: of which hours if you have one to spare at present, we may as well begin at once.

4. So, if you’re willing to put in some effort and tolerate a little annoyance and a few setbacks without losing your cool, I can guarantee that practicing for an hour a day for six months, or an hour every other day for twelve months, or just fitting in around a hundred and fifty hours of practice in a way that works for you, will give you the ability to draw whatever you want accurately, and a decent understanding of other people's work to a certain extent. If you have an hour to spare right now, we might as well get started.

EXERCISE I.

Activity I.

5. Everything that you can see in the world around you, presents itself to your eyes only as an arrangement of patches of different colors variously shaded.[1] Some of these patches 4 of color have an appearance of lines or texture within them, as a piece of cloth or silk has of threads, or an animal's skin shows texture of hairs: but whether this be the case or not, the first broad aspect of the thing is that of a patch of some definite color; and the first thing to be learned is, how to produce extents of smooth color, without texture.

5. Everything you see in the world around you appears as a collection of different colored patches. Some of these patches 4 have the look of lines or textures, similar to how a piece of cloth or silk reveals threads, or how an animal's skin shows hair texture. However, regardless of whether that's true or not, the initial impression of anything is simply that it has a certain color. The first thing to learn is how to create areas of smooth color without any texture.

6. This can only be done properly with a brush; but a brush, being soft at the point, causes so much uncertainty in the touch of an unpracticed hand, that it is hardly possible to learn to draw first with it, and it is better to take, in early practice, some instrument with a hard and fine point, both 5 that we may give some support to the hand, and that by working over the subject with so delicate a point, the attention may be properly directed to all the most minute parts of it. Even the best artists need occasionally to study subjects with a pointed instrument, in order thus to discipline their attention: and a beginner must be content to do so for a considerable period.

6. This is best done properly with a brush; however, since a brush has a soft tip, it makes it hard for someone who isn't practiced to have a precise touch. Because of this, it's almost impossible to learn drawing with just a brush at first. It's better to start with a tool that has a hard and fine point. This way, we can support the hand and make sure that, by using such a delicate point, we focus on all the smallest details of the subject. Even experienced artists sometimes need to study subjects using a pointed tool to train their concentration; beginners should be prepared to do this for quite a while.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

7. Also, observe that before we trouble ourselves about differences of color, we must be able to lay on one color properly, in whatever gradations of depth and whatever shapes we want. We will try, therefore, first to lay on tints or patches of gray, of whatever depth we want, with a pointed instrument. Take any finely pointed steel pen (one of Gillott's lithographic crowquills is best), and a piece of quite smooth, but not shining, note-paper, cream laid, and get some ink that has stood already some time in the inkstand, so as to be quite black, and as thick as it can be without clogging the pen. Take a rule, and draw four straight lines, so as to inclose a square, or nearly a square, about as large as a, Fig. 1. I say nearly a square, because it does not in the least matter whether it is quite square or not, the object being merely to get a space inclosed by straight lines.

7. Also, note that before we worry about color differences, we need to be able to apply one color properly, in whatever shades and shapes we want. So, let's start by applying tints or patches of gray, in any depth we desire, using a pointed tool. Grab a fine-pointed steel pen (a Gillott's lithographic crowquill is ideal) and a piece of smooth, non-shiny cream laid note paper. Use some ink that has been sitting in the inkstand for a while, so it's really black and thick enough to avoid clogging the pen. Using a ruler, draw four straight lines to create a square, or something close to a square, about the size of a, Fig. 1. I say almost a square because it doesn't need to be perfectly square; the goal is simply to create a space enclosed by straight lines.

8. Now, try to fill in that square space with crossed lines, so completely and evenly that it shall look like a square patch of gray silk or cloth, cut out and laid on the white paper, as at b. Cover it quickly, first with straightish lines, in any direction you like, not troubling yourself to draw them much closer or neater than those in the square a. Let them quite dry before retouching them. (If you draw three or four squares side by side, you may always be going on with one 6 while the others are drying.) Then cover these lines with others in a different direction, and let those dry; then in another direction still, and let those dry. Always wait long enough to run no risk of blotting, and then draw the lines as quickly as you can. Each ought to be laid on as swiftly as the dash of the pen of a good writer; but if you try to reach this great speed at first, you will go over the edge of the square, which is a fault in this exercise. Yet it is better to do so now and then than to draw the lines very slowly; for if you do, the pen leaves a little dot of ink at the end of each line, and these dots spoil your work. So draw each line quickly, stopping always as nearly as you can at the edge of the square. The ends of lines which go over the edge are afterwards to be removed with the penknife, but not till you have done the whole work, otherwise you roughen the paper, and the next line that goes over the edge makes a blot.

8. Now, try to fill that square space with crossed lines so completely and evenly that it looks like a square patch of gray silk or cloth cut out and laid on the white paper, as at b. Cover it quickly, first with straight lines in any direction you like, without worrying too much about making them closer or neater than those in the square a. Let them dry completely before touching them up. (If you draw three or four squares side by side, you can always keep working on one while the others dry.) Then cover these lines with others in a different direction, let those dry, then in another direction again, and let those dry. Always wait long enough to avoid smudging, and then draw the lines as quickly as you can. Each line should be laid down as swiftly as a skilled writer’s pen; but if you try to go this fast at first, you might go over the edge of the square, which is a mistake in this exercise. However, it's better to do that occasionally than to draw the lines too slowly because if you do, the pen leaves a little dot of ink at the end of each line, and those dots ruin your work. So draw each line quickly, stopping as close as you can to the edge of the square. The ends of lines that go over the edge will be trimmed off with a penknife later, but not until you finish the whole piece, otherwise, you'll roughen the paper, and the next line that crosses the edge will create a blot.

9. When you have gone over the whole three or four times, you will find some parts of the square look darker than other parts. Now try to make the lighter parts as dark as the rest, so that the whole may be of equal depth or darkness. You will find, on examining the work, that where it looks darkest the lines are closest, or there are some much darker lines than elsewhere; therefore you must put in other lines, or little scratches and dots, between the lines in the paler parts; and where there are any very conspicuous dark lines, scratch them out lightly with the penknife, for the eye must not be attracted by any line in particular. The more carefully and delicately you fill in the little gaps and holes the better; you will get on faster by doing two or three squares perfectly than a great many badly. As the tint gets closer and begins to look even, work with very little ink in your pen, so as hardly to make any mark on the paper; and at last, where it is too dark, use the edge of your penknife very lightly, and for some time, to wear it softly into an even tone. You will find that the greatest difficulty consists in getting evenness: one bit will always look darker than another bit of your square; or there will be a granulated and sandy look over the 7 whole. When you find your paper quite rough and in a mess, give it up and begin another square, but do not rest satisfied till you have done your best with every square. The tint at last ought at least to be as close and even as that in b, Fig. 1. You will find, however, that it is very difficult to get a pale tint; because, naturally, the ink lines necessary to produce a close tint at all, blacken the paper more than you want. You must get over this difficulty not so much by leaving the lines wide apart as by trying to draw them excessively fine, lightly and swiftly; being very cautious in filling in; and, at last, passing the penknife over the whole. By keeping several squares in progress at one time, and reserving your pen for the light one just when the ink is nearly exhausted, you may get on better. The paper ought, at last, to look lightly and evenly toned all over, with no lines distinctly visible.

9. After you've gone over the whole thing three or four times, you’ll notice some areas of the square appear darker than others. Now, try to make the lighter areas as dark as the rest, so everything is an equal depth or shade. When you examine your work, you'll see that where it looks darkest, the lines are closer together, or there are much darker lines than in other areas; so, you need to add more lines, or little scratches and dots, between the lines in the lighter areas. If there are any very prominent dark lines, carefully scratch them out with a penknife, because the eye shouldn’t be drawn to any specific line. The more carefully and delicately you fill in the little gaps and holes, the better; you’ll make more progress doing two or three squares perfectly than a lot of them poorly. As the shade gets closer and starts to look even, work with very little ink in your pen, barely marking the paper; and finally, where it's too dark, lightly use the edge of your penknife for a while to smooth it into an even tone. You’ll find that the biggest challenge is achieving an evenness: one section will always look darker than another, or there will be a granulated, sandy appearance over the 7 whole thing. If your paper looks rough and messy, give it up and start a new square, but don’t be satisfied until you’ve done your best with each square. The shade should at least be as close and even as that in b, Fig. 1.. However, you’ll find it really challenging to achieve a light shade; because, naturally, the ink lines needed for a close shade end up darkening the paper more than you want. You’ll get past this issue not by leaving the lines far apart but by drawing them really fine, lightly and quickly; being very careful while filling in; and finally, running the penknife over the whole. By keeping several squares in progress at the same time and using your pen for the lighter one when the ink is nearly out, you might do better. In the end, the paper should look lightly and evenly toned all over, with no lines clearly visible.

EXERCISE II.

EXERCISE 2.

10. As this exercise in shading is very tiresome, it will be well to vary it by proceeding with another at the same time. The power of shading rightly depends mainly on lightness of hand and keenness of sight; but there are other qualities required in drawing, dependent not merely on lightness, but steadiness of hand; and the eye, to be perfect in its power, must be made accurate as well as keen, and not only see shrewdly, but measure justly.

10. Since this shading exercise can be really tiring, it’s a good idea to switch things up by doing another one at the same time. The ability to shade well mainly relies on a light touch and sharp eyesight; however, there are other skills needed in drawing that depend not just on a light touch, but also on a steady hand. To be truly effective, the eye must be precise as well as sharp, and not only perceive accurately but also measure correctly.

11. Possess yourself therefore of any cheap work on botany containing outline plates of leaves and flowers, it does not matter whether bad or good: Baxter's British Flowering Plants is quite good enough. Copy any of the simplest outlines, first with a soft pencil, following it, by the eye, as nearly as you can; if it does not look right in proportions, rub out and correct it, always by the eye, till you think it is right: when you have got it to your mind, lay tracing-paper on the book; on this paper trace the outline you have been copying, and apply it to your own; and having thus ascertained 8 the faults, correct them all patiently, till you have got it as nearly accurate as may be. Work with a very soft pencil, and do not rub out so hard[2] as to spoil the surface of your paper; never mind how dirty the paper gets, but do not roughen it; and let the false outlines alone where they do not really interfere with the true one. It is a good thing to accustom yourself to hew and shape your drawing out of a dirty piece of paper. When you have got it as right as you can, take a quill pen, not very fine at the point; rest your hand on a book about an inch and a half thick, so as to hold the pen long; and go over your pencil outline with ink, raising your pen point as seldom as possible, and never leaning more heavily on one part of the line than on another. In most outline drawings of the present day, parts of the curves are thickened to give an effect of shade; all such outlines are bad, but they will serve well enough for your exercises, provided you do not imitate this character: it is better, however, if you can, to choose a book of pure outlines. It does not in the least matter whether your pen outline be thin or thick; but it matters greatly that it should be equal, not heavier in one place than in another. The power to be obtained is that of drawing an even line slowly and in any direction; all dashing lines, or approximations to penmanship, are bad. The pen should, as it were, walk slowly over the ground, and you should be able at any moment to stop it, or to turn it in any other direction, like a well-managed horse.

11. So, grab any affordable book on botany that has outline plates of leaves and flowers—it doesn't matter if it's good or bad: Baxter's British Flowering Plants is perfectly fine. Copy any of the simplest outlines first with a soft pencil, trying to follow it visually as closely as possible. If it looks off in proportions, erase and fix it, always using your eye until you think it's right. Once you’re satisfied with it, place tracing paper over the book; trace the outline you've been copying onto this paper and then apply it to your own. By doing this, identify any mistakes and patiently correct them until your drawing is as accurate as possible. Use a very soft pencil, and don’t erase too hard so you don’t damage the surface of your paper; it doesn’t matter how dirty the paper gets, but try not to roughen it up, and leave the incorrect outlines alone unless they truly interfere with the correct one. It’s helpful to get used to shaping your drawing out of a messy piece of paper. Once you've got it as right as you can, take a quill pen that isn’t too fine at the tip; rest your hand on a book that's about an inch and a half thick so you can hold the pen steady. Go over your pencil outline with ink, lifting your pen point as little as possible, and avoid pressing harder in one part of the line than another. In most modern outline drawings, parts of the curves are thickened for shading effects; such outlines are not good, but they can work for your practice as long as you don’t mimic that style. However, it’s best to choose a book with pure outlines if you can. It doesn’t matter if your pen outline is thin or thick, but it’s crucial that it’s even, without being heavier in one spot than another. The goal is to draw a consistent line slowly in any direction; all quick lines or anything resembling handwriting are not good. The pen should move slowly across the page, and you should be able to stop it or change direction at any moment, like a well-trained horse.

12. As soon as you can copy every curve slowly and accurately, you have made satisfactory progress; but you will find the difficulty is in the slowness. It is easy to draw what 9 appears to be a good line with a sweep of the hand, or with what is called freedom;[3] the real difficulty and masterliness is in never letting the hand be free, but keeping it under entire control at every part of the line.

12. As soon as you can replicate every curve slowly and accurately, you've made good progress; however, you'll find the challenge lies in the slowness. It's easy to draw what looks like a good line with a quick motion of your hand or what is called freedom;[3] the real challenge and skill come from never letting your hand be free, but keeping it fully controlled at every point of the line.

EXERCISE III.

EXERCISE 3.

13. Meantime, you are always to be going on with your shaded squares, and chiefly with these, the outline exercises being taken up only for rest.

13. In the meantime, you should keep working on your shaded squares, mainly focusing on those, using the outline exercises only for a break.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

As soon as you find you have some command of the pen as a shading instrument, and can lay a pale or dark tint as you choose, try to produce gradated spaces like Fig. 2, the 10 dark tint passing gradually into the lighter ones. Nearly all expression of form, in drawing, depends on your power of gradating delicately; and the gradation is always most skillful which passes from one tint into another very little paler. Draw, therefore, two parallel lines for limits to your work, as in Fig. 2, and try to gradate the shade evenly from white to black, passing over the greatest possible distance, yet so that every part of the band may have visible change in it. The perception of gradation is very deficient in all beginners (not to say, in many artists), and you will probably, for some time, think your gradation skillful enough, when it is quite patchy and imperfect. By getting a piece of gray shaded ribbon, and comparing it with your drawing, you may arrive, in early stages of your work, at a wholesome dissatisfaction with it. Widen your band little by little as you get more skillful, so as to give the gradation more lateral space, and accustom yourself at the same time to look for gradated spaces in Nature. The sky is the largest and the most beautiful; watch it at twilight, after the sun is down, and try to consider each pane of glass in the window you look through as a piece of paper colored blue, or gray, or purple, as it happens to be, and observe how quietly and continuously the gradation extends over the space in the window, of one or two feet square. Observe the shades on the outside and inside of a common white cup or bowl, which make it look round and hollow;[4] and then on folds of white drapery; and thus gradually you will be led to observe the more subtle transitions of the light as it increases or declines on flat surfaces. At last, when your eye gets keen and true, you will see gradation on everything in Nature.

As soon as you feel you have some control over the pen as a tool for shading and can create light or dark tones as you wish, try to make gradated areas like Fig. 2, where the dark shade smoothly transitions into lighter ones. Almost all expression of form in drawing depends on your ability to create subtle gradations, and the most skillful gradation is one that shifts from one tone to another that is only slightly lighter. Draw two parallel lines to define the limits of your work, like in Fig. 2, and aim to gradate the shade evenly from white to black, covering the widest possible distance while ensuring that every part of the band shows a noticeable change. Beginners—if not many artists—often struggle with perceiving gradation, and for a while, you might think your gradation skills are good enough, even when they're quite uneven and incomplete. By getting a piece of gray shaded ribbon and comparing it to your drawing, you might find yourself feeling a healthy dissatisfaction with your work in the early stages. Gradually widen your band as you become more skilled, giving the gradation more lateral space, and at the same time, train yourself to observe the gradated spaces in nature. The sky is the largest and most beautiful example; watch it at twilight after the sun sets, and try to see each pane of glass in the window you look through as a piece of paper colored blue, gray, or purple, depending on the light, and notice how quietly and continuously the gradation spreads across the window space, which could be one or two feet square. Look at the shades on the outside and inside of a simple white cup or bowl, which create the illusion of roundness and depth; [4] and then observe the folds of white fabric. This will gradually lead you to notice more subtle light transitions as it shifts on flat surfaces. Eventually, as your eye becomes sharper and more accurate, you will see gradation in everything in nature.

14. But it will not be in your power yet awhile to draw from any objects in which the gradations are varied and complicated; nor will it be a bad omen for your future progress, and for the use that art is to be made of by you, if the first thing at which you aim should be a little bit of sky. So take 11 any narrow space of evening sky, that you can usually see, between the boughs of a tree, or between two chimneys, or through the corner of a pane in the window you like best to sit at, and try to gradate a little space of white paper as evenly as that is gradated—as tenderly you cannot gradate it without color, no, nor with color either; but you may do it as evenly; or, if you get impatient with your spots and lines of ink, when you look at the beauty of the sky, the sense you will have gained of that beauty is something to be thankful for. But you ought not to be impatient with your pen and ink; for all great painters, however delicate their perception of color, are fond of the peculiar effect of light which may be got in a pen-and-ink sketch, and in a wood-cut, by the gleaming of the white paper between the black lines; and if you cannot gradate well with pure black lines, you will never gradate well with pale ones. By looking at any common wood-cuts, in the cheap publications of the day, you may see how gradation is given to the sky by leaving the lines farther and farther apart; but you must make your lines as fine as you can, as well as far apart, towards the light; and do not try to make them long or straight, but let them cross irregularly in any directions easy to your hand, depending on nothing but their gradation for your effect. On this point of direction of lines, however, I shall have to tell you more, presently; in the meantime, do not trouble yourself about it.

14. But for now, you won't be able to draw from subjects that have varied and complex gradations. Don’t worry if your initial focus is just a little piece of sky; it's not a bad sign for your future development and how you'll use art. So take any small section of evening sky that you usually see between the branches of a tree, between two chimneys, or through the corner of your favorite window. Try to create a gradient on a piece of white paper as smoothly as the sky itself is gradated. You can’t achieve that soft gradation without color, and you won't manage it perfectly even with color; but you can still aim for an even effect. If you start feeling frustrated with your ink spots and lines when you look at the beauty of the sky, remember that the appreciation you gain for that beauty is something to value. But don’t be impatient with your pen and ink. All great painters, no matter how finely they perceive color, appreciate the unique effect of light that can be created in a pen-and-ink sketch and in a woodcut by the shine of the white paper between the black lines. If you can't create a good gradient with pure black lines, you won't be able to do it well with lighter ones, either. Looking at regular woodcuts in today's inexpensive publications can show you how to create a gradient in the sky by spacing the lines further apart. You should make your lines as fine as possible and spaced out towards the light. Don't worry about making them long or straight; let them cross each other in any direction that feels comfortable for you, relying on their gradation for your effect. I'll need to explain more about the direction of lines later; for now, just don’t stress about it.

EXERCISE IV.

EXERCISE 4.

15. As soon as you find you can gradate tolerably with the pen, take an H. or HH. pencil, using its point to produce shade, from the darkest possible to the palest, in exactly the same manner as the pen, lightening, however, now with india-rubber instead of the penknife. You will find that all pale tints of shade are thus easily producible with great precision and tenderness, but that you cannot get the same dark power as with the pen and ink, and that the surface of the shade is apt to become glossy and metallic, or dirty-looking, 12 or sandy. Persevere, however, in trying to bring it to evenness with the fine point, removing any single speck or line that may be too black, with the point of the knife: you must not scratch the whole with the knife as you do the ink. If you find the texture very speckled-looking, lighten it all over with india-rubber, and recover it again with sharp, and excessively fine touches of the pencil point, bringing the parts that are too pale to perfect evenness with the darker spots.

15. Once you realize you can effectively shade with the pen, grab an H or HH pencil and use its tip to create shades, ranging from the darkest to the lightest, just like you do with the pen. However, this time, lighten areas with an eraser instead of a knife. You'll notice that all light shades come out easily and with great precision and softness, but you won’t achieve the same depth as with pen and ink, and the shaded areas might turn shiny and metallic or look dirty, or grainy. Keep pushing to make everything even with the fine point, and remove any spots or lines that are too dark using the knife’s tip: don’t scratch the entire area like you would with ink. If the texture looks too spotty, lighten it overall with the eraser, then refine it again with sharp and very delicate touches of the pencil tip, making sure the lighter areas blend perfectly with the darker spots.

You cannot use the point too delicately or cunningly in doing this; work with it as if you were drawing the down on a butterfly's wing.

You can't use the point too carefully or cleverly when doing this; handle it as if you're drawing the fuzz on a butterfly's wing.

16. At this stage of your progress, if not before, you may be assured that some clever friend will come in, and hold up his hands in mocking amazement, and ask you who could set you to that "niggling;" and if you persevere in it, you will have to sustain considerable persecution from your artistical acquaintances generally, who will tell you that all good drawing depends on "boldness." But never mind them. You do not hear them tell a child, beginning music, to lay its little hand with a crash among the keys, in imitation of the great masters: yet they might, as reasonably as they may tell you to be bold in the present state of your knowledge. Bold, in the sense of being undaunted, yes; but bold in the sense of being careless, confident, or exhibitory,—no,—no, and a thousand times no; for, even if you were not a beginner, it would be bad advice that made you bold. Mischief may easily be done quickly, but good and beautiful work is generally done slowly; you will find no boldness in the way a flower or a bird's wing is painted; and if Nature is not bold at her work, do you think you ought to be at yours? So never mind what people say, but work with your pencil point very patiently; and if you can trust me in anything, trust me when I tell you, that though there are all kinds and ways of art,—large work for large places, small work for narrow places, slow work for people who can wait, and quick work for people who cannot,—there is one quality, and, I think, only one, in which all great and good art agrees;—it is all delicate art. 13 Coarse art is always bad art. You cannot understand this at present, because you do not know yet how much tender thought, and subtle care, the great painters put into touches that at first look coarse; but, believe me, it is true, and you will find it is so in due time.

16. At this point in your journey, if not earlier, you can be sure that some clever friend will come along, raise their hands in mock surprise, and ask who could have put you on that "nitpicking." If you stick with it, you'll face quite a bit of teasing from your artistic friends, who will insist that all good drawing relies on "boldness." But don’t let them bother you. You never hear them tell a child just starting out in music to slam their little hands on the keys, trying to mimic the great masters; yet they might as well advise you to be bold given your current level of knowledge. Be bold in the sense of being fearless, yes; but don’t be bold in the sense of being careless, overconfident, or showy—definitely not! Because even if you weren’t a beginner, it would still be poor advice to encourage boldness. Mistakes can happen quickly, but good and beautiful work is usually created slowly; you'll find no boldness in how a flower or a bird's wing is painted. And if nature isn't bold in its creations, do you think you should be in yours? So ignore what people say and work patiently with your pencil; and if you can trust me about anything, trust me when I say that while there are all kinds of art—large pieces for big spaces, small pieces for tight spots, slow work for those who can wait, and quick work for those who can’t—there's one quality, and I believe only one, that all great and good art shares: it’s all delicate art. 13 Coarse art is always bad art. You might not get this right now because you don’t yet see how much careful thought and subtle attention great painters put into touches that initially seem rough, but believe me, it's true, and you will come to realize it in time.

17. You will be perhaps also troubled, in these first essays at pencil drawing, by noticing that more delicate gradations are got in an instant by a chance touch of the india-rubber, than by an hour's labor with the point; and you may wonder why I tell you to produce tints so painfully, which might, it appears, be obtained with ease. But there are two reasons: the first, that when you come to draw forms, you must be able to gradate with absolute precision, in whatever place and direction you wish; not in any wise vaguely, as the india-rubber does it: and, secondly, that all natural shadows are more or less mingled with gleams of light. In the darkness of ground there is the light of the little pebbles or dust; in the darkness of foliage, the glitter of the leaves; in the darkness of flesh, transparency; in that of a stone, granulation: in every case there is some mingling of light, which cannot be represented by the leaden tone which you get by rubbing, or by an instrument known to artists as the "stump." When you can manage the point properly, you will indeed be able to do much also with this instrument, or with your fingers; but then you will have to retouch the flat tints afterwards, so as to put life and light into them, and that can only be done with the point. Labor on, therefore, courageously, with that only.

17. You might be feeling frustrated, in these early attempts at pencil drawing, when you notice that you can achieve more subtle shades instantly with a quick swipe of the eraser than with an hour's work using the pencil. You may question why I encourage you to create tones so painstakingly when it seems they could be achieved easily. But there are two reasons for this: first, when you start drawing shapes, you need to be able to shade with complete accuracy, in any area and direction you choose, not in a vague way like what the eraser does. Second, all natural shadows are mixed with hints of light. In dark areas, there's the brightness of small pebbles or dust; in dark foliage, the shine of leaves; in dark skin, a sense of transparency; in dark stone, a grainy texture. In every case, there's some blending of light that can't be captured with the flat tone you get from rubbing or using a tool artists call the "stump." Once you get the hang of using the pencil properly, you’ll be able to do a lot with this tool or even your fingers; but you'll still need to refine the flat tones later to bring life and light to them, which can only be achieved with the pencil. So keep working diligently with that for now.

14

14

EXERCISE V.

EXERCISE 5.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

18. When you can manage to tint and gradate tenderly with the pencil point, get a good large alphabet, and try to tint the letters into shape with the pencil point. Do not outline them first, but measure their height and extreme breadth with the compasses, as a b, a c, Fig. 3, and then scratch in their shapes gradually; the letter A, inclosed within the lines, being in what Turner would have called a "state of forwardness." Then, when you are satisfied with the shape of the letter, draw pen-and-ink lines firmly round the tint, as at d, and remove any touches outside the limit, first with the india-rubber, and then with the penknife, so that all may look clear and right. If you rub out any of the pencil inside the outline of the letter, retouch it, closing it up to the inked line. The straight lines of the outline are all to be ruled,[5] 15 but the curved lines are to be drawn by the eye and hand; and you will soon find what good practice there is in getting the curved letters, such as Bs, Cs, etc., to stand quite straight, and come into accurate form.

18. When you can carefully shade and blend with the pencil tip, get a nice large alphabet and try to shade the letters into shape with the pencil. Don't outline them first; instead, measure their height and width with a compass, like a b, a c, Fig. 3, and then gradually sketch in their shapes. The letter A, contained within the lines, should be in what Turner would call a "state of forwardness." Once you're satisfied with the shape of the letter, draw firm pen-and-ink lines around the shaded area, as shown at d, and erase any marks outside the boundary, first with an eraser and then with a knife, so everything looks clear and proper. If you erase any pencil lines inside the outline of the letter, touch it up, matching it to the inked line. The straight parts of the outline should all be ruled, [5] 15 but the curved parts should be drawn by eye and hand; and you’ll soon see how good practice it is to make curved letters, like Bs, Cs, etc., stand straight and come out perfectly formed.

19. All these exercises are very irksome, and they are not to be persisted in alone; neither is it necessary to acquire perfect power in any of them. An entire master of the pencil or brush ought, indeed, to be able to draw any form at once, as Giotto his circle; but such skill as this is only to be expected of the consummate master, having pencil in hand all his life, and all day long,—hence the force of Giotto's proof of his skill; and it is quite possible to draw very beautifully, without attaining even an approximation to such a power; the main point being, not that every line should be precisely what we intend or wish, but that the line which we intended or wished to draw should be right. If we always see rightly and mean rightly, we shall get on, though the hand may stagger a little; but if we mean wrongly, or mean nothing, it does not matter how firm the hand is. Do not therefore torment yourself because you cannot do as well as you would like; but work patiently, sure that every square and letter will give you a certain increase of power; and as soon as you can draw your letters pretty well, here is a more amusing exercise for you.

19. All these exercises can be really frustrating, and you shouldn't try to do them all on your own; it's not necessary to gain perfect skill in any of them. A true master of the pencil or brush should be able to draw any shape on the spot, like Giotto with his circle; however, this level of skill is only expected from a consummate master who has spent their entire life drawing every day. That's why Giotto's demonstration of his skill is so impressive. It’s definitely possible to draw beautifully without even coming close to that level of ability; the key point is that not every line needs to be exactly what we intend or want, but the lines that we do intend or want to draw should be correct. If we always see and intend correctly, we’ll improve, even if our hands shake a bit; but if we have the wrong intention or none at all, it doesn't matter how steady our hand is. So don't stress out because you can't do as well as you'd like; just work patiently, knowing that every square and letter will help build your skills. Once you can draw your letters pretty well, here’s a more fun exercise for you.

EXERCISE VI.

EXERCISE 6.

20. Choose any tree that you think pretty, which is nearly bare of leaves, and which you can see against the sky, or against a pale wall, or other light ground: it must not be against strong light, or you will find the looking at it hurt your eyes; nor must it be in sunshine, or you will be puzzled by the lights on the boughs. But the tree must be in shade; and the sky blue, or gray, or dull white. A wholly gray or rainy day is the best for this practice.

20. Pick any tree that you find beautiful, which is almost bare of leaves, and which you can see against the sky, a light-colored wall, or another light background. It shouldn’t be against strong light, or it will hurt your eyes to look at it; and it shouldn’t be in direct sunlight, or you’ll get confused by the bright spots on the branches. The tree should be in the shade, with the sky being blue, gray, or a dull white. A completely gray or rainy day is ideal for this exercise.

21. You will see that all the boughs of the tree are dark against the sky. Consider them as so many dark rivers, to 16 be laid down in a map with absolute accuracy; and, without the least thought about the roundness of the stems, map them all out in flat shade, scrawling them in with pencil, just as you did the limbs of your letters; then correct and alter them, rubbing out and out again, never minding how much your paper is dirtied (only not destroying its surface), until every bough is exactly, or as near as your utmost power can bring it, right in curvature and in thickness. Look at the white interstices between them with as much scrupulousness as if they were little estates which you had to survey, and draw maps of, for some important lawsuit, involving heavy penalties if you cut the least bit of a corner off any of them, or gave the hedge anywhere too deep a curve; and try continually to fancy the whole tree nothing but a flat ramification on a white ground. Do not take any trouble about the little twigs, which look like a confused network or mist; leave them all out,[6] drawing only the main branches as far as you can see them distinctly, your object at present being not to draw a tree, but to learn how to do so. When you have got the thing as nearly right as you can,—and it is better to make one good study, than twenty left unnecessarily inaccurate,—take your pen, and put a fine outline to all the boughs, as you did to your letter, taking care, as far as possible, to put the outline within the edge of the shade, so as not to make the boughs thicker: the main use of the outline is to affirm the whole more clearly; to do away with little accidental roughnesses and excrescences, and especially to mark where boughs cross, or come in front of each other, as at such points their arrangement in this kind of sketch is unintelligible without the outline. It may perfectly well happen that in Nature it should be less distinct than your outline will make it; but it is better in this kind of sketch to mark the facts clearly. The temptation is always to be slovenly and careless, and the outline is like a bridle, and forces our indolence into attention and precision. 17 The outline should be about the thickness of that in Fig. 4, which represents the ramification of a small stone pine, only I have not endeavored to represent the pencil shading within the outline, as I could not easily express it in a wood-cut; and you have nothing to do at present with the indication of foliage above, of which in another place. You may also draw your trees as much larger than this figure as you like; only, however large they may be, keep the outline as delicate, and draw the branches far enough into their outer sprays to give quite as slender ramification as you have in this figure, otherwise you do not get good enough practice out of them.

21. You'll notice that all the branches of the tree appear dark against the sky. Think of them as many dark rivers, mapped out with perfect accuracy; and, without worrying about the roundness of the trunks, sketch them all in flat shade, just like you did the strokes of your letters; then adjust and modify them, erasing as needed, without worrying how messy your paper gets (just don’t ruin its surface), until every branch is as close to right as you can make it in curvature and thickness. Pay attention to the white spaces between them as if they were little plots of land you had to measure and map for an important legal case, where penalties would follow if you cut any corners or made the hedge too curvy; and try to envision the whole tree as just a flat structure on a white background. Don’t worry about the tiny twigs that look like a tangled web or mist; skip those, drawing only the main branches as far as you can see clearly, since your goal right now is not to draw a tree but to learn how to draw one. Once you have it as right as possible—and it's better to make one good study than twenty that are needlessly inaccurate—take your pen and draw a fine outline around all the branches, like you did for your letters, being careful to keep the outline inside the edge of the shade, so the branches don't look thicker. The outline's main purpose is to make the whole thing clearer; it helps remove little accidental rough spots and marks, especially where branches overlap or come in front of each other, since those points can be hard to understand without the outline. It may well happen that in nature it looks less distinct than your outline will make it, but it's better to mark the facts clearly in this kind of sketch. There’s always a temptation to be careless, and the outline acts like a bridle, pushing our laziness into focus and precision. 17 The outline should be about as thick as that in Fig. 4, which represents the branching of a small stone pine. However, I haven't tried to show the pencil shading inside the outline, as I couldn't express it easily in a wood-cut; and you don’t need to show foliage above in this instance. You can also draw your trees much larger than this figure if you want; just remember that regardless of their size, keep the outline delicate, and draw the branches far enough into their outer sprays to achieve a slender branching like you have in this figure; otherwise, you won’t get good enough practice from them.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

22. You cannot do too many studies of this kind: every one will give you some new notion about trees. But when you are tired of tree boughs, take any forms whatever which are drawn in flat color, one upon another; as patterns on any kind of cloth, or flat china (tiles, for instance), executed in two colors only; and practice drawing them of the right shape 18 and size by the eye, and filling them in with shade of the depth required.

22. You can't study this kind of thing too much: each time you'll learn something new about trees. But when you get tired of tree branches, try drawing any shapes that are in flat color, layered on top of each other; like patterns on fabric or flat dishes (like tiles) that are made with just two colors. Practice drawing them in the correct shape and size by eye, and shade them in with the right depth. 18

In doing this, you will first have to meet the difficulty of representing depth of color by depth of shade. Thus a pattern of ultramarine blue will have to be represented by a darker tint of gray than a pattern of yellow.

In doing this, you'll first need to tackle the challenge of showing depth of color through depth of shade. So, a pattern of ultramarine blue will need to be depicted with a darker shade of gray than a pattern of yellow.

23. And now it is both time for you to begin to learn the mechanical use of the brush; and necessary for you to do so in order to provide yourself with the gradated scale of color which you will want. If you can, by any means, get acquainted with any ordinary skillful water-color painter, and prevail on him to show you how to lay on tints with a brush, by all means do so; not that you are yet, nor for a long while yet, to begin to color, but because the brush is often more convenient than the pencil for laying on masses or tints of shade, and the sooner you know how to manage it as an instrument the better. If, however, you have no opportunity of seeing how water-color is laid on by a workman of any kind, the following directions will help you:—

23. Now it's time for you to start learning how to use the brush, and it's important for you to do this to create the smooth range of colors you'll need. If you can, try to connect with a skilled watercolor artist and ask them to show you how to apply colors with a brush. You’re not going to start coloring right away, and it’ll be a while before you do, but knowing how to use the brush can often be more convenient than the pencil for applying colors and shades. The sooner you learn to handle it as a tool, the better. However, if you don’t have a chance to see how a professional applies watercolor, the following instructions will assist you:—

EXERCISE VII.

EXERCISE 7.

24. Get a shilling cake of Prussian blue. Dip the end of it in water so as to take up a drop, and rub it in a white saucer till you cannot rub much more, and the color gets dark, thick, and oily-looking. Put two teaspoonfuls of water to the color you have rubbed down, and mix it well up with a camel's-hair brush about three quarters of an inch long.

24. Get a shilling cake of Prussian blue. Dip the tip of it in water to get a drop, and rub it in a white saucer until you can't rub it much longer, and the color becomes dark, thick, and oily-looking. Add two teaspoons of water to the color you've blended, and mix it well with a camel's-hair brush about three-quarters of an inch long.

25. Then take a piece of smooth, but not glossy, Bristol board or pasteboard; divide it, with your pencil and rule, into squares as large as those of the very largest chess-board: they need not be perfect squares, only as nearly so as you can quickly guess. Rest the pasteboard on something sloping as much as an ordinary desk; then, dipping your brush into the color you have mixed, and taking up as much of the liquid as it will carry, begin at the top of one of the squares, and lay a pond or runlet of color along the top edge. Lead this pond 19 of color gradually downwards, not faster at one place than another, but as if you were adding a row of bricks to a building, all along (only building down instead of up), dipping the brush frequently so as to keep the color as full in that, and in as great quantity on the paper, as you can, so only that it does not run down anywhere in a little stream. But if it should, never mind; go on quietly with your square till you have covered it all in. When you get to the bottom, the color will lodge there in a great wave. Have ready a piece of blotting-paper; dry your brush on it, and with the dry brush take up the superfluous color as you would with a sponge, till it all looks even.

25. Take a piece of smooth, but not shiny, Bristol board or pasteboard; divide it with your pencil and ruler into squares as large as those on the biggest chessboard. They don’t have to be perfect squares, just as close as you can get them quickly. Place the pasteboard on something at an angle like a typical desk; then, dip your brush into the color you mixed, picking up as much of the liquid as it can hold. Start at the top of one of the squares and lay a small stream of color along the top edge. Gradually bring this stream of color downwards—don't go faster in one spot than another, but treat it like you're adding a row of bricks to a building, moving down instead of up. Dip the brush often to keep the color rich and in good quantity on the paper, making sure it doesn’t run down as a stream. If it does, don’t worry; continue with your square until it’s all covered. When you reach the bottom, the color will pool there in a big wave. Have a piece of blotting paper ready; dry your brush on it, and with the dry brush, pick up the extra color as you would with a sponge, until everything looks even.

26. In leading the color down, you will find your brush continually go over the edge of the square, or leave little gaps within it. Do not endeavor to retouch these, nor take much care about them; the great thing is to get the color to lie smoothly where it reaches, not in alternate blots and pale patches; try, therefore, to lead it over the square as fast as possible, with such attention to your limit as you are able to give. The use of the exercise is, indeed, to enable you finally to strike the color up to the limit with perfect accuracy; but the first thing is to get it even,—the power of rightly striking the edge comes only by time and practice: even the greatest artists rarely can do this quite perfectly.

26. When applying the color, you'll notice your brush often goes beyond the edges of the square or leaves small gaps inside it. Don't worry about touching these up or being too meticulous; the main goal is to spread the color smoothly without creating uneven spots or light patches. So, try to move it across the square as quickly as you can, while paying as much attention to your edges as possible. The purpose of this exercise is to help you eventually apply the color accurately up to the edges, but the first priority is to make it even — mastering the technique of hitting the edge perfectly takes time and practice: even the top artists don't always get it right.

27. When you have done one square, proceed to do another which does not communicate with it. When you have thus done all the alternate squares, as on a chess-board, turn the pasteboard upside down, begin again with the first, and put another coat over it, and so on over all the others. The use of turning the paper upside down is to neutralize the increase of darkness towards the bottom of the squares, which would otherwise take place from the ponding of the color.

27. Once you finish one square, move on to another square that isn’t connected to it. After you’ve worked on all the alternate squares, like on a chessboard, flip the cardboard over, start with the first square again, and add another layer over it, continuing this process for all the others. The reason for flipping the paper upside down is to balance out the darkening that happens at the bottom of the squares, which would occur due to the pooling of the color.

28. Be resolved to use blotting-paper, or a piece of rag, instead of your lips, to dry the brush. The habit of doing so, once acquired, will save you from much partial poisoning. Take care, however, always to draw the brush from root to point, otherwise you will spoil it. You may even wipe it as 20 you would a pen when you want it very dry, without doing harm, provided you do not crush it upwards. Get a good brush at first, and cherish it; it will serve you longer and better than many bad ones.

28. Make it a point to use blotting paper or a rag instead of your lips to dry the brush. Once you get into this habit, it will protect you from a lot of partial poisoning. Just remember to always pull the brush from root to tip, or you might ruin it. You can even wipe it like you would a pen when you need it really dry, as long as you don’t crush the bristles upward. Start with a good brush and take care of it; it will last longer and perform better than many cheap alternatives.

29. When you have done the squares all over again, do them a third time, always trying to keep your edges as neat as possible. When your color is exhausted, mix more in the same proportions, two teaspoonfuls to as much as you can grind with a drop; and when you have done the alternate squares three times over, as the paper will be getting very damp, and dry more slowly, begin on the white squares, and bring them up to the same tint in the same way. The amount of jagged dark line which then will mark the limits of the squares will be the exact measure of your unskillfulness.

29. After you’ve completed the squares again, do them a third time, always aiming to keep your edges as clean as possible. When your color runs out, mix more using the same proportions, two teaspoons for however much you can grind with a drop; and once you’ve done the alternate squares three times, since the paper will be getting quite damp and will dry more slowly, start on the white squares and bring them up to the same shade in the same way. The amount of jagged dark lines that will outline the limits of the squares will reflect your level of skill.

30. As soon as you tire of squares draw circles (with compasses); and then draw straight lines irregularly across circles, and fill up the spaces so produced between the straight line and the circumference; and then draw any simple shapes of leaves, according to the exercise No. II., and fill up those, until you can lay on color quite evenly in any shape you want.

30. Once you get bored with squares, start drawing circles (using a compass); then draw straight lines randomly across the circles, and fill in the spaces created between the straight lines and the edges; after that, draw any simple leaf shapes, following exercise No. II., and fill those in until you can apply color smoothly in any shape you desire.

31. You will find in the course of this practice, as you cannot always put exactly the same quantity of water to the color, that the darker the color is, the more difficult it becomes to lay it on evenly. Therefore, when you have gained some definite degree of power, try to fill in the forms required with a full brush, and a dark tint, at once, instead of laying several coats one over another; always taking care that the tint, however dark, be quite liquid; and that, after being laid on, so much of it is absorbed as to prevent its forming a black line at the edge as it dries. A little experience will teach you how apt the color is to do this, and how to prevent it; not that it needs always to be prevented, for a great master in water-colors will sometimes draw a firm outline, when he wants one, simply by letting the color dry in this way at the edge.

31. As you practice, you’ll notice that you can’t always use the exact same amount of water with the paint. The darker the color, the harder it is to apply it evenly. So, once you’ve developed a certain level of skill, try to fill in the shapes you need with a full brush and a dark paint in one go, instead of applying several layers on top of each other. Always make sure the paint, no matter how dark, is very liquid. After applying it, allow enough to be absorbed to avoid a black line forming at the edge as it dries. With a bit of experience, you’ll learn how the color tends to behave and how to manage it; not that you always need to stop this from happening, because a great watercolorist will sometimes leave a strong outline when they want one, simply by allowing the color to dry this way at the edge.

32. When, however, you begin to cover complicated forms with the darker color, no rapidity will prevent the tint from 21 drying irregularly as it is led on from part to part. You will then find the following method useful. Lay in the color very pale and liquid; so pale, indeed, that you can only just see where it is on the paper. Lead it up to all the outlines, and make it precise in form, keeping it thoroughly wet everywhere. Then, when it is all in shape, take the darker color, and lay some of it into the middle of the liquid color. It will spread gradually in a branchy kind of way, and you may now lead it up to the outlines already determined, and play it with the brush till it fills its place well; then let it dry, and it will be as flat and pure as a single dash, yet defining all the complicated forms accurately.

32. When you start to cover complex shapes with a darker color, moving quickly won’t stop the tint from drying unevenly as you apply it from one area to another. You’ll find this method helpful. First, apply a very light and watery color; so light that you can barely see where it is on the paper. Bring it up to all the outlines, making sure it’s precise in shape while keeping it completely wet everywhere. Once it’s all in place, take the darker color and add some of it into the middle of the wet color. It will spread out in a branching manner, and you can then guide it to the outlines you’ve set, adjusting it with the brush until it fills in nicely; then let it dry, and it will look smooth and clean like a single stroke, accurately defining all the intricate shapes.

33. Having thus obtained the power of laying on a tolerably flat tint, you must try to lay on a gradated one. Prepare the color with three or four teaspoonfuls of water; then, when it is mixed, pour away about two-thirds of it, keeping a teaspoonful of pale color. Sloping your paper as before, draw two pencil lines all the way down, leaving a space between them of the width of a square on your chess-board. Begin at the top of your paper, between the lines; and having struck on the first brushful of color, and led it down a little, dip your brush deep in water, and mix up the color on the plate quickly with as much more water as the brush takes up at that one dip: then, with this paler color, lead the tint farther down. Dip in water again, mix the color again, and thus lead down the tint, always dipping in water once between each replenishing of the brush, and stirring the color on the plate well, but as quickly as you can. Go on until the color has become so pale that you cannot see it; then wash your brush thoroughly in water, and carry the wave down a little farther with that, and then absorb it with the dry brush, and leave it to dry.

33. Now that you've learned how to apply a pretty flat color, it's time to move on to creating a gradient. Mix the color with three or four teaspoonfuls of water; then, once it's blended, pour off about two-thirds, keeping just a teaspoonful of the lighter color. Angle your paper like before, and draw two pencil lines down the page, leaving a gap between them that's the width of a square on a chessboard. Start at the top of your paper, between the lines; after you apply the first brushful of color and pull it down a bit, dip your brush deep into the water and quickly mix more water into the color on the plate, taking as much water as your brush holds in that one dip. Then, with this lighter color, extend the gradient further down. Dip in water again, mix the color again, and keep leading the gradient down, always dipping in water once before each time you refill the brush, and stirring the color on the plate quickly. Continue this until the color gets so light that you can't see it anymore. Then rinse your brush well in water, and carry the gradient down a bit further with that, and finally soak it up with the dry brush and let it dry.

34. If you get to the bottom of your paper before your color gets pale, you may either take longer paper, or begin, with the tint as it was when you left off, on another sheet; but be sure to exhaust it to pure whiteness at last. When all is quite dry, recommence at the top with another similar 22 mixture of color, and go down in the same way. Then again, and then again, and so continually until the color at the top of the paper is as dark as your cake of Prussian blue, and passes down into pure white paper at the end of your column, with a perfectly smooth gradation from one into the other.

34. If you reach the bottom of your paper before your color starts to fade, you can either use a longer piece of paper or continue on another sheet with the same color as when you stopped. Just make sure to use it up until it’s pure white in the end. Once everything is fully dry, start again at the top with a similar mix of color and work your way down the same way. Keep repeating this until the color at the top of the paper is as dark as your Prussian blue cake and fades into pure white at the bottom of your column, achieving a perfectly smooth transition from one to the other.

35. You will find at first that the paper gets mottled or wavy, instead of evenly gradated; this is because at some places you have taken up more water in your brush than at others, or not mixed it thoroughly on the plate, or led one tint too far before replenishing with the next. Practice only will enable you to do it well; the best artists cannot always get gradations of this kind quite to their minds; nor do they ever leave them on their pictures without after-touching.

35. At first, you might notice that the paper looks blotchy or wavy instead of evenly blended; this happens because in some spots, you've picked up more water with your brush than in others, or you haven't mixed it well enough on the plate, or you've gone too far with one color before adding the next. Only practice will help you improve; even the best artists can't always achieve the gradations they want; they often make adjustments to their pictures afterwards.

36. As you get more power, and can strike the color more quickly down, you will be able to gradate in less compass;[7] beginning with a small quantity of color, and adding a drop of water, instead of a brushful; with finer brushes, also, you may gradate to a less scale. But slight skill will enable you to test the relations of color to shade as far as is necessary for your immediate progress, which is to be done thus:—

36. As you gain more control and can apply color more quickly, you'll be able to create gradients in a shorter range;[7] starting with a small amount of color and adding just a drop of water instead of a full brushful. With finer brushes, you can also create gradients on a smaller scale. But a little skill will allow you to explore the connection between color and shade as much as you need for your current development, which can be done like this:—

37. Take cakes of lake, of gamboge, of sepia, of blue-black, of cobalt, and vermilion; and prepare gradated columns (exactly as you have done with the Prussian blue) of the lake and blue-black.[8] Cut a narrow slip, all the way down, of each gradated color, and set the three slips side by side; fasten them down, and rule lines at equal distances across all the three, so as to divide them into fifty degrees, and number the degrees of each, from light to dark, 1, 2, 3, etc. If you have gradated them rightly, the darkest part either of the red or blue will be nearly equal in power to the darkest part of the blue-black, and any degree of the black slip will also, accurately enough for our purpose, balance in weight the degree similarly numbered in the red or the blue slip. Then, when 23 you are drawing from objects of a crimson or blue color, if you can match their color by any compartment of the crimson or blue in your scales, the gray in the compartment of the gray scale marked with the same number is the gray which must represent that crimson or blue in your light and shade drawing.

37. Take lakes of lake, gamboge, sepia, blue-black, cobalt, and vermilion; and prepare gradated columns (just like you did with the Prussian blue) of the lake and blue-black. Cut a narrow strip, all the way down, of each gradated color, and set the three strips side by side; secure them, and draw lines at equal distances across all three, dividing them into fifty degrees, and number each degree from light to dark, 1, 2, 3, etc. If you’ve graduated them correctly, the darkest part of either the red or blue will be nearly equal in intensity to the darkest part of the blue-black, and any degree of the black strip will, for our purposes, accurately balance in weight with the similarly numbered degree in the red or blue strip. So, when you’re drawing from objects that are crimson or blue, if you can match their color using any section of the crimson or blue in your scales, the gray in the gray scale section marked with the same number is the gray that should represent that crimson or blue in your light and shade drawing.

38. Next, prepare scales with gamboge, cobalt, and vermilion. You will find that you cannot darken these beyond a certain point;[9] for yellow and scarlet, so long as they remain yellow and scarlet, cannot approach to black; we cannot have, properly speaking, a dark yellow or dark scarlet. Make your scales of full yellow, blue, and scarlet, half-way down; passing then gradually to white. Afterwards use lake to darken the upper half of the vermilion and gamboge; and Prussian blue to darken the cobalt. You will thus have three more scales, passing from white nearly to black, through yellow and orange, through sky-blue, and through scarlet. By mixing the gamboge and Prussian blue you may make another with green; mixing the cobalt and lake, another with violet; the sepia alone will make a forcible brown one; and so on, until you have as many scales as you like, passing from black to white through different colors. Then, supposing your scales properly gradated and equally divided, the compartment or degree No. 1 of the gray will represent in chiaroscuro the No. 1 of all the other colors; No. 2 of gray the No. 2 of the other colors, and so on.

38. Next, prepare scales using gamboge, cobalt, and vermilion. You’ll notice that you can’t darken these beyond a certain point; yellow and scarlet, as long as they stay yellow and scarlet, can’t get to black; you can’t really have a dark yellow or dark scarlet. Make your scales with full yellow, blue, and scarlet, halfway down, then gradually move to white. After that, use lake to darken the upper half of the vermilion and gamboge; and Prussian blue to darken the cobalt. This will give you three more scales, transitioning from white nearly to black, through yellow and orange, through sky-blue, and through scarlet. By mixing gamboge and Prussian blue, you can create another scale with green; mixing cobalt and lake will give you another with violet; sepia alone will produce a strong brown; and so on, until you have as many scales as you want, moving from black to white through different colors. Then, assuming your scales are properly graded and evenly divided, the compartment or degree No. 1 of gray will correspond in chiaroscuro to No. 1 of all the other colors; No. 2 of gray will match No. 2 of the other colors, and so forth.

39. It is only necessary, however, in this matter that you should understand the principle; for it would never be possible for you to gradate your scales so truly as to make them practically accurate and serviceable; and even if you could, unless you had about ten thousand scales, and were able to change them faster than ever juggler changed cards, you could not in a day measure the tints on so much as one side of a frost-bitten apple. But when once you fully understand the principle, and see how all colors contain as it were a certain 24 quantity of darkness, or power of dark relief from white—some more, some less; and how this pitch or power of each may be represented by equivalent values of gray, you will soon be able to arrive shrewdly at an approximation by a glance of the eye, without any measuring scale at all.

39. However, it's only necessary for you to grasp the principle in this matter; because it would never be possible for you to calibrate your scales precisely enough to make them practically accurate and useful. Even if you could, unless you had around ten thousand scales and could switch them out faster than a magician flips cards, you wouldn’t be able to measure the colors on even one side of a frost-bitten apple in a single day. But once you fully understand the principle and realize that all colors contain a certain amount of darkness, or a degree of dark contrast to white—some more, some less—and how this intensity or degree of each could be represented by equivalent shades of gray, you'll quickly be able to make a reasonable guess just by looking, without needing any measuring scale at all.

40. You must now go on, again with the pen, drawing patterns, and any shapes of shade that you think pretty, as veinings in marble or tortoiseshell, spots in surfaces of shells, etc., as tenderly as you can, in the darknesses that correspond to their colors; and when you find you can do this successfully, it is time to begin rounding.

40. Now you should continue with the pen, creating patterns and any shapes of shading that you find appealing, like the veining in marble or tortoiseshell, or spots on shells, as delicately as possible, using the shades that match their colors. When you realize that you can do this well, it's time to start rounding.

EXERCISE VIII.

EXERCISE 8.

41. Go out into your garden, or into the road, and pick up the first round or oval stone you can find, not very white, nor very dark; and the smoother it is the better, only it must not shine. Draw your table near the window, and put the stone, which I will suppose is about the size of a in Fig. 5 (it had better not be much larger), on a piece of not very white paper, on the table in front of you. Sit so that the light may come from your left, else the shadow of the pencil point interferes with your sight of your work. You must not let the sun fall on the stone, but only ordinary light: therefore choose a window which the sun does not come in at. If you can shut the shutters of the other windows in the room it will be all the better; but this is not of much consequence.

41. Go outside to your garden or the street and pick up the first round or oval stone you find, one that isn't too white or too dark; the smoother it is, the better, but it shouldn't shine. Move your table close to the window and place the stone, which I’ll assume is about the size of a in Fig. 5 (it shouldn’t be much larger), on a piece of paper that isn't too white, in front of you. Sit so that the light comes from your left; otherwise, the shadow from the pencil tip will block your view of your work. Make sure the sun doesn't shine directly on the stone, just regular light: so choose a window that doesn’t let in sunlight. If you can close the shutters on the other windows in the room, that would be even better, but it's not a big deal if you can't.

42. Now if you can draw that stone, you can draw anything; I mean, anything that is drawable. Many things (sea foam, for instance) cannot be drawn at all, only the idea of them more or less suggested; but if you can draw the stone rightly, everything within reach of art is also within yours.

42. If you can draw that stone, you can draw anything; I mean, anything that can be drawn. Many things (like sea foam, for example) can't be drawn at all, only the idea of them can be somewhat suggested; but if you can draw the stone correctly, then everything in the realm of art is also within your reach.

For all drawing depends, primarily, on your power of representing Roundness. If you can once do that, all the rest is easy and straightforward; if you cannot do that, nothing else that you may be able to do will be of any use. For Nature is all made up of roundnesses; not the roundness of 25 perfect globes, but of variously curved surfaces. Boughs are rounded, leaves are rounded, stones are rounded, clouds are rounded, cheeks are rounded, and curls are rounded: there is no more flatness in the natural world than there is vacancy. The world itself is round, and so is all that is in it, more or less, except human work, which is often very flat indeed.

All drawing depends mainly on your ability to represent Roundness. Once you can do that, everything else becomes simple and straightforward; if you can’t, nothing else you might be able to do will really matter. Nature is composed entirely of roundnesses—not just the roundness of perfect spheres but of variously curved surfaces. Branches are rounded, leaves are rounded, stones are rounded, clouds are rounded, cheeks are rounded, and curls are rounded: there's no more flatness in the natural world than there is emptiness. The world itself is round, and so is everything in it, more or less, except for human creations, which are often quite flat.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Therefore, set yourself steadily to conquer that round stone, and you have won the battle.

Therefore, keep at it and conquer that round stone, and you’ve won the battle.

26

26

43. Look your stone antagonist boldly in the face. You will see that the side of it next the window is lighter than most of the paper; that the side of it farthest from the window is darker than the paper; and that the light passes into the dark gradually, while a shadow is thrown to the right on the paper itself by the stone: the general appearance of things being more or less as in a, Fig. 5, the spots on the stone excepted, of which more presently.

43. Look your stony opponent directly in the face. You’ll notice that the side facing the window is lighter than most of the paper; the side farthest from the window is darker than the paper; and the light transitions into the dark gradually, while a shadow is cast to the right on the paper itself by the stone: the overall appearance of things being more or less like in a, Fig. 5, except for the spots on the stone, which we’ll discuss more shortly.

44. Now, remember always what was stated in the outset, that everything you can see in Nature is seen only so far as it is lighter or darker than the things about it, or of a different color from them. It is either seen as a patch of one color on a ground of another; or as a pale thing relieved from a dark thing, or a dark thing from a pale thing. And if you can put on patches of color or shade of exactly the same size, shape, and gradations as those on the object and its ground, you will produce the appearance of the object and its ground. The best draughtsman—Titian and Paul Veronese themselves—could do no more than this; and you will soon be able to get some power of doing it in an inferior way, if you once understand the exceeding simplicity of what is to be done. Suppose you have a brown book on a white sheet of paper, on a red tablecloth. You have nothing to do but to put on spaces of red, white, and brown, in the same shape, and gradated from dark to light in the same degrees, and your drawing is done. If you will not look at what you see, if you try to put on brighter or duller colors than are there, if you try to put them on with a dash or a blot, or to cover your paper with "vigorous" lines, or to produce anything, in fact, but the plain, unaffected, and finished tranquillity of the thing before you, you need not hope to get on. Nature will show you nothing if you set yourself up for her master. But forget yourself, and try to obey her, and you will find obedience easier and happier than you think.

44. Now, always remember what was mentioned at the beginning: everything you see in nature is perceived only in relation to how light or dark it is compared to the things around it, or how its color differs from them. It's seen as a patch of one color against a background of another; or as a lighter object set against a darker one, or vice versa. If you can apply patches of color or shade that exactly match the size, shape, and transition of tones found on the object and its background, you will create the illusion of the object and its background. The best artists—Titian and Paul Veronese themselves—could do no more than this; and you’ll soon develop some ability to do it, even if not perfectly, once you grasp the remarkable simplicity of the task. Imagine you have a brown book on a white sheet of paper on a red tablecloth. All you need to do is create spaces of red, white, and brown in the same shape, gradually transitioning from dark to light in the same degrees, and your drawing is complete. If you refuse to see what’s actually there, if you try to use brighter or duller colors than those present, if you apply them with a dash or a blot, or attempt to cover your paper with "bold" lines, or create anything at all besides the simple, unpretentious, and serene reality of what lies before you, don’t expect to make progress. Nature won’t reveal anything to you if you try to dominate her. But if you let go of your ego and aim to follow her, you’ll find that compliance is easier and more fulfilling than you think.

45. The real difficulties are to get the refinement of the forms and the evenness of the gradations. You may depend upon it, when you are dissatisfied with your work, it is always 27 too coarse or too uneven. It may not be wrong—in all probability is not wrong, in any (so-called) great point. But its edges are not true enough in outline; and its shades are in blotches, or scratches, or full of white holes. Get it more tender and more true, and you will find it is more powerful.

45. The real challenges are getting the refinement of the forms and the consistency of the gradations. You can count on it: when you're not happy with your work, it's usually too rough or uneven. It might not be wrong—in all likelihood, it's not wrong in any major aspect. But its edges aren't precise enough in outline; and its shades are blotchy, scratchy, or full of blank spots. Make it more subtle and accurate, and you'll discover it becomes more powerful.

46. Do not, therefore, think your drawing must be weak because you have a finely pointed pen in your hand. Till you can draw with that, you can draw with nothing; when you can draw with that, you can draw with a log of wood charred at the end. True boldness and power are only to be gained by care. Even in fencing and dancing, all ultimate ease depends on early precision in the commencement; much more in singing or drawing.

46. So, don’t assume your drawing will be weak just because you have a fine-point pen. Until you can draw well with that, you won’t be able to draw with anything else. Once you master that, you could even draw with a stick that’s been burned at the tip. True boldness and strength come from careful practice. Just like in fencing and dancing, true ease relies on getting the basics right from the start; it’s even more important in singing or drawing.

47. Now I do not want you to copy my sketch in Fig. 5, but to copy the stone before you in the way that my sketch is done. To which end, first measure the extreme length of the stone with compasses, and mark that length on your paper; then, between the points marked, leave something like the form of the stone in light, scrawling the paper all over, round it; b, in Fig. 5, is a beginning of this kind. Rather leave too much room for the high light, than too little; and then more cautiously fill in the shade, shutting the light gradually up, and putting in the dark slowly on the dark side. You need not plague yourself about accuracy of shape, because, till you have practiced a great deal, it is impossible for you to draw the shape of the stone quite truly, and you must gradually gain correctness by means of these various exercises: what you have mainly to do at present is, to get the stone to look solid and round, not much minding what its exact contour is—only draw it as nearly right as you can without vexation; and you will get it more right by thus feeling your way to it in shade, than if you tried to draw the outline at first. For you can see no outline; what you see is only a certain space of gradated shade, with other such spaces about it; and those pieces of shade you are to imitate as nearly as you can, by scrawling the paper over till you get them to the right shape, with the same gradations which 28 they have in Nature. And this is really more likely to be done well, if you have to fight your way through a little confusion in the sketch, than if you have an accurately traced outline. For instance, having sketched the fossil sea-urchin at a, in Fig. 5, whose form, though irregular, required more care in following than that of a common stone, I was going to draw it also under another effect; reflected light bringing its dark side out from the background: but when I had laid on the first few touches I thought it would be better to stop, and let you see how I had begun it, at b. In which beginning it will be observed that nothing is so determined but that I can more or less modify, and add to or diminish the contour as I work on, the lines which suggest the outline being blended with the others if I do not want them; and the having to fill up the vacancies and conquer the irregularities of such a sketch will probably secure a higher completion at last, than if half an hour had been spent in getting a true outline before beginning.

47. I don't want you to copy my sketch in Fig. 5, but to replicate the stone in front of you in the style of my sketch. To start, first measure the total length of the stone with compasses, and mark that length on your paper; then, between the marked points, outline something resembling the shape of the stone lightly, covering the paper with quick strokes. b, in Fig. 5, is an example of this. It's better to leave too much space for the highlight than too little; then, more carefully add in the shade, gradually closing off the light and slowly applying the dark on the shaded side. Don't stress about getting the shape perfect, because until you've practiced a lot, it will be impossible to accurately draw the stone's shape, and you will improve your accuracy through these exercises: what you need to focus on now is making the stone look solid and round, not worrying too much about its exact outline—just sketch it as closely as you can without getting frustrated; you'll end up getting it more accurate by figuring it out in shade than if you tried to outline it right away. Because you can't actually see an outline; all you see is a variety of shaded areas, along with other such areas around it; and your job is to replicate those shades as closely as you can by sketching over the paper until they take the right shape, with the same gradients they have in nature. This is actually more likely to be done well if you work through a little confusion in the sketch than if you have a perfectly traced outline. For instance, having sketched the fossil sea-urchin at a, in Fig. 5, whose form, although irregular, required more care than that of a regular stone, I was going to draw it again under different lighting; reflected light bringing out its dark side from the background: but after I made the first few strokes, I thought it would be better to pause and show you how I started it, at b. In this initial attempt, you’ll notice that nothing is so specific that I can’t change or adjust the outline as I continue working on it; the lines suggesting the outline can blend with the others if I don’t want them, and having to fill in the gaps and tackle the irregularities in such a sketch will likely lead to a better final result than if I'd spent half an hour trying to get a true outline before starting.

48. In doing this, however, take care not to get the drawing too dark. In order to ascertain what the shades of it really are, cut a round hole, about half the size of a pea, in a piece of white paper the color of that you use to draw on. Hold this bit of paper with the hole in it, between you and your stone; and pass the paper backwards and forwards, so as to see the different portions of the stone (or other subject) through the hole. You will find that, thus, the circular hole looks like one of the patches of color you have been accustomed to match, only changing in depth as it lets different pieces of the stone be seen through it. You will be able thus actually to match the color of the stone at any part of it, by tinting the paper beside the circular opening. And you will find that this opening never looks quite black, but that all the roundings of the stone are given by subdued grays.[10]

48. In doing this, just make sure you don't make the drawing too dark. To really see the shades, cut a round hole, about half the size of a pea, in a piece of white paper that's the same color as what you’re drawing on. Hold this paper with the hole between you and your stone, and move the paper back and forth to see different parts of the stone (or whatever you're studying) through the hole. You'll notice that the circular hole looks like one of the color patches you've been used to matching, changing in depth as it reveals different sections of the stone. This way, you can actually match the color of the stone in any area by tinting the paper next to the circular hole. You’ll find that this opening never looks completely black, but instead shows all the rounding of the stone in soft grays.[10]

49. You will probably find, also, that some parts of the stone, or of the paper it lies on, look luminous through the 29 opening; so that the little circle then tells as a light spot instead of a dark spot. When this is so, you cannot imitate it, for you have no means of getting light brighter than white paper: but by holding the paper more sloped towards the light, you will find that many parts of the stone, which before looked light through the hole, then look dark through it; and if you can place the paper in such a position that every part of the stone looks slightly dark, the little hole will tell always as a spot of shade, and if your drawing is put in the same light, you can imitate or match every gradation. You will be amazed to find, under these circumstances, how slight the differences of tint are, by which, through infinite delicacy of gradation, Nature can express form.

49. You’ll probably notice that some parts of the stone or the paper it’s on look bright through the 29 opening, making the little circle appear as a light spot instead of a dark one. When this happens, you can’t replicate it because you can’t make the light brighter than white paper. But if you tilt the paper more towards the light, you’ll see that many areas of the stone that looked bright through the hole now appear dark. If you can position the paper so that every part of the stone looks slightly dark, the small hole will always register as a shaded spot. If your drawing is in the same light, you can replicate or match every gradient. You’ll be surprised to discover just how subtle the differences in tone are that allow Nature to express form through incredible variations in shading.

If any part of your subject will obstinately show itself as a light through the hole, that part you need not hope to imitate. Leave it white; you can do no more.

If any part of your subject stubbornly shines through the hole, that part you shouldn't expect to replicate. Leave it white; there's nothing more you can do.

50. When you have done the best you can to get the general form, proceed to finish, by imitating the texture and all the cracks and stains of the stone as closely as you can; and note, in doing this, that cracks or fissures of any kind, whether between stones in walls, or in the grain of timber or rocks, or in any of the thousand other conditions they present, are never expressible by single black lines, or lines of simple shadow. A crack must always have its complete system of light and shade, however small its scale. It is in reality a little ravine, with a dark or shady side, and light or sunny side, and, usually, shadow in the bottom. This is one of the instances in which it may be as well to understand the reason of the appearance; it is not often so in drawing, for the aspects of things are so subtle and confused that they cannot in general be explained; and in the endeavor to explain some, we are sure to lose sight of others, while the natural overestimate of the importance of those on which the attention is fixed causes us to exaggerate them, so that merely scientific draughtsmen caricature a third part of Nature, and miss two-thirds. The best scholar is he whose eye is so keen as to see at once how the thing looks, and who need not therefore 30 trouble himself with any reasons why it looks so: but few people have this acuteness of perception; and to those who are destitute of it, a little pointing out of rule and reason will be a help, especially when a master is not near them. I never allow my own pupils to ask the reason of anything, because, as I watch their work, I can always show them how the thing is, and what appearance they are missing in it; but when a master is not by to direct the sight, science may, here and there, be allowed to do so in his stead.

50. When you’ve done your best to capture the overall shape, move on to finish it by mimicking the texture as well as all the cracks and stains of the stone as closely as you can. Keep in mind that cracks or fissures, whether between stones in walls or in the grain of wood or rocks, or in any of the countless other forms they can take, cannot be represented by just simple black lines or basic shadow. A crack always has a complete system of light and shade, no matter how small it is. It’s really like a tiny ravine, with a dark or shady side and a light or sunny side, typically with shadow at the bottom. This is one situation where it’s useful to understand the reasoning behind what you see; it’s not often the case in drawing because the details can be so subtle and complex that they usually can’t be fully explained. While trying to explain some aspects, we often lose sight of others, and the natural tendency to overemphasize what we’re focused on leads us to exaggerate, causing purely scientific artists to misrepresent a third of nature while missing two-thirds of it. The best artist is the one whose eye is sharp enough to see how things really look, without needing to know why they look that way. But few people have this kind of keen perception, so for those who don’t, some guidance in rules and reasoning can be helpful, especially when there’s no instructor nearby. I never let my students ask why something is as it is because as I observe their work, I can show them the reality and what they’re missing; however, when a master isn’t there to guide their view, science may, occasionally, take on that role instead.

51. Generally, then, every solid illumined object—for instance, the stone you are drawing—has a light side turned towards the light, a dark side turned away from the light, and a shadow, which is cast on something else (as by the stone on the paper it is set upon). You may sometimes be placed so as to see only the light side and shadow, sometimes only the dark side and shadow, and sometimes both or either without the shadow; but in most positions solid objects will show all the three, as the stone does here.

51. Generally, every solid object that reflects light—like the stone you’re drawing—has a light side that faces the light, a dark side that faces away from it, and a shadow that falls on another surface (like the stone’s shadow on the paper it’s sitting on). Depending on your position, you might only see the light side and the shadow, just the dark side and the shadow, or both sides without the shadow. However, in most positions, solid objects will show all three, just like the stone does here.

52. Hold up your hand with the edge of it towards you, as you sit now with your side to the window, so that the flat of your hand is turned to the window. You will see one side of your hand distinctly lighted, the other distinctly in shade. Here are light side and dark side, with no seen shadow; the shadow being detached, perhaps on the table, perhaps on the other side of the room; you need not look for it at present.

52. Raise your hand with the edge facing you, while you're sitting sideways to the window, so that the flat part of your hand is facing the window. You'll notice one side of your hand is clearly lit, while the other side is noticeably in shadow. You have a light side and a dark side, without any visible shadow; the shadow may be isolated, possibly on the table or on the opposite side of the room; there's no need to look for it right now.

53. Take a sheet of note-paper, and holding it edgewise, as you hold your hand, wave it up and down past the side of your hand which is turned from the light, the paper being of course farther from the window. You will see, as it passes, a strong gleam of light strike on your hand, and light it considerably on its dark side. This light is reflected light. It is thrown back from the paper (on which it strikes first in coming from the window) to the surface of your hand, just as a ball would be if somebody threw it through the window at the wall and you caught it at the rebound.

53. Take a sheet of note paper and, holding it on its edge like you hold your hand, wave it up and down past the side of your hand that's turned away from the light, with the paper being further from the window. You'll notice a strong flash of light hit your hand, lighting it up significantly on the dark side. This light is reflected light. It bounces back from the paper (where it first hits coming from the window) to the surface of your hand, just like a ball would if someone threw it through the window at the wall and you caught it on the rebound.

Next, instead of the note-paper, take a red book, or a piece of scarlet cloth. You will see that the gleam of light falling 31 on your hand, as you wave the book, is now reddened. Take a blue book, and you will find the gleam is blue. Thus every object will cast some of its own color back in the light that it reflects.

Next, instead of using note paper, grab a red book or a piece of red fabric. You'll notice that the light shining on your hand as you wave the book now has a reddish hue. If you take a blue book, you'll see the light appears blue. In this way, each object reflects some of its own color back into the light.

54. Now it is not only these books or papers that reflect light to your hand: every object in the room on that side of it reflects some, but more feebly, and the colors mixing all together form a neutral[11] light, which lets the color of your hand itself be more distinctly seen than that of any object which reflects light to it; but if there were no reflected light, that side of your hand would look as black as a coal.

54. Now, it’s not just these books or papers that reflect light to your hand: every object in the room on that side reflects some light, but more weakly. The colors mix together to create a neutral[11] light, allowing the color of your hand to be seen more clearly than that of any object reflecting light to it. However, if there were no reflected light, that side of your hand would appear as black as coal.

55. Objects are seen therefore, in general, partly by direct light, and partly by light reflected from the objects around them, or from the atmosphere and clouds. The color of their light sides depends much on that of the direct light, and that of the dark sides on the colors of the objects near them. It is therefore impossible to say beforehand what color an object will have at any point of its surface, that color depending partly on its own tint, and partly on infinite combinations of rays reflected from other things. The only certain fact about dark sides is, that their color will be changeful, and that a picture which gives them merely darker shades of the color of the light sides must assuredly be bad.

55. Objects are generally seen partly by direct light and partly by light reflected from surrounding objects or from the atmosphere and clouds. The color of their lit sides depends a lot on the direct light, while the color of their dark sides depends on the colors of the nearby objects. This makes it impossible to predict in advance what color any part of an object's surface will be, as that color depends on its own hue and on countless combinations of rays reflected from other things. The only certain thing about the dark sides is that their color will change, and any picture that shows them as just darker shades of the light sides is definitely going to be bad.

56. Now, lay your hand flat on the white paper you are drawing on. You will see one side of each finger lighted, one side dark, and the shadow of your hand on the paper. Here, therefore, are the three divisions of shade seen at once. And although the paper is white, and your hand of a rosy color somewhat darker than white, yet you will see that the shadow all along, just under the finger which casts it, is darker than the flesh, and is of a very deep gray. The reason of this is, that much light is reflected from the paper to the dark side of your finger, but very little is reflected from other things to the paper itself in that chink under your finger.

56. Now, put your hand flat on the white paper you’re drawing on. You’ll notice that one side of each finger is lit up, while the other side is dark, along with the shadow of your hand on the paper. Here, you can see the three areas of shading all at once. Even though the paper is white and your hand is a rosy color, which is a bit darker than white, you’ll find that the shadow right under the finger casting it is darker than your skin tone and appears as a deep gray. This happens because a lot of light reflects off the paper onto the dark side of your finger, but very little light reflects from the surrounding areas onto the paper in that space under your finger.

32

32

57. In general, for this reason, a shadow, or, at any rate, the part of the shadow nearest the object, is darker than the dark side of the object. I say in general, because a thousand accidents may interfere to prevent its being so. Take a little bit of glass, as a wine-glass, or the ink-bottle, and play it about a little on the side of your hand farthest from the window; you will presently find you are throwing gleams of light all over the dark side of your hand, and in some positions of the glass the reflection from it will annihilate the shadow altogether, and you will see your hand dark on the white paper. Now a stupid painter would represent, for instance, a drinking-glass beside the hand of one of his figures, and because he had been taught by rule that "shadow was darker than the dark side," he would never think of the reflection from the glass, but paint a dark gray under the hand, just as if no glass were there. But a great painter would be sure to think of the true effect, and paint it; and then comes the stupid critic, and wonders why the hand is so light on its dark side.

57. Generally speaking, the shadow, or at least the part closest to the object, is darker than the dark side of the object. I say "generally" because countless factors can interfere and change that. Take a piece of glass, like a wine glass or an ink bottle, and move it around on the side of your hand that's farthest from the window; soon you'll notice you're casting glimmers of light all over the dark side of your hand, and in some positions of the glass, the reflection can completely eliminate the shadow, making your hand look dark against the white paper. A clueless painter might depict, for example, a drinking glass next to the hand of one of his figures, and because he has been taught that "shadow is darker than the dark side," he wouldn't think to consider the reflection from the glass and would just paint a dark gray under the hand, as if no glass were present. But a skilled painter would be sure to take the true effect into account and paint it accordingly; then a clueless critic comes along and wonders why the hand looks so light on its dark side.

58. Thus it is always dangerous to assert anything as a rule in matters of art; yet it is useful for you to remember that, in a general way, a shadow is darker than the dark side of the thing that casts it, supposing the colors otherwise the same; that is to say, when a white object casts a shadow on a white surface, or a dark object on a dark surface: the rule will not hold if the colors are different, the shadow of a black object on a white surface being, of course, not so dark, usually, as the black thing casting it. The only way to ascertain the ultimate truth in such matters is to look for it; but, in the meantime, you will be helped by noticing that the cracks in the stone are little ravines, on one side of which the light strikes sharply, while the other is in shade. This dark side usually casts a little darker shadow at the bottom of the crack; and the general tone of the stone surface is not so bright as the light bank of the ravine. And, therefore, if you get the surface of the object of a uniform tint, more or less indicative of shade, and then scratch out a white 33 spot or streak in it of any shape; by putting a dark touch beside this white one, you may turn it, as you choose, into either a ridge or an incision, into either a boss or a cavity. If you put the dark touch on the side of it nearest the sun, or rather, nearest the place that the light comes from, you will make it a cut or cavity; if you put it on the opposite side, you will make it a ridge or mound; and the complete success of the effect depends less on depth of shade than on the rightness of the drawing; that is to say, on the evident correspondence of the form of the shadow with the form that casts it. In drawing rocks, or wood, or anything irregularly shaped, you will gain far more by a little patience in following the forms carefully, though with slight touches, than by labored finishing of texture of surface and transparencies of shadow.

58. It’s always risky to make broad statements about art; however, it's helpful to remember that, generally speaking, a shadow is darker than the dark side of the object that casts it, assuming the colors are otherwise the same. This means that when a white object casts a shadow on a white surface, or a dark object on a dark surface, the rule won’t apply if the colors are different. For instance, the shadow of a black object on a white surface is usually not as dark as the black object itself. The only way to figure out the ultimate truth in such situations is to actually look for it; but in the meantime, you can observe that the cracks in the stone are like little ravines, where one side is sharply lit while the other side is in shadow. This darker side typically casts a slightly darker shadow at the bottom of the crack, and the overall tone of the stone surface won’t be as bright as the lit side of the ravine. So, if you create a uniformly tinted surface that indicates shade and then scratch out a white spot or streak of any shape, by adding a dark touch next to this white area, you can make it appear either like a ridge or an incision, or like a boss or a cavity. If you place the dark touch on the side closest to the light source, it will look like a cut or cavity; if you put it on the opposite side, it will look like a ridge or mound. The success of this effect relies more on the accuracy of the drawing than on the depth of shade; in other words, it depends on how well the shadow’s shape corresponds to the shape of the object casting it. When drawing rocks, wood, or anything with an irregular shape, you’ll benefit more from patiently following the forms closely, even with light touches, than from obsessively finishing the texture of the surface and the transparency of the shadows.

59. When you have got the whole well into shape, proceed to lay on the stains and spots with great care, quite as much as you gave to the forms. Very often, spots or bars of local color do more to express form than even the light and shade, and they are always interesting as the means by which Nature carries light into her shadows, and shade into her lights; an art of which we shall have more to say hereafter, in speaking of composition. a, in Fig. 5, is a rough sketch of a fossil sea-urchin, in which the projections of the shell are of black flint, coming through a chalky surface. These projections form dark spots in the light; and their sides, rising out of the shadow, form smaller whiter spots in the dark. You may take such scattered lights as these out with the penknife, provided you are just as careful to place them rightly as if you got them by a more laborious process.

59. Once you've got the entire well in shape, carefully add the stains and spots just as much attention as you gave to the shapes. Often, spots or bands of local color express form even better than light and shadow, and they are always fascinating because they show how Nature brings light into her shadows and shade into her lights; we'll discuss this art more later when we talk about composition. a, in Fig. 5, is a rough sketch of a fossil sea urchin, where the shell's protrusions are made of black flint against a chalky surface. These protrusions create dark spots in the light, and their edges, emerging from the shadow, create smaller white spots in the dark. You can carefully remove scattered highlights like these with a penknife, as long as you take just as much care to position them correctly as if you obtained them through a more painstaking process.

60. When you have once got the feeling of the way in which gradation expresses roundness and projection, you may try your strength on anything natural or artificial that happens to take your fancy, provided it be not too complicated in form. I have asked you to draw a stone first, because any irregularities and failures in your shading will be less offensive to you, as being partly characteristic of the rough stone 34 surface, than they would be in a more delicate subject; and you may as well go on drawing rounded stones of different shapes for a little while, till you find you can really shade delicately. You may then take up folds of thick white drapery, a napkin or towel thrown carelessly on the table is as good as anything, and try to express them in the same way; only now you will find that your shades must be wrought with perfect unity and tenderness, or you will lose the flow of the folds. Always remember that a little bit perfected is worth more than many scrawls; whenever you feel yourself inclined to scrawl, give up work resolutely, and do not go back to it till next day. Of course your towel or napkin must be put on something that may be locked up, so that its folds shall not be disturbed till you have finished. If you find that the folds will not look right, get a photograph of a piece of drapery (there are plenty now to be bought, taken from the sculpture of the cathedrals of Rheims, Amiens, and Chartres, which will at once educate your hand and your taste), and copy some piece of that; you will then ascertain what it is that is wanting in your studies from Nature, whether more gradation, or greater watchfulness of the disposition of the folds. Probably for some time you will find yourself failing painfully in both, for drapery is very difficult to follow in its sweeps; but do not lose courage, for the greater the difficulty, the greater the gain in the effort. If your eye is more just in measurement of form than delicate in perception of tint, a pattern on the folded surface will help you. Try whether it does or not: and if the patterned drapery confuses you, keep for a time to the simple white one; but if it helps you, continue to choose patterned stuffs (tartans and simple checkered designs are better at first than flowered ones), and even though it should confuse you, begin pretty soon to use a pattern occasionally, copying all the distortions and perspective modifications of it among the folds with scrupulous care.

60. Once you understand how gradation shows roundness and projection, you can challenge yourself with anything that catches your eye, as long as it isn’t too complex in shape. I recommended starting with a stone because any irregularities or mistakes in your shading will be less bothersome, as they’ll fit the rough texture of the stone better than they would with a more delicate subject. You should keep drawing various rounded stones for a while until you can really shade delicately. After that, you can try to depict folds in thick white drapery; a napkin or towel tossed on the table works perfectly. Just remember that your shades need to be applied with great unity and gentleness; otherwise, you’ll lose the flow of the folds. Always keep in mind that perfecting a small section is more valuable than a lot of messy attempts; whenever you feel like scribbling, stop working decisively, and don’t return to it until the next day. Make sure to place your towel or napkin on something secure that can be locked up, so its folds remain undisturbed until you finish. If the folds don’t look right, get a photograph of drapery (you can find many for sale from the sculptures of the cathedrals in Rheims, Amiens, and Chartres, which will help improve your technique and taste) and try to copy some part of it. This way, you’ll discover what’s lacking in your studies from real life — whether it's more gradation or better attention to the arrangement of the folds. For a while, you may struggle with both since drapery can be challenging to capture in its movement; don’t lose hope, though, as the harder the task, the greater the reward from your effort. If your eye is better at measuring form than at sensing color, a pattern on the folded surface might assist you. Test this out: if the patterned drapery confuses you, stick to the simple white one for a bit; but if it helps, continue using patterned fabrics (tartans and simple checks are easier at first than floral designs), and even if it confuses you, start incorporating a pattern soon, carefully copying all the distortions and perspective changes involved in the folds.

61. Neither must you suppose yourself condescending in doing this. The greatest masters are always fond of drawing 35 patterns; and the greater they are, the more pains they take to do it truly.[12] Nor can there be better practice at any time, as introductory to the nobler complication of natural detail. For when you can draw the spots which follow the folds of a printed stuff, you will have some chance of following the spots which fall into the folds of the skin of a leopard as he leaps; but if you cannot draw the manufacture, assuredly you will never be able to draw the creature. So the cloudings on a piece of wood, carefully drawn, will be the best introduction to the drawing of the clouds of the sky, or the waves of the sea; and the dead leaf-patterns on a damask drapery, well rendered, will enable you to disentangle masterfully the living leaf-patterns of a thorn thicket or a violet bank.

61. Don't think of yourself as being condescending for doing this. The greatest artists always love to draw patterns; the more talented they are, the more effort they put into getting it right. 35 There's no better practice to prepare you for the more complex natural details. When you can draw the patterns that follow the folds of a piece of fabric, you'll have a better chance of capturing the spots that fall into the folds of a leopard's skin as it jumps. But if you can't draw the fabric properly, you definitely won't be able to draw the animal. Similarly, accurately drawing the grains in a piece of wood is the best way to prepare for drawing the clouds in the sky or the waves in the sea; and well-executed leaf patterns on damask fabric will help you skillfully untangle the vibrant leaf patterns of a thorny thicket or a patch of violets.

62. Observe, however, in drawing any stuffs, or bindings of books, or other finely textured substances, do not trouble yourself, as yet, much about the wooliness or gauziness of the thing; but get it right in shade and fold, and true in pattern. We shall see, in the course of after-practice, how the penned lines may be made indicative of texture; but at present attend only to the light and shade and pattern. You will be puzzled at first by lustrous surfaces, but a little attention will show you that the expression of these depends merely on the right drawing of their light and shade, and reflections. Put a small black japanned tray on the table in front of some books; and you will see it reflects the objects beyond it as in a little black rippled pond; its own color mingling always with that of the reflected objects. Draw these reflections of the books properly, making them dark and distorted, as you will see that they are, and you will find that this gives the luster to your tray. It is not well, however, to draw polished objects in general practice; only you should do one or two in 36 order to understand the aspect of any lustrous portion of other things, such as you cannot avoid; the gold, for instance, on the edges of books, or the shining of silk and damask, in which lies a great part of the expression of their folds. Observe also that there are very few things which are totally without luster; you will frequently find a light which puzzles you, on some apparently dull surface, to be the dim image of another object.

62. However, when drawing materials, book bindings, or other finely textured substances, don’t worry too much about their fluffiness or sheerness just yet. Focus on getting the shading, folds, and patterns right. Later, we’ll learn how to make the lines you draw suggest texture, but for now, concentrate on light, shadow, and pattern. You might find shiny surfaces tricky at first, but with a bit of practice, you’ll see that capturing their look relies on correctly drawing their light, shadow, and reflections. Place a small black lacquer tray on the table in front of some books, and you’ll notice it reflects the objects behind it like a little black rippling pond, its color blending with the reflections. Draw the reflections of the books accurately, making them dark and distorted as they actually are, and this will give the luster to your tray. However, it’s not a good idea to draw polished objects as a regular practice; you should only do one or two in order to grasp the appearance of shiny parts in other things that you can’t avoid, like the gold on the edges of books or the shine of silk and damask, which is crucial to conveying their folds. Also, take note that very few things lack luster entirely; often, you’ll find that what seems like a dull surface can actually reflect a faint image of another object.

63. And now, as soon as you can conscientiously assure me that with the point of the pen or pencil you can lay on any form and shade you like, I give you leave to use the brush with one color,—sepia, or blue black, or mixed cobalt and blue black, or neutral tint; and this will much facilitate your study, and refresh you. But, preliminary, you must do one or two more exercises in tinting.

63. And now, as soon as you can confidently tell me that you can create any shape and shade you want with a pen or pencil, I'll let you use a brush with one color—sepia, blue-black, a mix of cobalt and blue-black, or neutral tint. This will really help with your studies and give you a nice break. But first, you need to complete one or two more exercises in tinting.

EXERCISE IX.

Exercise 9.

64. Prepare your color as directed for Exercise VII. Take a brush full of it, and strike it on the paper in any irregular shape; as the brush gets dry, sweep the surface of the paper with it as if you were dusting the paper very lightly; every such sweep of the brush will leave a number of more or less minute interstices in the color. The lighter and faster every dash the better. Then leave the whole to dry; and, as soon as it is dry, with little color in your brush, so that you can bring it to a fine point, fill up all the little interstices one by one, so as to make the whole as even as you can, and fill in the larger gaps with more color, always trying to let the edges of the first and of the newly applied color exactly meet, and not lap over each other. When your new color dries, you will find it in places a little paler than the first. Retouch it therefore, trying to get the whole to look quite one piece. A very small bit of color thus filled up with your very best care, and brought to look as if it had been quite even from the first, will give you better practice and more skill than a great deal filled in carelessly; so do it with 37 your best patience, not leaving the most minute spot of white; and do not fill in the large pieces first and then go to the small, but quietly and steadily cover in the whole up to a marked limit; then advance a little farther, and so on; thus always seeing distinctly what is done and what undone.

64. Mix your color as directed for Exercise VII. Take a brush loaded with it and apply it to the paper in any irregular shape. As the brush dries, lightly sweep it across the surface of the paper, as if you were gently dusting it. Each sweep of the brush will create a number of small gaps in the color. The lighter and quicker each stroke, the better. Let it dry completely; then, when it's dry, use a small amount of color in your brush so you can create a fine point, and carefully fill in each little gap one by one to make the surface as even as possible. Use more color to fill in the larger gaps, always ensuring the edges of the first layer and the new color meet without overlapping. Once your new color dries, you may notice it’s a bit lighter in some spots than the first layer. Retouch these areas to make everything look seamless. Spending time on a very small section with your utmost care, making it look as if it was even from the start, will give you more practice and skill than rushing through larger areas carelessly. Approach this with your best patience, ensuring no tiny white spots are left. Don’t fill in the large areas first and then tackle the small ones, but gradually cover the entire section to a marked limit; then move a little further, and so on, always clearly seeing what’s done and what’s left to do.

EXERCISE X.

Workout X.

65. Lay a coat of the blue, prepared as usual, over a whole square of paper. Let it dry. Then another coat over four fifths of the square, or thereabouts, leaving the edge rather irregular than straight, and let it dry. Then another coat over three fifths; another over two fifths; and the last over one fifth; so that the square may present the appearance of gradual increase in darkness in five bands, each darker than the one beyond it. Then, with the brush rather dry (as in the former exercise, when filling up the interstices), try, with small touches, like those used in the pen etching, only a little broader, to add shade delicately beyond each edge, so as to lead the darker tints into the paler ones imperceptibly. By touching the paper very lightly, and putting a multitude of little touches, crossing and recrossing in every direction, you will gradually be able to work up to the darker tints, outside of each, so as quite to efface their edges, and unite them tenderly with the next tint. The whole square, when done, should look evenly shaded from dark to pale, with no bars, only a crossing texture of touches, something like chopped straw, over the whole.[13]

65. Apply a coat of blue, prepared as usual, over the entire square of paper. Let it dry. Then, apply another coat over about four-fifths of the square, leaving the edge more irregular than straight, and let it dry. Next, add another coat over three-fifths; then another over two-fifths; and finally, the last coat over one-fifth, so that the square looks like it gradually gets darker in five bands, each one darker than the one next to it. With the brush relatively dry (like in the previous exercise when filling in the gaps), try using small touches, similar to those in pen etching but a bit broader, to gently shade beyond each edge, creating a smooth transition from the darker shades to the lighter ones. By lightly touching the paper and making a lot of small touches, crossing in every direction, you will gradually blend the darker tints towards the edges, seamlessly merging them with the next color. When finished, the entire square should have a smooth gradient from dark to light, with no distinct lines, just an intersecting texture of touches, resembling chopped straw across the whole surface.[13]

66. Next, take your rounded pebble; arrange it in any light and shade you like; outline it very loosely with the pencil. Put on a wash of color, prepared very pale, quite flat over all of it, except the highest light, leaving the edge of your color quite sharp. Then another wash, extending only over the darker parts, leaving the edge of that sharp 38 also, as in tinting the square. Then another wash over the still darker parts, and another over the darkest, leaving each edge to dry sharp. Then, with the small touches, efface the edges, reinforce the darks, and work the whole delicately together as you would with the pen, till you have got it to the likeness of the true light and shade. You will find that the tint underneath is a great help, and that you can now get effects much more subtle and complete than with the pen merely.

66. Next, take your rounded pebble and arrange it in any light and shade you like. Outline it very loosely with the pencil. Apply a wash of color, made very pale, completely flat over all of it, except for the brightest spot, leaving the edge of your color quite sharp. Then do another wash, covering only the darker areas, keeping that edge sharp as well, just like when you were tinting the square. Do another wash over the even darker parts, and one more over the darkest areas, leaving each edge to dry sharp. Then, with small touches, soften the edges, deepen the darks, and blend everything together delicately as you would with the pen, until you achieve the look of true light and shade. You will find that the underlying tint is a great help, and you can now create effects that are much more subtle and complete than with just the pen.

67. The use of leaving the edges always sharp is that you may not trouble or vex the color, but let it lie as it falls suddenly on the paper: color looks much more lovely when it has been laid on with a dash of the brush, and left to dry in its own way, than when it has been dragged about and disturbed; so that it is always better to let the edges and forms be a little wrong, even if one cannot correct them afterwards, than to lose this fresh quality of the tint. Very great masters in water color can lay on the true forms at once with a dash, and bad masters in water color lay on grossly false forms with a dash, and leave them false; for people in general, not knowing false from true, are as much pleased with the appearance of power in the irregular blot as with the presence of power in the determined one; but we, in our beginnings, must do as much as we can with the broad dash, and then correct with the point, till we are quite right. We must take care to be right, at whatever cost of pains; and then gradually we shall find we can be right with freedom.

67. Keeping the edges sharp is important because it allows the color to settle naturally on the paper without interference. Color looks much better when applied with a quick brushstroke and left to dry on its own, rather than being smeared or manipulated too much. It's often better to have slightly imperfect edges and shapes, even if we can't fix them later, than to lose that fresh quality of color. Very skilled watercolor artists can apply the correct shapes instantly with a quick stroke, while less skilled artists might haphazardly create incorrect shapes and leave them that way. Since most people can't tell what's true from what's false, they often appreciate the appearance of skill in the irregular blot just as much as in the precise one. However, we, in our early stages, need to do our best with bold strokes and then refine with fine detail until we get it right. We must strive for accuracy, no matter how much effort it takes; over time, we'll find we can achieve correctness with more freedom.

68. I have hitherto limited you to color mixed with two or three teaspoonfuls of water; but, in finishing your light and shade from the stone, you may, as you efface the edge of the palest coat towards the light, use the color for the small touches with more and more water, till it is so pale as not to be perceptible. Thus you may obtain a perfect gradation to the light. And in reinforcing the darks, when they are very dark, you may use less and less water. If you take the color tolerably dark on your brush, only always liquid (not pasty), and dash away the superfluous color on 39 blotting paper, you will find that, touching the paper very lightly with the dry brush, you can, by repeated touches, produce a dusty kind of bloom, very valuable in giving depth to shadow; but it requires great patience and delicacy of hand to do this properly. You will find much of this kind of work in the grounds and shadows of William Hunt's drawings.[14]

68. So far, I've only let you mix colors with two or three teaspoons of water. However, when you're finishing your light and shade from the stone, you can use more water as you blend the edge of the lightest color. This way, you can make the color so light that it’s hardly noticeable. This will help you create a perfect transition to the light. When you’re reinforcing darker areas, use less and less water. If you load your brush with the color fairly dark, just make sure it's liquid (not thick), and tap off the excess color on blotting paper. You'll find that by lightly touching the paper with a dry brush, you can create a soft, dusty effect with repeated touches, which is great for adding depth to shadows. But, this technique requires a lot of patience and a steady hand to do it right. You’ll find plenty of this kind of work in the backgrounds and shadows of William Hunt's drawings.

69. As you get used to the brush and color, you will gradually find out their ways for yourself, and get the management of them. And you will often save yourself much discouragement by remembering what I have so often asserted,—that if anything goes wrong, it is nearly sure to be refinement that is wanting, not force; and connection, not alteration. If you dislike the state your drawing is in, do not lose patience with it, nor dash at it, nor alter its plan, nor rub it desperately out, at the place you think wrong; but look if there are no shadows you can gradate more perfectly; no little gaps and rents you can fill; no forms you can more delicately define: and do not rush at any of the errors or incompletions thus discerned, but efface or supply slowly, and you will soon find your drawing take another look. A very useful expedient in producing some effects, is to wet the paper, and then lay the color on it, more or less wet, according to the effect you want. You will soon see how prettily it gradates itself as it dries; when dry, you can reinforce it with delicate stippling when you want it darker. Also, while the color is still damp on the paper, by drying your brush thoroughly, and touching the color with the brush so dried, you may take out soft lights with great tenderness and precision. Try all sorts of experiments of this kind, noticing how the color behaves; but remembering always that your final results must be obtained, and can only be obtained, by pure work with the point, as much as in the pen drawing.

69. As you become familiar with the brush and color, you'll gradually discover how they work for you and learn to manage them. You'll often avoid frustration by keeping in mind what I've said many times—that if something goes wrong, it’s usually a lack of subtlety, not strength; and a need for connection, not changes. If you’re unhappy with your drawing's state, don’t lose your patience, don’t attack it, change its design, or erase it frantically at the spot you think is wrong. Instead, look for shadows you can blend more smoothly, little gaps you can fill, or forms you can define more gently. Don’t rush into fixing any of the mistakes or unfinished parts you notice; erase or add slowly, and you'll soon see your drawing transform. A very helpful technique for achieving certain effects is to wet the paper first, then apply the color, adjusting the wetness based on the result you want. You'll quickly notice how beautifully it blends as it dries; once it’s dry, you can enhance it with fine stippling if you want it darker. Also, while the color is still damp on the paper, you can dry your brush thoroughly and gently touch the color with the dried brush to lift soft highlights with great care and accuracy. Experiment with all kinds of techniques like this, paying attention to how the color reacts; but always remember that your final results must be achieved, and can only be achieved, through skilled work with the brush, just like in pen drawing.

70. You will find also, as you deal with more and more complicated subjects, that Nature's resources in light and 40 shade are so much richer than yours, that you cannot possibly get all, or anything like all, the gradations of shadow in any given group. When this is the case, determine first to keep the broad masses of things distinct: if, for instance, there is a green book, and a white piece of paper, and a black inkstand in the group, be sure to keep the white paper as a light mass, the green book as a middle tint mass, the black inkstand as a dark mass; and do not shade the folds in the paper, or corners of the book, so as to equal in depth the darkness of the inkstand. The great difference between the masters of light and shade, and imperfect artists, is the power of the former to draw so delicately as to express form in a dark-colored object with little light, and in a light-colored object with little darkness; and it is better even to leave the forms here and there unsatisfactorily rendered than to lose the general relations of the great masses. And this, observe, not because masses are grand or desirable things in your composition (for with composition at present you have nothing whatever to do), but because it is a fact that things do so present themselves to the eyes of men, and that we see paper, book, and inkstand as three separate things, before we see the wrinkles, or chinks, or corners of any of the three. Understand, therefore, at once, that no detail can be as strongly expressed in drawing as it is in reality; and strive to keep all your shadows and marks and minor markings on the masses, lighter than they appear to be in Nature; you are sure otherwise to get them too dark. You will in doing this find that you cannot get the projection of things sufficiently shown; but never mind that; there is no need that they should appear to project, but great need that their relations of shade to each other should be preserved. All deceptive projection is obtained by partial exaggeration of shadow; and whenever you see it, you may be sure the drawing is more or less bad: a thoroughly fine drawing or painting will always show a slight tendency towards flatness.

70. As you take on more complex subjects, you'll notice that Nature's ability to create light and shadow is far richer than yours, which means you can’t capture all the gradations of shadow in any particular group. When this happens, make it a point to keep the main shapes distinct: for example, if there’s a green book, a white piece of paper, and a black inkstand in the group, make sure to keep the white paper as a light shape, the green book as a medium shape, and the black inkstand as a dark shape; and avoid shading the folds in the paper or the corners of the book so that they match the darkness of the inkstand. The key difference between great masters of light and shadow and lesser artists is that the former can depict the form of a dark object with minimal light and the form of a light object with minimal darkness; it’s even better to leave some forms looking unfinished than to lose the overall relationships between the main shapes. Remember, this is not because big shapes are important for your composition (which you’re not focusing on right now), but because that’s how things appear to our eyes. We see the paper, book, and inkstand as three distinct objects before we notice the wrinkles or corners of any of them. So, understand right away that no detail can be captured in drawing as strongly as it is in real life; aim to keep your shadows and marks on the main shapes lighter than they seem in Nature, or else they’ll end up too dark. In doing this, you might find it hard to show things projecting correctly, but that’s okay; they don’t need to appear to project, but it’s crucial to maintain their relative shading. Any misleading projection comes from overemphasizing shadows; if you see that, you can be sure the drawing isn’t quite right: a truly good drawing or painting will often have a slight tendency towards flatness.

71. Observe, on the other hand, that, however white an object may be, there is always some small point of it whiter 41 than the rest. You must therefore have a slight tone of gray over everything in your picture except on the extreme high lights; even the piece of white paper, in your subject, must be toned slightly down, unless (and there are thousand chances against its being so) it should all be turned so as fully to front the light. By examining the treatment of the white objects in any pictures accessible to you by Paul Veronese or Titian, you will soon understand this.[15]

71. Keep in mind that no matter how white an object is, there's always a small part of it that’s even whiter than the rest. So, you need to add a slight tone of gray to everything in your picture except for the brightest highlights; even the piece of white paper in your subject should be toned down a bit, unless (which is highly unlikely) it’s positioned perfectly to face the light. By looking at how white objects are treated in any of the paintings by Paul Veronese or Titian that you can access, you'll quickly grasp this. [15]

72. As soon as you feel yourself capable of expressing with the brush the undulations of surfaces and the relations of masses, you may proceed to draw more complicated and beautiful things.[16] And first, the boughs of trees, now not in mere dark relief, but in full rounding. Take the first bit of branch or stump that comes to hand, with a fork in it; cut off the ends of the forking branches, so as to leave the whole only about a foot in length; get a piece of paper the same size, fix your bit of branch in some place where its position will not be altered, and draw it thoroughly, in all its light and shade, full size; striving, above all things, to get an accurate expression of its structure at the fork of the branch. When once you have mastered the tree at its armpits, you will have little more trouble with it.

72. Once you feel confident in capturing the curves of surfaces and the relationships between shapes with your brush, you can start to draw more complex and beautiful things.[16] First, try drawing tree branches, not just in flat outlines but in full form. Find the first branch or stump you can, ideally one with a fork; trim the ends of the forked branches so it’s about a foot long. Get a piece of paper the same size, secure your branch in a stable position, and draw it in full size, capturing all its light and shadow. Focus especially on accurately depicting its structure at the fork. Once you've mastered the tree at its armpits, you won’t have much trouble with it again.

73. Always draw whatever the background happens to be, exactly as you see it. Wherever you have fastened the 42 bough, you must draw whatever is behind it, ugly or not, else you will never know whether the light and shade are right; they may appear quite wrong to you, only for want of the background. And this general law is to be observed in all your studies: whatever you draw, draw completely and unalteringly, else you never know if what you have done is right, or whether you could have done it rightly had you tried. There is nothing visible out of which you may not get useful practice.

73. Always draw whatever the background is, exactly as you see it. Wherever you’ve attached the 42 branch, you need to include whatever is behind it, no matter how unattractive, or you won’t be able to tell if the light and shade are correct; they might look completely off to you simply because of the missing background. This rule should apply to all your artwork: whatever you draw, complete and accurate, or you’ll never know if you did it right or if you could have done it correctly if you had tried. There’s nothing visible from which you can’t gain valuable practice.

74. Next, to put the leaves on your boughs. Gather a small twig with four or five leaves on it, put it into water, put a sheet of light-colored or white paper behind it, so that all the leaves may be relieved in dark from the white field; then sketch in their dark shape carefully with pencil as you did the complicated boughs, in order to be sure that all their masses and interstices are right in shape before you begin shading, and complete as far as you can with pen and ink, in the manner of Fig. 6, which is a young shoot of lilac.

74. Next, add the leaves to your branches. Take a small twig with four or five leaves on it, place it in water, and put a sheet of light-colored or white paper behind it so that all the leaves stand out against the dark background of the white paper. Then, carefully sketch their dark outlines with a pencil just like you did with the complex branches, to ensure all their shapes and gaps are accurate before you start shading. Complete as much as you can with pen and ink, like Fig. 6, which is a young shoot of lilac.

75. You will probably, in spite of all your pattern drawings, be at first puzzled by leaf foreshortening; especially because the look of retirement or projection depends not so much on the perspective of the leaves themselves as on the double sight of the two eyes. Now there are certain artifices by which good painters can partly conquer this difficulty; as slight exaggerations of force or color in the nearer parts, and of obscurity in the more distant ones; but you must not attempt anything of this kind. When you are first sketching the leaves, shut one of your eyes, fix a point in the background, to bring the point of one of the leaves against; and so sketch the whole bough as you see it in a fixed position, looking with one eye only. Your drawing never can be made to look like the object itself, as you see that object with both eyes,[17] but it can be made perfectly like the object 43 seen with one, and you must be content when you have got a resemblance on these terms.

75. You might find yourself confused by how leaves appear short when you first start drawing them, even if you have done a lot of practice. This confusion happens because how leaves seem to stick out or fall back doesn't just depend on their perspective, but also on the way our two eyes view things together. There are some techniques that skilled artists use to manage this issue, like slightly exaggerating the brightness or color in the parts that are closer and making the distant parts a bit more dull; however, you should avoid trying these methods right now. When you begin sketching the leaves, close one eye, pick a point in the background to align with one of the leaves, and then sketch the entire branch as you see it, using only one eye. Your drawing will never look exactly like the object as you perceive it with both eyes, but it can be made to accurately represent the object seen with one, and you should be satisfied with achieving that resemblance. 43

76. In order to get clearly at the notion of the thing to be done, take a single long leaf, hold it with its point towards you, and as flat as you can, so as to see nothing of it but its thinness, as if you wanted to know how thin it was; outline it so. Then slope it down gradually towards you, and watch it as it lengthens out to its full length, held perpendicularly down before you. Draw it in three or four different positions between these extremes, with its ribs as they appear in each position, and you will soon find out how it must be.

76. To clearly understand what needs to be done, take a single long leaf and hold it with the tip pointing towards you, keeping it as flat as possible so you only see its thinness, almost as if you're trying to gauge how thin it is; outline it like that. Then slowly tilt it down towards you, and observe how it stretches out to its full length, held straight down in front of you. Draw it in three or four different positions between these two extremes, including its veins as they appear in each position, and you will quickly figure out how it should look.

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

77. Draw first only two or three of the leaves; then larger clusters; and practice, in this way, more and more complicated pieces of bough and leafage, till you find you 44 can master the most difficult arrangements, not consisting of more than ten or twelve leaves. You will find as you do this, if you have an opportunity of visiting any gallery of pictures, that you take a much more lively interest than before in the work of the great masters; you will see that very often their best backgrounds are composed of little more than a few sprays of leafage, carefully studied, brought against the distant sky; and that another wreath or two form the chief interest of their foregrounds. If you live in London you may test your progress accurately by the degree of admiration you feel for the leaves of vine round the head of the Bacchus, in Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne. All this, however, will not enable you to draw a mass of foliage. You will find, on looking at any rich piece of vegetation, that it is only one or two of the nearer clusters that you can by any possibility draw in this complete manner. The mass is too vast, and too intricate, to be thus dealt with.

77. Start by drawing just two or three leaves; then move on to larger clusters. Practice this way, tackling more and more complex arrangements of branches and leaves until you can handle even the most challenging designs, which typically consist of no more than ten or twelve leaves. As you do this, if you get a chance to visit any art gallery, you'll find that you have a much greater appreciation for the work of the great masters. You will notice that often their best backgrounds are made up of little more than a few carefully studied sprays of leaves against the distant sky, while another wreath or two becomes the main focus of their foregrounds. If you live in London, you can gauge your improvement accurately by how much you admire the vine leaves around the head of Bacchus in Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne. However, all this won't help you draw a large mass of foliage. When you look at any dense patch of vegetation, you'll see that you can only realistically draw one or two of the closer clusters in such detail. The mass is too vast and too complex to approach in that way.

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

78. You must now therefore have recourse to some confused mode of execution, capable of expressing the confusion of Nature. And, first, you must understand what the character of that confusion is. If you look carefully at the outer sprays of any tree at twenty or thirty yards' distance, you will see them defined against the sky in masses, which, at first, look quite definite; but if you examine them, you will see, mingled with the real shapes of leaves, many indistinct lines, which are, some of them, stalks of leaves, and 45 some, leaves seen with the edge turned towards you, and coming into sight in a broken way; for, supposing the real leaf shape to be as at a, Fig. 7, this, when removed some yards from the eye, will appear dark against the sky, as at b; then, when removed some yards farther still, the stalk and point disappear altogether, the middle of the leaf becomes little more than a line; and the result is the condition at c, only with this farther subtlety in the look of it, inexpressible in the wood-cut, that the stalk and point of the leaf, though they have disappeared to the eye, have yet some influence in checking the light at the places where they exist, and cause a slight dimness about the part of the leaf which remains visible, so that its perfect effect could only be rendered by two layers of color, one subduing the sky tone a little, the next drawing the broken portions of the leaf, as at c, and carefully indicating the greater darkness of the spot in the middle, where the under side of the leaf is.

78. You now need to use a somewhat chaotic way of execution that reflects the confusion of Nature. First, you need to grasp what that confusion looks like. If you look closely at the outer branches of any tree from a distance of twenty or thirty yards, you'll see them outlined against the sky in shapes that seem quite clear at first. However, upon closer inspection, you'll notice that mixed in with the real shapes of the leaves are many vague lines; some of these are leaf stems, and some are leaves seen from an edge, appearing in a fragmented way. For example, if the actual leaf shape is like at a, Fig. 7, when it's a few yards away from your eyes, it will look dark against the sky, like at b. When it's even further away, the stem and tip disappear completely, and the center of the leaf reduces to little more than a line. The result is the condition at c, with a further subtlety that cannot be captured in the woodcut: even though the stem and tip of the leaf are no longer visible to the eye, they still affect the way light interacts in the areas where they exist, creating a slight dimness around the visible part of the leaf. To fully capture its effect, you'd need two layers of color; one that softens the sky tone a bit, and the other that highlights the fragmented parts of the leaf as seen at c, while carefully showing the deeper darkness in the middle where the underside of the leaf is.

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

This is the perfect theory of the matter. In practice we cannot reach such accuracy; but we shall be able to render 46 the general look of the foliage satisfactorily by the following mode of practice.

This is the ideal theory of the subject. In reality, we can't achieve that level of precision; however, we will be able to create a satisfying overall appearance of the foliage using the following method. 46

79. Gather a spray of any tree, about a foot or eighteen inches long. Fix it firmly by the stem in anything that will support it steadily; put it about eight feet away from you, or ten if you are far-sighted. Put a sheet of not very white paper behind it, as usual. Then draw very carefully, first placing them with pencil, and then filling them up with ink, every leaf-mass and stalk of it in simple black profile, as you see them against the paper: Fig. 8 is a bough of Phillyrea so drawn. Do not be afraid of running the leaves into a black mass when they come together; this exercise is only to teach you what the actual shapes of such masses are when seen against the sky.

79. Take a branch from any tree that's about a foot to eighteen inches long. Secure it firmly by the stem in something that will hold it steady; place it about eight feet away from you, or ten if you're far-sighted. Position a sheet of not overly white paper behind it, as usual. Then draw very carefully, first sketching with pencil, and then filling it in with ink, capturing every cluster of leaves and stem in simple black profile, as you see them against the paper: Fig. 8 is a bough of Phillyrea drawn in this way. Don't hesitate to let the leaves blend into a solid black shape when they come together; this exercise is just to help you understand the actual shapes of such clusters when viewed against the sky.

80. Make two careful studies of this kind of one bough of every common tree,—oak, ash, elm, birch, beech, etc.; in fact, if you are good, and industrious, you will make one such study carefully at least three times a week, until you have examples of every sort of tree and shrub you can get branches of. You are to make two studies of each bough, for this reason,—all masses of foliage have an upper and under surface, and the side view of them, or profile, shows a wholly different organization of branches from that seen in the view from above. They are generally seen more or less in profile, as you look at the whole tree, and Nature puts her best composition into the profile arrangement. But the view from above or below occurs not unfrequently, also, and it is quite necessary you should draw it if you wish to understand the anatomy of the tree. The difference between the two views is often far greater than you could easily conceive. For instance, in Fig. 9, a is the upper view and b the profile, of a single spray of Phillyrea. Fig. 8 is an intermediate view of a larger bough; seen from beneath, but at some lateral distance also.

80. Make two detailed studies of a single branch from each common tree—oak, ash, elm, birch, beech, and so on. In fact, if you’re dedicated and hardworking, aim to complete one study at least three times a week until you have examples of every type of tree and shrub from which you can collect branches. You need to create two studies of each branch for this reason: all bunches of leaves have an upper and lower surface, and the side view, or profile, reveals a completely different arrangement of branches compared to what you see from above. Typically, you observe them more in profile when you look at the whole tree, as Nature showcases her best composition in that arrangement. However, views from above or below also happen frequently, and it’s essential for you to draw them if you want to understand the tree's anatomy. The differences between these two views can often be far greater than you might expect. For example, in Fig. 9, a shows the upper view and b the profile of a single spray of Phillyrea. Fig. 8 is an intermediate view of a larger branch, seen from underneath, but also from some lateral distance.

81. When you have done a few branches in this manner, take one of the drawings you have made, and put it first a yard away from you, then a yard and a half, then two 47 yards; observe how the thinner stalks and leaves gradually disappear, leaving only a vague and slight darkness where they were; and make another study of the effect at each distance, taking care to draw nothing more than you really see, for in this consists all the difference between what would be merely a miniature drawing of the leaves seen near, and a full-size drawing of the same leaves at a distance. By full size, I mean the size which they would really appear of if their outline were traced through a pane of glass held at the same distance from the eye at which you mean to hold your drawing. You can always ascertain this full size of any object by holding your paper upright before you, at the distance from your eye at which you wish your drawing to be seen. Bring its edge across the object you have to draw, and mark upon this edge the points where the outline of the object crosses, or goes behind, the edge of the paper. You will always find it, thus measured, smaller than you supposed.

81. After you've created a few branches this way, take one of your drawings and place it first a yard away from you, then a yard and a half, and then two yards. Notice how the thinner stems and leaves gradually fade away, leaving only a vague, slight shadow where they were. Study the effect from each distance, being careful to draw only what you actually see, because that's the key difference between a simple miniature drawing of the leaves up close and a full-size drawing of the same leaves from a distance. By full size, I mean the size they would realistically appear if their outline were traced through a glass pane held at the same distance from your eyes as you plan to hold your drawing. You can always figure out the full size of any object by holding your paper upright in front of you at the distance you want your drawing to be seen. Bring the edge of the paper across the object you're drawing, and mark along that edge where the outline of the object crosses or goes behind the edge of the paper. You'll often find that, when measured this way, the object is smaller than you thought.

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.

82. When you have made a few careful experiments of this kind on your own drawings, (which are better for practice, at first, than the real trees, because the black profile in the drawing is quite stable, and does not shake, and is not confused by sparkles of luster on the leaves,) you may try the extremities of the real trees, only not doing much at a time, for the brightness of the sky will dazzle and perplex your sight. And this brightness causes, I believe, some loss of the outline itself; at least the chemical action of the light in a photograph extends much within the edges of the 48 leaves, and, as it were, eats them away, so that no tree extremity, stand it ever so still, nor any other form coming against bright sky, is truly drawn by a photograph; and if you once succeed in drawing a few sprays rightly, you will find the result much more lovely and interesting than any photograph can be.

82. Once you’ve done a few careful experiments like this on your own drawings (which are better for practice initially than the actual trees because the black profile in the drawing is stable and doesn’t shake, nor is it confused by sparkles of light on the leaves), you can try drawing the edges of real trees, but do it gradually since the brightness of the sky can be blinding and confusing to your eyes. This brightness, I think, can distort the outlines; at least the light’s chemical effect in a photograph spreads well beyond the edges of the 48 leaves, almost erasing them. So, no tree’s edges—even if it’s perfectly still—nor any other shape against a bright sky, can be accurately captured in a photograph. If you manage to draw a few branches correctly, you’ll find the outcome is much more beautiful and interesting than any photograph could ever be.

83. All this difficulty, however, attaches to the rendering merely the dark form of the sprays as they come against the sky. Within those sprays, and in the heart of the tree, there is a complexity of a much more embarrassing kind; for nearly all leaves have some luster, and all are more or less translucent (letting light through them); therefore, in any given leaf, besides the intricacies of its own proper shadows and foreshortenings, there are three series of circumstances which alter or hide its forms. First, shadows cast on it by other leaves,—often very forcibly. Secondly, light reflected from its lustrous surface, sometimes the blue of the sky, sometimes the white of clouds, or the sun itself flashing like a star. Thirdly, forms and shadows of other leaves, seen as darknesses through the translucent parts of the leaf; a most important element of foliage effect, but wholly neglected by landscape artists in general.

83. All this difficulty, however, comes from just capturing the dark shape of the sprays as they appear against the sky. Inside those sprays, and deep within the tree, there’s a complexity that’s much more challenging; because nearly all leaves have some shine, and all are somewhat translucent (allowing light to pass through them); so, in any individual leaf, along with the details of its own shadows and how it looks from different angles, there are three sets of factors that change or obscure its shapes. First, shadows cast on it by other leaves—often quite strongly. Second, light reflecting off its shiny surface, sometimes the blue of the sky, other times the white of clouds, or the sun itself shining like a star. Third, the shapes and shadows of other leaves, seen as dark shapes through the see-through parts of the leaf; an extremely important aspect of how foliage looks, but completely overlooked by most landscape artists.

84. The consequence of all this is, that except now and then by chance, the form of a complete leaf is never seen; but a marvelous and quaint confusion, very definite, indeed, in its evidence of direction of growth, and unity of action, but wholly indefinable and inextricable, part by part, by any amount of patience. You cannot possibly work it out in facsimile, though you took a twelvemonth's time to a tree; and you must therefore try to discover some mode of execution which will more or less imitate, by its own variety and mystery, the variety and mystery of Nature, without absolute delineation of detail.

84. As a result of all this, except for an occasional stroke of luck, you rarely see the shape of a complete leaf; instead, there's a fascinating and quirky mix that is quite clear in its growth direction and overall unity, but completely impossible to define or untangle, piece by piece, no matter how patient you are. You could spend a year trying to replicate it from a tree, but you still wouldn’t get it exactly right. Therefore, you need to find a way to create something that somewhat imitates the variety and complexity of Nature, without perfectly detailing every element.

85. Now I have led you to this conclusion by observation of tree form only, because in that the thing to be proved is clearest. But no natural object exists which does not involve in some part or parts of it this inimitableness, this 49 mystery of quantity, which needs peculiarity of handling and trick of touch to express it completely. If leaves are intricate, so is moss, so is foam, so is rock cleavage, so are fur and hair, and texture of drapery, and of clouds. And although methods and dexterities of handling are wholly useless if you have not gained first the thorough knowledge of the form of the thing; so that if you cannot draw a branch perfectly, then much less a tree; and if not a wreath of mist perfectly, much less a flock of clouds; and if not a single grass blade perfectly, much less a grass bank; yet having once got this power over decisive form, you may safely—and must, in order to perfection of work—carry out your knowledge by every aid of method and dexterity of hand.

85. I’ve guided you to this point through observing the shape of trees, as that’s where the concept is most apparent. But no natural object exists without some aspect of this uniqueness, this intriguing complexity of form, which requires special techniques and a skilled touch to express fully. If leaves are detailed, then so are moss, foam, rock formations, fur, hair, the texture of fabrics, and clouds. While specific methods and skills are pointless if you haven’t first gained a deep understanding of the object’s shape—meaning if you can’t draw a branch well, you certainly can’t draw a tree; if you can’t depict a wisp of mist perfectly, you’re unlikely to capture a group of clouds; and if you can’t render a single blade of grass accurately, you won’t be able to portray a whole patch—once you master this control over essential form, you can confidently—and should, for the sake of quality—apply your knowledge with all the techniques and skillful hands at your disposal.

86. But, in order to find out what method can do, you must now look at Art as well as at Nature, and see what means painters and engravers have actually employed for the expression of these subtleties. Whereupon arises the question, what opportunity you have to obtain engravings? You ought, if it is at all in your power, to possess yourself of a certain number of good examples of Turner's engraved works: if this be not in your power, you must just make the best use you can of the shop windows, or of any plates of which you can obtain a loan. Very possibly, the difficulty of getting sight of them may stimulate you to put them to better use. But, supposing your means admit of your doing so, possess yourself, first, of the illustrated edition either of Rogers's Italy or Rogers's Poems, and then of about a dozen of the plates named in the annexed lists. The prefixed letters indicate the particular points deserving your study in each engraving.[18] Be sure, therefore, that your selection 50 includes, at all events, one plate marked with each letter. Do not get more than twelve of these plates, nor even all the twelve at first; for the more engravings you have, the less attention you will pay to them. It is a general truth, that 51 the enjoyment derivable from art cannot be increased in quantity, beyond a certain point, by quantity of possession; it is only spread, as it were, over a larger surface, and very often dulled by finding ideas repeated in different works. Now, for a beginner, it is always better that his attention should be concentrated on one or two good things, and all his enjoyment founded on them, than that he should look at many, with divided thoughts. He has much to discover; and his best way of discovering it is to think long over few things, and watch them earnestly. It is one of the worst errors of this age to try to know and to see too much: the men who seem to know everything, never in reality know anything rightly. Beware of handbook knowledge.

86. To understand what technique can achieve, you need to look at both Art and Nature, and see how painters and engravers have actually expressed these subtleties. This brings up the question of how you can access engravings. If possible, you should really try to get your hands on a certain number of good examples of Turner's engraved works. If that's not feasible, then make the most of what's available in shop windows or any plates you can borrow. The challenge of finding them may inspire you to make better use of what you do see. If your circumstances allow, start by getting the illustrated edition of either Rogers's Italy or Rogers's Poems, along with about a dozen of the plates listed in the attached lists. The letters in the list highlight specific aspects you should pay attention to in each engraving. Make sure your selection includes at least one plate marked with each letter. Don’t get more than twelve plates, and don’t try to collect all twelve at once. The more engravings you have, the less focus you will have on each one. It's a common truth that the enjoyment you get from art doesn't increase with the quantity you own; instead, it gets spread out over a larger area and often diluted because of repeated ideas in different works. For a beginner, it's better to focus on one or two good pieces and base all enjoyment on those rather than splitting attention among many. There's a lot to discover, and the best way to do that is to think deeply about a few things and observe them closely. One of the biggest mistakes today is trying to know and see too much: those who seem to know everything often don't truly know anything well. Be cautious of handbook knowledge.

87. These engravings are, in general, more for you to look at than to copy; and they will be of more use to you when we come to talk of composition, than they are at present; still, it will do you a great deal of good, sometimes to try how far you can get their delicate texture, or gradations of tone: as your pen-and-ink drawing will be apt to incline too much to a scratchy and broken kind of shade. For instance, the texture of the white convent wall, and the drawing of its tiled roof, in the vignette at p. 227 of Rogers's Poems, is as exquisite as work can possibly be; and it will be a great and profitable achievement if you can at all approach it. In like manner, if you can at all imitate the dark distant country at p. 7, or the sky at p. 80, of the same volume, or the foliage at pp. 12 and 144, it will be good gain; and if you can once draw the rolling clouds and running river at p. 9 of the Italy, or the city in the vignette of Aosta at p. 25, or the moonlight at p. 223, you will find that even Nature herself cannot 52 afterwards very terribly puzzle you with her torrents, or towers, or moonlight.

87. These engravings are generally more for you to look at than to copy, and they will be more useful when we discuss composition than they are right now. Still, it’s beneficial to sometimes try to capture their delicate texture or tone variations. Your pen-and-ink drawings might tend to become a bit scratchy and uneven in shading. For example, the texture of the white convent wall and the drawing of its tiled roof in the vignette on page 227 of Rogers's Poems are as exquisite as any artwork can be; achieving something like that would be a significant accomplishment. Similarly, if you can even mimic the dark distant landscape on page 7, or the sky on page 80 of the same book, or the foliage on pages 12 and 144, it will be a valuable gain. If you can also draw the rolling clouds and flowing river on page 9 of Italy, or the city in the vignette of Aosta on page 25, or the moonlight on page 223, you’ll find that even Nature herself won’t be too overwhelming later on with her torrents, towers, or moonlight.

88. You need not copy touch for touch, but try to get the same effect. And if you feel discouraged by the delicacy required, and begin to think that engraving is not drawing, and that copying it cannot help you to draw, remember that it differs from common drawing only by the difficulties it has to encounter. You perhaps have got into a careless habit of thinking that engraving is a mere business, easy enough when one has got into the knack of it. On the contrary, it is a form of drawing more difficult than common drawing, by exactly so much as it is more difficult to cut steel than to move the pencil over paper. It is true that there are certain mechanical aids and methods which reduce it at certain stages either to pure machine work, or to more or less a habit of hand and arm; but this is not so in the foliage you are trying to copy, of which the best and prettiest parts are always etched—that is, drawn with a fine steel point and free hand: only the line made is white instead of black, which renders it much more difficult to judge of what you are about. And the trying to copy these plates will be good for you, because it will awaken you to the real labor and skill of the engraver, and make you understand a little how people must work, in this world, who have really to do anything in it.

88. You don’t have to replicate every detail exactly, but aim for the same result. If you're feeling discouraged by the precision needed and start thinking that engraving isn’t drawing, and that copying it won’t help your drawing skills, remember that it only differs from regular drawing because of the challenges it presents. You might have fallen into the mindset that engraving is just a simple job, easy once you get the hang of it. In reality, it’s a type of drawing that’s more challenging than regular drawing, just as cutting steel is harder than moving a pencil across paper. It’s true that there are some mechanical tools and techniques that simplify it at certain points, turning it into either pure machine work or a more automatic motion of hand and arm; but this isn’t the case with the foliage you’re trying to replicate, which is best and most beautifully etched—that is, drawn with a fine steel point and by hand: the line appears white instead of black, making it much harder to judge what you’re doing. Trying to copy these plates will be beneficial for you because it will make you appreciate the real work and skill of the engraver, and help you understand a bit about how people must truly labor in this world if they really want to achieve something.

89. Do not, however, suppose that I give you the engraving as a model—far from it; but it is necessary you should be able to do as well[19] before you think of doing better, and you will find many little helps and hints in the various work of it. Only remember that all engravers' foregrounds are bad; whenever you see the peculiar wriggling parallel lines of modern engravings become distinct, you must not copy; nor admire: it is only the softer masses, and distances, and portions of the foliage in the plates marked f, which you may copy. The best for this purpose, if you can get it, is the 53 "Chain bridge over the Tees," of the England series; the thicket on the right is very beautiful and instructive, and very like Turner. The foliage in the "Ludlow" and "Powis" is also remarkably good.

89. However, don't think that I'm giving you the engraving as a model—far from it; it's important that you can do just as well[19] before you consider doing better, and you'll find plenty of little tips and hints in the various works. Just keep in mind that all engravers' foregrounds are lacking; whenever you notice the distinct wavy parallel lines in modern engravings, don't copy them or admire them: focus instead on the softer masses, backgrounds, and sections of the foliage in the plates marked f, which you can replicate. The best option for this, if you can find it, is the "Chain bridge over the Tees" from the England series; the thicket on the right is very beautiful and educational, and it resembles Turner's work quite a bit. The foliage in the "Ludlow" and "Powis" is also exceptionally good.

90. Besides these line engravings, and to protect you from what harm there is in their influence, you are to provide yourself, if possible, with a Rembrandt etching, or a photograph of one (of figures, not landscape). It does not matter of what subject, or whether a sketchy or finished one, but the sketchy ones are generally cheapest, and will teach you most. Copy it as well as you can, noticing especially that Rembrandt's most rapid lines have steady purpose; and that they are laid with almost inconceivable precision when the object becomes at all interesting. The "Prodigal Son," "Death of the Virgin," "Abraham and Isaac," and such others, containing incident and character rather than chiaroscuro, will be the most instructive. You can buy one; copy it well; then exchange it, at little loss, for another; and so, gradually, obtain a good knowledge of his system. Whenever you have an opportunity of examining his work at museums, etc., do so with the greatest care, not looking at many things, but a long time at each. You must also provide yourself, if possible, with an engraving of Albert Dürer's. This you will not be able to copy; but you must keep it beside you, and refer to it as a standard of precision in line. If you can get one with a wing in it, it will be best. The crest with the cock, that with the skull and satyr, and the "Melancholy," are the best you could have, but any will do. Perfection in chiaroscuro drawing lies between these two masters, Rembrandt and Dürer. Rembrandt is often too loose and vague; and Dürer has little or no effect of mist or uncertainty. If you can see anywhere a drawing by Leonardo, you will find it balanced between the two characters; but there are no engravings which present this perfection, and your style will be best formed, therefore, by alternate study of Rembrandt and Dürer. Lean rather to Dürer; it is better, for amateurs, to err on the side of precision than on 54 that of vagueness: and though, as I have just said, you cannot copy a Dürer, yet try every now and then a quarter of an inch square or so, and see how much nearer you can come; you cannot possibly try to draw the leafy crown of the "Melancholia" too often.

90. In addition to these line engravings, and to shield you from any negative influence they might have, try to get a Rembrandt etching, or a photograph of one (of figures, not landscapes), if you can. The subject doesn't matter, and it can be a rough or finished piece, but rough ones are usually cheaper and will teach you more. Copy it as best as you can, paying special attention to how Rembrandt's quickest lines have a definite purpose; they are applied with almost unbelievable precision when the subject is interesting. Works like "The Prodigal Son," "Death of the Virgin," "Abraham and Isaac," and similar pieces that focus more on storytelling and character than on light and shadow will be the most educational. You can buy one; copy it well; then trade it, with little loss, for another; and so on, gradually building a solid understanding of his technique. Whenever you get a chance to examine his work in museums, do it carefully, spending a long time on each piece rather than rushing through many. You should also try to get an engraving of Albert Dürer’s work. You won’t be able to copy it, but keep it nearby and refer to it as a standard for precision in line. If you can find one that features a wing, that would be ideal. The crest with a rooster, the one with the skull and satyr, and "Melancholy" are the best options, but any will do. Mastery in chiaroscuro drawing lies between these two artists, Rembrandt and Dürer. Rembrandt can be too loose and unclear, while Dürer lacks the effects of mist or ambiguity. If you come across a drawing by Leonardo, you’ll see a balance between the two styles; however, no engravings achieve this level of perfection. Therefore, your style will develop best by alternating studies of Rembrandt and Dürer. Lean more toward Dürer; it's better for beginners to skew toward precision than vagueness. While you can't perfectly replicate a Dürer, try small sections now and then, like a quarter of an inch square, and see how closely you can approach it; you can never practice drawing the leafy crown from "Melancholia" too many times.

91. If you cannot get either a Rembrandt or a Dürer, you may still learn much by carefully studying any of George Cruikshank's etchings, or Leech's wood-cuts in Punch, on the free side; with Alfred Rethel's and Richter's[20] on the severe side. But in so doing you will need to notice the following points:

91. If you can't get a Rembrandt or a Dürer, you can still learn a lot by closely studying any of George Cruikshank's etchings or Leech's woodcuts in Punch for a more relaxed style, along with Alfred Rethel's and Richter's[20] for a more serious tone. However, as you do this, you'll need to pay attention to the following points:

92. When either the material (as the copper or wood) or the time of an artist does not permit him to make a perfect drawing,—that is to say, one in which no lines shall be prominently visible,—and he is reduced to show the black lines, either drawn by the pen, or on the wood, it is better to make these lines help, as far as may be, the expression of texture and form. You will thus find many textures, as of cloth or grass or flesh, and many subtle effects of light, expressed by Leech with zigzag or crossed or curiously broken lines; and you will see that Alfred Rethel and Richter constantly express the direction and rounding of surfaces by the direction of the lines which shade them. All these various means of expression will be useful to you, as far as you can learn them, provided you remember that they are merely a kind of shorthand; telling certain facts not in quite the right way, but in the only possible way under the conditions: and provided in any after use of such means, you never try to show your own dexterity; but only to get as much record of the object as you can in a given time; and that you continually make efforts to go beyond such shorthand, and draw portions of the objects rightly.

92. When an artist doesn’t have the right materials (like copper or wood) or enough time to create a perfect drawing—meaning one where no lines stand out prominently—and ends up showing black lines, whether drawn with a pen or on wood, it’s better to use those lines to enhance the expression of texture and form as much as possible. You’ll see various textures, like cloth, grass, or skin, and many subtle light effects expressed by Leech through zigzag, crossed, or uniquely broken lines; you’ll also notice that Alfred Rethel and Richter consistently show the direction and curve of surfaces by the way they use lines to shade them. All these different ways of expressing will be helpful for you to learn, as long as you remember they are just a type of shorthand; conveying certain facts not exactly right, but in the only feasible way given the constraints. And when you use these techniques later, don’t focus on showing off your skill; just aim to capture as much of the object as you can in the time you have; and always strive to go beyond this shorthand and accurately depict parts of the objects.

93. And touching this question of direction of lines as indicating that of surface, observe these few points:

93. Regarding this question of how the direction of lines indicates the orientation of surfaces, take note of these few points:

Fig. 10.
Fig. 10.

If lines are to be distinctly shown, it is better that, so far 55 as they can indicate anything by their direction, they should explain rather than oppose the general character of the object. Thus, in the piece of wood-cut from Titian, Fig. 10, the lines are serviceable by expressing, not only the shade of the trunk, but partly also its roundness, and the flow of its grain. And Albert Dürer, whose work was chiefly engraving, sets himself always thus to make his lines as valuable as possible; telling much by them, both of shade and direction of surface: and if you were always to be limited to engraving on copper (and did not want to express effects of mist or darkness, as well as delicate forms), Albert Dürer's way of work would be the best example for you. But, inasmuch as the perfect way of drawing is by shade without lines, and the great painters always conceive their subject as complete, even when they are sketching it most rapidly, you will find that, when they are not limited in means, they do not much trust to direction of line, but will often scratch in the shade of a rounded surface with nearly straight lines, that is to say, with the easiest and quickest lines possible to themselves. When the hand is free, the easiest line for it to draw is one inclining from the left upwards to the right, or vice versâ, from the right downwards to the left; and when done very quickly, the line is hooked a little at the end by the effort 56 at return to the next. Hence, you will always find the pencil, chalk, or pen sketch of a very great master full of these kind of lines; and even if he draws carefully, you will find him using simple straight lines from left to right, when an inferior master would have used curved ones. Fig. 11 is a fair facsimile of part of a sketch of Raphael's, which exhibits these characters very distinctly. Even the careful drawings of Leonardo da Vinci are shaded most commonly with straight lines; and you may always assume it as a point increasing the probability of a drawing being by a great 57 master if you find rounded surfaces, such as those of cheeks or lips, shaded with straight lines.

If lines are meant to be shown clearly, it's better that, as much as they can indicate anything by their direction, they should complement rather than contradict the overall nature of the object. For example, in the woodcut piece by Titian, Fig. 10, the lines effectively convey not just the shadow of the trunk but also its roundness and the flow of its grain. Albert Dürer, who mainly worked in engraving, consistently aims to make his lines as valuable as possible, conveying a lot about both shadow and surface direction: if you were limited to engraving on copper and didn't want to express effects of mist or darkness, as well as delicate forms, Dürer’s approach would be the best example for you. However, since the ideal way of drawing is through shading without lines, and great painters always consider their subject complete even when they’re sketching quickly, you'll find that when they have ample resources, they don’t rely much on line direction. Instead, they often scratch in the shading of a rounded surface using nearly straight lines, meaning the easiest and quickest lines for them. When the hand is free, the easiest line to draw tends to slope from the left up to the right, or vice versa, from the right down to the left; when done quickly, this line might curve slightly at the end due to the motion of returning to the next point. Thus, you will always see the sketches of a very great master filled with these types of lines. Even when drawing carefully, they tend to use simple straight lines from left to right, whereas a lesser master would have opted for curved lines. Fig. 11 is a faithful representation of part of a sketch by Raphael, which clearly shows these traits. Even Leonardo da Vinci's detailed drawings are most often shaded with straight lines, and you can generally assume that the likelihood of a drawing being by a great master increases if you see rounded surfaces, like cheeks or lips, shaded with straight lines.

Fig. 11.
Fig. 11.

94. But you will also now understand how easy it must be for dishonest dealers to forge or imitate scrawled sketches like Fig. 11, and pass them for the work of great masters; and how the power of determining the genuineness of a drawing depends entirely on your knowing the facts of the objects drawn, and perceiving whether the hasty handling is all conducive to the expression of those truths. In a great man's work, at its fastest, no line is thrown away, and it is not by the rapidity, but the economy of the execution that you know him to be great. Now to judge of this economy, you must know exactly what he meant to do, otherwise you cannot of course discern how far he has done it; that is, you must know the beauty and nature of the thing he was drawing. All judgment of art thus finally founds itself on knowledge of Nature.

94. But you will now understand how easy it must be for dishonest dealers to forge or imitate quick sketches like Fig. 11, and pass them off as the work of great masters; and how the ability to determine whether a drawing is genuine depends entirely on your understanding the details of the objects drawn and recognizing whether the hurried style effectively conveys those truths. In a great artist's work, even at its quickest, no line is wasted, and it's not the speed that reveals his greatness but the efficiency of the execution. To evaluate this efficiency, you must know exactly what he intended to accomplish; otherwise, you can't tell how well he succeeded. That is, you need to understand the beauty and nature of what he was drawing. All judgment of art ultimately rests on a knowledge of Nature.

95. But farther observe, that this scrawled, or economic, or impetuous execution is never affectedly impetuous. If a great man is not in a hurry, he never pretends to be; if he has no eagerness in his heart, he puts none into his hand; if he thinks his effect would be better got with two lines, he never, to show his dexterity, tries to do it with one. Be assured, therefore (and this is a matter of great importance), that you will never produce a great drawing by imitating the execution of a great master. Acquire his knowledge and share his feelings, and the easy execution will fall from your hand as it did from his: but if you merely scrawl because he scrawled, or blot because he blotted, you will not only never advance in power, but every able draughtsman, and every judge whose opinion is worth having, will know you for a cheat, and despise you accordingly.

95. But take note that this rough, or spontaneous, or intense way of working is never artificially intense. If a great artist isn't rushed, they never act like they are; if there's no urgency in their heart, they don't show it in their work; if they believe their message would be better conveyed in two lines, they won’t, just to prove their skill, try to do it in one. So, be assured (and this is really important), you’ll never create a great drawing by just copying the style of a great master. Learn their knowledge and share their feelings, and you’ll find that the effortless execution will come from your hand just like it did from theirs: but if you just scribble because they scribbled, or smudge because they smudged, you won’t only fail to gain any skill, but every skilled artist and every knowledgeable critic will see you as a fraud and look down on you for it.

96. Again, observe respecting the use of outline:

96. Again, take note regarding the use of an outline:

All merely outlined drawings are bad, for the simple reason, that an artist of any power can always do more, and tell more, by quitting his outlines occasionally, and scratching in a few lines for shade, than he can by restricting himself 58 to outline only. Hence the fact of his so restricting himself, whatever may be the occasion, shows him to be a bad draughtsman, and not to know how to apply his power economically. This hard law, however, bears only on drawings meant to remain in the state in which you see them; not on those which were meant to be proceeded with, or for some mechanical use. It is sometimes necessary to draw pure outlines, as an incipient arrangement of a composition, to be filled up afterwards with color, or to be pricked through and used as patterns or tracings; but if, with no such ultimate object, making the drawing wholly for its own sake, and meaning it to remain in the state he leaves it, an artist restricts himself to outline, he is a bad draughtsman, and his work is bad. There is no exception to this law. A good artist habitually sees masses, not edges, and can in every case make his drawing more expressive (with any given quantity of work) by rapid shade than by contours; so that all good work whatever is more or less touched with shade, and more or less interrupted as outline.

All drawings that are just outlines are poorly done because a skilled artist can always convey more and evoke deeper emotion by occasionally stepping away from outlines and adding a few lines for shading, rather than limiting themselves to just outlines. Therefore, if an artist confines themselves to outlines, regardless of the situation, it shows they are a poor draftsman and do not know how to use their skills effectively. However, this strict rule only applies to drawings intended to remain in the state you see them; it does not apply to those meant to be developed further or used for mechanical purposes. Sometimes it’s necessary to create pure outlines as an initial layout for a composition that will later be filled in with color or used as patterns or templates. But if an artist creates a drawing solely for its own sake, intending it to stay in the form they leave it, and restricts themselves to outlines, they are a bad draftsman and their work is lacking. There are no exceptions to this rule. A good artist typically sees shapes, not just edges, and can always make their drawing more expressive (given the same amount of effort) through quick shading rather than outlines; thus, all quality work is somewhat infused with shade and less consistently defined by outlines.

Fig. 12.
Fig. 12.

97. Hence, the published works of Retzsch, and all the English imitations of them, and all outline engravings from pictures, are bad work, and only serve to corrupt the public taste. And of such outlines, the worst are those which are darkened in some part of their course by way of expressing the dark side, as Flaxman's from Dante, and such others; because an outline can only be true so long as it accurately represents the form of the given object with one of its edges. Thus, the outline a and the outline b, Fig. 12, are both true outlines of a ball; because, however thick the line may be, whether we take the interior or exterior edge of it, that edge of it always draws a true circle. But c is a false outline of a ball, because either the inner or outer edge of the black line must be an untrue circle, else the line could not be thicker in one place than another. Hence all "force," as it is called, is gained by falsification of the contours; so that no artist whose eye is true and fine could endure to look 59 at it. It does indeed often happen that a painter, sketching rapidly, and trying again and again for some line which he cannot quite strike, blackens or loads the first line by setting others beside and across it; and then a careless observer supposes it has been thickened on purpose: or, sometimes also, at a place where shade is afterwards to inclose the form, the painter will strike a broad dash of this shade beside his outline at once, looking as if he meant to thicken the outline; whereas this broad line is only the first installment of the future shadow, and the outline is really drawn with its inner edge.[21] And thus, far from good draughtsmen darkening the lines which turn away from the light, the tendency with them is rather to darken them towards the light, for it is there in general that shade will ultimately inclose them. The best example of this treatment that I know is Raphael's sketch, in the Louvre, of the head of the angel pursuing Heliodorus, the one that shows part of the left eye; where the dark strong lines which terminate the nose and forehead towards the light are opposed to tender and light ones behind the ear, and in other places towards the shade. You will see in Fig. 11 the same principle variously exemplified; the principal dark lines, in the head and drapery of the arms, being on the side turned to the light.

97. Therefore, the published works of Retzsch, along with all the English imitations and outline engravings from paintings, are poorly executed and only serve to ruin the public's taste. Among these outlines, the ones that are darkened in certain areas to indicate the shadow side, like Flaxman's from Dante, are the worst. This is because an outline can only be considered true as long as it accurately represents the shape of the object using one of its edges. So, the outline a and the outline , Fig. 12, are both true outlines of a ball; regardless of how thick the line is, whether we look at the inner or outer edge, that edge will always form a true circle. However, c is a false outline of a ball because either the inner or outer edge of the thick black line must be an inaccurate circle, otherwise, the line couldn't be thicker in some areas than others. Thus, all the so-called "force" is achieved through distortion of the outlines; in fact, no artist with a true and discerning eye could bear to look at it. It often happens that a painter, working quickly and repeatedly attempting to get a line just right, ends up darkening or thickening the first line by placing others next to and across it, leading a careless observer to assume that it was thickened intentionally. Also, sometimes where a shadow will eventually enclose the form, the painter may strike a broad swipe of this shadow next to his outline, which appears as if he meant to thicken the outline; however, this broad line is just the initial stage of the future shadow, and the outline is actually drawn with its inner edge. [21] Thus, far from good draftsmen darkening the lines that face away from the light, their tendency is actually to darken them toward the light, since this is generally where the shadow will eventually surround them. The best example of this treatment that I know of is Raphael's sketch in the Louvre of the head of the angel pursuing Heliodorus, which shows part of the left eye; where dark, strong lines defining the nose and forehead closer to the light contrast with delicate, lighter lines behind the ear and in other shaded areas. You will see in Fig. 11 this same principle illustrated in different ways; the primary dark lines in the head and drapery of the arms are on the side facing the light.

Fig. 13.
Fig. 13.

98. All these refinements and ultimate principles, however, do not affect your drawing for the present. You must try to make your outlines as equal as possible; and employ pure outline only for the two following purposes: either (1.) to steady your hand, as in Exercise II., for if you cannot draw the line itself, you will never be able to terminate your shadow in the precise shape required, when the line is absent; or (2.) to give you shorthand memoranda of forms, when you are pressed for time. Thus the forms of distant trees in groups are defined, for the most part, by the light edge of the rounded mass of the nearer one being shown against the darker part of the rounded mass of a more distant one; and to draw this properly, nearly as much work is 60 required to round each tree as to round the stone in Fig. 5. Of course you cannot often get time to do this; but if you mark the terminal line of each tree as is done by Dürer in Fig. 13, you will get a most useful memorandum of their arrangement, and a very interesting drawing. Only observe in doing this, you must not, because the procedure is a quick one, hurry that procedure itself. You will find, on copying that bit of Dürer, that every one of his lines is firm, deliberate, and accurately descriptive as far as it goes. It means a bush of such a size and such a shape, definitely observed and set down; it contains a true "signalement" of every nut-tree, and apple-tree, and higher bit of hedge, all round that village. If you have not time to draw thus carefully, do not draw at all—you are merely wasting your work and spoiling your taste. When you have had four or five years' practice you may be able to make useful memoranda at a rapid rate, but not yet; except sometimes of light and shade, in a way of which I will tell you presently. And this use of outline, note farther, is wholly confined to objects which have edges or limits. You can outline a tree or a stone, when it rises against another tree or stone; but you cannot outline folds in 61 drapery, or waves in water; if these are to be expressed at all, it must be by some sort of shade, and therefore the rule that no good drawing can consist throughout of pure outline remains absolute. You see, in that wood-cut of Dürer's, his reason for even limiting himself so much to outline as he has, in those distant woods and plains, is that he may leave them in bright light, to be thrown out still more by the dark sky and the dark village spire: and the scene becomes real and sunny only by the addition of these shades.

98. All these improvements and main principles, however, don’t impact your drawing right now. You should aim to make your outlines as even as possible and use pure outlines only for two purposes: either (1.) to steady your hand, like in Exercise II., because if you can’t draw the line itself, you’ll never be able to finish your shadow in the exact shape needed when the line is missing; or (2.) to create quick notes of shapes when you’re pressed for time. For example, the shapes of distant trees grouped together are mostly defined by the light edge of the rounded mass of a nearer tree being shown against the darker part of the rounded mass of a farther one; and to draw this correctly, it requires nearly as much effort to round each tree as it does to round the stone in Fig. 5. Of course, you won’t often find the time to do this; but if you outline the edges of each tree like Dürer does in Fig. 13, you’ll get a very useful sketch of their arrangement and a very interesting drawing. Just keep in mind that, despite the quick nature of this approach, you shouldn’t rush the process itself. When you copy that section from Dürer, you’ll notice that each of his lines is solid, deliberate, and accurately descriptive to the extent that it goes. It represents a bush of a certain size and shape, carefully observed and recorded; it contains a true “signalement” of every nut-tree, apple-tree, and higher section of hedge around that village. If you don’t have time to draw this carefully, then don’t draw at all—you’ll just waste your effort and ruin your taste. After you’ve practiced for four or five years, you may be able to make useful notes quickly, but not just yet; except sometimes with light and shade, which I’ll explain to you later. Also, this use of outlines is entirely limited to objects that have edges or borders. You can outline a tree or a stone when it stands against another tree or stone; but you can’t outline folds in 61drapery or waves in water; if these need to be expressed at all, it must be through some form of shading, and therefore the rule that no good drawing can consist entirely of pure outline remains in effect. You see, in that woodcut by Dürer, his reason for sticking so much to outlines in those distant woods and fields is so he can leave them in bright light, which makes them stand out even more against the dark sky and the dark village spire: and the scene only appears real and sunny with the addition of those shades.

Fig. 14.
Fig. 14.

99. Understanding, then, thus much of the use of outline, we will go back to our question about tree-drawing left unanswered at page 48.

99. Now that we understand the purpose of an outline, let's revisit our question about drawing trees that we left unanswered on page 48.

Fig. 15.
Fig. 15.

We were, you remember, in pursuit of mystery among the leaves. Now, it is quite easy to obtain mystery and disorder, to any extent; but the difficulty is to keep organization in the midst of mystery. And you will never succeed in doing this unless you lean always to the definite side, and allow yourself rarely to become quite vague, at least through all your early practice. So, after your single groups of leaves, your first step must be to conditions like Figs. 14 and 15, which are careful facsimiles of two portions of a beautiful wood-cut of Dürer's, the "Flight into Egypt." Copy these carefully,—never mind how little at a time, but 62 thoroughly; then trace the Dürer, and apply it to your drawing, and do not be content till the one fits the other, else your eye is not true enough to carry you safely through meshes of real leaves. And in the course of doing this, you will find that not a line nor dot of Dürer's can be displaced without harm; that all add to the effect, and either express something, or illumine something, or relieve something. If, afterwards, you copy any of the pieces of modern tree drawing, of which so many rich examples are given constantly in our cheap illustrated periodicals (any of the Christmas numbers of last year's Illustrated News or others are full of them), you will see that, though good and forcible general effect is produced, the lines are thrown in by thousands without special intention, and might just as well go one way as another, so only that there be enough of them to produce all together a well-shaped effect of intricacy: and you will find that a little careless scratching about with your pen will bring you very near the same result without an effort; but that no scratching of pen, nor any fortunate chance, nor anything but downright skill and thought, will imitate so much 63 as one leaf of Dürer's. Yet there is considerable intricacy and glittering confusion in the interstices of those vine leaves of his, as well as of the grass.

We were, as you recall, chasing mystery among the leaves. It's pretty easy to find mystery and chaos, but the challenge is maintaining order amidst that mystery. You won't succeed in this unless you always lean towards being specific and rarely allow yourself to be completely vague, especially during your early practice. So, after studying individual groups of leaves, your next step should be to examine examples like Figs. 14 and 15, which are careful reproductions of two sections from a beautiful woodcut by Dürer, titled "The Flight into Egypt." Copy these precisely—don't worry about how slowly, but do it thoroughly; then trace the Dürer and incorporate it into your drawing. Don’t settle until the two match perfectly; otherwise, your eye isn't sharp enough to guide you through the complexities of real leaves. While doing this, you'll discover that not a line or dot of Dürer's can be altered without causing problems; every part contributes to the overall effect, either expressing something, illuminating something, or providing relief. If you later copy any modern tree drawings, of which there are plenty in our affordable illustrated magazines (like last year's Christmas editions of the Illustrated News or others), you'll see that although they achieve a good and striking overall effect, the lines are thrown in haphazardly without intention, and could just as easily go in any direction, as long as there are enough to create a well-shaped look of intricacy. You'll find that a bit of careless scratching with your pen can get you close to the same result with little effort; but no amount of random scratching or luck can match the skill and thought needed to replicate even one leaf by Dürer. Nonetheless, there is considerable intricacy and sparkling confusion in the gaps of his vine leaves, as well as in the grass.

Fig. 16.
Fig. 16.

100. When you have got familiarized to his firm manner, you may draw from Nature as much as you like in the same way; and when you are tired of the intense care required for this, you may fall into a little more easy massing of the leaves, as in Fig. 10 (p. 55). This is facsimilëd from an engraving after Titian, but an engraving not quite first-rate in manner, the leaves being a little too formal; still, it is a good enough model for your times of rest; and when you cannot carry the thing even so far as this, you may sketch the forms of the masses, as in Fig. 16,[22] taking care always to have thorough 64 command over your hand; that is, not to let the mass take a free shape because your hand ran glibly over the paper, but because in Nature it has actually a free and noble shape, and you have faithfully followed the same.

100. Once you get used to his strong style, you can draw from nature as much as you want in the same way; and when you tire of the intense focus this requires, you can loosen up a bit with the way you group the leaves, as in Fig. 10 (p. 55). This is based on an engraving after Titian, though it’s not the best quality, with the leaves looking a bit too structured; still, it’s a good enough reference for your more relaxed times. And when you can't even go that far, you can sketch the shapes of the groups, as seen in Fig. 16, [22], always making sure you have full control over your hand. This means not allowing the shapes to become loose just because your hand moved easily across the paper, but because they actually have a free and graceful form in nature, and you've accurately captured that.

101. And now that we have come to questions of noble shape, as well as true shape, and that we are going to draw from Nature at our pleasure, other considerations enter into the business, which are by no means confined to first practice, but extend to all practice; these (as this letter is long enough, I should think, to satisfy even the most exacting of correspondents) I will arrange in a second letter; praying you only to excuse the tiresomeness of this first one—tiresomeness inseparable from directions touching the beginning of any art,—and to believe me, even though I am trying to set you to dull and hard work,

101. Now that we’re discussing both noble and true forms, and since we’ll be drawing from Nature as we wish, there are other factors to consider that go beyond just the basics and apply to all levels of practice. I’ll organize these thoughts in a second letter, as this one is already long enough to satisfy even the most demanding readers. Please forgive the tedious nature of this first letter—tedium that often comes with the initial instructions of any art—and trust that even if I’m asking you to engage in dull and challenging work,

Very faithfully yours,

Sincerely yours,

J. Ruskin.

J. Ruskin.


[1] (N.B.—This note is only for the satisfaction of incredulous or curious readers. You may miss it if you are in a hurry, or are willing to take the statement in the text on trust.)

[1] (Note:—This note is just for the benefit of skeptical or curious readers. You might overlook it if you're rushing or if you're willing to accept the statement in the text without question.)

The perception of solid Form is entirely a matter of experience. We see nothing but flat colors; and it is only by a series of experiments that we find out that a stain of black or gray indicates the dark side of a solid substance, or that a faint hue indicates that the object in which it appears is far away. The whole technical power of painting depends on our recovery of what may be called the innocence of the eye; that is to say, of a sort of childish perception of these flat stains of color, merely as such, without consciousness of what they signify,—as a blind man would see them if suddenly gifted with sight.

The way we perceive solid shapes is completely based on experience. We only see flat colors, and it's only through a series of experiments that we discover that a patch of black or gray shows the shadow of a solid object, or that a light color suggests that the object displaying it is far away. The entire skill of painting relies on our ability to recover what could be called the innocence of the eye; in other words, a kind of childlike vision of these flat color patches, as they are, without awareness of their meaning—like how a blind person would perceive them if they suddenly gained sight.

For instance: when grass is lighted strongly by the sun in certain directions, it is turned from green into a peculiar and somewhat dusty-looking yellow. If we had been born blind, and were suddenly endowed with sight on a piece of grass thus lighted in some parts by the sun, it would appear to us that part of the grass was green, and part a dusty yellow (very nearly of the color of primroses); and, if there were primroses near, we should think that the sunlighted grass was another mass of plants of the same sulphur-yellow color. We should try to gather some of them, and then find that the color went away from the grass when we stood between it and the sun, but not from the primroses; and by a series of experiments we should find out that the sun was really the cause of the color in the one,—not in the other. We go through such processes of experiment unconsciously in childhood; and having once come to conclusions touching the signification of certain colors, we always suppose that we see what we only know, and have hardly any consciousness of the real aspect of the signs we have learned to interpret. Very few people have any idea that sunlighted grass is yellow.

For example: when grass is brightly lit by the sun from certain angles, it changes from green to a strange, somewhat dusty-looking yellow. If we had been born blind and suddenly gained sight while looking at a patch of grass illuminated by the sun, we would see that part of the grass is green and part is a dusty yellow (very similar to the color of primroses); and if there were primroses nearby, we might think the sunlit grass was just another group of plants with the same sulphur-yellow color. We would try to pick some, only to realize that the color disappeared from the grass when we stood between it and the sun, but not from the primroses; and through a series of experiments, we would discover that the sun was indeed the reason for the color in one case—not in the other. We unconsciously go through such experimental processes in childhood, and once we form conclusions about the meanings of certain colors, we tend to assume we actually see what we only know, hardly being aware of the true appearance of the signs we've learned to interpret. Very few people realize that sunlit grass is yellow.

Now, a highly accomplished artist has always reduced himself as nearly as possible to this condition of infantine sight. He sees the colors of nature exactly as they are, and therefore perceives at once in the sunlighted grass the precise relation between the two colors that form its shade and light. To him it does not seem shade and light, but bluish green barred with gold.

Now, a highly skilled artist has always tried to simplify himself to the point of having a child's perspective. He sees the colors of nature exactly as they are and instantly recognizes the exact relationship between the two colors that create its shade and light in the sunlight. To him, it doesn't seem like shade and light, but rather a bluish green mixed with gold.

Strive, therefore, first of all, to convince yourself of this great fact about sight. This, in your hand, which you know by experience and touch to be a book, is to your eye nothing but a patch of white, variously gradated and spotted; this other thing near you, which by experience you know to be a table, is to your eye only a patch of brown, variously darkened and veined; and so on: and the whole art of Painting consists merely in perceiving the shape and depth of these patches of color, and putting patches of the same size, depth, and shape on canvas. The only obstacle to the success of painting is, that many of the real colors are brighter and paler than it is possible to put on canvas: we must put darker ones to represent them.

So, first of all, you need to convince yourself of this important fact about sight. What you hold in your hand, which you know by touch and experience to be a book, appears to your eye as just a patch of white with different shades and spots; this other object nearby, which you recognize as a table, looks to your eye like a patch of brown, with varying darkness and patterns; and so on. The entire skill of painting comes down to understanding the shape and depth of these color patches and accurately placing similar patches of the same size, depth, and shape on canvas. The main challenge in painting is that many real colors are brighter and lighter than what can actually be applied to canvas, so we have to use darker shades to depict them.

[2] Stale crumb of bread is better, if you are making a delicate drawing, than india-rubber, for it disturbs the surface of the paper less: but it crumbles about the room and makes a mess; and, besides, you waste the good bread, which is wrong; and your drawing will not for a long while be worth the crumbs. So use india-rubber very lightly; or, if heavily, pressing it only, not passing it over the paper, and leave what pencil marks will not come away so, without minding them. In a finished drawing the uneffaced penciling is often serviceable, helping the general tone, and enabling you to take out little bright lights.

[2] A stale piece of bread is better for making a delicate drawing than an eraser, because it disturbs the paper's surface less. However, it crumbles everywhere and creates a mess, plus you end up wasting good bread, which isn’t right. And your drawing won’t be worth the crumbs for a long time. So, use an eraser very lightly; or if you need to use it more heavily, just press it down without rubbing it over the paper, and leave any pencil marks that won’t come off without worrying about them. In a finished drawing, the pencil marks that remain can actually be useful, enhancing the overall tone and allowing you to highlight little bright areas.

[3] What is usually so much sought after under the term "freedom" is the character of the drawing of a great master in a hurry, whose hand is so thoroughly disciplined, that when pressed for time he can let it fly as it will, and it will not go far wrong. But the hand of a great master at real work is never free: its swiftest dash is under perfect government. Paul Veronese or Tintoret could pause within a hair's breadth of any appointed mark, in their fastest touches; and follow, within a hair's breadth, the previously intended curve. You must never, therefore, aim at freedom. It is not required of your drawing that it should be free, but that it should be right; in time you will be able to do right easily, and then your work will be free in the best sense; but there is no merit in doing wrong easily.

[3] What people usually seek under the term "freedom" is the quality of a great master’s drawing done quickly, whose hand is so well-trained that when in a rush, it can flow naturally and still get it right. However, the hand of a great master at true work is never free: even its quickest stroke is perfectly controlled. Paul Veronese or Tintoret could stop just short of any targeted mark, even in their fastest touches; and closely follow the intended curve. Therefore, you should never aim for freedom. Your drawing doesn’t need to be free, but it does need to be correct; eventually, you will be able to do it correctly with ease, and then your work will be free in the best sense. But there’s no value in doing something wrong easily.

These remarks, however, do not apply to the lines used in shading, which, it will be remembered, are to be made as quickly as possible. The reason of this is, that the quicker a line is drawn, the lighter it is at the ends, and therefore the more easily joined with other lines, and concealed by them; the object in perfect shading being to conceal the lines as much as possible.

These comments, however, don't apply to the lines used for shading, which, as you may recall, should be made as quickly as possible. The reason for this is that the faster a line is drawn, the lighter it is at the ends, making it easier to blend with other lines and hide them; the goal of perfect shading is to hide the lines as much as possible.

And observe, in this exercise, the object is more to get firmness of hand than accuracy of eye for outline; for there are no outlines in Nature, and the ordinary student is sure to draw them falsely if he draws them at all. Do not, therefore, be discouraged if you find mistakes continue to occur in your outlines; be content at present if you find your hand gaining command over the curves.

And notice, in this exercise, the goal is more about developing a steady hand than being precise with eyeing the outlines; after all, there are no outlines in Nature, and most students tend to draw them incorrectly if they try at all. So, don’t get discouraged if you keep making mistakes in your outlines; just be satisfied for now if you see your hand becoming more skilled with the curves.

[4] If you can get any pieces of dead white porcelain, not glazed, they will be useful models.

[4] If you can find any pieces of unglazed white porcelain, they will serve as useful models.

[5] Artists who glance at this book may be surprised at this permission. My chief reason is, that I think it more necessary that the pupil's eye should be trained to accurate perception of the relations of curve and right lines, by having the latter absolutely true, than that he should practice drawing straight lines. But also, I believe, though I am not quite sure of this, that he never ought to be able to draw a straight line. I do not believe a perfectly trained hand ever can draw a line without some curvature in it, or some variety of direction. Prout could draw a straight line, but I do not believe Raphael could, nor Tintoret. A great draughtsman can, as far as I have observed, draw every line but a straight one.

[5] Artists who look at this book might be surprised by this permission. My main reason is that I think it’s more important for the student’s eye to be trained to accurately perceive the relationships of curves and straight lines by having the latter completely true, rather than focusing solely on practicing drawing straight lines. However, I also believe—though I’m not completely certain—that they shouldn’t ever be able to draw a straight line. I don’t think a perfectly trained hand can draw a line without some curvature or variation in direction. Prout could draw a straight line, but I don't believe Raphael or Tintoret could. From what I've observed, a great draughtsman can draw every line except a straight one.

[6] Or, if you feel able to do so, scratch them in with confused quick touches, indicating the general shape of the cloud or mist of twigs round the main branches; but do not take much trouble about them.

[6] Or, if you think you can, quickly sketch them in with light, messy touches to show the general shape of the cloud or mist of twigs around the main branches; but don't stress too much about it.

[7] It is more difficult, at first, to get, in color, a narrow gradation than an extended one; but the ultimate difficulty is, as with the pen, to make the gradation go far.

[7] It’s harder, at first, to achieve a narrow gradient in color than a broader one; but the real challenge, just like with the pen, is to make the gradient stretch far.

[8] Of course, all the columns of color are to be of equal length.

[8] Of course, all the color columns need to be the same length.

[9] The degree of darkness you can reach with the given color is always indicated by the color of the solid cake in the box.

[9] The level of darkness you can achieve with the specified color is always shown by the color of the solid cake in the box.

[10] The figure a, Fig. 5, is very dark, but this is to give an example of all kinds of depths of tint, without repeated figures.

[10] The figure a, Fig. 5, is very dark, but this is to give an example of all kinds of depths of tint, without repeated figures.

[11] Nearly neutral in ordinary circumstances, but yet with quite different tones in its neutrality, according to the colors of the various reflected rays that compose it.

[11] Almost neutral under normal conditions, but its neutrality shifts based on the different tones of the colors from the reflected rays that make it up.

[12] If we had any business with the reasons of this, I might perhaps be able to show you some metaphysical ones for the enjoyment, by truly artistical minds, of the changes wrought by light and shade and perspective in patterned surfaces; but this is at present not to the point; and all that you need to know is that the drawing of such things is good exercise, and moreover a kind of exercise which Titian, Veronese, Tintoret, Giorgione, and Turner, all enjoyed, and strove to excel in.

[12] If we were to discuss the reasons behind this, I could probably share some philosophical ideas for the appreciation of artists who truly enjoy the transformations made by light, shadow, and perspective on patterned surfaces; but that's not relevant right now. What you need to understand is that drawing these subjects is a valuable practice, and it's also a type of practice that Titian, Veronese, Tintoret, Giorgione, and Turner all enjoyed and aimed to master.

[13] The use of acquiring this habit of execution is that you may be able, when you begin to color, to let one hue be seen in minute portions, gleaming between the touches of another.

[13] The benefit of developing this habit of execution is that when you start coloring, you can allow one color to show up in small bits, shining through the strokes of another.

[14] William Hunt, of the Old Water-color Society.

[14] William Hunt, of the Old Watercolor Society.

[15] At Marlborough House, [in 1857] among the four principal examples of Turner's later water-color drawing, perhaps the most neglected was that of fishing-boats and fish at sunset. It is one of his most wonderful works, though unfinished. If you examine the larger white fishing-boat sail, you will find it has a little spark of pure white in its right-hand upper corner, about as large as a minute pin's head, and that all the surface of the sail is gradated to that focus. Try to copy this sail once or twice, and you will begin to understand Turner's work. Similarly, the wing of the Cupid in Correggio's large picture in the National Gallery is focused to two little grains of white at the top of it. The points of light on the white flower in the wreath round the head of the dancing child-faun, in Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne, exemplify the same thing.

[15] At Marlborough House, [in 1857] among the four main examples of Turner's later watercolor drawings, the one that is perhaps the most overlooked shows fishing boats and fish at sunset. It’s one of his most amazing works, even though it’s unfinished. If you take a closer look at the larger white fishing boat's sail, you’ll notice a small spark of pure white in the right-hand upper corner, roughly the size of a tiny pinhead, and the entire surface of the sail is gradated towards that focal point. Try to replicate this sail a couple of times, and you’ll start to grasp Turner's technique. Similarly, the wing of Cupid in Correggio's large painting at the National Gallery has two tiny white highlights at the top of it. The points of light on the white flower in the wreath around the head of the dancing child-faun in Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne illustrate the same concept.

[16] I shall not henceforward number the exercises recommended; as they are distinguished only by increasing difficulty of subject, not by difference of method.

[16] I won’t be numbering the recommended exercises from now on; they are only distinguished by increasing difficulty of the subject, not by a difference in method.

[17] If you understand the principle of the stereoscope you will know why; if not, it does not matter; trust me for the truth of the statement, as I cannot explain the principle without diagrams and much loss of time. See, however, Note 1, in Appendix I.

[17] If you get how a stereoscope works, you'll understand why; if you don't, it’s no big deal; just take my word for it, since I can't explain the principle without drawings and a lot of wasted time. However, check out Note 1, in Appendix I.

[18] The plates marked with a star are peculiarly desirable. See note at the end of Appendix I. The letters mean as follows:—

[18] The plates marked with a star are particularly desirable. See the note at the end of Appendix I. The letters mean the following:—

a stands for architecture, including distant grouping of towns, cottages, etc.
c clouds, including mist and aërial effects.
f foliage.
g ground, including low hills, when not rocky.
l effects of light.
m mountains, or bold rocky ground.
p power of general arrangement and effect.
q quiet water.
r running or rough water; or rivers, even if calm, when their line of flow is beautifully marked.
From the England Series.
a c f r. Arundel. a f p. Lancaster.
a f l. Ashby de la Zouche. c l m r. Lancaster Sands.*
a l q r. Barnard Castle.* a g f. Launceston.*
f m r. Bolton Abbey. c f l r. Leicester Abbey.
f g r. Buckfastleigh.* f r. Ludlow.
a l p. Caernarvon. a f l. Margate.
c l q. Castle Upnor. a l q. Orford.
a f l. Colchester. c p. Plymouth.
l q. Cowes. f. Powis Castle.
c f p. Dartmouth Cove.* l m q. Prudhoe Castle.
c l q. Flint Castle.* f l m r. Chain Bridge over Tees.*
a f g l. Knaresborough.* m q. Ulleswater.
m r. High Force of Tees.* f m. Valle Crucis.
a f q. Trematon.   
From the Keepsake.
m p q. Arona. p. St. Germain en Laye.
l m. Drachenfels.* l p q. Florence.
f l. Marly.* l m. Ballyburgh Ness.*
From the Bible Series.
f m. Mount Lebanon. c l p q. Solomon's Pools.*
m. Rock of Moses at Sinai. a l. Santa Saba.
a l m. Jericho. a l. Pool of Bethesda.
a c g. Joppa.   
From Scott's Works.
p r. Melrose.* c m. Glencoe.
f r. Dryburgh.* c m. Loch Coriskin.*
a l. Caerlaverock.
From the Rivers of France.
a q. Château of Amboise, with large bridge on right. f p. Pont de l'Arche.
l p r. Rouen, looking down the river, poplars on right.* f l p. View on the Seine, with avenue.
a l p. Rouen, with cathedral and rainbow, avenue on left. a c p. Bridge of Meulan.
a p. Rouen Cathedral. c g p r. Caudebec.*

[19] As well;—not as minutely: the diamond cuts finer lines on the steel than you can draw on paper with your pen; but you must be able to get tones as even, and touches as firm.

[19] As well;—not as precisely: the diamond carves finer lines on the steel than you can draw on paper with your pen; but you need to achieve tones that are just as smooth, and strokes that are just as steady.

[20] See, for account of these plates, the Appendix on "Works to be studied."

[20] For information about these plates, check out the Appendix on "Works to be studied."

[21] See Note 2 in Appendix I.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Check out __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ in Appendix I.

[22] This sketch is not of a tree standing on its head, though it looks like it. You will find it explained presently.

[22] This sketch isn't of a tree upside down, even though it appears that way. You'll get an explanation soon.


65

65

LETTER II.

SKETCHING FROM NATURE.

102. My dear Reader,—The work we have already gone through together has, I hope, enabled you to draw with fair success either rounded and simple masses, like stones, or complicated arrangements of form, like those of leaves; provided only these masses or complexities will stay quiet for you to copy, and do not extend into quantity so great as to baffle your patience. But if we are now to go out to the fields, and to draw anything like a complete landscape, neither of these conditions will any more be observed for us. The clouds will not wait while we copy their heaps or clefts; the shadows will escape from us as we try to shape them, each, in its stealthy minute march, still leaving light where its tremulous edge had rested the moment before, and involving in eclipse objects that had seemed safe from its influence; and instead of the small clusters of leaves which we could reckon point by point, embarrassing enough even though numerable, we have now leaves as little to be counted as the sands of the sea, and restless, perhaps, as its foam.

102. Dear Reader,—The work we've already done together has hopefully helped you sketch with good results either simple shapes, like stones, or more complex forms, like leaves; as long as these shapes or complexities stay still for you to draw and aren’t too overwhelming. But if we’re going to go out into the fields and draw a complete landscape, we won't be able to meet either of these conditions anymore. The clouds won’t pause while we try to capture their shapes; the shadows will slip away as we attempt to define them, each moving silently and leaving light where its soft edge rested just a moment ago, and casting shadows on things that seemed safe from its reach; and instead of the small clusters of leaves we could count one by one, now we have leaves as countless as the sands of the sea, and perhaps just as restless as its foam.

103. In all that we have to do now, therefore, direct imitation becomes more or less impossible. It is always to be aimed at so far as it is possible; and when you have time and opportunity, some portions of a landscape may, as you gain greater skill, be rendered with an approximation almost to mirrored portraiture. Still, whatever skill you may reach, there will always be need of judgment to choose, and of speed to seize, certain things that are principal or fugitive; and you must give more and more effort daily to the observance of characteristic points, and the attainment of concise methods.

103. In everything we have to do now, direct imitation is pretty much impossible. It should always be aimed for as much as possible; and when you have the time and opportunity, some parts of a landscape can, as you improve your skills, be depicted almost as if they were reflections. Still, no matter how skilled you become, you'll always need to exercise judgment to select and speed to capture certain main or fleeting elements; and you must keep putting in more effort every day to notice key details and develop concise techniques.

104. I have directed your attention early to foliage for two reasons. First, that it is always accessible as a study; 66 and secondly, that its modes of growth present simple examples of the importance of leading or governing lines. It is by seizing these leading lines, when we cannot seize all, that likeness and expression are given to a portrait, and grace and a kind of vital truth to the rendering of every natural form. I call it vital truth, because these chief lines are always expressive of the past history and present action of the thing. They show in a mountain, first, how it was built or heaped up; and secondly, how it is now being worn away, and from what quarter the wildest storms strike it. In a tree, they show what kind of fortune it has had to endure from its childhood: how troublesome trees have come in its way, and pushed it aside, and tried to strangle or starve it; where and when kind trees have sheltered it, and grown up lovingly together with it, bending as it bent; what winds torment it most; what boughs of it behave best, and bear most fruit; and so on. In a wave or cloud, these leading lines show the run of the tide and of the wind, and the sort of change which the water or vapor is at any moment enduring in its form, as it meets shore, or counter-wave, or melting sunshine. Now remember, nothing distinguishes great men from inferior men more than their always, whether in life or in art, knowing the way things are going. Your dunce thinks they are standing still, and draws them all fixed; your wise man sees the change or changing in them, and draws them so,—the animal in its motion, the tree in its growth, the cloud in its course, the mountain in its wearing away. Try always, whenever you look at a form, to see the lines in it which have had power over its past fate and will have power over its futurity. Those are its awful lines; see that you seize on those, whatever else you miss. Thus, the leafage in Fig. 16 (p. 63) grew round the root of a stone pine, on the brow of a crag at Sestri near Genoa, and all the sprays of it are thrust away in their first budding by the great rude root, and spring out in every direction round it, as water splashes when a heavy stone is thrown into it. Then, when they have got clear of the root, they begin to 67 bend up again; some of them, being little stone pines themselves, have a great notion of growing upright, if they can; and this struggle of theirs to recover their straight road towards the sky, after being obliged to grow sideways in their early years, is the effort that will mainly influence their future destiny, and determine if they are to be crabbed, forky pines, striking from that rock of Sestri, whose clefts nourish them, with bared red lightning of angry arms towards the sea; or if they are to be goodly and solemn pines, with trunks like pillars of temples, and the purple burning of their branches sheathed in deep globes of cloudy green. Those, then, are their fateful lines; see that you give that spring and resilience, whatever you leave ungiven: depend upon it, their chief beauty is in these.

104. I've pointed your attention to foliage early on for two reasons. First, it's always available for study; 66 and second, its growth patterns provide straightforward examples of the significance of leading or guiding lines. It’s by capturing these leading lines, when we can’t capture everything, that we give a portrait its likeness and expression, and also provide grace and a kind of vital truth to the depiction of every natural form. I call it vital truth because these primary lines always reflect the subject's past and present actions. They indicate in a mountain how it was formed initially and how it's currently being eroded, showing from which direction the fiercest storms hit. In a tree, they reveal its experiences since childhood: how competing trees have come along, pushed it aside, and attempted to choke or starve it; where and when supportive trees have sheltered it and grown alongside it, bending as it bends; which winds are most troublesome; which branches thrive best and bear the most fruit; and so on. In a wave or a cloud, these leading lines illustrate the movement of the tide and the wind, and the type of transformation the water or vapor is undergoing at any given moment as it interacts with the shore, counter-waves, or the warmth of melting sunlight. Now remember, nothing separates great individuals from lesser ones more than their ability, whether in life or in art, to understand the direction things are taking. A fool believes everything is at a standstill and draws everything as if it's fixed; a wise person perceives the changes and captures them in their art—the animal in its motion, the tree in its growth, the cloud on its path, the mountain as it erodes. Always strive, whenever you observe a form, to identify the lines that have shaped its past and will influence its future. Those are its crucial lines; make sure to grasp them, regardless of what else you might miss. For example, the foliage in Fig. 16 (p. 63) grew around the roots of a stone pine on a cliff at Sestri near Genoa, where all the branches are pushed away from the large rough root as they first bud, spreading out in every direction like water splashing when a heavy stone is thrown into it. Then, once they’ve cleared the root, they start bending upwards again; some of them, being small stone pines themselves, have a strong desire to grow upright, if possible; and this struggle to regain their straight path to the sky, after being forced to grow sideways in their early years, is what will primarily influence their future and determine whether they become twisted, forked pines, stretching out from that rock of Sestri, with their clefts feeding them, shooting bared red branches like angry arms toward the sea; or if they will develop into majestic and dignified pines, with trunks resembling temple pillars, and the deep purple glow of their branches enveloped in lush, green globes. Those, then, are their defining lines; ensure that you capture their spring and resilience, regardless of what else you leave out: you can count on it, their true beauty lies in these.

Fig. 17.
Fig. 17.

105. So in trees in general, and bushes, large or small, you will notice that, though the boughs spring irregularly and at various angles, there is a tendency in all to stoop less and less as they near the top of the tree. This structure, typified in the simplest possible terms at c, Fig. 17, is common to all trees that I know of, and it gives them a certain plumy character, and aspect of unity in the hearts of their branches which are essential to their beauty. The stem does not merely send off a wild branch here and there to take its own way, but all the branches share in one great fountain-like impulse; each has a curve and a path to take, which fills a definite place, and each terminates all its minor branches at its outer extremity, so as to form a greater outer curve, whose character and proportion are peculiar for each species. That is to say, the general type or idea of a tree is not as a, Fig. 17, but as b, in which, observe, the boughs all carry their 68 minor divisions right out to the bounding curve; not but that smaller branches, by thousands, terminate in the heart of the tree, but the idea and main purpose in every branch are to carry all its child branches well out to the air and light, and let each of them, however small, take its part in filling the united flow of the bounding curve, so that the type of each separate bough is again not a, but b, Fig. 18; approximating, that is to say, so far to the structure of a plant of broccoli as to throw the great mass of spray and leafage out to a rounded surface. Therefore beware of getting into a careless habit of drawing boughs with successive sweeps of the pen or brush, one hanging to the other, as in Fig. 19. If you look at the tree-boughs in any painting of Wilson's you will see this structure, and nearly every other that is to be avoided, in their intensest types. You will also notice that Wilson never conceives a tree as a round mass, but flat, as if it had been pressed and dried. Most people in drawing pines seem to fancy, in the same way, that the boughs come out only on two sides of the trunk, instead of all round it: always, therefore, take more pains in trying to draw the boughs of trees that grow towards you than those that go 69 off to the sides; anybody can draw the latter, but the foreshortened ones are not so easy. It will help you in drawing them to observe that in most trees the ramification of each branch, though not of the tree itself, is more or less flattened, and approximates, in its position, to the look of a hand held out to receive something, or shelter something. If you take a looking-glass, and hold your hand before it slightly hollowed, with the palm upwards, and the fingers open, as if you were going to support the base of some great bowl, larger than you could easily hold; and sketch your hand as you see it in the glass with the points of the fingers towards you; it will materially help you in understanding the way trees generally hold out their hands: and if then you will turn yours with its palm downwards, as if you were going to try to hide something, but with the fingers expanded, you will get a good type of the action of the lower boughs in cedars and such other spreading trees.

105. In trees and bushes, whether big or small, you'll notice that while the branches grow in different directions and angles, they tend to bend less and less as they approach the top. This structure, represented simply at c, Fig. 17, is typical of all the trees I know, giving them a certain feathery quality and a sense of unity among their branches that is essential for their beauty. The trunk doesn't just send off random branches haphazardly; instead, all the branches share in a single, strong upward impulse. Each branch has its own curves and path that fill a specific space, and each finishes off its smaller branches at its outer tip, creating a larger outer curve that has a unique shape and proportion for each species. In other words, the general idea of a tree isn't like a, Fig. 17, but like b, where you can see that the branches extend all the way to the outer curve; though many smaller branches end up in the middle of the tree, the main purpose of each branch is to reach out into the air and light, allowing every small branch to contribute to the overall shape of that outer curve. Therefore, the shape of each individual branch is also not a, but b, Fig. 18; meaning it closely resembles the structure of broccoli, with a large collection of foliage extending outward into a rounded surface. So be careful not to develop a careless habit of drawing branches with one continuous stroke of the pen or brush, linking them together like in Fig. 19. In any painting by Wilson, you can observe this structure, along with every other common mistake to avoid, at its most intense. You’ll also see that Wilson never represents a tree as a solid round object, but as flat, almost as if it has been pressed and dried. Most people drawing pines tend to think the branches only extend on two sides of the trunk instead of all around it. So always take more care when drawing branches of trees that are facing you than those that extend to the sides; anyone can draw the latter, but the ones that are foreshortened are trickier. It may help your drawing to notice that for most trees, the branching of each limb, although not the tree itself, appears somewhat flattened, resembling a hand held out to receive or shelter something. If you look in a mirror while holding your hand slightly cupped, palm up, and fingers spread as if you're about to catch something big, it will greatly help you understand how trees generally reach out. Then, if you turn your hand palm down, as if trying to hide something but with the fingers still open, you'll get a good idea of how the lower branches of cedars and other spreading trees look and act.

Fig. 18.
Fig. 18.
Fig. 19.
Fig. 19.

106. Fig. 20 will give you a good idea of the simplest way in which these and other such facts can be rapidly expressed; if you copy it carefully, you will be surprised to find how the touches all group together, in expressing the plumy toss of the tree branches, and the springing of the bushes out of the bank, and the undulation of the ground: note the careful drawing of the footsteps made by the climbers of the little mound on the left.[23] It is facsimilëd from an etching of Turner's, and is as good an example as you can have of the use of pure and firm lines; it will also show you how the particular action in foliage, or anything else to which you wish to direct attention, may be intensified by the adjuncts. The tall and upright trees are made to look more tall and upright still, because their line is continued below by the figure of the farmer with his stick; and the rounded bushes on the bank are made to look more rounded because their line is continued in one broad sweep by the black dog and the boy climbing the wall. These figures are placed entirely with this object, as we shall see more fully hereafter when we 70 come to talk about composition; but, if you please, we will not talk about that yet awhile. What I have been telling you about the beautiful lines and action of foliage has nothing to do with composition, but only with fact, and the brief and 71 expressive representation of fact. But there will be no harm in your looking forward, if you like to do so, to the account, in Letter III. of the "Law of Radiation," and reading what is said there about tree growth: indeed it would in some respects have been better to have said it here than there, only it would have broken up the account of the principles of composition somewhat awkwardly.

106. Fig. 20 will give you a clear idea of the simplest way to quickly express these and other similar facts. If you copy it carefully, you'll be surprised at how all the details come together to show the delicate swaying of the tree branches, the bushes springing from the bank, and the rolling ground. Pay attention to the careful depiction of the footsteps made by the climbers on the small mound to the left.[23] It's replicated from an etching by Turner, and it's one of the best examples you can find of using pure and strong lines. It will also demonstrate how specific actions in foliage or anything else you want to highlight can be emphasized by surrounding elements. The tall, upright trees appear even taller and more upright because their lines are extended below by the figure of the farmer with his stick; the rounded bushes on the bank are made to look rounder because their line flows smoothly into the black dog and the boy climbing the wall. These figures are positioned entirely for that purpose, as we will discuss more fully later when we talk about composition; but, if you prefer, we won’t get into that just yet. What I’ve shared about the beautiful lines and movement of foliage is unrelated to composition, focusing instead on fact and the brief and expressive representation of it. However, it wouldn’t hurt to look ahead to Letter III for the "Law of Radiation" and read what’s mentioned there about tree growth. In some ways, it would have been better to include it here rather than there, but doing so would have awkwardly disrupted the flow of the discussion on the principles of composition.

Fig. 20.
Fig. 20.

107. Now, although the lines indicative of action are not always quite so manifest in other things as in trees, a little attention will soon enable you to see that there are such lines in everything. In an old house roof, a bad observer and bad draughtsman will only see and draw the spotty irregularity of tiles or slates all over; but a good draughtsman will see all the bends of the under timbers, where they are weakest and the weight is telling on them most, and the tracks of the run of the water in time of rain, where it runs off fastest, and where it lies long and feeds the moss; and he will be careful, however few slates he draws, to mark the way they bend together towards those hollows (which have the future fate of the roof in them), and crowd gradually together at the top of the gable, partly diminishing in perspective, partly, perhaps, diminished on purpose (they are so in most English old houses) by the slate-layer. So in ground, there is always the direction of the run of the water to be noticed, which rounds the earth and cuts it into hollows; and, generally, in any bank or height worth drawing, a trace of bedded or other internal structure besides. Figure 20 will give you some idea of the way in which such facts may be expressed by a few lines. Do you not feel the depression in the ground all down the hill where the footsteps are, and how the people always turn to the left at the top, losing breath a little, and then how the water runs down in that other hollow towards the valley, behind the roots of the trees?

107. Now, even though the lines that show action aren't always as obvious in other things as they are in trees, a little attention will help you notice that they exist in everything. In an old house roof, a careless observer and poorly skilled draughtsman might only see and draw the uneven spots of tiles or slates scattered everywhere. But a good draughtsman will notice all the bends of the underlying timbers, where they are weakest and bearing the most weight, and the paths where rainwater runs, showing where it flows quickly and where it lingers to nourish the moss. He will be careful, no matter how few slates he draws, to depict how they bend together towards those dips (which will determine the future of the roof) and gradually gather at the top of the gable, partly shrinking in perspective, and partly, perhaps, intentionally reduced by the slate-layer. Similarly, in the ground, there’s always the direction of where the water runs to consider, which shapes the earth into hollows; and generally, in any bank or elevation worth drawing, a hint of bedding or other internal structure should be noted. Figure 20 will give you an idea of how such elements can be conveyed with just a few lines. Can you feel the dip in the ground all down the hill where the footsteps are, and how people always turn left at the top, catching their breath for a moment, and then see how the water flows down into that other hollow towards the valley, behind the roots of the trees?

108. Now, I want you in your first sketches from Nature to aim exclusively at understanding and representing these vital facts of form; using the pen—not now the steel, but the quill—firmly and steadily, never scrawling with it, but 72 saying to yourself before you lay on a single touch,—"that leaf is the main one, that bough is the guiding one, and this touch, so long, so broad, means that part of it,"—point or side or knot, as the case may be. Resolve always, as you look at the thing, what you will take, and what miss of it, and never let your hand run away with you, or get into any habit or method of touch. If you want a continuous line, your hand should pass calmly from one end of it to the other without a tremor; if you want a shaking and broken line, your hand should shake, or break off, as easily as a musician's finger shakes or stops on a note: only remember this, that there is no general way of doing any thing; no recipe can be given you for so much as the drawing of a cluster of grass. The grass may be ragged and stiff, or tender and flowing; sunburnt and sheep-bitten, or rank and languid; fresh or dry; lustrous or dull: look at it, and try to draw it as it is, and don't think how somebody "told you to do grass." So a stone may be round or angular, polished or rough, cracked all over like an ill-glazed teacup, or as united and broad as the breast of Hercules. It may be as flaky as a wafer, as powdery as a field puff-ball; it may be knotted like a ship's hawser, or kneaded like hammered iron, or knit like a Damascus saber, or fused like a glass bottle, or crystallized like hoar-frost, or veined like a forest leaf: look at it, and don't try to remember how anybody told you to "do a stone."

108. Now, in your first sketches from nature, focus solely on understanding and capturing these essential forms. Use the pen—not steel, but a quill—firmly and steadily, avoiding any scrawl. Before making your first mark, remind yourself, “that leaf is the primary one, that bough is the main one, and this stroke, this long and broad line, represents that part of it,” whether it’s a point, side, or knot, depending on what you're observing. Always decide what to include and what to leave out as you look at the subject, and don’t let your hand wander or fall into any particular habit or style of drawing. If you need a continuous line, let your hand move smoothly from one end to the other without shaking; if you want a shaky or broken line, let your hand shake or stop just like a musician's finger might on a note. Just remember, there's no one right way to do anything; there's no formula for drawing something as simple as a bunch of grass. The grass might be ragged and stiff, or soft and flowing; it could be sunburnt and eaten by sheep, or rank and droopy; fresh or dry; shiny or dull. Look at it, and try to draw it as it is without worrying about how someone told you to “draw grass.” Similarly, a stone can be round or angular, smooth or rough, cracked like a poorly glazed teacup, or solid and broad like Hercules' chest. It could be flaky like a thin wafer, powdery like a puffball in a field; knotted like a ship's hawser, kneaded like hammered iron, woven like a Damascus saber, melted like a glass bottle, or crystallized like frost, or veined like a leaf. Look at it, and don’t try to remember how anyone said to “draw a stone.”

109. As soon as you find that your hand obeys you thoroughly, and that you can render any form with a firmness and truth approaching that of Turner's or Dürer's work,[24] you must add a simple but equally careful light and shade to your pen drawing, so as to make each study as complete as possible; for which you must prepare yourself thus. Get, if you have the means, a good impression of one plate of Turner's Liber Studiorum; if possible, one of the subjects 73 named in the note below.[25] If you cannot obtain, or even borrow for a little while, any of these engravings, you must use a photograph instead (how, I will tell you presently); but, if you can get the Turner, it will be best. You will see that it is composed of a firm etching in line, with mezzotint 74 shadow laid over it. You must first copy the etched part of it accurately; to which end put the print against the window, and trace slowly with the greatest care every black line; retrace this on smooth drawing-paper; and, finally, go over the whole with your pen, looking at the original plate always, so that if you err at all, it may be on the right side, not making a line which is too curved or too straight already in the tracing, more curved or more straight, as you go over it. And in doing this, never work after you are tired, nor to "get the thing done," for if it is badly done, it will be of no use to you. The true zeal and patience of a quarter of an hour are better than the sulky and inattentive labor of a whole day. If you have not made the touches right at the first going over with the pen, retouch them delicately, with little ink in your pen, thickening or reinforcing them as they need: you cannot give too much care to the facsimile. Then keep this etched outline by you in order to study at your ease the way in which Turner uses his line as preparatory for the subsequent shadow;[26] it is only in getting the two separate that you will be able to reason on this. Next, copy once more, though for the fourth time, any part of this etching which you like, and put on the light and shade with the 75 brush, and any brown color that matches that of the plate;[27] working it with the point of the brush as delicately as if you were drawing with pencil, and dotting and cross-hatching as lightly as you can touch the paper, till you get the gradations of Turner's engraving.

109. As soon as you find that your hand is fully under your control, and you can create any form with a firmness and accuracy close to Turner's or Dürer's work,[24] you need to add a simple but equally careful light and shade to your pen drawing to make each study as complete as possible. To prepare for this, if you can afford it, get a good impression of one plate from Turner's Liber Studiorum; ideally, one of the subjects mentioned in the note below.[25] If you can't get or even borrow any of these engravings, you should use a photograph instead (I will explain how to do this shortly); but if you can get the Turner, that will be the best option. You'll notice that it's made up of a solid etched line, with mezzotint shadow layered over it. First, accurately copy the etched part; to do this, hold the print up to the window, and carefully trace every black line. Then, retrace this onto smooth drawing paper and finally go over the whole thing with your pen, always looking at the original plate so that if you make any mistakes, they can be on the right side, making any already traced line either less curved or less straight. Also, never work when you're tired or just to "get it done," because if it’s done poorly, it won't be useful to you. The true dedication and patience of fifteen minutes are better than the grumpy and distracted effort of a whole day. If you haven't got the lines right the first time with the pen, retouch them carefully with a little ink in your pen, thickening or reinforcing them as needed: you should pay close attention to the copy. Then keep this etched outline handy to study how Turner uses his line to prepare for the following shadow;[26] only by separating the two will you be able to think critically about this. Next, copy again, this time for the fourth time, any part of this etching that you like, and apply the light and shade with a brush and a brown color that matches the plate's color;[27] work it with the tip of the brush as delicately as if you were drawing with a pencil, and dotting and cross-hatching as lightly as you can touch the paper until you achieve the gradations of Turner's engraving.

110. In this exercise, as in the former one, a quarter of an inch worked to close resemblance of the copy is worth more than the whole subject carelessly done. Not that in drawing afterwards from Nature you are to be obliged to finish every gradation in this way, but that, once having fully accomplished the drawing something rightly, you will thenceforward feel and aim at a higher perfection than you could otherwise have conceived, and the brush will obey you, and bring out quickly and clearly the loveliest results, with a submissiveness which it would have wholly refused if you had not put it to severest work. Nothing is more strange in art than the way that chance and materials seem to favor you, when once you have thoroughly conquered them. Make yourself quite independent of chance, get your result in spite of it, and from that day forward all things will somehow fall as you would have them. Show the camel's hair, and the color in it, that no bending nor blotting is of any use to escape your will; that the touch and the shade shall finally be right, if it costs you a year's toil; and from that hour of corrective conviction, said camel's hair will bend itself to all your wishes, and no blot will dare to transgress its appointed border. If you cannot obtain a print from the Liber Studiorum, get a photograph[28] of some general landscape subject, with high hills and a village or picturesque town, in the middle distance, and some calm water of varied character (a stream with stones in it, if possible), and copy any part of it you like, in this same brown color, working, as I have just directed you to do from the Liber, a great deal with the point of the brush. You are under a twofold disadvantage 76 here, however; first, there are portions in every photograph too delicately done for you at present to be at all able to copy; and, secondly, there are portions always more obscure or dark than there would be in the real scene, and involved in a mystery which you will not be able, as yet, to decipher. Both these characters will be advantageous to you for future study, after you have gained experience, but they are a little against you in early attempts at tinting; still you must fight through the difficulty, and get the power of producing delicate gradations with brown or gray, like those of the photograph.

110. In this exercise, just like the previous one, getting a quarter of an inch really close to the original is worth more than the whole subject done carelessly. This doesn’t mean that when you’re drawing from nature later on, you have to finish every detail this way, but once you've truly nailed the drawing of something, you’ll start to aim for a higher level of perfection than you could have imagined before. Your brush will follow your lead and quickly produce beautiful results, with a responsiveness that it wouldn’t have shown if you hadn’t put in the hard work. It’s fascinating how, in art, chance and materials seem to work in your favor once you’ve really mastered them. Make yourself independent of luck; achieve your results despite it, and from that point on, everything will tend to align with your wishes. Show the camel's hair and the color in it that no bending or blotting will help you escape your will; that the touch and shade will be right, even if it takes you a year of hard work. From that moment of realization, the camel's hair will comply with all your requests, and no blot will dare to cross its boundary. If you can’t get a print from the Liber Studiorum, get a photograph of some general landscape with tall hills and a village or picturesque town in the middle distance, and some calm water with varied features (a stream with rocks, if possible), and copy any part of it you like, using this same brown color, while working a lot with the point of the brush, just as I just instructed you to do from the Liber. However, you’re at a double disadvantage here; first, there are sections in every photograph that are too delicate for you to copy right now, and second, some areas are always darker or more obscure than they would be in real life, wrapped in a mystery that you won’t be able to interpret yet. Both of these aspects will be beneficial for your future studies once you’ve gained more experience, but they won't help you much in your early attempts at tinting. Still, you need to push through the challenges and develop the ability to create delicate gradations with brown or gray, just like those in the photograph.

111. Now observe; the perfection of work would be tinted shadow, like photography, without any obscurity or exaggerated darkness; and as long as your effect depends in anywise on visible lines, your art is not perfect, though it may be first-rate of its kind. But to get complete results in tints merely, requires both long time and consummate skill; and you will find that a few well-put pen lines, with a tint dashed over or under them, get more expression of facts than you could reach in any other way, by the same expenditure of time. The use of the Liber Studiorum print to you is chiefly as an example of the simplest shorthand of this kind, a shorthand which is yet capable of dealing with the most subtle natural effects; for the firm etching gets at the expression of complicated details, as leaves, masonry, textures of ground, etc., while the overlaid tint enables you to express the most tender distances of sky, and forms of playing light, mist, or cloud. Most of the best drawings by the old masters are executed on this principle, the touches of the pen being useful also to give a look of transparency to shadows, which could not otherwise be attained but by great finish of tinting; and if you have access to any ordinarily good public gallery, or can make friends of any printsellers who have folios either of old drawings, or facsimiles of them, you will not be at a loss to find some example of this unity of pen with tinting. Multitudes of photographs also are now taken from the best drawings by the old masters, and I hope that our Mechanics' 77 Institutes and other societies organized with a view to public instruction, will not fail to possess themselves of examples of these, and to make them accessible to students of drawing in the vicinity; a single print from Turner's Liber, to show the unison of tint with pen etching, and the "St. Catherine," photographed by Thurston Thompson from Raphael's drawing in the Louvre, to show the unity of the soft tinting of the stump with chalk, would be all that is necessary, and would, I believe, be in many cases more serviceable than a larger collection, and certainly than a whole gallery of second-rate prints. Two such examples are peculiarly desirable, because all other modes of drawing, with pen separately, or chalk separately, or color separately, may be seen by the poorest student in any cheap illustrated book, or in shop windows. But this unity of tinting with line he cannot generally see but by some special inquiry, and in some out of the way places he could not find a single example of it. Supposing that this should be so in your own case, and that you cannot meet with any example of this kind, try to make the matter out alone, thus:

111. Now pay attention; the perfection of a piece of work would have a shadowy quality, like photography, without any blurriness or over-the-top darkness. As long as your effect relies in any way on visible lines, your art isn’t perfect, even if it’s top-notch for its type. But achieving complete results in tints alone takes both time and exceptional skill. You’ll see that a few well-placed pen strokes, with a tint applied over or under them, convey more expression of facts than you could achieve in any other way, given the same amount of time. The main use of the Liber Studiorum print for you is as an example of the simplest shorthand of this kind, which is still capable of handling the most subtle natural effects. The strong etching captures the expression of intricate details, like leaves, masonry, and textures of the ground, while the applied tint allows you to express the tender nuances of the sky and variations of light, mist, or cloud. Most of the best drawings by the old masters follow this principle, with pen strokes also giving a sense of transparency to shadows, which would otherwise require very refined tinting. If you have access to a reasonably good public gallery or can befriend any print sellers with folios of old drawings or their reproductions, you won’t have trouble finding examples of this combination of pen and tinting. Many photographs have also been taken from the finest drawings by the old masters, and I hope our Mechanics' 77 Institutes and other organizations aimed at public education will ensure they acquire examples of these and make them available to drawing students nearby. A single print from Turner's Liber, to illustrate the harmony of tint and pen etching, and the "St. Catherine,” photographed by Thurston Thompson from Raphael's drawing in the Louvre, to demonstrate the unity of soft tinting with chalk, would be all that’s needed. I believe this would often be more useful than a larger collection, certainly more than a whole gallery of second-rate prints. Two such examples are especially valuable because other forms of drawing, using pen alone, or chalk, or color separately, can be easily found by the most budget-conscious student in any cheap illustrated book or in shop windows. However, this combination of tinting with line is typically not readily available without some specific inquiry, and in obscure places, he might struggle to find even a single example. If this holds true for you, and you can't find any examples of this kind, try to figure it out on your own this way:

112. Take a small and simple photograph; allow yourself half an hour to express its subjects with the pen only, using some permanent liquid color instead of ink, outlining its buildings or trees firmly, and laying in the deeper shadows, as you have been accustomed to do in your bolder pen drawings; then, when this etching is dry, take your sepia or gray, and tint it over, getting now the finer gradations of the photograph; and, finally taking out the higher lights with penknife or blotting paper. You will soon find what can be done in this way; and by a series of experiments you may ascertain for yourself how far the pen may be made serviceable to reinforce shadows, mark characters of texture, outline unintelligible masses, and so on. The more time you have, the more delicate you may make the pen drawing, blending it with the tint; the less you have, the more distinct you must keep the two. Practice in this way from one photograph, allowing yourself sometimes only a quarter of an hour for 78 the whole thing, sometimes an hour, sometimes two or three hours; in each case drawing the whole subject in full depth of light and shade, but with such degree of finish in the parts as is possible in the given time. And this exercise, observe, you will do well to repeat frequently, whether you can get prints and drawings as well as photographs, or not.

112. Take a small and simple photo; give yourself half an hour to express its subjects using only a pen, with some permanent liquid color instead of ink. Firmly outline the buildings or trees and fill in the deeper shadows, just like you normally do in your bolder pen drawings. Once this sketch is dry, use sepia or gray to tint it, achieving the finer gradations of the photo. Finally, highlight the brighter parts using a penknife or blotting paper. You’ll quickly discover what can be achieved this way; through a series of experiments, you’ll see how the pen can effectively reinforce shadows, depict textures, outline unclear shapes, and so on. The more time you have, the more detailed you can make the pen drawing, blending it with the tint. The less time you have, the clearer you need to keep the two. Practice like this with one photo, sometimes allowing yourself only fifteen minutes for the whole process, sometimes an hour, or even two to three hours. In each case, draw the entire subject with full contrast of light and shade, giving as much detail as possible within the time limit. And remember, it’s beneficial to repeat this exercise frequently, whether you have prints and drawings as well as photographs or not.

113. And now at last, when you can copy a piece of Liber Studiorum, or its photographic substitute, faithfully, you have the complete means in your power of working from Nature on all subjects that interest you, which you should do in four different ways.

113. And now, finally, when you can faithfully copy a piece of Liber Studiorum, or its photographic equivalent, you have all the tools you need to work from Nature on every subject that interests you, which you should approach in four different ways.

First. When you have full time, and your subject is one that will stay quiet for you, make perfect light and shade studies, or as nearly perfect as you can, with gray or brown color of any kind, reinforced and defined with the pen.

First. When you have plenty of time, and your subject is one that will stay still for you, create really good studies of light and shadow, or as close to perfect as you can get, using gray or brown colors of any kind, emphasized and defined with a pen.

114. Secondly. When your time is short, or the subject is so rich in detail that you feel you cannot complete it intelligibly in light and shade, make a hasty study of the effect, and give the rest of the time to a Düreresque expression of the details. If the subject seems to you interesting, and there are points about it which you cannot understand, try to get five spare minutes to go close up to it, and make a nearer memorandum; not that you are ever to bring the details of this nearer sketch into the farther one, but that you may thus perfect your experience of the aspect of things, and know that such and such a look of a tower or cottage at five hundred yards off means that sort of tower or cottage near; while, also, this nearer sketch will be useful to prevent any future misinterpretation of your own work. If you have time, however far your light and shade study in the distance may have been carried, it is always well, for these reasons, to make also your Düreresque and your near memoranda; for if your light and shade drawing be good, much of the interesting detail must be lost in it, or disguised.

114. Secondly, when you’re short on time, or the subject is so rich in detail that you feel you can’t cover it thoroughly, quickly study the overall effect and then focus the rest of your time on a detailed expression. If you find the subject interesting and there are aspects you don’t understand, try to take five extra minutes to get closer and make a detailed note. This doesn’t mean you’ll include those details in your broader work, but it will help you better understand how things look and recognize that a specific appearance of a tower or cottage from five hundred yards away signifies the same type up close. Additionally, this closer sketch will help you avoid misinterpreting your own work in the future. However, if you have time, no matter how far along you are with your distant light and shade study, it’s always good to create both a detailed and a close-up sketch; if your light and shade drawing is good, lots of interesting detail may be lost or obscured.

115. Your hasty study of effect may be made most easily and quickly with a soft pencil, dashed over when done with one tolerably deep tone of gray, which will fix the pencil. 79 While this fixing color is wet, take out the higher lights with the dry brush; and, when it is quite dry, scratch out the highest lights with the penknife. Five minutes, carefully applied, will do much by these means. Of course the paper is to be white. I do not like studies on gray paper so well; for you can get more gradation by the taking off your wet tint, and laying it on cunningly a little darker here and there, than you can with body-color white, unless you are consummately skillful. There is no objection to your making your Düreresque memoranda on gray or yellow paper, and touching or relieving them with white; only, do not depend much on your white touches, nor make the sketch for their sake.

115. You can quickly study effects using a soft pencil, then go over it with a relatively deep gray tone to set the pencil marks. 79 While the fixing color is wet, lift out the highlights with a dry brush. Once it’s completely dry, scratch out the brightest highlights with a penknife. Just five careful minutes can make a big difference this way. Make sure to use white paper; I prefer it over gray paper because you can achieve better gradation by lifting off the wet tint and applying it a bit darker in some areas, which is harder to do with body-color white unless you're extremely skilled. It’s fine to make your Düreresque notes on gray or yellow paper and add touches of white, but don’t rely too much on your white touches or base the sketch around them.

116. Thirdly. When you have neither time for careful study nor for Düreresque detail, sketch the outline with pencil, then dash in the shadows with the brush boldly, trying to do as much as you possibly can at once, and to get a habit of expedition and decision; laying more color again and again into the tints as they dry, using every expedient which your practice has suggested to you of carrying out your chiaroscuro in the manageable and moist material, taking the color off here with the dry brush, scratching out lights in it there with the wooden handle of the brush, rubbing it in with your fingers, drying it off with your sponge, etc. Then, when the color is in, take your pen and mark the outline characters vigorously, in the manner of the Liber Studiorum. This kind of study is very convenient for carrying away pieces of effect which depend not so much on refinement as on complexity, strange shapes of involved shadows, sudden effects of sky, etc.; and it is most useful as a safeguard against any too servile or slow habits which the minute copying may induce in you; for although the endeavor to obtain velocity merely for velocity's sake, and dash for display's sake, is as baneful as it is despicable; there are a velocity and a dash which not only are compatible with perfect drawing, but obtain certain results which cannot be had otherwise. And it is perfectly safe for you to study 80 occasionally for speed and decision, while your continual course of practice is such as to insure your retaining an accurate judgment and a tender touch. Speed, under such circumstances, is rather fatiguing than tempting; and you will find yourself always beguiled rather into elaboration than negligence.

116. Thirdly. When you don’t have time for careful study or fine details, sketch the outline with a pencil, then boldly add in the shadows with a brush, trying to do as much as you can at once and developing a habit of speed and decisiveness; layering more color repeatedly as they dry, using any techniques your practice has taught you to create your chiaroscuro in the manageable and wet material, removing color here with a dry brush, scratching out highlights there with the wooden handle of the brush, blending it with your fingers, drying it off with your sponge, etc. Once the color is in, take your pen and boldly outline the characters, similar to the style of the Liber Studiorum. This type of study is really useful for capturing effects that rely more on variety than on refinement, like complex shadows and sudden sky effects; and it helps avoid the overly meticulous or slow habits that can come from detailed copying. While the goal of speed for its own sake and flashy techniques is as harmful as it is unworthy, there is a type of speed and enthusiasm that not only pairs well with perfect drawing but also achieves results that can't be attained otherwise. It’s completely fine to practice sometimes for speed and decisiveness, as long as your regular practice ensures you maintain good judgment and a gentle touch. Under such circumstances, speed is more exhausting than tempting; and you'll find yourself drawn more toward elaboration than negligence.

Fig. 21.
Fig. 21.

117. Fourthly. You will find it of great use, whatever kind of landscape scenery you are passing through, to get into the habit of making memoranda of the shapes of shadows. You will find that many objects of no essential interest in themselves, and neither deserving a finished study, nor a Düreresque one, may yet become of singular value in consequence of the fantastic shapes of their shadows; for it happens often, in distant effect, that the shadow is by much a more important element than the substance. Thus, in the Alpine bridge, Fig. 21, seen within a few yards of it, as in the figure, the arrangement of timbers to which the shadows are owing is perceptible; but at half a mile's distance, in bright sunlight, the timbers would not be seen; and a good painter's expression of the bridge would be merely the large spot, and the crossed bars, of pure gray; wholly without indication of their cause, as in Fig. 22 a; and if we saw 81 it at still greater distances, it would appear, as in Fig. 22 b and c, diminishing at last to a strange, unintelligible, spider-like spot of gray on the light hill-side. A perfectly great painter, throughout his distances, continually reduces his objects to these shadow abstracts; and the singular, and to many persons unaccountable, effect of the confused touches in Turner's distances, is owing chiefly to this thorough accuracy and intense meaning of the shadow abstracts.

117. Fourthly, it’s really helpful, no matter what kind of landscape you’re looking at, to get into the habit of jotting down notes about the shapes of shadows. You’ll notice that many objects that aren't particularly interesting on their own—and don’t need a detailed study—can still hold unique value because of the fantastic shapes their shadows create. Often, in terms of distant views, the shadow can be a much more significant part than the actual object. For example, with the Alpine bridge, Fig. 21, if you stand just a few yards away, you can see the arrangement of timbers that casts the shadows. But half a mile away in bright sunlight, you wouldn't notice the timbers; a skilled painter would capture just the large gray spot and the crossed bars without showing what causes them, as in Fig. 22 a; and if we looked at it from even farther away, it would look like Fig. 22 b and c, shrinking down to an odd, unclear, spider-like gray spot on the light hillside. An exceptional painter consistently simplifies his subjects to these shadow forms over distances, and the unique, often puzzling effect of the blurred touches in Turner's distant scenes is mainly due to the precise and meaningful representation of these shadow forms.

Fig. 22.
Fig. 22.

118. Studies of this kind are easily made, when you are in haste, with an F. or HB. pencil: it requires some hardness of the point to insure your drawing delicately enough when the forms of the shadows are very subtle; they are sure to be so somewhere, and are generally so everywhere. The pencil is indeed a very precious instrument after you are master of the pen and brush, for the pencil, cunningly used, is both, and will draw a line with the precision of the one and the gradation of the other; nevertheless, it is so unsatisfactory to see the sharp touches, on which the best of the detail 82 depends, getting gradually deadened by time, or to find the places where force was wanted look shiny, and like a fire-grate, that I should recommend rather the steady use of the pen, or brush, and color, whenever time admits of it; keeping only a small memorandum-book in the breast-pocket, with its well-cut, sheathed pencil, ready for notes on passing opportunities: but never being without this.

118. You can easily do studies like this when you're in a hurry, using an F or HB pencil: it needs to have a firm point to ensure your drawing captures the delicate nuances of very subtle shadows; there are definitely subtle shadows somewhere, and usually they are present everywhere. The pencil is truly a valuable tool once you've mastered the pen and brush because, when used skillfully, it's both and can create a line with the precision of one and the gradation of the other; however, it’s frustrating to see the sharp touches that the best details rely on gradually fade over time or to notice that the areas where force was needed look shiny, like a fireplace. So I would recommend relying more on the steady use of the pen or brush and color whenever you have the time; just keep a small notebook in your pocket with a well-crafted, sheathed pencil for jotting down quick notes on passing opportunities: but you should never be without it.

119. Thus much, then, respecting the manner in which you are at first to draw from Nature. But it may perhaps be serviceable to you, if I also note one or two points respecting your choice of subjects for study, and the best special methods of treating some of them; for one of by no means the least difficulties which you have at first to encounter is a peculiar instinct, common, as far as I have noticed, to all beginners, to fix on exactly the most unmanageable feature in the given scene. There are many things in every landscape which can be drawn, if at all, only by the most accomplished artists; and I have noticed that it is nearly always these which a beginner will dash at; or, if not these, it will be something which, though pleasing to him in itself, is unfit for a picture, and in which, when he has drawn it, he will have little pleasure. As some slight protection against this evil genius of beginners, the following general warnings may be useful:

119. So, that’s how you should start drawing from Nature. But it might be helpful if I also point out a couple of things about choosing subjects to study and the best specific methods to tackle some of them. One of the major challenges you’ll face at first is a common instinct among beginners to focus on the most difficult aspect of the scene. In every landscape, there are elements that can only be captured by the most skilled artists, and I’ve noticed that beginners often gravitate toward these challenging features. If not those, they'll choose something that looks nice to them but doesn’t work well in a picture, leaving them with little satisfaction once they’ve drawn it. As a minor safeguard against this tricky tendency, the following general tips may be helpful:

120. (1.) Do not draw things that you love, on account of their associations; or at least do not draw them because you love them; but merely when you cannot get anything else to draw. If you try to draw places that you love, you are sure to be always entangled amongst neat brick walls, iron railings, gravel walks, greenhouses, and quickset hedges; besides that you will be continually led into some endeavor to make your drawing pretty, or complete, which will be fatal to your progress. You need never hope to get on, if you are the least anxious that the drawing you are actually at work upon should look nice when it is done. All you have to care about is to make it right, and to learn as much in doing it as possible. So then, though when you are sitting in your friend's parlor, or in your own, and have nothing else to do, 83 you may draw anything that is there, for practice; even the fire-irons or the pattern on the carpet: be sure that it is for practice, and not because it is a beloved carpet, or a friendly poker and tongs, nor because you wish to please your friend by drawing her room.

120. (1.) Don't draw things that you love just because of their associations; or at least don't draw them solely because you love them; only do so when you can't find anything else to draw. If you attempt to sketch places that you’re fond of, you'll likely get stuck with tidy brick walls, wrought-iron railings, gravel paths, greenhouses, and hedges; plus, you'll constantly be tempted to make your drawing look nice or complete, which will hinder your progress. You shouldn't expect to improve if you're worried about how nice your drawing will look when it's finished. What matters is making it right and learning as much as you can while doing it. So, when you're sitting in your friend's living room or your own with nothing else to do, you can draw anything that's around for practice—even the fire tools or the carpet pattern. Just make sure it's for practice and not because it's a beloved carpet or friendly poker and tongs, or because you want to impress your friend by drawing her room.

121. Also, never make presents of your drawings. Of course I am addressing you as a beginner—a time may come when your work will be precious to everybody; but be resolute not to give it away till you know that it is worth something (as soon as it is worth anything you will know that it is so). If any one asks you for a present of a drawing, send them a couple of cakes of color and a piece of Bristol board: those materials are, for the present, of more value in that form than if you had spread the one over the other.

121. Also, never give away your drawings. I'm speaking to you as a beginner—there will come a time when your work will be valuable to everyone; but be firm about not giving it away until you know it’s worth something (you’ll realize its value as soon as it's worth anything). If someone asks you for a drawing as a gift, send them a couple of color paints and a piece of Bristol board instead: those supplies are more valuable in that form right now than if you combined them into a single piece.

The main reason for this rule is, however, that its observance will much protect you from the great danger of trying to make your drawings pretty.

The main reason for this rule is that following it will help protect you from the big risk of trying to make your drawings look nice.

122. (2.) Never, by choice, draw anything polished; especially if complicated in form. Avoid all brass rods and curtain ornaments, chandeliers, plate, glass, and fine steel. A shining knob of a piece of furniture does not matter if it comes in your way; but do not fret yourself if it will not look right, and choose only things that do not shine.

122. (2.) Never intentionally draw anything shiny, especially if it has a complicated shape. Stay away from all brass rods, curtain decorations, chandeliers, silverware, glass, and fine steel. A shiny knob on a piece of furniture is fine if it’s in your way, but don’t stress if it doesn’t look right, and opt for things that aren’t shiny.

(3.) Avoid all very neat things. They are exceedingly difficult to draw, and very ugly when drawn. Choose rough, worn, and clumsy-looking things as much as possible; for instance, you cannot have a more difficult or profitless study than a newly painted Thames wherry, nor a better study than an old empty coal-barge, lying ashore at low tide: in general, everything that you think very ugly will be good for you to draw.

(3.) Stay away from anything overly neat. They are really hard to draw and look pretty bad when they are. Go for rough, worn, and clumsy-looking things whenever you can; for example, there’s nothing more challenging or unhelpful to study than a freshly painted Thames wherry, but an old empty coal barge sitting on the shore at low tide is a great subject. In general, anything you think looks really ugly will be good for you to draw.

(4.) Avoid, as much as possible, studies in which one thing is seen through another. You will constantly find a thin tree standing before your chosen cottage, or between you and the turn of the river; its near branches all entangled with the distance. It is intensely difficult to represent this; and though, when the tree is there, you must not imaginarily 84 cut it down, but do it as well as you can, yet always look for subjects that fall into definite masses, not into network; that is, rather for a cottage with a dark tree beside it, than for one with a thin tree in front of it, rather for a mass of wood, soft, blue, and rounded, than for a ragged copse, or confusion of intricate stems.

(4.) Avoid, as much as possible, studies where one thing is obscured by another. You'll often find a thin tree standing in front of your chosen cottage or blocking your view of the bend in the river; its nearby branches all tangled with the background. It's really hard to capture this accurately; and while, when the tree is there, you shouldn't just imagine cutting it down, do the best you can. Always look for subjects that form definite shapes, not a web of branches; that is, prefer a cottage with a dark tree next to it rather than one with a thin tree in front of it, and look for a smooth, rounded mass of woods instead of a messy thicket or a confusing jumble of stems.

(5.) Avoid, as far as possible, country divided by hedges. Perhaps nothing in the whole compass of landscape is so utterly unpicturesque and unmanageable as the ordinary English patchwork of field and hedge, with trees dotted over it in independent spots, gnawed straight at the cattle line.

(5.) Avoid, as much as you can, land that’s divided by hedges. There’s probably nothing in the entire landscape that’s as completely unappealing and difficult to manage as the typical English patchwork of fields and hedges, with trees scattered in random spots, worn down along the edges by the cattle.

Still, do not be discouraged if you find you have chosen ill, and that the subject overmasters you. It is much better that it should, than that you should think you had entirely mastered it. But at first, and even for some time, you must be prepared for very discomfortable failure; which, nevertheless, will not be without some wholesome result.

Still, don’t be discouraged if you realize you’ve made a poor choice and that the subject overwhelms you. It’s much better that it does than for you to think you’ve completely mastered it. But at first, and even for a while, you need to be ready for some uncomfortable failures; which, however, will still lead to some valuable outcomes.

123. As, however, I have told you what most definitely to avoid, I may, perhaps, help you a little by saying what to seek. In general, all banks are beautiful things, and will reward work better than large landscapes. If you live in a lowland country, you must look for places where the ground is broken to the river's edges, with decayed posts, or roots of trees; or, if by great good luck there should be such things within your reach, for remnants of stone quays or steps, mossy mill-dams, etc. Nearly every other mile of road in chalk country will present beautiful bits of broken bank at its sides; better in form and color than high chalk cliffs. In woods, one or two trunks, with the flowery ground below, are at once the richest and easiest kind of study: a not very thick trunk, say nine inches or a foot in diameter, with ivy running up it sparingly, is an easy, and always a rewarding subject.

123. As I’ve mentioned what to definitely avoid, let me help you a bit by saying what to look for. Generally, all banks are beautiful spots and will reward your efforts more than large landscapes. If you live in a lowland area, you should look for places where the ground slopes down to the river’s edge, featuring rotting posts or tree roots; or, if you're really lucky, remnants of stone quays or steps, moss-covered mill-dams, and so on. Almost every other mile of road in chalk country will show lovely bits of broken bank at its sides, which are better in shape and color than high chalk cliffs. In the woods, one or two tree trunks with flowering ground below are both rich and easy subjects to study: a trunk that’s about nine inches to a foot in diameter, with ivy growing up it a little, is an easy and always rewarding subject.

124. Large nests of buildings in the middle distance are always beautiful, when drawn carefully, provided they are not modern rows of pattern cottages, or villas with Ionic and Doric porticoes. Any old English village, or cluster of farmhouses, 85 drawn with all its ins and outs, and haystacks, and palings, is sure to be lovely; much more a French one. French landscape is generally as much superior to English as Swiss landscape is to French; in some respects, the French is incomparable. Such scenes as that avenue on the Seine, which I have recommended you to buy the engraving of, admit no rivalship in their expression of graceful rusticity and cheerful peace, and in the beauty of component lines.

124. Large clusters of buildings in the distance are always beautiful when depicted thoughtfully, as long as they aren't modern rows of identical cottages or villas with Ionic and Doric porches. Any old English village or group of farmhouses, 85 illustrated with all its details, haystacks, and fences, is sure to be charming; even more so a French one. French landscapes are generally much nicer than English ones, just as Swiss landscapes surpass French; in many ways, the French ones are unmatched. Scenes like that avenue by the Seine, which I suggested you get an engraving of, have no equal in their portrayal of graceful rural beauty and cheerful tranquility, as well as in the elegance of their lines.

In drawing villages, take great pains with the gardens; a rustic garden is in every way beautiful. If you have time, draw all the rows of cabbages, and hollyhocks, and broken fences, and wandering eglantines, and bossy roses; you cannot have better practice, nor be kept by anything in purer thoughts.

In sketching villages, pay special attention to the gardens; a country garden is beautiful in every way. If you have the time, draw all the rows of cabbages, hollyhocks, broken fences, wandering wild roses, and bustling roses; you couldn't ask for better practice nor be inspired by anything more wholesome.

Make intimate friends with all the brooks in your neighborhood, and study them ripple by ripple.

Become close friends with all the streams in your area, and observe them ripple by ripple.

Village churches in England are not often good subjects; there is a peculiar meanness about most of them and awkwardness of line. Old manor-houses are often pretty. Ruins are usually, with us, too prim, and cathedrals too orderly. I do not think there is a single cathedral in England from which it is possible to obtain one subject for an impressive drawing. There is always some discordant civility, or jarring vergerism about them.

Village churches in England typically aren’t great subjects; there’s a certain lack of charm in most of them and a clumsiness in their design. Old manor houses can be attractive. The ruins, here, are often too neat, and the cathedrals are too structured. I don’t believe there’s a single cathedral in England where you can get one impressive drawing. There’s always some awkward formality, or jarring strictness to them.

125. If you live in a mountain or hill country, your only danger is redundance of subject. Be resolved, in the first place, to draw a piece of rounded rock, with its variegated lichens, quite rightly, getting its complete roundings, and all the patterns of the lichen in true local color. Till you can do this, it is of no use your thinking of sketching among hills; but when once you have done this, the forms of distant hills will be comparatively easy.

125. If you live in a mountainous area, your only risk is being repetitive. First, commit to drawing a rounded rock, fully capturing its diverse lichens, getting all its contours right, and representing the lichen in the actual local colors. Until you can do this, don’t even think about sketching in the hills; but once you achieve that, the shapes of distant hills will be much easier to capture.

126. When you have practiced for a little time from such of these subjects as may be accessible to you, you will certainly find difficulties arising which will make you wish more than ever for a master's help: these difficulties will vary according to the character of your own mind (one 86 question occurring to one person, and one to another), so that it is impossible to anticipate them all; and it would make this too large a book if I answered all that I can anticipate; you must be content to work on, in good hope that Nature will, in her own time, interpret to you much for herself; that farther experience on your own part will make some difficulties disappear; and that others will be removed by the occasional observation of such artists' work as may come in your way. Nevertheless, I will not close this letter without a few general remarks, such as may be useful to you after you are somewhat advanced in power; and these remarks may, I think, be conveniently arranged under three heads, having reference to the drawing of vegetation, water, and skies.

126. After you've practiced a bit with the topics that are available to you, you'll definitely encounter challenges that will make you want a mentor's guidance more than ever. These challenges will depend on your own mindset (one person might struggle with one issue, while another might have a different one), so it's impossible to predict all of them. It would also make this book way too lengthy if I tried to answer everything I can foresee. You should continue working with the hope that, in time, Nature will reveal a lot to you on its own; that as you gain more experience, some challenges will fade away; and that others will be resolved by occasionally observing the work of artists you come across. Still, I won’t end this letter without a few general tips that might be helpful once you've gained some skills. I believe these can be grouped into three categories concerning the drawing of plants, water, and skies.

127. And, first, of vegetation. You may think, perhaps, we have said enough about trees already; yet if you have done as you were bid, and tried to draw them frequently enough, and carefully enough, you will be ready by this time to hear a little more of them. You will also recollect that we left our question, respecting the mode of expressing intricacy of leafage, partly unsettled in the first letter. I left it so because I wanted you to learn the real structure of leaves, by drawing them for yourself, before I troubled you with the most subtle considerations as to method in drawing them. And by this time, I imagine, you must have found out two principal things, universal facts, about leaves; namely, that they always, in the main tendencies of their lines, indicate a beautiful divergence of growth, according to the law of radiation, already referred to;[29] and the second, that this divergence is never formal, but carried out with endless variety of individual line. I must now press both these facts on your attention a little farther.

127. First, let’s talk about vegetation. You might think we’ve covered enough about trees already, but if you’ve followed my advice and drawn them often and with care, you’re probably ready to hear a bit more. You should remember that we left our discussion about how to express the complexity of leaf shapes somewhat open in the first letter. I did this because I wanted you to really understand the structure of leaves by drawing them yourself before getting into the finer points of drawing techniques. By now, I imagine you’ve discovered two key things, universal truths about leaves: first, that their main line patterns usually show a beautiful growth divergence according to the law of radiation mentioned earlier; and second, that this divergence is never rigid but expressed with endless variations of individual lines. I need to emphasize both of these facts to you a bit more.

128. You may, perhaps, have been surprised that I have not yet spoken of the works of J. D. Harding, especially if you happen to have met with the passages referring to them in Modern Painters, in which they are highly praised. They 87 are deservedly praised, for they are the only works by a modern[30] draughtsman which express in any wise the energy of trees, and the laws of growth, of which we have been speaking. There are no lithographic sketches which, for truth of general character, obtained with little cost of time, at all rival Harding's. Calame, Robert, and the other lithographic landscape sketchers are altogether inferior in power, though sometimes a little deeper in meaning. But you must not take even Harding for a model, though you may use his works for occasional reference; and if you can afford to buy his Lessons on Trees,[31] it will be serviceable to you in various ways, and will at present help me to explain the point under consideration. And it is well that I should illustrate this point by reference to Harding's works, because their great influence on young students renders it desirable that their real character should be thoroughly understood.

128. You might be surprised that I haven't talked about the works of J. D. Harding yet, especially if you've come across the sections in Modern Painters where they're highly praised. They deserve that praise because they are the only works by a modern artist that really capture the energy of trees and the principles of growth we've been discussing. There are no lithographic sketches that, for their overall accuracy and low time investment, can compete with Harding's. Calame, Robert, and other lithographic landscape sketch artists fall short in comparison, even though some might have a bit more depth in their meaning. However, you shouldn’t consider Harding a role model, even though you can refer to his works occasionally; and if you can afford to buy his Lessons on Trees, it will be beneficial to you in various ways and will help me explain the point we're discussing. It's important to illustrate this point with references to Harding's works because their significant impact on young artists makes it crucial for their true nature to be well understood.

129. You will find, first, in the titlepage of the Lessons on Trees, a pretty wood-cut, in which the tree stems are drawn with great truth, and in a very interesting arrangement of lines. Plate 1 is not quite worthy of Mr. Harding, tending too much to make his pupil, at starting, think everything depends on black dots; still, the main lines are good, and very characteristic of tree growth. Then, in Plate 2, we come to the point at issue. The first examples in that plate are given to the pupil that he may practice from them till his hand gets into the habit of arranging lines freely in a similar manner; and they are stated by Mr. Harding to be universal in application; "all outlines expressive of foliage," he says, "are but modifications of them." They consist of groups of lines, more or less resembling our Fig. 23 below; and the characters especially insisted upon are, that they "tend at their inner ends to a common center;" that "their 88 ends terminate in [are inclosed by] ovoid curves;" and that "the outer ends are most emphatic."

129. You'll see, first, on the title page of the Lessons on Trees, a nice woodcut showing the tree trunks depicted accurately with an interesting arrangement of lines. Plate 1 doesn't quite do justice to Mr. Harding, as it leans too much towards making his students think everything relies on black dots; however, the main lines are solid and very representative of tree growth. Then, in Plate 2, we get to the main point. The first examples in that plate are provided for the student to practice until their hand gets accustomed to arranging lines freely in a similar style; Mr. Harding claims they're universally applicable: "all outlines expressive of foliage," he says, "are just variations of them." They consist of clusters of lines, somewhat resembling our Fig. 23 below; and the key features emphasized are that they "tend at their inner ends to a common center;" that "their ends terminate in [are enclosed by] ovoid curves;" and that "the outer ends are most pronounced."

Fig. 23.
Fig. 23.

130. Now, as thus expressive of the great laws of radiation and inclosure, the main principle of this method of execution confirms, in a very interesting way, our conclusions respecting foliage composition. The reason of the last rule, that the outer end of the line is to be most emphatic, does not indeed at first appear; for the line at one end of a natural leaf is not more emphatic than the line at the other: but ultimately, in Harding's method, this darker part of the touch stands more or less for the shade at the outer extremity of the leaf mass; and, as Harding uses these touches, they express as much of tree character as any mere habit of touch can express. But, unfortunately, there is another law of tree growth, quite as fixed as the law of radiation, which this and all other conventional modes of execution wholly lose sight of. This second law is, that the radiating tendency shall be carried out only as a ruling spirit in reconcilement with perpetual individual caprice on the part of the separate leaves. So that the moment a touch is monotonous, it must be also false, the liberty of the leaf individually being just as essential a truth, as its unity of growth with its companions in the radiating group.

130. Now, reflecting the fundamental laws of radiation and enclosure, the main idea behind this execution method interestingly supports our findings about foliage composition. The reason for the last rule—that the outer end of the line should be the most pronounced—might not be immediately clear; the line at one end of a natural leaf isn’t any more pronounced than at the other end. However, in Harding's method, this darker part of the stroke ultimately represents the shade at the outer edge of the leaf cluster. And as Harding applies these strokes, they convey as much of the tree's character as any simple technique can express. Unfortunately, there’s another law of tree growth, just as established as the law of radiation, that this and other traditional methods overlook completely. This second law states that the radiating tendency should only be expressed in harmony with the unique individuality of each leaf. So, whenever a stroke becomes repetitive, it also becomes inaccurate since the individuality of each leaf is just as essential a truth as its growth together with its counterparts in the radiating group.

131. It does not matter how small or apparently symmetrical the cluster may be, nor how large or vague. You can hardly have a more formal one than b in Fig. 9, p. 47, nor a less formal one than this shoot of Spanish chestnut, shedding its leaves, Fig. 24; but in either of them, even the general reader, unpracticed in any of the previously recommended exercises, must see that there are wandering lines mixed with the radiating ones, and radiating lines with the wild ones: and if he takes the pen, and tries to copy either of these examples, he will find that neither play of hand to left nor to right, neither a free touch nor a firm touch, nor any learnable or describable touch whatsoever, will enable 89 him to produce, currently, a resemblance of it; but that he must either draw it slowly or give it up. And (which makes the matter worse still) though gathering the bough, and putting it close to you, or seeing a piece of near foliage against the sky, you may draw the entire outline of the leaves, yet if the spray has light upon it, and is ever so little a way off, you will miss, as we have seen, a point of a leaf here, and an edge there; some of the surfaces will be confused by glitter, and some spotted with shade; and if you look carefully through this confusion for the edges or dark stems which you really can see and put only those down, the result will be neither like Fig. 9 nor Fig. 24, but such an interrupted and puzzling piece of work as Fig. 25.[32]

131. It doesn't matter how small or seemingly symmetrical the cluster is, or how large or unclear. You can’t get more formal than b in Fig. 9, p. 47, and you won’t find anything less formal than this shoot of Spanish chestnut shedding its leaves, Fig. 24; but in both cases, even an average reader with no experience in the earlier exercises must notice that there are wandering lines mixed in with the radiating ones, and radiating lines with the wild ones: and if they pick up a pen and try to replicate either of these examples, they will find that no movement to the left or right, no loose touch or firm touch, nor any kind of teachable or describable touch will help them produce a likeness to it; instead, they will either have to draw it slowly or give up. And (which makes things even harder) even though grabbing a branch and holding it close, or seeing a piece of foliage against the sky, allows you to sketch the full outline of the leaves, if the spray is lit up and just a little distance away, you’ll miss, as we’ve seen, a tip of a leaf here and an edge there; some surfaces will be confused by glare and others spotted with shadow; and if you look closely through this confusion for the edges or dark stems that you actually can see and only draw those, the result will be nothing like Fig. 9 or Fig. 24, but rather an interrupted and puzzling piece of work like Fig. 25.[32]

90

90

Fig. 24.
Fig. 24.
Fig. 25.
Fig. 25.

132. Now, it is in the perfect acknowledgment and expression of these three laws that all good drawing of landscape consists. There is, first, the organic unity; the law, whether of radiation, or parallelism, or concurrent action, which rules the masses of herbs and trees, of rocks, and clouds, and waves; secondly, the individual liberty of the members subjected to these laws of unity; and, lastly, the mystery under which the separate character of each is more or less concealed.

132. Now, the essence of good landscape drawing lies in the clear recognition and expression of these three laws. First, there’s the organic unity—the principle of radiation, parallelism, or concurrent action that governs the arrangement of plants, trees, rocks, clouds, and waves. Second, there's the individual freedom of the elements within these unifying laws. Lastly, there’s the mystery that partly conceals the unique character of each element.

I say, first, there must be observance of the ruling organic law. This is the first distinction between good artists and bad artists. Your common sketcher or bad painter puts his leaves on the trees as if they were moss tied to sticks; he cannot see the lines of action or growth; he scatters the shapeless clouds over his sky, not perceiving the sweeps of associated curves which the real clouds are following as they fly; and he breaks his mountain side into rugged fragments, wholly unconscious of the lines of force with which the real rocks have risen, or of the lines of couch in which they repose. On the contrary, it is the main delight of the great draughtsman to trace these laws of government; and his tendency to error is always in the exaggeration of their authority rather than in its denial.

I believe, first, that we need to follow the fundamental laws of nature. This is the key difference between talented artists and those who aren't as skilled. An average sketch artist or poor painter places leaves on trees as if they were just moss attached to sticks; they can't recognize the natural lines of movement or growth. They scatter unshaped clouds across the sky, failing to see the sweeping curves that real clouds follow as they drift. They break a mountainside into rough pieces, completely unaware of the natural forces that formed the real rocks or the positions in which they rest. In contrast, the true master artist finds joy in discovering these natural laws; their mistakes usually come from overemphasizing these principles rather than ignoring them.

133. Secondly, I say, we have to show the individual character and liberty of the separate leaves, clouds, or rocks. And herein the great masters separate themselves finally from the inferior ones; for if the men of inferior genius ever express law at all, it is by the sacrifice of individuality. Thus, Salvator Rosa has great perception of the sweep of foliage and rolling of clouds, but never draws a single leaflet or mist wreath accurately. Similarly, Gainsborough, in his landscape, has great feeling for masses of form and harmony of color; but in the detail gives nothing but meaningless touches; not even so much as the species of tree, much less the variety of its leafage, being ever discernible. Now, although both these expressions of government and individuality are essential to masterly work, the individuality 91 is the more essential, and the more difficult of attainment; and, therefore, that attainment separates the great masters finally from the inferior ones. It is the more essential, because, in these matters of beautiful arrangement in visible things, the same rules hold that hold in moral things. It is a lamentable and unnatural thing to see a number of men subject to no government, actuated by no ruling principle, and associated by no common affection: but it would be a more lamentable thing still, were it possible, to see a number of men so oppressed into assimilation as to have no more any individual hope or character, no differences in aim, no dissimilarities of passion, no irregularities of judgment; a society in which no man could help another, since none would be feebler than himself; no man admire another, since none would be stronger than himself; no man be grateful to another, since by none he could be relieved; no man reverence another, since by none he could be instructed; a society in which every soul would be as the syllable of a stammerer instead of the word of a speaker, in which every man would walk as in a frightful dream, seeing specters of himself, in everlasting multiplication, gliding helplessly around him in a speechless darkness. Therefore it is that perpetual difference, play, and change in groups of form are more essential to them even than their being subdued by some great gathering law: the law is needful to them for their perfection and their power, but the difference is needful to them for their life.

133. Secondly, we need to emphasize the unique characteristics and freedom of each individual leaf, cloud, or rock. This is where the great masters distinguish themselves from the lesser ones; if those with lesser talent do express any rules, they do so at the cost of individuality. For instance, Salvator Rosa has a strong sense of how foliage flows and clouds roll, but he never accurately depicts a single leaf or fog. Likewise, Gainsborough captures the overall shapes and color harmony in his landscapes, but fails to provide any meaningful details; you can't even identify the type of tree, let alone the variety of its leaves. While both expressions of structure and individuality are crucial for outstanding work, individuality is the more essential one and harder to achieve. This distinction is what ultimately separates the great masters from the lesser ones. It’s more essential because the principles that apply to the beauty of things also hold true in moral matters. It's a sad and unnatural sight to see a group of people without any direction, driven by no common purpose, and lacking shared emotions. Even more tragic would be to witness a group so molded into conformity that they lose any individual hope or character, lacking distinct goals, differing passions, or varied judgments; a society where no one could assist another since no one would be weaker than themselves; where no one could admire another since no one would be stronger; where no one could feel gratitude since no one could provide relief; where no one could respect another since no one could offer guidance. A society where every soul would be like a stammerer's sound instead of a coherent word, where each person wanders in a nightmarish state, seeing countless reflections of themselves swirling aimlessly in a voiceless darkness. Therefore, it is that constant variation, play, and change in forms are even more essential than being governed by some overarching law: the law is necessary for their perfection and strength, but the diversity is essential for their existence.

134. And here it may be noted in passing, that, if you enjoy the pursuit of analogies and types, and have any ingenuity of judgment in discerning them, you may always accurately ascertain what are the noble characters in a piece of painting by merely considering what are the noble characters of man in his association with his fellows. What grace of manner and refinement of habit are in society, grace of line and refinement of form are in the association of visible objects. What advantage or harm there may be in sharpness, ruggedness, or quaintness in the dealings or conversations of 92 men; precisely that relative degree of advantage or harm there is in them as elements of pictorial composition. What power is in liberty or relaxation to strengthen or relieve human souls; that power precisely in the same relative degree, play and laxity of line have to strengthen or refresh the expression of a picture. And what goodness or greatness we can conceive to arise in companies of men, from chastity of thought, regularity of life, simplicity of custom, and balance of authority; precisely that kind of goodness and greatness may be given to a picture by the purity of its color, the severity of its forms, and the symmetry of its masses.

134. It's worth mentioning that if you enjoy finding analogies and types and have a knack for recognizing them, you can always figure out the noble characters in a painting by considering what noble traits exist in human interactions. Just as grace and refinement are present in social behavior, grace of line and refinement of form appear in the arrangement of visible objects. The benefits or drawbacks of sharpness, ruggedness, or uniqueness in how people interact or converse have the same relative effect on pictorial composition. The power that liberty or relaxation has to strengthen or uplift human spirits is mirrored in how play and fluidity of line can enhance or refresh the expression of an artwork. Additionally, the goodness or greatness we imagine arising in groups of people from purity of thought, order in life, simplicity in habits, and balance of authority is similarly reflected in a painting through the purity of its colors, the strictness of its forms, and the symmetry of its masses.

135. You need not be in the least afraid of pushing these analogies too far. They cannot be pushed too far; they are so precise and complete, that the farther you pursue them, the clearer, the more certain, the more useful you will find them. They will not fail you in one particular, or in any direction of inquiry. There is no moral vice, no moral virtue, which has not its precise prototype in the art of painting; so that you may at your will illustrate the moral habit by the art, or the art by the moral habit. Affection and discord, fretfulness, and quietness, feebleness and firmness, luxury and purity, pride and modesty, and all other such habits, and every conceivable modification and mingling of them, may be illustrated, with mathematical exactness, by conditions of line and color; and not merely these definable vices and virtues, but also every conceivable shade of human character and passion, from the righteous or unrighteous majesty of the king to the innocent or faultful simplicity of the shepherd boy.

135. You don't need to worry about pushing these analogies too far. They can't be taken too far; they are so precise and complete that the more you explore them, the clearer, more certain, and more useful they'll become. They won’t let you down in any particular area or direction of inquiry. There's no moral vice or virtue that doesn't have its precise counterpart in painting; you can illustrate moral habits through art or art through moral habits. Emotions like love and conflict, irritability and calmness, weakness and strength, luxury and purity, pride and humility, and all other such traits, as well as every possible combination and variation of them, can be illustrated with mathematical accuracy through line and color. This applies not just to these defined vices and virtues but also to every possible nuance of human character and emotion, from the rightful or wrongful grandeur of a king to the innocent or flawed simplicity of a shepherd boy.

136. The pursuit of this subject belongs properly, however, to the investigation of the higher branches of composition, matters which it would be quite useless to treat of in this book; and I only allude to them here, in order that you may understand how the utmost noblenesses of art are concerned in this minute work, to which I have set you in your beginning of it. For it is only by the closest attention, and the most noble execution, that it is possible to express these 93 varieties of individual character, on which all excellence of portraiture depends, whether of masses of mankind, or of groups of leaves.

136. However, the pursuit of this topic really falls under the investigation of the more advanced aspects of composition—subjects that would be pointless to cover in this book. I mention them here so you can see how the highest levels of art are connected to this detailed work I've assigned you at the beginning. It's only through careful attention and the most skillful execution that you can convey these various aspects of individual character, which are essential for achieving excellence in portraiture, whether depicting groups of people or clusters of leaves. 93

137. Now you will be able to understand, among other matters, wherein consists the excellence, and wherein the shortcoming, of the tree-drawing of Harding. It is excellent in so far as it fondly observes, with more truth than any other work of the kind, the great laws of growth and action in trees: it fails,—and observe, not in a minor, but in the principal point,—because it cannot rightly render any one individual detail or incident of foliage. And in this it fails, not from mere carelessness or incompletion, but of necessity; the true drawing of detail being for evermore impossible to a hand which has contracted a habit of execution. The noble draughtsman draws a leaf, and stops, and says calmly,—That leaf is of such and such a character; I will give him a friend who will entirely suit him: then he considers what his friend ought to be, and having determined, he draws his friend. This process may be as quick as lightning when the master is great—one of the sons of the giants; or it may be slow and timid: but the process is always gone through; no touch or form is ever added to another by a good painter without a mental determination and affirmation. But when the hand has got into a habit, leaf No. 1 necessitates leaf No. 2; you cannot stop, your hand is as a horse with the bit in its teeth; or rather is, for the time, a machine, throwing out leaves to order and pattern, all alike. You must stop that hand of yours, however painfully; make it understand that it is not to have its own way any more, that it shall never more slip from one touch to another without orders; otherwise it is not you who are the master, but your fingers. You may therefore study Harding's drawing, and take pleasure in it;[33] and you may properly admire the dexterity 94 which applies the habit of the hand so well, and produces results on the whole so satisfactory: but you must never copy it; otherwise your progress will be at once arrested. The utmost you can ever hope to do would be a sketch in Harding's manner, but of far inferior dexterity; for he has given his life's toil to gain his dexterity, and you, I suppose, have other things to work at besides drawing. You would also incapacitate yourself from ever understanding what truly great work was, or what Nature was; but, by the earnest and complete study of facts, you will gradually come to understand the one and love the other more and more, whether you can draw well yourself or not.

137. Now you can understand, among other things, what makes Harding's tree drawings both impressive and lacking. They excel because they accurately depict the key principles of growth and action in trees better than any other work of this type. However, they fail—note, not just a minor point, but the main one—because they can't accurately represent any specific detail or aspect of the foliage. This shortcoming isn't due to carelessness or incompleteness, but is necessary; true detail in drawing is forever out of reach for a hand that has developed a habit of execution. A great artist draws a leaf, pauses, and calmly states, “This leaf has its own character; I will create a companion that perfectly complements it.” Then they think about what that companion should be and draw it. This process can happen at lightning speed when the artist is truly great—like a giant—or it might be slow and hesitant. But it is always a thoughtful process; no stroke or form is added by a good painter without careful intention. When the hand falls into a habit, leaf No. 1 requires leaf No. 2; it starts to feel like your hand is a horse that won’t stop running or like a machine that keeps churning out leaves in a uniform way. You must halt your hand, no matter how difficult it may be; you need to make it aware that it can't just do whatever it wants anymore, that it can never slip from one stroke to another without direction; otherwise, it's not you who’s in control, but your fingers. You can study Harding's drawing and appreciate it, and you can admire the skill that comes from that hand habit and produces such satisfying results overall. But never copy it; otherwise, your progress will be immediately stalled. The best you can hope for is a sketch in Harding's style, but with much less skill, since he has dedicated his life to perfecting his craft, while you probably have other priorities beyond drawing. You would also limit your ability to understand what truly great work is and what Nature represents; however, by earnestly and thoroughly studying facts, you will gradually come to understand both and increase your appreciation for them, whether or not you can draw well yourself.

138. I have yet to say a few words respecting the third law above stated, that of mystery; the law, namely, that nothing is ever seen perfectly, but only by fragments, and under various conditions of obscurity.[34] This last fact renders the visible objects of Nature complete as a type of the human nature. We have, observe, first, Subordination; secondly, Individuality; lastly, and this not the least essential character, Incomprehensibility; a perpetual lesson, in every serrated point and shining vein which escapes or deceives our sight among the forest leaves, how little we may hope to discern clearly, or judge justly, the rents and veins of the human heart; how much of all that is round us, in men's actions or spirits, which we at first think we understand, a closer and more loving watchfulness would show to be full of mystery, never to be either fathomed or withdrawn.

138. I still need to say a few words about the third law mentioned earlier, the law of mystery; specifically, that nothing is ever seen perfectly, but only in fragments and under different conditions of obscurity.[34] This fact makes the visible aspects of nature a complete representation of human nature. We first have Subordination; second, Individuality; and lastly, and this is no less important, Incomprehensibility. This serves as a constant reminder, in every jagged edge and shining vein that eludes or tricks our vision among the leaves in the forest, of how little we can hope to see clearly or judge accurately the complexities of the human heart; how much of what surrounds us in people's actions or spirits, which we initially think we understand, a closer and more compassionate observation would reveal to be full of mystery that can never be fully grasped or resolved.

Fig. 26.
Fig. 26.

139. The expression of this final character in landscape has never been completely reached by any except Turner; nor can you hope to reach it at all until you have given much time to the practice of art. Only try always when you are sketching any object with a view to completion in light and shade, to draw only those parts of it which you really see definitely; preparing for the after development of the forms by chiaroscuro. It is this preparation by isolated touches for 95 a future arrangement of superimposed light and shade which renders the etchings of the Liber Studiorum so inestimable as examples, and so peculiar. The character exists more or less in them exactly in proportion to the pains that Turner has taken. Thus the Æsacus and Hesperie was wrought out with the greatest possible care; and the principal branch on the near tree is etched as in Fig. 26. The work looks at first like a scholar's instead of a master's; but when the light and shade are added, every touch falls into its place, and a perfect expression of grace and complexity results. Nay, even before the light and shade are added, you ought to be able to see that these irregular and broken lines, especially where the expression is given of the way the stem loses itself in the leaves, are more true than the monotonous though graceful leaf-drawing which, before Turner's time, had been employed, even by the best masters, in their distant masses. Fig. 27 is sufficiently characteristic of the manner of the old wood-cuts after Titian; in which, you see, the leaves are too much of one shape, like bunches of fruit; and the boughs 96 too completely seen, besides being somewhat soft and leathery in aspect, owing to the want of angles in their outline. By great men like Titian, this somewhat conventional structure was only given in haste to distant masses; and their exquisite delineation of the foreground, kept their conventionalism from degeneracy: but in the drawings of the Carracci and other derivative masters, the conventionalism prevails everywhere, and sinks gradually into scrawled work, like Fig. 28, about the worst which it is possible to get into the habit of using, though an ignorant person might perhaps suppose it more "free," and therefore better than Fig. 26. Note also, that in noble outline drawing, it does not follow that a bough is wrongly drawn, because it looks contracted unnaturally somewhere, as in Fig. 26, just above the foliage. Very often the muscular action which is to be expressed by the line runs into the middle of the branch, and the actual outline of the branch at that place may be dimly seen, or not at all; and it is then only by the future shade that its actual shape, or the cause of its disappearance, will be indicated.

139. This final expression of character in landscape has only been fully achieved by Turner; you won’t reach it until you’ve spent a lot of time practicing art. When sketching an object with the intention of capturing it in light and shade, focus only on the parts that you can see clearly. Prepare for the later development of the forms using chiaroscuro. This technique of preparing isolated touches for a future arrangement of layered light and shade makes the etchings in the Liber Studiorum invaluable examples and unique. The character in them exists in proportion to the effort Turner invested. For instance, the Æsacus and Hesperie was executed with incredible care; the main branch on the nearby tree is etched like Fig. 26. At first, the work seems more like that of a scholar than a master, but once the light and shade are added, each touch falls into place, creating a perfect expression of grace and complexity. Even before adding light and shade, you should be able to recognize that these irregular and broken lines, especially where the stem transitions into the leaves, are more accurate than the uniform yet graceful leaf drawings used by the best artists before Turner for their distant masses. Fig. 27 clearly reflects the style of old woodcuts after Titian, where the leaves often appear too uniform, resembling clusters of fruit, and the branches are completely visible, appearing somewhat soft and leathery due to the lack of angular outlines. Great artists like Titian only applied this somewhat conventional structure quickly to distant masses, while their exquisite detailing of the foreground prevented their work from becoming stale. However, in the drawings of the Carracci and other derivative artists, that conventionalism is present everywhere and gradually deteriorates into scrawled work, like Fig. 28, which represents the lowest standard one could fall into, though an uninformed person might mistakenly find it more "free" and therefore superior to Fig. 26. Keep in mind that in noble outline drawing, a branch isn’t necessarily poorly drawn just because it appears unnaturally narrow somewhere, as in Fig. 26, just above the foliage. Often, the muscular action that the line aims to express runs through the middle of the branch, and its actual outline at that point may not be clearly visible; only through future shading will its true shape or the reason for its disappearance be revealed.

Fig. 27.
Fig. 27.

140. One point more remains to be noted about trees, and I have done. In the minds of our ordinary water-color artists a distant tree seems only to be conceived as a flat green blot, grouping pleasantly with other masses, and giving cool color to the landscape, but differing no wise, in texture, from the blots of other shapes which these painters use to express stones, or water, or figures. But as soon as you have drawn trees carefully a little while, you will be impressed, and impressed more strongly the better you draw them, with 97 the idea of their softness of surface. A distant tree is not a flat and even piece of color, but a more or less globular mass of a downy or bloomy texture, partly passing into a misty vagueness. I find, practically, this lovely softness of far-away trees the most difficult of all characters to reach, because it cannot be got by mere scratching or roughening the surface, but is always associated with such delicate expressions of form and growth as are only imitable by very careful drawing. The penknife passed lightly over this careful drawing will do a good deal; but you must accustom yourself, from the beginning, to aim much at this softness in the lines of the drawing itself, by crossing them delicately, and more or less effacing and confusing the edges. You must invent, according to the character of tree, various modes of execution adapted to express its texture; but always keep this character of softness in your mind, and in your scope of aim; for in most landscapes it is the intention of Nature that the tenderness and transparent infinitude of her foliage should be felt, even at the far distance, in the most distinct opposition to the solid masses and flat surfaces of rocks or buildings.

140. One more thing to note about trees, and then I’m done. In the minds of our regular watercolor artists, a distant tree often looks like just a flat green spot that blends nicely with other shapes and adds a cool color to the landscape, but it doesn’t really differ in texture from the shapes these artists use to represent stones, water, or figures. However, once you start drawing trees more carefully, you'll notice—and the better you draw them, the more you'll feel it—that they have a certain softness to their surface. A distant tree isn’t just a flat patch of color; it’s more like a rounded mass that has a soft or fuzzy texture, blending into a hazy mist. I find that capturing this lovely softness of distant trees is the hardest quality to achieve because it can't be created just by scratching or roughing up the surface; it's always tied to delicate expressions of form and growth that can only be captured through very careful drawing. A knife lightly applied over this careful drawing can help a lot, but you need to train yourself from the start to focus on this softness in the lines of your drawing by overlapping them gently and softening the edges. You should come up with different techniques based on the type of tree to express its texture, but always keep that softness in mind and aim for it, because in most landscapes, Nature intends for the tenderness and airy quality of her foliage to be perceived even from a distance, contrasting sharply with the solid shapes and flat surfaces of rocks or buildings.

98

98

Fig. 28.
Fig. 28.

141. II. We were, in the second place, to consider a little the modes of representing water, of which important feature of landscape I have hardly said anything yet.

141. II. In the second place, we should take a moment to think about the ways of representing water, an important aspect of landscape that I haven't really discussed yet.

Water is expressed, in common drawings, by conventional lines, whose horizontality is supposed to convey the idea of its surface. In paintings, white dashes or bars of light are used for the same purpose.

Water is shown in typical illustrations with standard lines that are horizontal to represent its surface. In paintings, white strokes or light bars serve the same purpose.

But these and all other such expedients are vain and absurd. A piece of calm water always contains a picture in itself, an exquisite reflection of the objects above it. If you give the time necessary to draw these reflections, disturbing them here and there as you see the breeze or current disturb them, you will get the effect of the water; but if you have not patience to draw the reflections, no expedient will give you a true effect. The picture in the pool needs nearly as much delicate drawing as the picture above the pool; except only that if there be the least motion on the water, the horizontal lines of the images will be diffused and broken, while the vertical ones will remain decisive, and the oblique ones decisive in proportion to their steepness.

But these and all other similar methods are pointless and silly. A calm body of water always has a clear image in it, a beautiful reflection of the objects above. If you take the time to capture these reflections, adjusting them as you see the breeze or current affects them, you will achieve the essence of the water; however, if you lack the patience to capture the reflections, no method will give you an accurate effect. The image in the water requires almost as much delicate drawing as the image above it; except that if there is even a little movement on the water, the horizontal lines of the reflections will be blurred and broken, while the vertical lines will remain sharp, and the diagonal lines will be clear relative to their angle.

142. A few close studies will soon teach you this: the only thing you need to be told is to watch carefully the lines of disturbance on the surface, as when a bird swims across it, or a fish rises, or the current plays round a stone, reed, or other obstacle. Take the greatest pains to get the curves of these lines true; the whole value of your careful drawing of the reflections may be lost by your admitting a single false curve of ripple from a wild duck's breast. And (as in other subjects) if you are dissatisfied with your result, always try for more unity and delicacy: if your reflections are only soft and gradated enough, they are nearly sure to give you a pleasant effect.[35] When you are taking pains, work the softer reflections, where they are drawn out by motion in the water, with touches as nearly horizontal as may be; but when you are in a hurry, indicate the place and play of the images with vertical lines. The actual construction 99 of a calm elongated reflection is with horizontal lines: but it is often impossible to draw the descending shades delicately enough with a horizontal touch; and it is best always when you are in a hurry, and sometimes when you are not, to use the vertical touch. When the ripples are large, the reflections become shaken, and must be drawn with bold undulatory descending lines.

142. A few close studies will quickly show you this: the only thing you need to remember is to carefully watch the lines of disturbance on the surface, like when a bird swims across it, or a fish jumps, or the current flows around a stone, reed, or other obstacle. Make sure to get the curves of these lines accurate; the entire value of your careful drawing of the reflections could be ruined if you let one false curve from a wild duck's breast slip in. And (like in other subjects), if you're not happy with your result, always strive for more unity and subtlety: if your reflections are just soft and blended enough, they’re likely to create a nice effect.[35] When you’re being meticulous, work on the softer reflections, where they’re stretched by motion in the water, with strokes that are as nearly horizontal as possible; but when you’re in a rush, indicate the position and movement of the images with vertical lines. The actual construction of a calm, elongated reflection uses horizontal lines: but sometimes it’s really hard to draw the descending shades delicately enough with a horizontal touch; and it's typically better to use vertical strokes when pressing for time, and occasionally even when you’re not. When the ripples are big, the reflections become jumbled, and you need to draw them with bold, wavy descending lines.

143. I need not, I should think, tell you that it is of the greatest possible importance to draw the curves of the shore rightly. Their perspective is, if not more subtle, at least more stringent than that of any other lines in Nature. It will not be detected by the general observer, if you miss the curve of a branch, or the sweep of a cloud, or the perspective of a building;[36] but every intelligent spectator will feel the difference between a rightly-drawn bend of shore or shingle, and a false one. Absolutely right, in difficult river perspectives seen from heights, I believe no one but Turner ever has been yet; and observe, there is NO rule for them. To develop the curve mathematically would require a knowledge of the exact quantity of water in the river, the shape of its bed, and the hardness of the rock or shore; and even with these data, the problem would be one which no mathematician could solve but approximatively. The instinct of the eye can do it; nothing else.

143. I don't think I need to tell you how incredibly important it is to accurately depict the curves of the shore. Their perspective is, if not more subtle, at least more demanding than any other lines in nature. The average observer won't notice if you get the curve of a branch wrong, the shape of a cloud, or the perspective of a building;[36] but any discerning viewer will recognize the difference between a correctly drawn curve of shore or shingle and a faulty one. Absolutely right, in challenging river perspectives viewed from heights, I believe no one except Turner has truly achieved. And keep in mind, there is NO rule for them. Developing the curve mathematically would require knowing the exact amount of water in the river, the shape of its bed, and the hardness of the rock or shore; and even with that information, the problem would be one that no mathematician could solve precisely. Only the instinct of the eye can accomplish this; nothing else.

144. If, after a little study from Nature, you get puzzled by the great differences between the aspect of the reflected image and that of the object casting it; and if you wish to know the law of reflection, it is simply this: Suppose all the objects above the water actually reversed (not in appearance, but in fact) beneath the water, and precisely the same in form and in relative position, only all topsy-turvy. Then, whatever you could see, from the place in which you stand, of the solid objects so reversed under the water, you will see 100 in the reflection, always in the true perspective of the solid objects so reversed.

144. If, after studying Nature for a bit, you find yourself confused by the big differences between how a reflected image looks compared to the object causing it, and you want to understand the law of reflection, it’s quite simple: Imagine all the objects above the water actually flipped upside down (not just in how they look, but in reality) below the water, maintaining the same shape and relative positions, just turned upside down. Then, whatever you can see from where you stand of those solid objects flipped under the water, you will see 100 in the reflection, always in the correct perspective of those solid objects flipped over.

If you cannot quite understand this in looking at water, take a mirror, lay it horizontally on the table, put some books and papers upon it, and draw them and their reflections; moving them about, and watching how their reflections alter, and chiefly how their reflected colors and shades differ from their own colors and shades, by being brought into other oppositions. This difference in chiaroscuro is a more important character in water-painting than mere difference in form.

If you can't really grasp this by looking at water, take a mirror, lay it flat on the table, place some books and papers on it, and draw them along with their reflections. Move them around and observe how their reflections change, especially how their reflected colors and shades differ from their actual colors and shades due to being in different settings. This difference in light and shadow is a more crucial aspect of watercolor painting than just the difference in shape.

145. When you are drawing shallow or muddy water, you will see shadows on the bottom, or on the surface, continually modifying the reflections; and in a clear mountain stream, the most wonderful complications of effect resulting from the shadows and reflections of the stones in it, mingling with the aspect of the stones themselves seen through the water. Do not be frightened at the complexity; but, on the other hand, do not hope to render it hastily. Look at it well, making out everything that you see, and distinguishing each component part of the effect. There will be, first, the stones seen through the water, distorted always by refraction, so that, if the general structure of the stone shows straight parallel lines above the water, you may be sure they will be bent where they enter it; then the reflection of the part of the stone above the water crosses and interferes with the part that is seen through it, so that you can hardly tell which is which; and wherever the reflection is darkest, you will see through the water best,[37] and vice versâ. Then the real shadow of the stone crosses both these images, and where that shadow falls, it makes the water more reflective, and where the sunshine falls, you will see more of the surface of the water, and of any dust or motes that may be floating on it: but whether you are to see, at the same spot, most of the bottom of the water, or of the reflection of the objects above, depends on the position of the eye. The more you look down into the water, the better you see objects through it; the more 101 you look along it, the eye being low, the more you see the reflection of objects above it. Hence the color of a given space of surface in a stream will entirely change while you stand still in the same spot, merely as you stoop or raise your head; and thus the colors with which water is painted are an indication of the position of the spectator, and connected inseparably with the perspective of the shores. The most beautiful of all results that I know in mountain streams is when the water is shallow, and the stones at the bottom are rich reddish-orange and black, and the water is seen at an angle which exactly divides the visible colors between those of the stones and that of the sky, and the sky is of clear, full blue. The resulting purple, obtained by the blending of the blue and the orange-red, broken by the play of innumerable gradations in the stones, is indescribably lovely.

145. When you're observing shallow or murky water, you'll notice shadows on the bottom or on the surface that constantly change the reflections. In a clear mountain stream, there are incredible effects created by the shadows and reflections of the stones underwater, blending with the appearance of the stones themselves. Don’t be intimidated by the complexity, but also don’t expect to capture it quickly. Take your time to really look at it, identifying everything you can see and separating each part of the effect. First, you'll see the stones through the water, always distorted by refraction, so that if the overall shape of the stone shows straight parallel lines above the water, those lines will be bent where they enter the water. The reflection of the stone's part above the water overlaps and interacts with the part seen through it, making it hard to tell them apart. Where the reflection is darkest, you’ll see through the water best, and vice versa. The actual shadow of the stone overlaps both these images, and where that shadow falls, it makes the water more reflective. Where the sunlight hits, you'll see more of the water’s surface and any dust or particles floating on it. Whether you see more of the bottom of the water or the reflections of objects above, depends on your eye level. The more you look down into the water, the more you’ll see objects beneath it; the more you look along the surface with your eye low, the more you’ll see the reflections above. Therefore, the color of a specific area of the surface in a stream will completely change while you stay in the same spot, just by bending down or standing up. Thus, the colors of the water indicate the observer’s position and are inseparably linked to the perspective of the shores. The most beautiful sight I know in mountain streams is when the water is shallow, and the stones at the bottom are rich reddish-orange and black. The water seen at an angle perfectly balances the visible colors between those of the stones and the clear, deep blue sky. The resulting purple, formed by the blending of the blue and the orange-red, interspersed with countless gradations in the stones, is indescribably beautiful.

146. All this seems complicated enough already; but if there be a strong color in the clear water itself, as of green or blue in the Swiss lakes, all these phenomena are doubly involved; for the darker reflections now become of the color of the water. The reflection of a black gondola, for instance, at Venice, is never black, but pure dark green. And, farther, the color of the water itself is of three kinds: one, seen on the surface, is a kind of milky bloom; the next is seen where the waves let light through them, at their edges; and the third, shown as a change of color on the objects seen through the water. Thus, the same wave that makes a white object look of a clear blue, when seen through it, will take a red or violet-colored bloom on its surface, and will be made pure emerald green by transmitted sunshine through its edges. With all this, however, you are not much concerned at present, but I tell it you partly as a preparation for what we have afterwards to say about color, and partly that you may approach lakes and streams with reverence,[38] and study them as carefully as other things, not hoping to express them by a few horizontal dashes of white, or a few tremulous blots.[39] 102 Not but that much may be done by tremulous blots, when you know precisely what you mean by them, as you will see by many of the Turner sketches, which are now framed at the National Gallery; but you must have painted water many and many a day—yes, and all day long—before you can hope to do anything like those.

146. All this seems complicated enough already; but if there’s a strong color in the clear water itself, like green or blue in the Swiss lakes, things get even more complex; because the darker reflections will now take on the water's color. For example, the reflection of a black gondola in Venice is never black, but a deep dark green. Additionally, the water itself has three types of color: one seen on the surface, which looks kind of milky; the next seen where the waves let light through at the edges; and the third, which is a change of color in the objects seen through the water. So, the same wave that makes a white object appear clear blue when seen through it will take on a red or violet bloom on its surface and will look pure emerald green when the sunlight passes through the edges. While this might not concern you much right now, I mention it partly to prepare you for what we’ll talk about regarding color later, and partly so you can appreciate lakes and streams with respect and study them as carefully as other subjects—not hoping to capture them with just a few horizontal white dashes or some shaky blotches. 102 It's true that shaky blotches can do a lot when you know exactly what you mean by them, as you’ll see in many of Turner’s sketches now framed at the National Gallery; but you have to paint water for many days—yes, and all day long—before you can expect to create anything like those.


147. III. Lastly. You may perhaps wonder why, before passing to the clouds, I say nothing special about ground.[40] But there is too much to be said about that to admit of my saying it here. You will find the principal laws of its structure examined at length in the fourth volume of Modern Painters; and if you can get that volume, and copy carefully Plate 21, which I have etched after Turner with great pains, it will give you as much help as you need in the linear expression of ground-surface. Strive to get the retirement and succession of masses in irregular ground: much may be done in this way by careful watching of the perspective diminutions of its herbage, as well as by contour; and much also by shadows. If you draw the shadows of leaves and tree trunks on any undulating ground with entire carefulness, you will be surprised to find how much they explain of the form and distance of the earth on which they fall.

147. III. Lastly. You might wonder why, before moving on to the clouds, I don’t discuss ground specifically. [40] But there's too much to cover for me to address it here. You will find the main principles of its structure thoroughly examined in the fourth volume of Modern Painters; and if you can get that volume and carefully copy Plate 21, which I’ve etched after Turner with great effort, it will provide all the help you need in capturing the linear expression of ground surface. Aim to achieve the depth and sequence of shapes in uneven ground: you can accomplish a lot by carefully observing the perspective reduction of its vegetation, as well as by contour; and also by shadows. If you draw the shadows of leaves and tree trunks on any undulating ground with full attention, you'll be amazed at how much they reveal about the form and distance of the land beneath them.

148. Passing then to skies, note that there is this great peculiarity about sky subject, as distinguished from earth subject;—that the clouds, not being much liable to man's interference, are always beautifully arranged. You cannot be sure of this in any other features of landscape. The rock 103 on which the effect of a mountain scene especially depends is always precisely that which the roadmaker blasts or the landlord quarries; and the spot of green which Nature left with a special purpose by her dark forest sides, and finished with her most delicate grasses, is always that which the farmer plows or builds upon. But the clouds, though we can hide them with smoke, and mix them with poison, cannot be quarried nor built over, and they are always therefore gloriously arranged; so gloriously, that unless you have notable powers of memory you need not hope to approach the effect of any sky that interests you. For both its grace and its glow depend upon the united influence of every cloud within its compass: they all move and burn together in a marvelous harmony; not a cloud of them is out of its appointed place, or fails of its part in the choir: and if you are not able to recollect (which in the case of a complicated sky it is impossible you should) precisely the form and position of all the clouds at a given moment, you cannot draw the sky at all; for the clouds will not fit if you draw one part of them three or four minutes before another.

148. Moving on to the skies, it's important to note this unique feature of skies compared to landscapes on the ground: the clouds, which aren’t easily affected by human activity, are always beautifully arranged. You can’t guarantee that with any other elements of the scenery. The rock that creates the mountain scene's effect is always the very one that construction workers blow up or that landowners extract; and the patch of greenery that Nature intentionally left by her dark forests, finished off with her most delicate grasses, is always the one that farmers plow or build on. However, the clouds, even though we can obscure them with smoke or mix them with pollution, can’t be quarried or developed upon, and thus they are always magnificently arranged. So magnificently, in fact, that unless you have an exceptional memory, you shouldn’t expect to recreate any sky that captivates you. Both its beauty and its brightness depend on the collective influence of every cloud within its range: they all move and glow together in a stunning harmony; not a single one is out of its designated spot or neglects its role in the ensemble. And if you can’t remember (which is impossible with a complex sky) the exact shape and position of all the clouds at a specific moment, you can’t capture the sky at all; because the clouds won’t align if you sketch one part of them three or four minutes before another.

149. You must try therefore to help what memory you have, by sketching at the utmost possible speed the whole range of the clouds; marking, by any shorthand or symbolic work you can hit upon, the peculiar character of each, as transparent, or fleecy, or linear, or undulatory; giving afterwards such completion to the parts as your recollection will enable you to do. This, however, only when the sky is interesting from its general aspect; at other times, do not try to draw all the sky, but a single cloud: sometimes a round cumulus will stay five or six minutes quite steady enough to let you mark out his principal masses; and one or two white or crimson lines which cross the sunrise will often stay without serious change for as long. And in order to be the readier in drawing them, practice occasionally drawing lumps of cotton, which will teach you better than any other stable thing the kind of softness there is in clouds. For you will find when you have made a few genuine studies of sky, and 104 then look at any ancient or modern painting, that ordinary artists have always fallen into one of two faults: either, in rounding the clouds, they make them as solid and hard-edged as a heap of stones tied up in a sack, or they represent them not as rounded at all, but as vague wreaths of mist or flat lights in the sky; and think they have done enough in leaving a little white paper between dashes of blue, or in taking an irregular space out with the sponge. Now clouds are not as solid as flour-sacks; but, on the other hand, they are neither spongy nor flat. They are definite and very beautiful forms of sculptured mist; sculptured is a perfectly accurate word; they are not more drifted into form than they are carved into form, the warm air around them cutting them into shape by absorbing the visible vapor beyond certain limits; hence their angular and fantastic outlines, as different from a swollen, spherical, or globular formation, on the one hand, as from that of flat films or shapeless mists on the other. And the worst of all is, that while these forms are difficult enough to draw on any terms, especially considering that they never stay quiet, they must be drawn also at greater disadvantage of light and shade than any others, the force of light in clouds being wholly unattainable by art; so that if we put shade enough to express their form as positively as it is expressed in reality, we must make them painfully too dark on the dark sides. Nevertheless, they are so beautiful, if you in the least succeed with them, that you will hardly, I think, lose courage.

149. You should try to make the most of your memory by quickly sketching the entire range of the clouds; use any shorthand or symbols you can think of to capture their unique characteristics, whether they are transparent, fluffy, linear, or wavy. Later, add detail to those sketches based on what you remember. Do this only when the sky looks interesting overall; at other times, focus on just one cloud. Sometimes a round cumulus cloud will stay still for five or six minutes, giving you enough time to outline its main shapes. One or two white or crimson streaks crossing the sunrise often remain unchanged for just as long. To get better at drawing them, practice sketching lumps of cotton, since it will teach you about the softness of clouds better than anything else stable. After you’ve done a few genuine studies of the sky and then look at any painting from the past or present, you’ll see that most artists have made one of two mistakes: either they depict clouds as solid and hard-edged like a sack of stones, or they represent them as vague swirls of mist or flat patches of light in the sky, thinking they’ve done enough by leaving some white space between streaks of blue or by blotting out sections with a sponge. But clouds aren’t as solid as sacks of flour; they’re also not spongy or flat. They are distinct, beautiful forms of sculpted mist; “sculpted” is an accurate term; they’re shaped not just by drifting but by being carved into form, with warm air around them shaping the visible vapor beyond certain limits. That’s why they have angular and fantastic outlines, which differ from swollen, spherical forms on one hand and from flat films or shapeless mists on the other. The hardest part is that while these forms are already challenging to draw, especially since they’re always moving, they also need to be depicted with more complicated light and shade than anything else. The light in clouds can’t be fully captured by art, so if we add enough shade to express their form as clearly as it is in reality, we end up making them uncomfortably too dark on the shadowy parts. However, they are so beautiful that if you manage to capture even a little bit of them, I think you won’t lose your motivation.

150. Outline them often with the pen, as you can catch them here and there; one of the chief uses of doing this will be, not so much the memorandum so obtained, as the lesson you will get respecting the softness of the cloud-outlines. You will always find yourself at a loss to see where the outline really is; and when drawn it will always look hard and false, and will assuredly be either too round or too square, however often you alter it, merely passing from the one fault to the other and back again, the real cloud striking an inexpressible mean between roundness and squareness in all 105 its coils or battlements. I speak at present, of course, only of the cumulus cloud: the lighter wreaths and flakes of the upper sky cannot be outlined;—they can only be sketched, like locks of hair, by many lines of the pen. Firmly developed bars of cloud on the horizon are in general easy enough, and may be drawn with decision. When you have thus accustomed yourself a little to the placing and action of clouds, try to work out their light and shade, just as carefully as you do that of other things, looking exclusively for examples of treatment to the vignettes in Rogers's Italy and Poems, and to the Liber Studiorum, unless you have access to some examples of Turner's own work. No other artist ever yet drew the sky: even Titian's clouds, and Tintoret's, are conventional. The clouds in the "Ben Arthur," "Source of Arveron," and "Calais Pier," are among the best of Turner's storm studies; and of the upper clouds, the vignettes to Rogers's Poems furnish as many examples as you need.

150. Sketch them often with a pen, as you can find them here and there; one of the main benefits of doing this will be, not just the notes you make, but the lesson you’ll learn about the softness of the cloud outlines. You’ll always struggle to find where the outline really is; and when you draw it, it will always look hard and unrealistic, and will definitely be either too round or too square, no matter how often you change it, merely switching from one mistake to another, while the real cloud strikes an indescribable balance between roundness and squareness in all its shapes and formations. I’m currently referring only to cumulus clouds: the lighter wisps and flakes in the upper sky can't be outlined;—they can only be sketched, like strands of hair, with many lines from the pen. Solid bands of cloud on the horizon are generally easy to capture and can be drawn confidently. Once you've gotten used to the placement and movement of clouds, try to work on their light and shadow just as carefully as you do with other subjects, looking solely for examples of treatment in the vignettes from Rogers's Italy and Poems, and in the Liber Studiorum, unless you can access some examples of Turner's own work. No other artist has ever truly captured the sky: even Titian's and Tintoretto's clouds are conventional. The clouds in "Ben Arthur," "Source of Arveron," and "Calais Pier" are some of the best studies of storms by Turner; and for upper clouds, the vignettes in Rogers's Poems provide as many examples as you need.

151. And now, as our first lesson was taken from the sky, so, for the present, let our last be. I do not advise you to be in any haste to master the contents of my next letter. If you have any real talent for drawing, you will take delight in the discoveries of natural loveliness, which the studies I have already proposed will lead you into, among the fields and hills; and be assured that the more quietly and single-heartedly you take each step in the art, the quicker, on the whole, will your progress be. I would rather, indeed, have discussed the subjects of the following letter at greater length, and in a separate work addressed to more advanced students; but as there are one or two things to be said on composition which may set the young artist's mind somewhat more at rest, or furnish him with defense from the urgency of ill-advisers, I will glance over the main heads of the matter here; trusting that my doing so may not beguile you, my dear reader, from your serious work, or lead you to think me, in occupying part of this book with talk not altogether relevant to it, less entirely or

151. Now, just like our first lesson came from the sky, let’s make our last one about it too. I don’t suggest you rush to grasp everything in my next letter. If you have a true talent for drawing, you’ll enjoy uncovering the beauty of nature through the studies I’ve already shared, among the fields and hills. Trust that the more patiently and wholeheartedly you approach each step in your art, the faster your overall progress will be. Honestly, I would have preferred to discuss the topics in the next letter in more detail and in a separate work for more advanced students. However, since there are a few points about composition that might help ease a young artist’s mind or protect them from pressure from poorly-informed advisors, I’ll briefly cover the main ideas here. I hope this doesn’t distract you from your serious work or make you think I’m using part of this book for less relevant discussions.

Faithfully yours,

Best regards,

J. Ruskin.

J. Ruskin.


[23] It is meant, I believe, for "Salt Hill."

[23] I think it refers to "Salt Hill."

[24] I do not mean that you can approach Turner or Dürer in their strength, that is to say, in their imagination or power of design. But you may approach them, by perseverance, in truth of manner.

[24] I’m not saying that you can reach the level of Turner or Dürer in their strength, meaning their imagination or design skills. However, with persistence, you can get closer to them in terms of authenticity in your style.

[25] The following are the most desirable plates:—

[25] Here are the most sought-after plates:—

Grande Chartreuse. Calais Pier.
Æsacus and Hesperie. Pembury Mill.
Cephalus and Procris. Little Devil's Bridge.
Source of Arveron. River Wye (not Wye and Severn).
Ben Arthur. Holy Island.
Watermill. Clyde.
Hindhead Hill. Lauffenburg.
Hedging and Ditching. Blair Athol.
Dumblane Abbey. Alps from Grenoble.
Morpeth. Raglan. (Subject with quiet brook, trees, and castle on the right.)

If you cannot get one of these, any of the others will be serviceable, except only the twelve following, which are quite useless:—

If you can't get one of these, any of the others will work, except for the following twelve, which are completely useless:—

1. Scene in Italy, with goats on a walled road, and trees above.
2. Interior of church.
3. Scene with bridge, and trees above; figures on left, one playing a pipe.
4. Scene with figure playing on tambourine.
5. Scene on Thames with high trees, and a square tower of a church seen through them.
6. Fifth Plague of Egypt.
7. Tenth Plague of Egypt.
8. Rivaulx Abbey.
9. Wye and Severn.
10. Scene with castle in center, cows under trees on the left.
11. Martello Towers.
12. Calm.

It is very unlikely that you should meet with one of the original etchings; if you should, it will be a drawing-master in itself alone, for it is not only equivalent to a pen-and-ink drawing by Turner, but to a very careful one; only observe, the Source of Arveron, Raglan, and Dumblane were not etched by Turner; and the etchings of those three are not good for separate study, though it is deeply interesting to see how Turner, apparently provoked at the failure of the beginnings in the Arveron and Raglan, took the plates up himself, and either conquered or brought into use the bad etching by his marvelous engraving. The Dumblane was, however, well etched by Mr. Lupton, and beautifully engraved by him. The finest Turner etching is of an aqueduct with a stork standing in a mountain stream, not in the published series; and next to it, are the unpublished etchings of the Via Mala and Crowhurst. Turner seems to have been so fond of these plates that he kept retouching and finishing them, and never made up his mind to let them go. The Via Mala is certainly, in the state in which Turner left it, the finest of the whole series: its etching is, as I said, the best after that of the aqueduct. Figure 20, above, is part of another fine unpublished etching, "Windsor, from Salt Hill." Of the published etchings, the finest are the Ben Arthur, Æsacus, Cephalus, and Stone Pines, with the Girl washing at a Cistern; the three latter are the more generally instructive. Hindhead Hill, Isis, Jason, and Morpeth, are also very desirable.

It’s very rare that you’ll come across one of the original etchings; if you do, it will be a masterpiece on its own. It’s not just like a pen-and-ink drawing by Turner, but a really detailed one. Just keep in mind, the Source of Arveron, Raglan, and Dumblane weren’t etched by Turner, and those etchings aren’t that great for in-depth study, although it's fascinating to see how Turner, seemingly frustrated with the failed beginnings on the Arveron and Raglan, took the plates and either improved or utilized the poor etching through his incredible engraving skills. The Dumblane was, however, well etched and beautifully engraved by Mr. Lupton. The best Turner etching is of an aqueduct with a stork standing in a mountain stream, which isn't in the published series; next to it are the unpublished etchings of the Via Mala and Crowhurst. Turner seemed so attached to these plates that he kept retouching and perfecting them, never deciding to let them go. The Via Mala is definitely the best in its final state, and its etching is, as I said, the second best after the aqueduct. Figure 20, above, is part of another beautiful unpublished etching, "Windsor, from Salt Hill." Among the published etchings, the best are Ben Arthur, Æsacus, Cephalus, and Stone Pines, along with the Girl washing at a Cistern; the latter three are particularly educational. Hindhead Hill, Isis, Jason, and Morpeth are also very sought after.

[26] You will find more notice of this point in the account of Harding's tree-drawing, a little farther on.

[26] You'll find more details about this in the section on Harding's tree drawing, further ahead.

[27] The impressions vary so much in color that no brown can be specified.

[27] The shades are so different that you can't pin down any specific brown.

[28] You had better get such a photograph, even though you have a Liber print as well.

[28] You should definitely get that photo, even if you already have a Liber print.

[29] See the closing letter in this volume.

[29] Check out the closing letter in this volume.

[30] [In 1857.]

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ [In 1857.]

[31] If you are not acquainted with Harding's works, (an unlikely supposition, considering their popularity,) and cannot meet with the one in question, the diagrams given here will enable you to understand all that is needful for our purposes.

[31] If you're not familiar with Harding's works (which is unlikely given their popularity) and can't find the specific one we're discussing, the diagrams here will help you grasp everything you need for our purposes.

[32] I draw this figure (a young shoot of oak) in outline only, it being impossible to express the refinements of shade in distant foliage in a wood-cut.

[32] I outline this figure (a young oak shoot) only, as it's impossible to capture the subtle shades of distant leaves in a woodcut.

[33] His lithographic sketches, those for instance in the Park and the Forest, and his various lessons on foliage, possess greater merit than the more ambitious engravings in his Principles and Practice of Art. There are many useful remarks, however, dispersed through this latter work.

[33] His lithographic sketches, like those in the Park and the Forest, along with his different lessons on leaves, are more impressive than the more elaborate engravings in his Principles and Practice of Art. Nonetheless, there are many helpful insights scattered throughout this latter work.

[34] On this law you do well, if you can get access to it, to look at the fourth chapter of the fourth volume of Modern Painters.

[34] It’s a good idea to check out the fourth chapter of the fourth volume of Modern Painters if you can get your hands on it.

[35] See Note 3 in Appendix I.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ in App I.

[36] The student may hardly at first believe that the perspective of buildings is of little consequence; but he will find it so ultimately. See the remarks on this point in the Preface.

[36] The student might initially have a hard time believing that the perspective of buildings doesn’t matter much, but he will eventually realize it does. Refer to the comments on this in the Preface.

[37] See Note 4 in Appendix I.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ in Appendix A.

[38] See Note 5 in Appendix I.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ in Appendix I.

[39] It is a useful piece of study to dissolve some Prussian blue in water, so as to make the liquid definitely blue: fill a large white basin with the solution, and put anything you like to float on it, or lie in it; walnut shells, bits of wood, leaves of flowers, etc. Then study the effects of the reflections, and of the stems of the flowers or submerged portions of the floating objects, as they appear through the blue liquid; noting especially how, as you lower your head and look along the surface, you see the reflections clearly; and how, as you raise your head, you lose the reflections, and see the submerged stems clearly.

[39] It’s a great experiment to dissolve some Prussian blue in water to make the liquid a vibrant blue. Fill a large white basin with the solution and place anything you want to float on it or rest in it—like walnut shells, pieces of wood, flower petals, etc. Then, observe the effects of the reflections and the stems of the flowers or submerged parts of the floating objects as they appear through the blue liquid. Pay special attention to how, when you lower your head and look along the surface, the reflections become clear; and how, when you raise your head, the reflections fade, allowing you to see the submerged stems clearly.

[40] Respecting Architectural Drawing, see the notice of the works of Prout in the Appendix.

[40] For information on Architectural Drawing, refer to the notice about Prout's work in the Appendix.


106

106

LETTER III.

ON COLOR AND COMPOSITION.

152. My dear Reader,—If you have been obedient, and have hitherto done all that I have told you, I trust it has not been without much subdued remonstrance, and some serious vexation. For I should be sorry if, when you were led by the course of your study to observe closely such things as are beautiful in color, you had not longed to paint them, and felt considerable difficulty in complying with your restriction to the use of black, or blue, or gray. You ought to love color, and to think nothing quite beautiful or perfect without it; and if you really do love it, for its own sake, and are not merely desirous to color because you think painting a finer thing than drawing, there is some chance you may color well. Nevertheless, you need not hope ever to produce anything more than pleasant helps to memory, or useful and suggestive sketches in color, unless you mean to be wholly an artist. You may, in the time which other vocations leave at your disposal, produce finished, beautiful, and masterly drawings in light and shade. But to color well, requires your life. It cannot be done cheaper. The difficulty of doing right is increased—not twofold nor threefold, but a thousandfold, and more—by the addition of color to your work. For the chances are more than a thousand to one against your being right both in form and color with a given touch: it is difficult enough to be right in form, if you attend to that only; but when you have to attend, at the same moment, to a much more subtle thing than the form, the difficulty is strangely increased,—and multiplied almost to infinity by this great fact, that, while form is absolute, so 107 that you can say at the moment you draw any line that it is either right or wrong, color is wholly relative. Every hue throughout your work is altered by every touch that you add in other places; so that what was warm a minute ago, becomes cold when you have put a hotter color in another place, and what was in harmony when you left it, becomes discordant as you set other colors beside it; so that every touch must be laid, not with a view to its effect at the time, but with a view to its effect in futurity, the result upon it of all that is afterwards to be done being previously considered. You may easily understand that, this being so, nothing but the devotion of life, and great genius besides, can make a colorist.

152. Dear Reader,—If you’ve been following along and doing everything I’ve asked, I hope it hasn’t come without some quiet complaints and genuine frustration. I would be sad if, as you observed the beautiful colors around you, you didn’t feel the urge to paint them and struggled a lot with the limits of only using black, blue, or gray. You should love color and think nothing is truly beautiful or perfect without it; and if you genuinely appreciate it for its own sake, rather than just wanting to color because you believe painting is somehow better than drawing, there’s a chance you might paint well. However, don’t expect to create anything more than just pleasant memory aids or useful and suggestive sketches in color unless you want to fully commit to being an artist. You could use the time that other jobs leave you to produce completed, stunning, and skillful drawings with light and shade. But to color well takes your entire life. It can’t be done cheaply. The challenge of doing it right increases—not just two or three times, but a thousand times more—when you add color to your work. The odds are massively stacked against you getting both the shape and the color right with a single stroke; it’s tough enough to get the shape right when you’re focused only on that, but when you have to consider something much subtler than shape at the same time, the difficulty grows incredibly—almost to infinity—because while shape is absolute, so 107 that you can determine right or wrong as soon as you draw any line, color is entirely relative. Every hue in your work changes with every touch you make elsewhere; something that was warm a minute ago can feel cold after you add a warmer color somewhere else, and what was harmonious when you left it can become discordant when you place other colors next to it. So, every stroke must be made not just considering its immediate effect, but how it will react in the future, taking into account all that will happen later. You can easily see that, since this is the case, only a life devoted to this and considerable talent can create a true colorist.

153. But though you cannot produce finished colored drawings of any value, you may give yourself much pleasure, and be of great use to other people, by occasionally sketching with a view to color only; and preserving distinct statements of certain color facts—as that the harvest moon at rising was of such and such a red, and surrounded by clouds of such and such a rosy gray; that the mountains at evening were in truth so deep in purple; and the waves by the boat's side were indeed of that incredible green. This only, observe, if you have an eye for color; but you may presume that you have this, if you enjoy color.

153. Even though you can't create finished colored drawings that are worth much, you can still find a lot of enjoyment in sketching for color purposes alone. You can also be really helpful to others by keeping clear notes on certain color observations—like how the harvest moon looked red when it rose, surrounded by clouds that were a rosy gray; or how the mountains at dusk were truly deep purple; and how the waves next to the boat were an incredible green. Just keep this in mind if you have an eye for color, but you can assume you do if you appreciate color.

154. And, though of course you should always give as much form to your subject as your attention to its color will admit of, remember that the whole value of what you are about depends, in a colored sketch, on the color merely. If the color is wrong, everything is wrong: just as, if you are singing, and sing false notes, it does not matter how true the words are. If you sing at all, you must sing sweetly; and if you color at all, you must color rightly. Give up all the form, rather than the slightest part of the color: just as, if you felt yourself in danger of a false note, you would give up the word, and sing a meaningless sound, if you felt that so you could save the note. Never mind though your houses are all tumbling down,—though your clouds are mere blots, and your trees mere knobs, and your sun and moon like 108 crooked sixpences,—so only that trees, clouds, houses, and sun or moon, are of the right colors. Of course, the discipline you have gone through will enable you to hint something of form, even in the fastest sweep of the brush; but do not let the thought of form hamper you in the least, when you begin to make colored memoranda. If you want the form of the subject, draw it in black and white. If you want its color, take its color, and be sure you have it, and not a spurious, treacherous, half-measured piece of mutual concession, with the colors all wrong, and the forms still anything but right. It is best to get into the habit of considering the colored work merely as supplementary to your other studies; making your careful drawings of the subject first, and then a colored memorandum separately, as shapeless as you like, but faithful in hue, and entirely minding its own business. This principle, however, bears chiefly on large and distant subjects: in foregrounds and near studies, the color cannot be had without a good deal of definition of form. For if you do not map the mosses on the stones accurately, you will not have the right quantity of color in each bit of moss pattern, and then none of the colors will look right; but it always simplifies the work much if you are clear as to your point of aim, and satisfied, when necessary, to fail of all but that.

154. While you should always give your subject as much shape as your focus on its color allows, remember that the overall impact of your work in a colored sketch relies primarily on the color itself. If the color is off, everything is off—just like if you’re singing and hit the wrong notes, it doesn’t matter how correct the lyrics are. If you're going to sing, you have to sing beautifully; and if you're going to add color, it must be done correctly. Sacrifice all form rather than compromise even a bit of the color; just as if you were at risk of hitting a false note, you'd drop the word and make a nonsensical sound to keep the melody intact. Don't worry if your buildings are falling apart—if your clouds are just smudges, your trees are little bumps, and your sun and moon look like crooked sixpences—so long as the colors of the trees, clouds, houses, and the sun or moon are right. Of course, the training you’ve undergone will help you suggest some form, even with quick brushstrokes; but don’t let the idea of form hold you back when you start making colored notes. If you want the outline of the subject, draw it in black and white. If you're after its color, focus on that and ensure you capture it correctly, avoiding any fake, misleading, half-hearted combination of colors where everything is off and the shapes are still incorrect. It's best to treat colored work as an addition to your other studies; make careful drawings of the subject first, and then create a colored note separately, however formless it may be, but true in hue, and completely dedicated to its own purpose. This approach is mainly applicable to larger and distant subjects: for close-ups and studies, capturing color requires a fair amount of definition in form. If you don’t map the moss on the stones accurately, you won't have the right amount of color in each moss pattern, and none of the colors will look right; but it simplifies the process a lot if you’re clear about your goal and willing to accept not achieving anything beyond that.

155. Now, of course, if I were to enter into detail respecting coloring, which is the beginning and end of a painter's craft, I should need to make this a work in three volumes instead of three letters, and to illustrate it in the costliest way. I only hope, at present, to set you pleasantly and profitably to work, leaving you, within the tethering of certain leading-strings, to gather what advantages you can from the works of art of which every year brings a greater number within your reach;—and from the instruction which, every year, our rising artists will be more ready to give kindly, and better able to give wisely.

155. Now, if I were to go into detail about color, which is the foundation and heart of a painter's craft, I would need to turn this into a three-volume work instead of three letters, and to illustrate it in the most expensive way possible. For now, I just hope to get you started on your work in a way that's both enjoyable and beneficial, allowing you, within certain guidelines, to take advantage of the growing number of artworks available to you each year—and the guidance that our emerging artists are increasingly willing and able to provide.

156. And, first, of materials. Use hard cake colors, not moist colors: grind a sufficient quantity of each on your palette every morning, keeping a separate plate, large and deep, for 109 colors to be used in broad washes, and wash both plate and palette every evening, so as to be able always to get good and pure color when you need it; and force yourself into cleanly and orderly habits about your colors. The two best colorists of modern times, Turner and Rossetti,[41] afford us, I am sorry to say, no confirmation of this precept by their practice. Turner was, and Rossetti is, as slovenly in all their procedures as men can well be; but the result of this was, with Turner, that the colors have altered in all his pictures, and in many of his drawings; and the result of it with Rossetti is, that though his colors are safe, he has sometimes to throw aside work that was half done, and begin over again. William Hunt, of the Old Water-color, is very neat in his practice; so, I believe, is Mulready; so is John Lewis; and so are the leading Pre-Raphaelites, Rossetti only excepted. And there can be no doubt about the goodness of the advice, if it were only for this reason, that the more particular you are about your colors the more you will get into a deliberate and methodical habit in using them, and all true speed in coloring comes of this deliberation.

156. First, let’s talk about materials. Use hard cake colors, not moist ones: grind enough of each on your palette every morning, keeping a separate, large, and deep plate for colors used in broad washes. Clean both the plate and palette every evening so you can always get good, pure color when you need it; and force yourself to be tidy and organized with your colors. The two best colorists of modern times, Turner and Rossetti, sadly do not exemplify this principle in their practice. Turner was, and Rossetti is, quite messy in all their methods; as a result, with Turner, the colors have changed in all his paintings and many of his drawings; and for Rossetti, while his colors are generally safe, he sometimes has to abandon work that was half-finished and start again. William Hunt of the Old Water-color is very neat in his practice; I believe Mulready is too; so is John Lewis; and so are the leading Pre-Raphaelites, except for Rossetti. There’s no doubt about the value of this advice, mainly because the more meticulous you are with your colors, the more you will develop a careful and organized habit in using them, and true speed in coloring comes from this deliberation.

157. Use Chinese white, well ground, to mix with your colors in order to pale them, instead of a quantity of water. You will thus be able to shape your masses more quietly, and play the colors about with more ease; they will not damp your paper so much, and you will be able to go on continually, and lay forms of passing cloud and other fugitive or delicately shaped lights, otherwise unattainable except by time.

157. Use well-ground Chinese white to mix with your colors to lighten them, instead of using a lot of water. This way, you can shape your areas more smoothly and manipulate the colors more easily; they won't wet your paper as much, allowing you to keep working continuously and create shapes of passing clouds and other fleeting or delicate lights that would be hard to achieve otherwise.

158. This mixing of white with the pigments, so as to render them opaque, constitutes body-color drawing as opposed to transparent-color drawing, and you will, perhaps, 110 have it often said to you that this body-color is "illegitimate." It is just as legitimate as oil-painting, being, so far as handling is concerned, the same process, only without its uncleanliness, its unwholesomeness, or its inconvenience; for oil will not dry quickly, nor carry safely, nor give the same effects of atmosphere without tenfold labor. And if you hear it said that the body-color looks chalky or opaque, and, as is very likely, think so yourself, be yet assured of this, that though certain effects of glow and transparencies of gloom are not to be reached without transparent color, those glows and glooms are not the noblest aim of art. After many years' study of the various results of fresco and oil painting in Italy, and of body-color and transparent color in England, I am now entirely convinced that the greatest things that are to be done in art must be done in dead color. The habit of depending on varnish or on lucid tints for transparency, makes the painter comparatively lose sight of the nobler translucence which is obtained by breaking various colors amidst each other: and even when, as by Correggio, exquisite play of hue is joined with exquisite transparency, the delight in the depth almost always leads the painter into mean and false chiaroscuro; it leads him to like dark backgrounds instead of luminous ones,[42] and to enjoy, in general, quality 111 of color more than grandeur of composition, and confined light rather than open sunshine: so that the really greatest thoughts of the greatest men have always, so far as I remember, been reached in dead color, and the noblest oil pictures of Tintoret and Veronese are those which are likest frescoes.

158. Mixing white with pigments to make them opaque defines body-color drawing, in contrast to transparent-color drawing, and you might often hear that this body-color is "illegitimate." It's just as legitimate as oil painting, as far as the technique goes—only it's cleaner, healthier, and more convenient. Oil doesn't dry quickly, isn't easy to transport, and doesn't create the same atmospheric effects without a lot more effort. If you hear that body-color looks chalky or opaque, and you might think that yourself, remember that while certain glowing effects and gloomy transparencies can't be achieved without transparent color, those glows and gloom are not the highest goals of art. After years of studying the different effects of fresco and oil painting in Italy, as well as body-color and transparent color in England, I’m convinced that the most significant achievements in art are made with dead color. Relying on varnish or clear tints for transparency makes the painter overlook the greater translucence achieved by blending various colors together. Even when, like in Correggio's work, beautiful color play is paired with exquisite transparency, the fascination with depth often leads the painter to inferior and misleading chiaroscuro. It can lead them to prefer dark backgrounds over bright ones and to value color quality more than the grandeur of composition, tending toward muted light rather than open sunlight. So, as far as I can recall, the greatest ideas from the greatest artists have always been expressed in dead color, and the noblest oil paintings by Tintoretto and Veronese are those that resemble frescoes the most.

159. Besides all this, the fact is, that though sometimes a little chalky and coarse-looking body-color is, in a sketch, infinitely liker Nature than transparent color: the bloom and mist of distance are accurately and instantly represented by the film of opaque blue (quite accurately, I think, by nothing else); and for ground, rocks, and buildings, the earthy and solid surface is, of course, always truer than the most finished and carefully wrought work in transparent tints can ever be.

159. Besides all this, the fact is that even though a slightly chalky and rough-looking color might in a sketch resemble Nature much more than a transparent color does, the glow and haze of distance are perfectly and immediately captured by the layer of opaque blue (which, I believe, can’t be accurately represented by anything else); and for the ground, rocks, and buildings, the earthy and solid surface is always more authentic than the most polished and meticulously crafted work in transparent hues could ever be.

160. Against one thing, however, I must steadily caution you. All kinds of color are equally illegitimate, if you think they will allow you to alter at your pleasure, or blunder at your ease. There is no vehicle or method of color which admits of alteration or repentance; you must be right at once, or never; and you might as well hope to catch a rifle bullet in your hand, and put it straight, when it was going wrong, as to recover a tint once spoiled. The secret of all good color in oil, water, or anything else, lies primarily in that sentence spoken to me by Mulready: "Know what you have to do." The process may be a long one, perhaps: you may have to ground with one color; to touch it with fragments of a second; to crumble a third into the interstices; a fourth into the interstices of the third; to glaze the whole with a fifth; and to re-enforce in points with a sixth: but whether you have one, or ten, or twenty processes to go through, you must go straight through them knowingly and foreseeingly all the way; and if you get the thing once wrong, there is no hope 112 for you but in washing or scraping boldly down to the white ground, and beginning again.

160. However, I must warn you about one thing. All kinds of color are equally unacceptable if you think you can change them at will or make mistakes without consequence. There is no method of using color that allows for changes or do-overs; you must get it right the first time, or not at all. It’s like trying to catch a bullet with your hand and straighten it out as it goes wrong; once you’ve ruined a color, you can’t fix it. The key to achieving good color in oil, water, or anything else lies in that statement made to me by Mulready: "Know what you have to do." The process might be lengthy; you might need to layer one color, add touches of a second, sprinkle a third into the gaps, layer a fourth into the third, glaze it all with a fifth, and reinforce points with a sixth. But no matter if you have one process or twenty, you must go through them deliberately and thoughtfully from beginning to end; if you mess it up, the only solution is to wash or scrape it down to the white ground and start over.

161. The drawing in body-color will tend to teach you all this, more than any other method, and above all it will prevent you from falling into the pestilent habit of sponging to get texture; a trick which has nearly ruined our modern water-color school of art. There are sometimes places in which a skillful artist will roughen his paper a little to get certain conditions of dusty color with more ease than he could otherwise; and sometimes a skillfully rased piece of paper will, in the midst of transparent tints, answer nearly the purpose of chalky body-color in representing the surfaces of rocks or building. But artifices of this kind are always treacherous in a tyro's hands, tempting him to trust in them: and you had better always work on white or gray paper as smooth as silk;[43] and never disturb the surface of your color or paper, except finally to scratch out the very highest lights if you are using transparent colors.

161. Drawing with body color will teach you all of this more effectively than any other technique, and most importantly, it will keep you from falling into the bad habit of using sponging for texture; a trick that has nearly destroyed our modern watercolor art school. There are times when a skilled artist will slightly roughen their paper to achieve certain dusty color effects more easily than they could otherwise; and sometimes, a carefully rasied piece of paper can serve almost like chalky body color in depicting the surfaces of rocks or buildings amidst transparent tints. But such tricks are always risky in the hands of beginners, luring them to rely on them: it's best to work on white or gray paper that’s as smooth as silk;[43] and never disturb the surface of your color or paper, except at the very end to scratch out the brightest highlights if you're using transparent colors.

162. I have said above that body-color drawing will teach you the use of color better than working with merely transparent tints; but this is not because the process is an easier one, but because it is a more complete one, and also because it involves some working with transparent tints in the best way. You are not to think that because you use body-color you may make any kind of mess that you like, and yet get out of it. But you are to avail yourself of the characters of your material, which enable you most nearly to imitate the processes of Nature. Thus, suppose you have a red rocky cliff to sketch, with blue clouds floating over it. You paint your cliff first firmly, then take your blue, mixing it to such a tint (and here is a great part of the skill needed) that when it is laid over the red, in the thickness required for the effect 113 of the mist, the warm rock-color showing through the blue cloud-color, may bring it to exactly the hue you want (your upper tint, therefore, must be mixed colder than you want it); then you lay it on, varying it as you strike it, getting the forms of the mist at once, and, if it be rightly done, with exquisite quality of color, from the warm tint's showing through and between the particles of the other. When it is dry, you may add a little color to retouch the edges where they want shape, or heighten the lights where they want roundness, or put another tone over the whole: but you can take none away. If you touch or disturb the surface, or by any untoward accident mix the under and upper colors together, all is lost irrecoverably. Begin your drawing from the ground again if you like, or throw it into the fire if you like. But do not waste time in trying to mend it.[44]

162. I mentioned earlier that using opaque paint will teach you color better than just working with transparent tints; this isn’t because the process is easier, but because it’s more comprehensive and involves working with transparent tints effectively. Don’t think that just because you’re using opaque paint, you can make any kind of mess and still fix it. You should utilize the properties of your materials to best imitate natural processes. For example, if you’re sketching a red rocky cliff with blue clouds above it, you paint the cliff first, ensuring it’s solid. Then, take your blue paint, mixing it to a tint (and this is a significant part of the skill required) that when layered over the red, in the thickness needed for the mist effect, allows the warm rock color to show through the blue cloud color, achieving the exact shade you desire (therefore, your top tint must be mixed to be cooler than you want it); then apply it, varying it as you go to capture the mist's shape, and if done correctly, the color quality will be exquisite, thanks to the warm tint showing through the particles of the blue. Once dry, you can add a bit of color to refine the edges to give them shape, brighten areas needing roundness, or apply another tone over everything; however, you can’t remove any color. If you touch or disturb the surface, or accidentally mix the under and upper colors together, all will be lost forever. You can start your drawing over from scratch if you want, or even throw it in the fire if you choose. But don’t waste time trying to fix it.

163. This discussion of the relative merits of transparent and opaque color has, however, led us a little beyond the point where we should have begun; we must go back to our palette, if you please. Get a cake of each of the hard colors named in the note below[45] and try experiments on their simple combinations, 114 by mixing each color with every other. If you like to do it in an orderly way, you may prepare a squared piece of pasteboard, and put the pure colors in columns at the top and side; the mixed tints being given at the intersections, thus (the letters standing for colors):

163. This conversation about the benefits of transparent versus opaque colors has taken us a bit off track; we should return to our palette, if you don’t mind. Get a cake of each of the hard colors listed in the note below[45] and experiment with their simple combinations, 114 by mixing each color with all the others. If you prefer to stay organized, you can create a squared piece of cardboard and arrange the pure colors in columns at the top and side; the mixed shades will be noted at the intersections, like this (with letters representing colors):

   b  c  d  e  f etc.
a a b a c a d a e a f  
b — b c b d b e b f  
c — c d c e c f  
d — d e d f  
e — e f  
etc.  

This will give you some general notion of the characters of mixed tints of two colors only, and it is better in practice to confine yourself as much as possible to these, and to get more complicated colors, either by putting the third over the first blended tint, or by putting the third into its interstices. Nothing but watchful practice will teach you the effects that colors have on each other when thus put over, or beside, each other.

This will give you a general idea of the characteristics of mixed shades using only two colors. In practice, it's better to stick to these as much as you can and create more complex colors by layering a third color over the first blended shade or filling in the gaps with the third color. Only careful practice will show you how colors affect each other when placed over or next to one another.

164. When you have got a little used to the principal combinations, place yourself at a window which the sun does not shine in at, commanding some simple piece of landscape: outline this landscape roughly; then take a piece of white cardboard, cut out a hole in it about the size of a large pea; and supposing R is the room, a d the window, and you are sitting at a, Fig. 29, hold this cardboard a little outside of the window, upright, and in the direction b d, parallel to the side of the window, or a little turned, so as to catch more light, as at a d, never turned as at c d, or the paper will be 115 dark. Then you will see the landscape, bit by bit, through the circular hole. Match the colors of each important bit as nearly as you can, mixing your tints with white, beside the aperture. When matched, put a touch of the same tint at the top of your paper, writing under it: "dark tree color," "hill color," "field color," as the case may be. Then wash the tint away from beside the opening, and the cardboard will be ready to match another piece of the landscape.[46] When you have got the colors of the principal masses thus indicated, lay on a piece of each in your sketch in its right place, and then proceed to complete the sketch in harmony with them, by your eye.

164. Once you're familiar with the main combinations, find a spot by a window where the sun doesn't shine in, overlooking a straightforward piece of landscape. Sketch this landscape loosely. Then take a piece of white cardboard and cut out a hole that's about the size of a large pea. Assuming R is the room, a d is the window, and you're sitting at a, Fig. 29, hold the cardboard a little outside the window, upright, and aligned with b d, parallel to the window, or slightly angled to capture more light, like at a d, but never at c d, because then the paper will appear dark. You'll see the landscape bit by bit through the circular hole. Match the colors of each important area as closely as you can by mixing your tints with white next to the hole. Once matched, put a dab of the same color at the top of your paper, labeling it: "dark tree color," "hill color," "field color," or whatever fits. Then wash the tint away from next to the opening, and the cardboard will be ready to match another part of the landscape.[46] After you have indicated the colors of the main elements like this, apply a piece of each in your sketch in the correct spot, and then continue to complete the sketch in harmony with those colors, using your eye.

Fig. 29.
Fig. 29.

165. In the course of your early experiments, you will be much struck by two things: the first, the inimitable brilliancy of light in sky and in sunlighted things; and the second, that among the tints which you can imitate, those which you thought the darkest will continually turn out to be in reality the lightest. Darkness of objects is estimated by us, under ordinary circumstances, much more by knowledge than by 116 sight; thus, a cedar or Scotch fir, at 200 yards off, will be thought of darker green than an elm or oak near us; because we know by experience that the peculiar color they exhibit, at that distance, is the sign of darkness of foliage. But when we try them through the cardboard, the near oak will be found, indeed, rather dark green, and the distant cedar, perhaps, pale gray-purple. The quantity of purple and gray in Nature is, by the way, another somewhat surprising subject of discovery.

165. During your initial experiments, you'll be struck by two things: first, the unmatched brilliance of light in the sky and on sunlit objects; and second, that the colors you think are the darkest often turn out to be the lightest. Our perception of how dark objects are is usually influenced more by our knowledge than by what we see. For instance, a cedar or Scotch fir, from 200 yards away, may seem darker green than a nearby elm or oak. This is because we know from experience that the particular color they show at that distance indicates darker foliage. However, when we examine them with the cardboard, the nearby oak does appear somewhat dark green, while the distant cedar might look pale gray-purple. By the way, the amount of purple and gray found in nature is another surprising discovery.

166. Well, having ascertained thus your principal tints, you may proceed to fill up your sketch; in doing which observe these following particulars:

166. Now that you've identified your main colors, you can go ahead and complete your sketch. While doing this, keep the following details in mind:

(1.) Many portions of your subject appeared through the aperture in the paper brighter than the paper, as sky, sunlighted grass, etc. Leave these portions, for the present, white; and proceed with the parts of which you can match the tints.

(1.) Many parts of your subject came through the hole in the paper brighter than the paper itself, like the sky, sunlit grass, etc. For now, leave these parts white and continue with the areas where you can match the colors.

(2.) As you tried your subject with the cardboard, you must have observed how many changes of hue took place over small spaces. In filling up your work, try to educate your eye to perceive these differences of hue without the help of the cardboard, and lay them deliberately, like a mosaic-worker, as separate colors, preparing each carefully on your palette, and laying it as if it were a patch of colored cloth, cut out, to be fitted neatly by its edge to the next patch; so that the fault of your work may be, not a slurred or misty look, but a patched bed-cover look, as if it had all been cut out with scissors. For instance, in drawing the trunk of a birch tree, there will be probably white high lights, then a pale rosy gray round them on the light side, then a (probably greenish) deeper gray on the dark side, varied by reflected colors, and, over all, rich black strips of bark and brown spots of moss. Lay first the rosy gray, leaving white for the high lights and for the spots of moss, and not touching the dark side. Then lay the gray for the dark side, fitting it well up to the rosy gray of the light, leaving also in this darker gray the white paper in the places for the black and 117 brown moss; then prepare the moss colors separately for each spot, and lay each in the white place left for it. Not one grain of white, except that purposely left for the high lights, must be visible when the work is done, even through a magnifying-glass, so cunningly must you fit the edges to each other. Finally, take your background colors, and put them on each side of the tree trunk, fitting them carefully to its edge.

(2.) As you experimented with your subject using cardboard, you must have noticed how many color changes occurred over small areas. When you fill in your work, try to train your eye to see these color differences without relying on the cardboard, and apply them intentionally, like a mosaic artist, as distinct colors. Prepare each hue carefully on your palette, placing it as if it were a piece of colored cloth, cut out to fit together neatly with the next piece, so that the flaw in your work appears not as a blurred or misty effect, but rather like a patchwork quilt, as if everything had been cut out with scissors. For example, when illustrating the trunk of a birch tree, you will likely see white highlights, then a light rosy gray around them on the lighter side, followed by a (likely greenish) deeper gray on the dark side, varied with reflected colors, and, across it all, rich black strips of bark and brown moss spots. Start by applying the rosy gray, leaving white for the highlights and for the moss spots, and avoid touching the dark side. Next, apply the gray for the dark side, making sure it fits perfectly against the rosy gray on the light side, also keeping the white paper visible for the areas designated for the black and brown moss; then prepare the moss colors separately for each spot and fill each into the reserved white area. Not one speck of white, except for what is purposely kept for the highlights, should be visible when the work is finished, even under a magnifying glass, so skillfully must you align the edges with each other. Finally, take your background colors, and apply them on each side of the tree trunk, carefully fitting them to its edge.

167. Fine work you would make of this, wouldn't you, if you had not learned to draw first, and could not now draw a good outline for the stem, much less terminate a color mass in the outline you wanted?

167. You would do a great job with this, wouldn’t you, if you hadn’t learned to draw first, and couldn’t now create a good outline for the stem, let alone finish a color area with the outline you wanted?

Your work will look very odd for some time, when you first begin to paint in this way, and before you can modify it, as I shall tell you presently how; but never mind; it is of the greatest possible importance that you should practice this separate laying on of the hues, for all good coloring finally depends on it. It is, indeed, often necessary, and sometimes desirable, to lay one color and form boldly over another: thus, in laying leaves on blue sky, it is impossible always in large pictures, or when pressed for time, to fill in the blue through the interstices of the leaves; and the great Venetians constantly lay their blue ground first, and then, having let it dry, strike the golden brown over it in the form of the leaf, leaving the under blue to shine through the gold, and subdue it to the olive-green they want. But in the most precious and perfect work each leaf is inlaid, and the blue worked round it; and, whether you use one or other mode of getting your result, it is equally necessary to be absolute and decisive in your laying the color. Either your ground must be laid firmly first, and then your upper color struck upon it in perfect form, forever, thenceforward, unalterable; or else the two colors must be individually put in their places, and led up to each other till they meet at their appointed border, equally, thenceforward, unchangeable. Either process, you see, involves absolute decision. If you once begin to slur, or change, or sketch, or try this way and that with your color, it is all 118 over with it and with you. You will continually see bad copyists trying to imitate the Venetians, by daubing their colors about, and retouching, and finishing, and softening: when every touch and every added hue only lead them farther into chaos. There is a dog between two children in a Veronese in the Louvre, which gives the copyists much employment. He has a dark ground behind him, which Veronese has painted first, and then when it was dry, or nearly so, struck the locks of the dog's white hair over it with some half-dozen curling sweeps of his brush, right at once, and forever. Had one line or hair of them gone wrong, it would have been wrong forever; no retouching could have mended it. The poor copyists daub in first some background, and then some dog's hair; then retouch the background, then the hair; work for hours at it, expecting it always to come right to-morrow—"when it is finished." They may work for centuries at it, and they will never do it. If they can do it with Veronese's allowance of work, half a dozen sweeps of the hand over the dark background, well; if not, they may ask the dog himself whether it will ever come right, and get true answer from him—on Launce's conditions: "If he say 'ay,' it will; if he say 'no,' it will; if he shake his tail and say nothing, it will."

Your work will look really strange for a while when you first start painting this way, and before you can adjust it, as I will explain shortly; but don't worry about that. It's super important that you practice applying colors separately, because all good coloring depends on it in the end. Sometimes it’s necessary, and even preferable, to lay one color boldly over another: for example, when you’re painting leaves against a blue sky, it’s not always possible or practical to fill in the blue between the leaves in big paintings or when you’re short on time. The great Venetian artists often lay down their blue background first, and once it’s dry, they apply the gold-brown for the leaves on top, allowing the blue to shine through the gold and tone it down to the olive-green they want. But in the most refined and perfect work, each leaf is carefully placed in and the blue is worked around it; and whether you choose one method or the other, it’s crucial to be decisive in how you lay down the color. Your base must be laid down firmly first, then your top color applied to it perfectly, becoming unchangeable thereafter; or both colors must be put in their designated spots and blended together until they meet at the edge, equally, and also become unchangeable. Either way, it's essential to have absolute certainty. If you start to blur, change, sketch, or experiment with your colors, it’s all over for both your work and you. You’ll often see bad copyists trying to mimic the Venetians by slapping their colors around, retouching, finishing, and softening; but every touch and extra hue just pulls them deeper into chaos. There’s a dog between two kids in a Veronese painting at the Louvre that gives copyists a lot of trouble. The dog has a dark background behind it, which Veronese painted first, and once it was dry or nearly dry, he quickly painted the curling locks of the dog’s white hair on top in just a few swift brush strokes, forever. If even one line or hair had been off, it would’ve been wrong for good; no retouching could fix it. The poor copyists start by slapping in a background and then some dog’s hair; then they’ll retouch the background and the hair, working for hours, hoping it’ll all magically come together tomorrow—“when it’s done.” They might work on it for centuries, and they’ll never get it right. If they can manage it in Veronese's style with just a few brush sweeps over the dark background, fine; if not, they might as well ask the dog himself if it’ll ever turn out right, and get the true answer from him—on Launce’s terms: "If he says 'yes,' it will; if he says 'no,' it won’t; if he wags his tail and says nothing, it won't."

168. (3.) Whenever you lay on a mass of color, be sure that however large it may be, or however small, it shall be gradated. No color exists in Nature under ordinary circumstances without gradation. If you do not see this, it is the fault of your inexperience: you will see it in due time, if you practice enough. But in general you may see it at once. In the birch trunk, for instance, the rosy gray must be gradated by the roundness of the stem till it meets the shaded side; similarly the shaded side is gradated by reflected light. Accordingly, whether by adding water, or white paint, or by unequal force of touch (this you will do at pleasure, according to the texture you wish to produce), you must, in every tint you lay on, make it a little paler at one part than another, and get an even gradation between the two depths. 119 This is very like laying down a formal law or recipe for you; but you will find it is merely the assertion of a natural fact. It is not indeed physically impossible to meet with an ungradated piece of color, but it is so supremely improbable, that you had better get into the habit of asking yourself invariably, when you are going to copy a tint—not "Is that gradated?" but "Which way is that gradated?" and at least in ninety-nine out of a hundred instances, you will be able to answer decisively after a careful glance, though the gradation may have been so subtle that you did not see it at first. And it does not matter how small the touch of color may be, though not larger than the smallest pin's head, if one part of it is not darker than the rest, it is a bad touch; for it is not merely because the natural fact is so, that your color should be gradated; the preciousness and pleasantness of the color itself depends more on this than on any other of its qualities, for gradation is to colors just what curvature is to lines, both being felt to be beautiful by the pure instinct of every human mind, and both, considered as types, expressing the law of gradual change and progress in the human soul itself. What the difference is in mere beauty between a gradated and ungradated color, may be seen easily by laying an even tint of rose-color on paper, and putting a rose leaf beside it. The victorious beauty of the rose as compared with other flowers, depends wholly on the delicacy and quantity of its color gradations, all other flowers being either less rich in gradation, not having so many folds of leaf; or less tender, being patched and veined instead of flushed.

168. (3.) Whenever you apply a patch of color, make sure that no matter how big or small it is, it should be graduated. In nature, color doesn't exist in isolation; it always has gradation under regular circumstances. If you can't see this, it's due to your lack of experience, but you'll recognize it in time if you practice enough. Generally, you should notice it right away. For example, in the birch trunk, the rosy gray must be graduated through the round shape of the trunk until it reaches the shaded side; likewise, the shaded side is graduated with reflected light. Therefore, whether by adding water, white paint, or changing your touch intensity (which you can adjust based on the texture you want), you need to make every color layer a bit lighter in some areas than in others and ensure a smooth gradation between the two shades. 119 This sounds like a strict rule or formula, but it's just stating a natural principle. It's not physically impossible to encounter a flat patch of color, but it's so incredibly unlikely that you should always ask yourself, when trying to replicate a color, not "Is that graduated?" but "Which way is it graduated?" In about ninety-nine out of a hundred cases, you'll be able to answer confidently after a careful look, even if the gradation is so subtle that you didn't notice it right away. The size of the color touch doesn't matter, even if it's smaller than a pinhead; if one part is darker than the rest, it's a failed touch. This isn't just because nature works this way; the beauty and appeal of the color depend heavily on gradation more than any other quality. Gradation in colors is similar to curvature in lines; both are instinctively perceived as beautiful by the human mind and express the principle of gradual change and progress in our souls. The difference in mere beauty between a graduated and a flat color can easily be seen by applying an even rose tint to paper and placing a rose leaf next to it. The striking beauty of the rose in comparison to other flowers is entirely due to the subtlety and range of its color gradations, while other flowers tend to have either less intricate gradation, fewer leaf folds, or are less delicate, appearing patched and veined instead of softly flushed.

169. (4.) But observe, it is not enough in general that color should be gradated by being made merely paler or darker at one place than another. Generally color changes as it diminishes, and is not merely darker at one spot, but also purer at one spot than anywhere else. It does not in the least follow that the darkest spots should be the purest; still less so that the lightest should be the purest. Very often the two gradations more or less cross each other, one passing in one direction from paleness to darkness, another in another 120 direction from purity to dullness, but there will almost always be both of them, however reconciled; and you must never be satisfied with a piece of color until you have got both: that is to say, every piece of blue that you lay on must be quite blue only at some given spot, nor that a large spot; and must be gradated from that into less pure blue,—grayish blue, or greenish blue, or purplish blue,—over all the rest of the space it occupies. And this you must do in one of three ways: either, while the color is wet, mix with it the color which is to subdue it, adding gradually a little more and a little more; or else, when the color is quite dry, strike a gradated touch of another color over it, leaving only a point of the first tint visible; or else, lay the subduing tints on in small touches, as in the exercise of tinting the chess-board. Of each of these methods I have something to tell you separately; but that is distinct from the subject of gradation, which I must not quit without once more pressing upon you the preëminent necessity of introducing it everywhere. I have profound dislike of anything like habit of hand, and yet, in this one instance, I feel almost tempted to encourage you to get into a habit of never touching paper with color, without securing a gradation. You will not, in Turner's largest oil pictures, perhaps six or seven feet long by four or five high, find one spot of color as large as a grain of wheat ungradated: and you will find in practice, that brilliancy of hue, and vigor of light, and even the aspect of transparency in shade, are essentially dependent on this character alone; hardness, coldness, and opacity resulting far more from equality of color than from nature of color. Give me some mud off a city crossing, some ocher out of a gravel pit, a little whitening, and some coal-dust, and I will paint you a luminous picture, if you give me time to gradate my mud, and subdue my dust: but though you had the red of the ruby, the blue of the gentian, snow for the light, and amber for the gold, you cannot paint a luminous picture, if you keep the masses of those colors unbroken in purity, and unvarying in depth.

169. (4.) But keep in mind, it's not enough for color to just be lighter or darker in one area than another. Typically, as color fades, it changes, becoming not just darker in one place but also purer in another. It doesn't necessarily mean that the darkest areas are the purest, nor that the lightest are the purest. Often, these two changes overlap, with one gradient moving from lightness to darkness, and another shifting from purity to dullness. But almost always, both variations will exist in some form, and you should never be content with a color until you've achieved both: every stroke of blue needs to be distinctly blue at some specific point, and that doesn’t have to be a large area; it should gradate from that point into less pure blue—like grayish blue, greenish blue, or purplish blue—across the rest of the space it fills. You can achieve this in one of three ways: either while the color is wet, blend in the color that's meant to tone it down, gradually adding more and more; or, when the color is completely dry, apply a graduated touch of another color over it, leaving only a spot of the first tint visible; or, apply the subdued tints in small touches, similar to how you'd tint a chessboard. I have more to say about each of these methods separately, but that's a different topic from gradation, which I must emphasize again as essential to incorporate everywhere. I really dislike the idea of developing a habitual touch, yet in this one case, I almost want to encourage you to make it a habit to never apply color to paper without ensuring a gradation. In Turner’s largest oil paintings, which may be six or seven feet long and four or five feet high, you won't find an area of color the size of a grain of wheat that is ungraded. You'll find that the brightness of color, the intensity of light, and even the transparent look of shadows largely rely on this characteristic alone; harshness, coldness, and opacity come more from having uniformity of color than from the type of color itself. Give me some mud from a city street, some ochre from a gravel pit, a bit of white, and some coal dust, and I can create a bright painting, as long as I have the time to gradate my mud and tone down my dust. But even if you have the red of rubies, the blue of gentians, snow for light, and amber for gold, you cannot create a bright painting if you keep those colors pure and unchanging in depth.

121

121

170. (5.) Next, note the three processes by which gradation and other characters are to be obtained:

170. (5.) Next, take note of the three processes through which gradation and other characteristics can be achieved:

A. Mixing while the color is wet.

A. Mixing while the color is still wet.

You may be confused by my first telling you to lay on the hues in separate patches, and then telling you to mix hues together as you lay them on: but the separate masses are to be laid, when colors distinctly oppose each other at a given limit; the hues to be mixed, when they palpitate one through the other, or fade one into the other. It is better to err a little on the distinct side. Thus I told you to paint the dark and light sides of the birch trunk separately, though, in reality, the two tints change, as the trunk turns away from the light, gradually one into the other; and, after being laid separately on, will need some farther touching to harmonize them: but they do so in a very narrow space, marked distinctly all the way up the trunk, and it is easier and safer, therefore, to keep them separate at first. Whereas it often happens that the whole beauty of two colors will depend on the one being continued well through the other, and playing in the midst of it: blue and green often do so in water; blue and gray, or purple and scarlet, in sky: in hundreds of such instances the most beautiful and truthful results may be obtained by laying one color into the other while wet; judging wisely how far it will spread, or blending it with the brush in somewhat thicker consistence of wet body-color; only observe, never mix in this way two mixtures; let the color you lay into the other be always a simple, not a compound tint.

You might find it confusing when I first tell you to apply colors in separate patches and then say to mix them together as you paint. The separate patches are for when colors contrast sharply at a specific point, while you mix colors when they blend or fade into one another. It's generally better to lean towards keeping them distinct. For example, I advised you to paint the dark and light sides of a birch trunk separately, even though those tints actually change gradually as the trunk turns away from the light. After applying them separately, you'll need to do some extra work to blend them, but this transition occurs over a small area, clearly marked all the way up the trunk, so it's easier and safer to keep them separate at first. On the other hand, the overall beauty of two colors often relies on one color flowing seamlessly into the other and interacting within it. For instance, blue and green do this in water, and blue and gray or purple and scarlet do this in the sky. In countless cases, the most beautiful and accurate results come from layering one color into another while it's still wet, paying attention to how far it will spread, or blending it with the brush using a thicker consistency of wet paint. Just remember, never mix two mixtures this way; the color you layer into the other should always be a simple, not a compound tint.

171. B. Laying one color over another.

171. B. Layering one color on top of another.

If you lay on a solid touch of vermilion, and after it is quite dry, strike a little very wet carmine quickly over it, you will obtain a much more brilliant red than by mixing the carmine and vermilion. Similarly, if you lay a dark color first, and strike a little blue or white body-color lightly over it, you will get a more beautiful gray than by mixing the color and the blue or white. In very perfect painting, artifices of this kind are continually used; but I would not 122 have you trust much to them: they are apt to make you think too much of quality of color. I should like you to depend on little more than the dead colors, simply laid on, only observe always this, that the less color you do the work with, the better it will always be:[47] so that if you had laid a red color, and you want a purple one above, do not mix the purple on your palette and lay it on so thick as to overpower the red, but take a little thin blue from your palette, and lay it lightly over the red, so as to let the red be seen through, and thus produce the required purple; and if you want a green hue over a blue one, do not lay a quantity of green on the blue, but a little yellow, and so on, always bringing the under color into service as far as you possibly can. If, however, the color beneath is wholly opposed to the one you have to lay on, as, suppose, if green is to be laid over scarlet, you must either remove the required parts of the under color daintily first with your knife, or with water; or else, lay solid white over it massively, and leave that to dry, and then glaze the white with the upper color. This is better, in general, than laying the upper color itself so thick as to conquer the ground, which, in fact, if it be a transparent color, you cannot do. Thus, if you have to strike warm boughs and leaves of trees over blue sky, and they are too intricate to have their places left for them in laying the blue, it is better to lay them first in solid white, and then glaze with sienna and ocher, than to mix the sienna and white; though, of course, the process is longer and more troublesome. Nevertheless, if the forms of touches required are very delicate, the after glazing is impossible. You must then mix the warm color thick at once, and so use it: and this is often necessary for delicate grasses, and such other fine threads of light in foreground work.

If you apply a solid layer of vermilion and, once it's completely dry, quickly brush a bit of very wet carmine over it, you'll achieve a much brighter red than if you mixed the carmine and vermilion together. Likewise, if you start with a dark color and lightly apply a bit of blue or white over it, you'll get a prettier gray than by mixing the colors. In highly refined painting, tricks like this are used all the time; however, I wouldn’t advise relying on them too much: they can lead you to focus too much on the quality of color. I'd prefer you to rely mostly on flat colors simply applied, just keep in mind that the less color you use, the better it will generally turn out:[47] so if you've applied a red color and want to add purple on top, don't mix the purple on your palette and apply it thickly to overpower the red. Instead, take a little thin blue from your palette and lightly layer it over the red, allowing the red to show through, creating the desired purple. And if you want a green tint over blue, don’t apply a lot of green on the blue; just use a little yellow, and so forth, always utilizing the underlying color as much as possible. However, if the color underneath is completely opposed to the one you’re applying, like green over scarlet, you need to carefully remove the necessary parts of the under color first with your knife or water. Alternatively, you can apply a solid layer of white over it and let that dry before glazing the white with the upper color. This is generally better than applying the upper color thickly enough to cover the base, which, in fact, if it’s a transparent color, you can’t do. So, if you need to depict warm branches and leaves over a blue sky, and they’re too intricate to leave gaps in the blue, it’s better to paint them first in solid white and then glaze with sienna and ocher, rather than mixing the sienna and white; though, of course, this process takes longer and is more tedious. Nevertheless, if the required touch shapes are very delicate, glazing afterward is impossible. In such cases, you must mix the warm color thick from the start and use it that way: this is often necessary for delicate grasses and other fine threads of light in foreground work.

123

123

172. C. Breaking one color in small points through or over another.

172. C. Adding a different color in small dots on top of another color.

This is the most important of all processes in good modern[48] oil and water-color painting, but you need not hope to attain very great skill in it. To do it well is very laborious, and requires such skill and delicacy of hand as can only be acquired by unceasing practice. But you will find advantage in noting the following points:

This is the most important of all processes in good modern[48] oil and watercolor painting, but you shouldn't expect to get extremely skilled at it. To do it well is very demanding and requires a level of skill and finesse that can only be developed through continuous practice. However, you'll gain from paying attention to the following points:

173. (a.) In distant effects of rich subject, wood, or rippled water, or broken clouds, much may be done by touches or crumbling dashes of rather dry color, with other colors afterwards put cunningly into the interstices. The more you practice this, when the subject evidently calls for it, the more your eye will enjoy the higher qualities of color. The process is, in fact, the carrying out of the principle of separate colors to the utmost possible refinement; using atoms of color in juxtaposition, instead of large spaces. And note, in filling up minute interstices of this kind, that if you want the color you fill them with to show brightly, it is better to put a rather positive point of it, with a little white left beside or round it in the interstice, than to put a pale tint of the color over the whole interstice. Yellow or orange will hardly show, if pale, in small spaces; but they show brightly in firm touches, however small, with white beside them.

173. (a.) In creating distant effects with rich subjects like wood, rippling water, or broken clouds, you can achieve a lot by using quick, dry brush strokes of color, and then cleverly filling in the gaps with other colors. The more you practice this technique when the subject clearly requires it, the more your eye will appreciate the finer qualities of color. Essentially, this process is about taking the principle of using separate colors to the highest level; it involves placing small bits of color next to each other instead of using large areas of color. Remember that when filling tiny gaps, if you want the color to stand out, it's better to apply a strong point of color with a little bit of white next to it in the gap, rather than spreading a light tint of color over the entire area. Yellow or orange will barely show up if they're faded in small spaces, but they will pop when applied in firm touches, no matter how small, alongside some white.

174. (b.) If a color is to be darkened by superimposed portions of another, it is, in many cases, better to lay the uppermost color in rather vigorous small touches, like finely chopped straw, over the under one, than to lay it on as a tint, for two reasons: the first, that the play of the two colors together is pleasant to the eye; the second, that much expression of form may be got by wise administration of the upper dark touches. In distant mountains they may be made pines of, or broken crags, or villages, or stones, or whatever you choose; in clouds they may indicate the direction of the rain, 124 the roll and outline of the cloud masses; and in water, the minor waves. All noble effects of dark atmosphere are got in good water-color drawing by these two expedients, interlacing the colors, or retouching the lower one with fine darker drawing in an upper. Sponging and washing for dark atmospheric effect is barbarous, and mere tyro's work, though it is often useful for passages of delicate atmospheric light.

174. (b.) If you want to darken a color by layering it with parts of another color, it's often better to apply the top color in bold, small touches, like finely chopped straw, on top of the base color, rather than using it as a tint. This is for two reasons: first, the interaction between the two colors is visually appealing; second, you can achieve a lot of form expression by carefully managing the darker touches on top. For distant mountains, these touches can represent pine trees, rocky cliffs, villages, or stones, or whatever you choose; for clouds, they can indicate the direction of the rain, the shape and contour of the cloud shapes; and for water, they can depict the smaller waves. All great effects of a dark atmosphere in watercolor drawing come from these two techniques—intertwining colors or refining the lower color with fine, darker lines on top. Using sponging and washing to create a dark atmospheric effect is clumsy and amateurish work, though it can be helpful for creating delicate atmospheric light in some cases.

175. (c.) When you have time, practice the production of mixed tints by interlaced touches of the pure colors out of which they are formed, and use the process at the parts of your sketches where you wish to get rich and luscious effects. Study the works of William Hunt, of the Old Water-color Society, in this respect, continually, and make frequent memoranda of the variegations in flowers; not painting the flower completely, but laying the ground color of one petal, and painting the spots on it with studious precision: a series of single petals of lilies, geraniums, tulips, etc., numbered with proper reference to their position in the flower, will be interesting to you on many grounds besides those of art. Be careful to get the gradated distribution of the spots well followed in the calceolarias, foxgloves, and the like; and work out the odd, indefinite hues of the spots themselves with minute grains of pure interlaced color, otherwise you will never get their richness or bloom. You will be surprised to find as you do this, first, the universality of the law of gradation we have so much insisted upon; secondly, that Nature is just as economical of her fine colors as I have told you to be of yours. You would think, by the way she paints, that her colors cost her something enormous; she will only give you a single pure touch, just where the petal turns into light; but down in the bell all is subdued, and under the petal all is subdued, even in the showiest flower. What you thought was bright blue is, when you look close, only dusty gray, or green, or purple, or every color in the world at once, only a single gleam or streak of pure blue in the center of it. And so with all her colors. Sometimes I have really thought her miserliness intolerable: in a gentian, 125 for instance, the way she economizes her ultramarine down in the bell is a little too bad.[49]

175. (c.) When you have time, practice creating mixed colors by blending touches of the pure colors that make them up, and use this technique in the parts of your sketches where you want to achieve rich and vibrant effects. Keep studying the works of William Hunt from the Old Water-color Society regularly, and make lots of notes on the variations in flowers; don’t paint the whole flower completely, but lay down the base color of one petal and carefully paint the spots on it with precision: a series of individual petals from lilies, geraniums, tulips, etc., labeled according to their position in the flower, will be interesting to you for many reasons beyond just artistic ones. Make sure you represent the shading of the spots accurately in calceolarias, foxgloves, and similar flowers; and develop the unique, subtle hues of the spots themselves using tiny grains of pure layered color, or else you won’t capture their richness or vibrancy. You’ll be surprised to discover, as you do this, first, the universality of the gradation principle we’ve emphasized so much; and secondly, that Nature is just as stingy with her beautiful colors as I’ve advised you to be with yours. It seems, based on how she paints, that her colors must cost a fortune; she’ll only give you a single pure touch exactly where the petal catches the light; but inside the bell, everything is muted, and beneath the petal, all is subdued, even in the brightest flower. What you thought was bright blue is, upon closer inspection, merely dusty gray, or green, or purple, or every color in the world combined, with just a single gleam or streak of pure blue at its center. This is true for all her colors. Sometimes, I’ve genuinely thought her frugality was excessive: for example, in a gentian, the way she saves her ultramarine deep in the bell is a bit too much. 125 A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0

176. Next, respecting general tone. I said, just now, that, for the sake of students, my tax should not be laid on black or on white pigments; but if you mean to be a colorist, you must lay a tax on them yourself when you begin to use true color; that is to say, you must use them little, and make of them much. There is no better test of your color tones being good, than your having made the white in your picture precious, and the black conspicuous.

176. Next, regarding overall tone. I just mentioned that, for the benefit of students, my tax shouldn't apply to black or white pigments; however, if you want to be a colorist, you need to impose a tax on them yourself when you start using true colors. In other words, you should use them sparingly and make a lot from them. There's no better way to test if your color tones are good than by making the white in your picture valuable and the black stand out.

177. I say, first, the white precious. I do not mean merely glittering or brilliant: it is easy to scratch white seagulls out of black clouds, and dot clumsy foliage with chalky dew; but when white is well managed, it ought to be strangely delicious,—tender as well as bright,—like inlaid mother of pearl, or white roses washed in milk. The eye ought to seek it for rest, brilliant though it may be; and to feel it as a space of strange, heavenly paleness in the midst of the flushing of the colors. This effect you can only reach by general depth of middle tint, by absolutely refusing to allow any white to exist except where you need it, and by keeping the white itself subdued by gray, except at a few points of chief luster.

177. First, I talk about the color white. I’m not just referring to something shiny or bright: it’s easy to pull white seagulls out of dark clouds and sprinkle chalky dew on clumsy leaves; but when white is used well, it should be oddly delightful—soft as well as bright—like inlaid mother-of-pearl or white roses soaked in milk. The eye should look for it to find rest, even though it’s vibrant; and it should feel like a space of strange, heavenly paleness amidst all the vibrant colors. You can achieve this effect only by having a general depth of mid-tones, by absolutely making sure there’s no white where you don’t need it, and by keeping the white itself toned down with gray, except at a few key highlights.

178. Secondly, you must make the black conspicuous. However small a point of black may be, it ought to catch the eye, otherwise your work is too heavy in the shadow. All the ordinary shadows should be of some color,—never black, nor approaching black, they should be evidently and always of a luminous nature, and the black should look strange among them; never occurring except in a black object, or in small points indicative of intense shade in the very center of masses of shadow. Shadows of absolutely negative gray, however, may be beautifully used with white, or with gold; but still though the black thus, in subdued strength, becomes spacious, it should always be conspicuous; the spectator should notice this gray neutrality with some wonder, and 126 enjoy, all the more intensely on account of it, the gold color and the white which it relieves. Of all the great colorists Velasquez is the greatest master of the black chords. His black is more precious than most other people's crimson.

178. Secondly, you need to make the black stand out. No matter how small a point of black is, it should grab attention; otherwise, your work will feel too heavy in the shadows. All typical shadows should have some color—never black or anything close to black; they should always appear luminous, making the black look unusual among them. Black should only show up in black objects or as small points indicating intense shading at the center of dark areas. However, absolutely neutral gray shadows can be beautifully used with white or gold; even though this black, in a subdued way, feels expansive, it should always stand out. The viewer should notice this gray neutrality with some curiosity and appreciate the gold and white even more because of it. Of all the great colorists, Velasquez is the greatest master of black tones. His black is more valuable than most people’s crimson.

179. It is not, however, only white and black which you must make valuable; you must give rare worth to every color you use; but the white and black ought to separate themselves quaintly from the rest, while the other colors should be continually passing one into the other, being all evidently companions in the same gay world; while the white, black, and neutral gray should stand monkishly aloof in the midst of them. You may melt your crimson into purple, your purple into blue, and your blue into green, but you must not melt any of them into black. You should, however, try, as I said, to give preciousness to all your colors; and this especially by never using a grain more than will just do the work, and giving each hue the highest value by opposition. All fine coloring, like fine drawing, is delicate; and so delicate that if, at last, you see the color you are putting on, you are putting on too much. You ought to feel a change wrought in the general tone, by touches of color which individually are too pale to be seen; and if there is one atom of any color in the whole picture which is unnecessary to it, that atom hurts it.

179. However, it’s not just black and white that you need to make valuable; you have to give each color you use its own unique worth. The black and white should stand out in a distinctive way from the others, while the other colors should blend seamlessly into one another, clearly showing that they belong together in a vibrant world. In contrast, the white, black, and neutral gray should maintain a reserved distance from them. You can blend your crimson into purple, your purple into blue, and your blue into green, but you shouldn’t turn any of them into black. As I mentioned, you should strive to make all your colors precious, especially by using only as much as necessary to get the job done, and giving each shade maximum value through contrast. Great coloring, like great drawing, is sensitive; so sensitive that if you can actually see the color you’re applying, you’re using too much. You should feel a shift in the overall tone through touches of color that are, on their own, too soft to notice; and if there’s even a single speck of color in the entire picture that isn’t essential, that speck detracts from it.

180. Notice also that nearly all good compound colors are odd colors. You shall look at a hue in a good painter's work ten minutes before you know what to call it. You thought it was brown, presently you feel that it is red; next that there is, somehow, yellow in it; presently afterwards that there is blue in it. If you try to copy it you will always find your color too warm or too cold—no color in the box will seem to have an affinity with it; and yet it will be as pure as if it were laid at a single touch with a single color.

180. Notice that almost all good mixed colors are odd colors. You can stare at a shade in a skilled artist's work for ten minutes before you figure out what to call it. You might think it's brown, but then you realize it's red; then you notice there's somehow some yellow in it; and soon after, you see blue in it as well. If you try to copy it, you'll always find your color too warm or too cool—none of the colors in your box will seem to match it; yet it will appear as pure as if it were created with a single stroke of a single color.

181. As to the choice and harmony of colors in general, if you cannot choose and harmonize them by instinct, you will never do it at all. If you need examples of utterly harsh and horrible color, you may find plenty given in treatises 127 upon coloring, to illustrate the laws of harmony; and if you want to color beautifully, color as best pleases yourself at quiet times, not so as to catch the eye, nor look as if it were clever or difficult to color in that way, but so that the color may be pleasant to you when you are happy or thoughtful. Look much at the morning and evening sky, and much at simple flowers—dog-roses, wood-hyacinths, violets, poppies, thistles, heather, and such like,—as Nature arranges them in the woods and fields. If ever any scientific person tells you that two colors are "discordant," make a note of the two colors, and put them together whenever you can. I have actually heard people say that blue and green were discordant; the two colors which Nature seems to intend never to be separated, and never to be felt, either of them, in its full beauty without the other!—a peacock's neck, or a blue sky through green leaves, or a blue wave with green lights through it, being precisely the loveliest things, next to clouds at sunrise, in this colored world of ours. If you have a good eye for colors, you will soon find out how constantly Nature puts purple and green together, purple and scarlet, green and blue, yellow and neutral gray, and the like; and how she strikes these color-concords for general tones, and then works into them with innumerable subordinate ones; and you will gradually come to like what she does, and find out new and beautiful chords of color in her work every day. If you enjoy them, depend upon it you will paint them to a certain point right: or, at least, if you do not enjoy them, you are certain to paint them wrong. If color does not give you intense pleasure, let it alone; depend upon it, you are only tormenting the eyes and senses of people who feel color, whenever you touch it; and that is unkind and improper.

181. When it comes to choosing and harmonizing colors, if you can't do it instinctively, you'll never manage it at all. If you need examples of really clashing and terrible colors, there are plenty in books on coloring that demonstrate the principles of harmony. If you want to color beautifully, do it in a way that makes you happy during peaceful moments, not to grab attention or to show off how clever or complicated you can be. Instead, aim for colors that feel good to you when you're feeling cheerful or reflective. Spend time looking at the morning and evening sky and at simple flowers—like dog-roses, wood-hyacinths, violets, poppies, thistles, heather, and similar ones—as nature arranges them in nature. If anyone ever tells you that two colors clash, remember those colors and use them together whenever possible. I've actually heard people claim that blue and green clash; these are the two colors that nature seems to intend never to be apart, and you can't fully appreciate either without the other! Think of a peacock's neck, or a blue sky seen through green leaves, or a blue wave with green reflections in it—these are some of the most beautiful sights, next to clouds at sunrise, in our colorful world. If you have a good eye for colors, you'll quickly notice how often nature combines purple and green, purple and red, green and blue, yellow and neutral gray, and so on; you'll see how she creates color harmonies for overall tones and builds in countless variations. You'll come to appreciate her work and discover new and beautiful color combinations every day. If you enjoy them, rest assured you will paint them correctly to some extent; or at least, if you don’t enjoy them, you will definitely paint them incorrectly. If color doesn't bring you great pleasure, leave it alone; believe me, you're just annoying the eyes and senses of those who do appreciate color whenever you attempt to use it, and that's unkind and inappropriate.

182. You will find, also, your power of coloring depend much on your state of health and right balance of mind; when you are fatigued or ill you will not see colors well, and when you are ill-tempered you will not choose them well: thus, though not infallibly a test of character in individuals, color power is a great sign of mental health in nations; 128 when they are in a state of intellectual decline, their coloring always gets dull.[50] You must also take great care not to be misled by affected talk about colors from people who have not the gift of it: numbers are eager and voluble about it who probably never in all their lives received one genuine color-sensation. The modern religionists of the school of Overbeck are just like people who eat slate-pencil and chalk, and assure everybody that they are nicer and purer than strawberries and plums.

182. You'll notice that your ability to perceive colors heavily relies on your health and mental state; when you're tired or unwell, your ability to see colors clearly diminishes, and when you're in a bad mood, you won't choose them wisely. So, while it's not a foolproof indicator of a person's character, color perception can be a strong sign of a nation's mental health; when a society is experiencing intellectual decline, its colors tend to become dull. 128 Be careful not to be misled by pretentious discussions about colors from those who lack the true ability to perceive them: many people chatter excitedly about it without ever experiencing genuine color sensations in their lives. The modern followers of the Overbeck school are like people who eat slate pencils and chalk while claiming that they are tastier and cleaner than strawberries and plums.

183. Take care also never to be misled into any idea that color can help or display form; color[51] always disguises form, and is meant to do so.

183. Also, be careful not to be fooled into thinking that color can enhance or reveal form; color[51] always masks form, and that's its purpose.

184. It is a favorite dogma among modern writers on color that "warm colors" (reds and yellows) "approach," or express nearness, and "cold colors" (blue and gray) "retire," or express distance. So far is this from being the case, that no expression of distance in the world is so great as that of the gold and orange in twilight sky. Colors, as such, are ABSOLUTELY inexpressive respecting distance. It is their quality (as depth, delicacy, etc.) which expresses distance, not their tint. A blue bandbox set on the same 129 shelf with a yellow one will not look an inch farther off, but a red or orange cloud, in the upper sky, will always appear to be beyond a blue cloud close to us, as it is in reality. It is quite true that in certain objects, blue is a sign of distance; but that is not because blue is a retiring color, but because the mist in the air is blue, and therefore any warm color which has not strength of light enough to pierce the mist is lost or subdued in its blue: but blue is no more, on this account, a "retiring color," than brown is a retiring color, because, when stones are seen through brown water, the deeper they lie the browner they look; or than yellow is a retiring color, because, when objects are seen through a London fog, the farther off they are the yellower they look. Neither blue, nor yellow, nor red, can have, as such, the smallest power of expressing either nearness or distance: they express them only under the peculiar circumstances which render them at the moment, or in that place, signs of nearness or distance. Thus, vivid orange in an orange is a sign of nearness, for if you put the orange a great way off, its color will not look so bright; but vivid orange in sky is a sign of distance, because you cannot get the color of orange in a cloud near you. So purple in a violet or a hyacinth is a sign of nearness, because the closer you look at them the more purple you see. But purple in a mountain is a sign of distance, because a mountain close to you is not purple, but green or gray. It may, indeed, be generally assumed that a tender or pale color will more or less express distance, and a powerful or dark color nearness; but even this is not always so. Heathery hills will usually give a pale and tender purple near, and an intense and dark purple far away; the rose color of sunset on snow is pale on the snow at your feet, deep and full on the snow in the distance; and the green of a Swiss lake is pale in the clear waves on the beach, but intense as an emerald in the sunstreak six miles from shore. And in any case, when the foreground is in strong light, with much water about it, or white surface, casting intense reflections, all its colors may be perfectly delicate, pale, and 130 faint; while the distance, when it is in shadow, may relieve the whole foreground with intense darks of purple, blue green, or ultramarine blue. So that, on the whole, it is quite hopeless and absurd to expect any help from laws of "aërial perspective." Look for the natural effects, and set them down as fully as you can, and as faithfully, and never alter a color because it won't look in its right place. Put the color strong, if it be strong, though far off; faint, if it be faint, though close to you. Why should you suppose that Nature always means you to know exactly how far one thing is from another? She certainly intends you always to enjoy her coloring, but she does not wish you always to measure her space. You would be hard put to it, every time you painted the sun setting, if you had to express his 95,000,000 miles of distance in "aërial perspective."

184. A common belief among modern writers about color is that "warm colors" (reds and yellows) suggest closeness, while "cool colors" (blues and grays) imply distance. However, that isn’t true—nothing expresses distance more dramatically than the gold and orange hues in a twilight sky. Colors themselves are TOTALLY incapable of conveying distance. It’s their qualities (like depth and delicacy) that express distance, not their hue. If you place a blue box and a yellow one on the same shelf, they won’t appear to be any farther apart. Yet, a red or orange cloud in the sky will always look farther away than a blue cloud nearby, which reflects reality. It’s true that in some objects, blue indicates distance, but that’s not because blue is inherently a distant color. It’s because the mist in the air is blue, and thus any warm color that lacks enough light to break through the mist gets lost or muted in it. Blue is no more a "distant color" than brown is considered a distant color simply because stones look browner when seen through brown water the deeper they are. Similarly, yellow isn't a distant color just because objects look yellower when viewed through a London fog; the farther away they are, the yellower they appear. Neither blue, yellow, nor red can express nearness or distance on their own; they only serve as indicators of closeness or distance under specific circumstances that make them appear as such in that moment or location. For example, vivid orange inside an orange suggests closeness because if you move the orange far away, its color won’t seem as bright. But vivid orange in the sky suggests distance since you can’t see that color in a cloud nearby. Likewise, purple in a violet or hyacinth indicates closeness because the closer you look, the more purple you see. However, purple in a mountain signifies distance since a nearby mountain doesn’t appear purple, but rather green or gray. It’s generally true that a soft or pale color can imply distance, while a strong or dark color indicates closeness, but that’s not always the case. Heather-covered hills often show a pale and delicate purple up close, while farther away they appear a deep and dark purple. The rose color of a sunset reflected on snow appears pale on the snow at your feet but deep and vibrant on the distant snow. The green of a Swiss lake is light in the clear waves near the beach but appears intense like an emerald in the sunlit spot six miles off shore. Additionally, when the foreground is brightly lit, especially with a lot of water or a white surface creating strong reflections, all its colors may look delicate, pale, and faint, while the distance in shadow can enhance the foreground with deep, dark colors of purple, blue, green, or ultramarine. Therefore, it’s pointless and unrealistic to rely on rules of "aerial perspective." Focus on capturing the natural effects as accurately and thoroughly as possible, and never change a color just because it doesn’t seem to fit in its location. Use strong colors if they are bold, even if they appear far away, and soft colors if they appear faint, even if they are close. Why should you assume that Nature intends for you to know exactly how far apart things are? She definitely wants you to appreciate her colors, but she doesn’t expect you to always measure distance. You’d be in a tough spot every time you painted the sunset if you had to illustrate its 95,000,000-mile distance using "aerial perspective."

185. There is, however, I think, one law about distance, which has some claims to be considered a constant one: namely, that dullness and heaviness of color are more or less indicative of nearness. All distant color is pure color: it may not be bright, but it is clear and lovely, not opaque nor soiled; for the air and light coming between us and any earthy or imperfect color, purify or harmonize it; hence a bad colorist is peculiarly incapable of expressing distance. I do not of course mean that you are to use bad colors in your foreground by way of making it come forward; but only that a failure in color, there, will not put it out of its place; while a failure in color in the distance will at once do away with its remoteness; your dull-colored foreground will still be a foreground, though ill-painted; but your ill-painted distance will not be merely a dull distance,—it will be no distance at all.

185. However, I believe there’s one rule about distance that should be seen as fairly constant: dullness and heaviness of color generally indicate closeness. All distant colors are pure color; they might not be bright, but they are clear and beautiful, not opaque or dirty. The air and light between us and any earthly or imperfect color purify or harmonize it. That’s why a poor colorist struggles to express distance effectively. I’m not suggesting you use bad colors in your foreground to bring it forward; I’m just saying that a mistake in color there won’t really change its placement. However, a mistake in color in the distance will immediately eliminate its sense of being far away. Your dull-colored foreground will still be a foreground, even if it’s poorly painted, but your poorly painted distance won’t just be dull—it won’t convey distance at all.

186. I have only one thing more to advise you, namely, never to color petulantly or hurriedly. You will not, indeed, be able, if you attend properly to your coloring, to get anything like the quantity of form you could in a chiaroscuro sketch; nevertheless, if you do not dash or rush at your work, nor do it lazily, you may always get enough form to be satisfactory. 131 An extra quarter of an hour, distributed in quietness over the course of the whole study, may just make the difference between a quite intelligible drawing, and a slovenly and obscure one. If you determine well beforehand what outline each piece of color is to have, and, when it is on the paper, guide it without nervousness, as far as you can, into the form required; and then, after it is dry, consider thoroughly what touches are needed to complete it, before laying one of them on; you will be surprised to find how masterly the work will soon look, as compared with a hurried or ill-considered sketch. In no process that I know of—least of all in sketching—can time be really gained by precipitation. It is gained only by caution; and gained in all sorts of ways; for not only truth of form, but force of light, is always added by an intelligent and shapely laying of the shadow colors. You may often make a simple flat tint, rightly gradated and edged, express a complicated piece of subject without a single retouch. The two Swiss cottages, for instance, with their balconies, and glittering windows, and general character of shingly eaves, are expressed in Fig. 30 with one tint of gray, and a few dispersed spots and lines of it; all of which you ought to be able to lay on without more than thrice dipping your brush, and without a single touch after the tint is dry.

186. I have just one more piece of advice for you: never apply color in a hasty or moody manner. If you focus properly on your coloring, you won’t be able to achieve as much form as you could in a chiaroscuro sketch; however, if you don’t rush or approach your work lazily, you can always get enough form for it to be satisfying. 131 An extra fifteen minutes spent calmly throughout your study may make the difference between a clear drawing and a messy, unclear one. If you plan ahead what outline each color should have, and when it's on the paper, guide it confidently as much as you can into the required form; then, once it’s dry, think carefully about what touches are needed to finalize it before applying any; you’ll be amazed at how professional the work will look compared to a rushed or thoughtless sketch. In no process that I know of—especially not in sketching—can you actually save time by acting quickly. Time is gained only through care, and in various ways; for not only is the accuracy of form improved, but also the strength of light is enhanced by skillfully and thoughtfully applying shadow colors. You can often create a simple flat tint, properly graduated and edged, that conveys a complex subject without needing any touch-ups. The two Swiss cottages, for example, with their balconies, sparkling windows, and characteristic shingly eaves, are depicted in Fig. 30 with just one gray tint and a few scattered spots and lines of it; all of which you should be able to apply without dipping your brush more than three times, and without needing to touch it again after the tint dries.

Fig. 30.
Fig. 30.

187. Here, then, for I cannot without colored illustrations tell you more, I must leave you to follow out the subject 132 for yourself, with such help as you may receive from the water-color drawings accessible to you; or from any of the little treatises on their art which have been published lately by our water-color painters.[52] But do not trust much to works of this kind. You may get valuable hints from them as to mixture of colors; and here and there you will find a useful artifice or process explained; but nearly all such books are written only to help idle amateurs to a meretricious skill, and they are full of precepts and principles which may, for the most part, be interpreted by their precise negatives, and then acted upon with advantage. Most of them praise boldness, when the only safe attendant spirit of a beginner is caution;—advise velocity, when the first condition of success is deliberation;—and plead for generalization, when all the foundations of power must be laid in knowledge of speciality.

187. So, since I can't explain any more without colored illustrations, I'll leave it to you to explore the topic further on your own, using the watercolor drawings that are available to you or any of the little guides on the art that our watercolor painters have published recently. 132 But don't rely too much on these kinds of works. You might pick up some useful tips on mixing colors, and here and there you might find a handy technique explained; however, most of these books are just meant to help casual amateurs develop superficial skills, and they’re packed with rules and principles that can usually be better understood by their negative interpretations and applied for good effect. Many of them emphasize boldness, while the only safe approach for a beginner is caution;—they advocate speed, when careful thought is the first step to success;—and they push for generalization, when the fundamental skills must be built on specialized knowledge.


188. And now, in the last place, I have a few things to tell you respecting that dangerous nobleness of consummate art,—Composition. For though it is quite unnecessary for you yet awhile to attempt it, and it may be inexpedient for you to attempt it at all, you ought to know what it means, and to look for and enjoy it in the art of others.

188. And now, finally, I have a few things to say about that tricky greatness of perfect art—Composition. While it's not really necessary for you to try it just yet, and it might not even be wise for you to try at all, you should understand what it means and seek it out and appreciate it in the work of others.

Composition means, literally and simply, putting several things together, so as to make one thing out of them; the nature and goodness of which they all have a share in producing. Thus a musician composes an air, by putting notes together in certain relations; a poet composes a poem, by putting thoughts and words in pleasant order; and a painter a picture, by putting thoughts, forms, and colors in pleasant order.

Composition means, literally and simply, putting several things together to create one thing out of them; each of which contributes to its nature and quality. So, a musician composes a melody by arranging notes in specific ways; a poet creates a poem by organizing thoughts and words attractively; and a painter makes a picture by organizing ideas, shapes, and colors in an appealing way.

In all these cases, observe, an intended unity must be the result of composition. A pavior cannot be said to compose the heap of stones which he empties from his cart, nor the sower the handful of seed which he scatters from his hand. 133 It is the essence of composition that everything should be in a determined place, perform an intended part, and act, in that part, advantageously for everything that is connected with it.

In all these situations, note that a purposeful unity must come from composition. A pavement worker can't be said to create the pile of stones he dumps from his cart, nor can a farmer be said to compose the handful of seeds he scatters. 133 The core of composition is that everything should be in a specific location, fulfill an intended role, and contribute positively to everything related to it.

189. Composition, understood in this pure sense, is the type, in the arts of mankind, of the Providential government of the world.[53] It is an exhibition, in the order given to notes, or colors, or forms, of the advantage of perfect fellowship, discipline, and contentment. In a well-composed air, no note, however short or low, can be spared, but the least is as necessary as the greatest: no note, however prolonged, is tedious; but the others prepare for, and are benefited by, its duration: no note, however high, is tyrannous; the others prepare for, and are benefited by, its exaltation: no note, however low, is overpowered; the others prepare for, and sympathize with, its humility: and the result is, that each and every note has a value in the position assigned to it, which, by itself, it never possessed, and of which, by separation from the others, it would instantly be deprived.

189. Composition, understood in its purest form, represents the way that the world's Providential governance works through human art. [53] It displays the benefits of perfect collaboration, discipline, and satisfaction through the arrangement of notes, colors, or shapes. In a well-composed piece, no note, no matter how brief or quiet, can be omitted; even the smallest note is as essential as the largest. No note, no matter how long, becomes tiresome; instead, the other notes prepare for and benefit from its length. No note, no matter how high, is overwhelming; the other notes get ready for and gain from its prominence. No note, no matter how low, is subdued; the others brace for and resonate with its modesty. The outcome is that each note carries a significance in its designated place that it wouldn't have on its own, and it would lose that value as soon as it is separated from the others.

190. Similarly, in a good poem, each word and thought enhances the value of those which precede and follow it; and every syllable has a loveliness which depends not so much on its abstract sound as on its position. Look at the same word in a dictionary, and you will hardly recognize it.

190. Likewise, in a good poem, every word and idea adds to the value of the ones before and after it; and each syllable has a beauty that relies less on its abstract sound and more on its placement. If you look at the same word in a dictionary, you’ll barely recognize it.

Much more in a great picture; every line and color is so arranged as to advantage the rest. None are inessential, however slight; and none are independent, however forcible. It is not enough that they truly represent natural objects; but they must fit into certain places, and gather into certain harmonious groups: so that, for instance, the red chimney of a cottage is not merely set in its place as a chimney, but that it may affect, in a certain way pleasurable to the eye, the pieces of green or blue in other parts of the picture; and we ought to see that the work is masterly, merely by the positions and quantities of these patches of green, red, and blue, even 134 at a distance which renders it perfectly impossible to determine what the colors represent: or to see whether the red is a chimney, or an old woman's cloak; and whether the blue is smoke, sky, or water.

In a great picture, everything is arranged so that each line and color enhances the rest. Nothing is unnecessary, no matter how minor; and nothing stands alone, no matter how strong. It's not enough for them to just represent real objects; they also need to fit into specific spots and come together in harmonious groups. For example, the red chimney of a cottage isn't just placed there as a chimney; it should also create a visually pleasing effect on the green or blue elements in other areas of the picture. We should be able to recognize that the work is skillful just by looking at the arrangement and amount of these patches of green, red, and blue, even from a distance where it's impossible to tell what the colors actually represent, or to know whether the red is a chimney, or an old woman’s cloak, and whether the blue is smoke, sky, or water.

191. It seems to be appointed, in order to remind us, in all we do, of the great laws of Divine government and human polity, that composition in the arts should strongly affect every order of mind, however unlearned or thoughtless. Hence the popular delight in rhythm and meter, and in simple musical melodies. But it is also appointed that power of composition in the fine arts should be an exclusive attribute of great intellect. All men can more or less copy what they see, and, more or less, remember it: powers of reflection and investigation are also common to us all, so that the decision of inferiority in these rests only on questions of degree. A. has a better memory than B., and C. reflects more profoundly than D. But the gift of composition is not given at all to more than one man in a thousand; in its highest range, it does not occur above three or four times in a century.

191. It seems to be set up to remind us, in everything we do, of the important laws of divine rule and human organization, that creativity in the arts should have a strong impact on every kind of mind, no matter how uneducated or careless. That’s why people enjoy rhythm and meter, and simple musical tunes. But it’s also meant that the ability to create in the fine arts should be a unique quality of great minds. Everyone can, to some extent, copy what they see and remember it: the ability to reflect and investigate is something we all share, so deciding who is lesser in these abilities is only a matter of degree. A. has a better memory than B., and C. thinks more deeply than D. But the gift of creating is not given to more than one person in a thousand; at its highest level, it happens no more than three or four times in a century.

192. It follows, from these general truths, that it is impossible to give rules which will enable you to compose. You might much more easily receive rules to enable you to be witty. If it were possible to be witty by rule, wit would cease to be either admirable or amusing: if it were possible to compose melody by rule, Mozart and Cimarosa need not have been born: if it were possible to compose pictures by rule, Titian and Veronese would be ordinary men. The essence of composition lies precisely in the fact of its being unteachable, in its being the operation of an individual mind of range and power exalted above others.

192. From these general truths, it follows that it's impossible to provide rules that will help you compose. It would be much easier to give you rules for being witty. If it were possible to be witty by following rules, then wit would lose its charm and humor: if it were possible to create melodies by rules, then Mozart and Cimarosa wouldn't have needed to exist: if it were possible to create paintings by rules, then Titian and Veronese would just be average artists. The core of composition lies in the fact that it's unteachable, being the work of an individual mind that stands out for its range and power.

But though no one can invent by rule, there are some simple laws of arrangement which it is well for you to know, because, though they will not enable you to produce a good picture, they will often assist you to set forth what goodness may be in your work in a more telling way than you could have done otherwise; and by tracing them in the work of good composers, you may better understand the grasp of their 135 imagination, and the power it possesses over their materials. I shall briefly state the chief of these laws.

But even though no one can invent through rules, there are some basic principles of arrangement that it's good for you to know. While they won't guarantee you create a great picture, they can help you present whatever quality exists in your work in a more effective way than you might have managed otherwise. By examining these principles in the works of talented composers, you'll gain a better understanding of how they harness their imagination and the control it gives them over their materials. Let me outline the main ones.

1. THE LAW OF PRINCIPALITY.

THE PRINCIPALITY LAW.

193. The great object of composition being always to secure unity; that is, to make out of many things one whole; the first mode in which this can be effected is, by determining that one feature shall be more important than all the rest, and that the others shall group with it in subordinate positions.

193. The main goal of writing is always to achieve unity; that is, to create one whole from many parts. The first way to do this is by deciding that one aspect will be more important than all the others, while the others will support it in secondary roles.

Fig. 31.
Fig. 31.

This is the simplest law of ordinary ornamentation. Thus the group of two leaves, a, Fig. 31, is unsatisfactory, because it has no leading leaf; but that at b is prettier, because it has a head or master leaf; and c more satisfactory still, because the subordination of the other members to this head leaf is made more manifest by their gradual loss of size as they fall back from it. Hence part of the pleasure we have in the Greek honeysuckle ornament, and such others.

This is the simplest rule of basic decoration. So, the group of two leaves, a, Fig. 31, doesn't look good because it has no leading leaf; but the one at b looks better because it has a main leaf; and c is even more appealing because the way the other leaves get smaller as they move away from the main leaf makes that relationship clear. That's part of the enjoyment we get from the Greek honeysuckle design and similar styles.

194. Thus, also, good pictures have always one light larger and brighter than the other lights, or one figure more prominent than the other figures, or one mass of color dominant over all the other masses; and in general you will find it much benefit your sketch if you manage that there shall be one light on the cottage wall, or one blue cloud in the sky, which may attract the eye as leading light, or leading gloom, above all others. But the observance of the rule is often so cunningly concealed by the great composers, that its force is hardly at first traceable; and you will generally find they are vulgar pictures in which the law is strikingly manifest.

194. Similarly, good pictures always have one light that's bigger and brighter than the others, or one figure that stands out more than the others, or one color that dominates all the other colors. Generally, you'll find that your sketch will benefit greatly if you ensure there's one light on the cottage wall, or one blue cloud in the sky that draws the eye as the main light or shadow above all the rest. However, the great artists often hide this rule so cleverly that its impact isn't easily noticeable at first. You'll typically find that the ones where this rule is obvious are the less impressive pictures.

136

136

195. This may be simply illustrated by musical melody: for instance, in such phrases as this—

195. This can be easily shown using musical melody: for example, in phrases like this—

Musical notes 1.

one note (here the upper G) rules the whole passage, and has the full energy of it concentrated in itself. Such passages, corresponding to completely subordinated compositions in painting, are apt to be wearisome if often repeated. But, in such a phrase as this—

one note (here the upper G) dominates the entire passage, concentrating all its energy within itself. These passages, resembling completely subordinated compositions in painting, can become tiresome if repeated too often. However, in a phrase like this—

Musical notes 2.

it is very difficult to say which is the principal note. The A in the last bar is slightly dominant, but there is a very equal current of power running through the whole; and such passages rarely weary. And this principle holds through vast scales of arrangement; so that in the grandest compositions, such as Paul Veronese's Marriage in Cana, or Raphaels Disputa, it is not easy to fix at once on the principal figure; and very commonly the figure which is really chief does not catch the eye at first, but is gradually felt to be more and more conspicuous as we gaze. Thus in Titian's grand composition of the Cornaro Family, the figure meant to be principal is a youth of fifteen or sixteen, whose portrait it was evidently the painter's object to make as interesting as possible. But a grand Madonna, and a St. George with a drifting banner, and many figures more, occupy the center 137 of the picture, and first catch the eye; little by little we are led away from them to a gleam of pearly light in the lower corner, and find that, from the head which it shines upon, we can turn our eyes no more.

It’s really hard to determine which is the main focus. The A in the last bar feels a bit dominant, but there’s a very even flow of power throughout; and these kinds of passages rarely get tiring. This principle applies across vast scales of arrangement; so, in the most impressive works, like Paul Veronese's Marriage in Cana or Raphael's Disputa, it’s not easy to immediately identify the main figure. Often, the figure that actually takes center stage isn’t what you notice first, but it becomes more and more prominent the longer you look. For example, in Titian's grand painting of the Cornaro Family, the figure meant to be the main focus is a young man of fifteen or sixteen, whose portrait the artist clearly aimed to make as appealing as possible. However, a grand Madonna, a St. George with a billowing banner, and several other figures dominate the center of the painting and initially grab your attention. Gradually, we are drawn away from them to a glimmer of pearly light in the lower corner, and we find that, from the head it illuminates, we can't look away. 137

196. As, in every good picture, nearly all laws of design are more or less exemplified, it will, on the whole, be an easier way of explaining them to analyze one composition thoroughly, than to give instances from various works. I shall therefore take one of Turner's simplest; which will allow us, so to speak, easily to decompose it, and illustrate each law by it as we proceed.

196. Just like in any great artwork, almost all design principles are demonstrated to some extent. Overall, it will be simpler to explain these principles by thoroughly analyzing one composition rather than providing examples from different works. Therefore, I'll choose one of Turner's simplest pieces, which will enable us to break it down easily and illustrate each principle as we go along.

Fig. 32.
Fig. 32.

Fig. 32 is a rude sketch of the arrangement of the whole subject; the old bridge over the Moselle at Coblentz, the town of Coblentz on the right, Ehrenbreitstein on the left. The leading or master feature is, of course, the tower on the bridge. It is kept from being too principal by an important group on each side of it; the boats, on the right, and Ehrenbreitstein beyond. The boats are large in mass, and more forcible in color, but they are broken into small divisions, while the tower is simple, and therefore it still leads. Ehrenbreitstein is noble in its mass, but so reduced by aërial perspective of color that it cannot contend with the 138 tower, which therefore holds the eye, and becomes the key of the picture. We shall see presently how the very objects which seem at first to contend with it for the mastery are made, occultly, to increase its preëminence.

Fig. 32 is a rough outline of the entire subject; the old bridge over the Moselle at Coblentz, the town of Coblentz on the right, and Ehrenbreitstein on the left. The main feature is clearly the tower on the bridge. Its prominence is balanced by significant groups on either side; the boats on the right and Ehrenbreitstein in the background. The boats are large and vibrant in color, but they're broken into smaller sections, while the tower's simplicity allows it to stand out. Ehrenbreitstein is impressive in size, but its color is softened by atmospheric perspective, making it less able to compete with the tower, which draws the viewer’s attention and serves as the focal point of the picture. We will soon see how the very objects that initially seem to compete with the tower actually serve to enhance its dominance.

2. THE LAW OF REPETITION.

The Law of Repetition.

197. Another important means of expressing unity is to mark some kind of sympathy among the different objects, and perhaps the pleasantest, because most surprising, kind of sympathy, is when one group imitates or repeats another; not in the way of balance or symmetry, but subordinately, like a far-away and broken echo of it. Prout has insisted much on this law in all his writings on composition; and I think it is even more authoritatively present in the minds of most great composers than the law of principality.[54] It is quite curious to see the pains that Turner sometimes takes to echo an important passage of color; in the Pembroke Castle for instance, there are two fishing-boats, one with a red, and another with a white sail. In a line with them, on the beach, are two fish in precisely the same relative positions; one red and one white. It is observable that he uses the artifice chiefly in pictures where he wishes to obtain an expression of repose: in my notice of the plate of Scarborough, in the series of the Harbors of England, I have already had occasion to dwell on this point; and I extract in the note[55] one or two sentences which explain the principle. In the composition I have chosen for our illustration, this reduplication 139 is employed to a singular extent. The tower, or leading feature, is first repeated by the low echo of it to the left; put your finger over this lower tower, and see how the picture is spoiled. Then the spires of Coblentz are all arranged in couples (how they are arranged in reality does not matter; when we are composing a great picture, we must play the towers about till they come right, as fearlessly as if they were chessmen instead of cathedrals). The dual arrangement of these towers would have been too easily seen, were it not for the little one which pretends to make a triad of the last group on the right, but is so faint as hardly to be discernible: it just takes off the attention from the artifice, helped in doing so by the mast at the head of the boat, which, however, has instantly its own duplicate put at the stern.[56] Then there is the large boat near, and its echo beyond it. That echo is divided into two again, and each of those two smaller boats has two figures in it; while two figures are also sitting together on the great rudder that lies half in the water, and half aground. Then, finally, the great mass of Ehrenbreitstein, which appears at first to have no answering form, has almost its facsimile in the bank on which the girl is sitting; this bank is as absolutely essential to the completion of the picture as any object in the whole series. All this is done to deepen the effect of repose.

197. Another important way to express unity is by showing some kind of connection among different objects. One of the most pleasant and surprising types of connection is when one group mimics or repeats another; not in a way that balances or mirrors, but in a more subordinate manner, like a distant and broken echo. Prout emphasized this principle in all his writings on composition, and I believe that it holds even more significance for most great composers than the principle of dominance.[54] It’s interesting to see how much effort Turner sometimes puts into echoing a key color element; for example, in Pembroke Castle, there are two fishing boats—one with a red sail and one with a white sail. Aligned with them on the beach are two fish in exactly the same relative positions: one red and one white. Notably, he mainly uses this technique in paintings where he aims to convey a sense of calm. In my review of the plate of Scarborough in the series called Harbors of England, I already pointed out this aspect; I include in the note[55] a couple of sentences that explain the principle. In the composition I've chosen to illustrate this, this repetition is applied remarkably. The tower, or main feature, is first echoed by a lower version of it to the left; cover this lower tower with your finger and see how the image is disrupted. Then, the spires of Coblentz are all arranged in pairs (the actual arrangement doesn't matter; when composing a great painting, we need to position the towers until they look right, as boldly as if they were chess pieces instead of cathedrals). The dual arrangement of these towers would have been too evident were it not for a smaller one that pretends to create a triad with the last group on the right, but it’s so faint that it’s hardly noticeable: it just diverts attention from the trick, aided by the mast at the front of the boat, which also has an instant duplicate at the back.[56] Then there’s the large boat nearby, and its echo behind it. That echo is split into two again, and each of those two smaller boats has two figures in them; while two figures are also sitting together on the large rudder that is half in the water and half on land. Finally, the massive Ehrenbreitstein, which at first seems to lack a corresponding shape, almost has its facsimile in the bank where the girl is sitting; this bank is as crucial to completing the picture as any object in the entire scene. All of this is done to enhance the sense of calm.

198. Symmetry, or the balance of parts or masses in nearly equal opposition, is one of the conditions of treatment under the law of Repetition. For the opposition, in a symmetrical object, is of like things reflecting each other: it is not the balance of contrary natures (like that of day and night), but of like natures or like forms; one side of a leaf being set like the reflection of the other in water.

198. Symmetry, or the balance of parts or masses in nearly equal opposition, is one of the principles of treatment under the law of Repetition. In a symmetrical object, the opposition involves similar things mirroring each other; it's not the balance of opposing natures (like day and night), but of similar natures or forms; one side of a leaf mirrors the other like a reflection in water.

Symmetry in Nature is, however, never formal nor accurate. She takes the greatest care to secure some difference between the corresponding things or parts of things; and an 140 approximation to accurate symmetry is only permitted in animals, because their motions secure perpetual difference between the balancing parts. Stand before a mirror; hold your arms in precisely the same position at each side, your head upright, your body straight; divide your hair exactly in the middle and get it as nearly as you can into exactly the same shape over each ear; and you will see the effect of accurate symmetry: you will see, no less, how all grace and power in the human form result from the interference of motion and life with symmetry, and from the reconciliation of its balance with its changefulness. Your position, as seen in the mirror, is the highest type of symmetry as understood by modern architects.

Symmetry in nature is never formal or precise. Nature makes sure to include some differences between similar things or parts of things; a close resemblance to perfect symmetry is only allowed in animals because their movements create constant variations between the balancing parts. Stand in front of a mirror; hold your arms in exactly the same position on each side, keep your head straight, and your body upright; part your hair perfectly down the middle and shape it as closely as possible the same over each ear; and you’ll see the effect of perfect symmetry. You'll also see how all the grace and strength in the human form emerge from the interaction of motion and life with symmetry, and from balancing stability with change. Your reflection in the mirror represents the highest example of symmetry as understood by modern architects.

199. In many sacred compositions, living symmetry, the balance of harmonious opposites, is one of the profoundest sources of their power: almost any works of the early painters, Angelico, Perugino, Giotto, etc., will furnish you with notable instances of it. The Madonna of Perugino in the National Gallery, with the angel Michael on one side and Raphael on the other, is as beautiful an example as you can have.

199. In many sacred artworks, living symmetry and the balance of harmonious opposites are some of the deepest sources of their power: almost any works by early painters like Angelico, Perugino, Giotto, etc., will give you notable examples of this. The Madonna by Perugino in the National Gallery, with the angel Michael on one side and Raphael on the other, is as beautiful an example as you can find.

In landscape, the principle of balance is more or less carried out, in proportion to the wish of the painter to express disciplined calmness. In bad compositions, as in bad architecture, it is formal, a tree on one side answering a tree on the other; but in good compositions, as in graceful statues, it is always easy and sometimes hardly traceable. In the Coblentz, however, you cannot have much difficulty in seeing how the boats on one side of the tower and the figures on the other are set in nearly equal balance; the tower, as a central mass, uniting both.

In landscape art, the idea of balance is achieved to varying degrees based on the artist's desire to convey a sense of calm. In poor compositions, similar to bad architecture, balance is rigid, such as a tree on one side matching a tree on the other; however, in successful compositions, like elegant statues, the balance feels effortless and sometimes almost invisible. In the Coblentz, though, it's easy to see how the boats on one side of the tower and the figures on the other are almost evenly balanced, with the tower acting as a central element connecting them both.

3. THE LAW OF CONTINUITY.

3. THE LAW OF CONTINUITY.

200. Another important and pleasurable way of expressing unity, is by giving some orderly succession to a number of objects more or less similar. And this succession is most interesting when it is connected with some gradual change 141 in the aspect or character of the objects. Thus the succession of the pillars of a cathedral aisle is most interesting when they retire in perspective, becoming more and more obscure in distance: so the succession of mountain promontories one behind another, on the flanks of a valley; so the succession of clouds, fading farther and farther towards the horizon; each promontory and each cloud being of different shape, yet all evidently following in a calm and appointed order. If there be no change at all in the shape or size of the objects, there is no continuity; there is only repetition—monotony. It is the change in shape which suggests the idea of their being individually free, and able to escape, if they like, from the law that rules them, and yet submitting to it.

200. Another important and enjoyable way to express unity is by giving an orderly sequence to a number of similar objects. This sequence is most engaging when it involves some gradual change in the appearance or character of the objects. For instance, the line of pillars in a cathedral aisle is particularly captivating as they recede into the distance, becoming less and less distinct; similarly, the series of mountain ridges in a valley and the flow of clouds fading away toward the horizon, with each ridge and cloud having a unique shape, yet all clearly following a calm and organized order. If there’s no variation in the shape or size of the objects, there’s no continuity; there’s only repetition—monotony. It’s the change in shape that gives the impression of each object being free and able to break away from the rules that govern them while still choosing to follow those rules.

Fig. 33.
Fig. 33.

201. I will leave our chosen illustrative composition for a moment to take up another, still more expressive of this law. It is one of Turner's most tender studies, a sketch on Calais Sands at sunset; so delicate in the expression of wave and cloud, that it is of no use for me to try to reach it with any kind of outline in a wood-cut; but the rough sketch, Fig. 33, 142 is enough to give an idea of its arrangement. The aim of the painter has been to give the intensest expression of repose, together with the enchanted, lulling, monotonous motion of cloud and wave. All the clouds are moving in innumerable ranks after the sun, meeting towards that point in the horizon where he has set; and the tidal waves gain in winding currents upon the sand, with that stealthy haste in which they cross each other so quietly, at their edges; just folding one over another as they meet, like a little piece of ruffled silk, and leaping up a little as two children kiss and clap their hands, and then going on again, each in its silent hurry, drawing pointed arches on the sand as their thin edges intersect in parting. But all this would not have been enough expressed without the line of the old pier-timbers, black with weeds, strained and bent by the storm waves, and now seeming to stoop in following one another, like dark ghosts escaping slowly from the cruelty of the pursuing sea.

201. I’ll set aside our chosen illustration for a moment to focus on another one that conveys this law even more powerfully. It’s one of Turner’s most gentle studies, a sketch of Calais Sands at sunset; so subtle in its portrayal of the waves and clouds that it can't be adequately captured with an outline in a woodcut. However, the rough sketch, Fig. 33, 142 is enough to give a sense of its layout. The artist's goal has been to express the deepest sense of calm, along with the enchanting, soothing, repetitive motion of the clouds and waves. All the clouds are moving in endless ranks toward the sun, converging at that point on the horizon where it sets; and the tidal waves gain winding currents on the sand, moving quietly and quickly as they meet, gently folding over one another at their edges like a piece of ruffled silk, playfully leaping up like two kids kissing and clapping their hands, then continuing on again, each in its silent rush, leaving pointed arcs on the sand where their thin edges intersect. But none of this would truly convey the scene without the line of the old pier supports, black with seaweed, twisted and bent by the storm waves, now seeming to hunch as they follow one another, like dark shadows slowly escaping the torment of the chasing sea.

202. I need not, I hope, point out to the reader the illustration of this law of continuance in the subject chosen for our general illustration. It was simply that gradual succession of the retiring arches of the bridge which induced Turner to paint the subject at all; and it was this same principle which led him always to seize on subjects including long bridges wherever he could find them; but especially, observe, unequal bridges, having the highest arch at one side rather than at the center. There is a reason for this, irrespective of general laws of composition, and connected with the nature of rivers, which I may as well stop a minute to tell you about, and let you rest from the study of composition.

202. I hope I don’t need to point out the illustration of this law of continuity in the subject we've chosen for our example. It was simply the gradual succession of the retiring arches of the bridge that inspired Turner to create the piece; and it was this same principle that always encouraged him to focus on subjects with long bridges whenever he could find them. But particularly, notice the unequal bridges, where the highest arch is on one side rather than in the center. There’s a reason for this, beyond the general rules of composition, and it relates to the nature of rivers, which I might as well take a moment to explain, giving you a break from the study of composition.

203. All rivers, small or large, agree in one character, they like to lean a little on one side: they cannot bear to have their channels deepest in the middle, but will always, if they can, have one bank to sun themselves upon, and another to get cool under; one shingly shore to play over, where they may be shallow, and foolish, and childlike, and another steep shore, under which they can pause, and purify themselves, and get their strength of waves fully together for due occasion. 143 Rivers in this way are just like wise men, who keep one side of their life for play, and another for work; and can be brilliant, and chattering, and transparent, when they are at ease, and yet take deep counsel on the other side when they set themselves to their main purpose. And rivers are just in this divided, also, like wicked and good men: the good rivers have serviceable deep places all along their banks, that ships can sail in; but the wicked rivers go scooping irregularly under their banks until they get full of strangling eddies, which no boat can row over without being twisted against the rocks; and pools like wells, which no one can get out of but the water-kelpie that lives at the bottom; but, wicked or good, the rivers all agree in having two kinds of sides. Now the natural way in which a village stone-mason therefore throws a bridge over a strong stream is, of course, to build a great door to let the cat through, and little doors to let the kittens through; a great arch for the great current, to give it room in flood time, and little arches for the little currents along the shallow shore. This, even without any prudential respect for the floods of the great current, he would do in simple economy of work and stone; for the smaller your arches are, the less material you want on their flanks. Two arches over the same span of river, supposing the butments are at the same depth, are cheaper than one, and that by a great deal; so that, where the current is shallow, the village mason makes his arches many and low: as the water gets deeper, and it becomes troublesome to build his piers up from the bottom, he throws his arches wider; at last he comes to the deep stream, and, as he cannot build at the bottom of that, he throws his largest arch over it with a leap, and with another little one or so gains the opposite shore. Of course as arches are wider they must be higher, or they will not stand; so the roadway must rise as the arches widen. And thus we have the general type of bridge, with its highest and widest arch towards one side, and a train of minor arches running over the flat shore on the other: usually a steep bank at the river-side next the large arch; always, of course, a 144 flat shore on the side of the small ones: and the bend of the river assuredly concave towards this flat, cutting round, with a sweep into the steep bank; or, if there is no steep bank, still assuredly cutting into the shore at the steep end of the bridge.

203. All rivers, big or small, share one thing in common: they tend to lean a bit to one side. They can't stand having their deepest parts right in the middle, but instead, they'll always try to have one bank to bask in the sun and another to cool off under; one pebbly shore where they can be shallow, playful, and carefree, and another steep shore where they can pause, cleanse themselves, and gather strength for the waves when the time calls for it. 143 Rivers are much like wise people, who keep one part of their lives for leisure and another for serious work; they can be bright, chatty, and clear when they're relaxed, yet can engage in deep thoughts on the other side when they focus on their main goals. Rivers also divide like good and bad people: the good rivers have deep, navigable spots along their banks for ships to pass through, while the bad rivers carve out irregularly under their banks, creating dangerous whirlpools that no boat can navigate without colliding with rocks; they have deep pools like wells, which only the water spirit at the bottom can escape from. Yet, regardless of being wicked or good, all rivers share the trait of having two types of banks. Naturally, when a village stone mason builds a bridge over a strong river, he typically constructs a large arch for the main flow and smaller arches for the lesser currents along the shallow banks. Even without considering the floods from the main current, he does this for practical reasons, as smaller arches require less material for their sides. Two arches spanning the same river width, provided the supports are at the same depth, are much cheaper than one; therefore, where the water is shallow, the village mason makes more, lower arches. As the water gets deeper, making the foundations from the bottom becomes more challenging, so he constructs the arches wider; finally, when he reaches the deep stream where he can’t build at the bottom, he spans it with the largest arch in one leap and adds a smaller one to reach the opposite shore. Of course, as arches widen, they must also be taller, or they won’t hold; hence, the roadway must rise with the widening arches. This results in the typical bridge design, where the highest and widest arch is on one side, with a series of smaller arches crossing the flat shore on the other: usually a steep bank next to the large arch and a flat shore next to the smaller ones. The bend of the river is definitely concave towards this flat, curving around into the steep bank; or, even if there isn't a steep bank, it still tends to cut into the shore at the steep end of the bridge. 144

Now this kind of bridge, sympathizing, as it does, with the spirit of the river, and marking the nature of the thing it has to deal with and conquer, is the ideal of a bridge; and all endeavors to do the thing in a grand engineer's manner, with a level roadway and equal arches, are barbarous; not only because all monotonous forms are ugly in themselves, but because the mind perceives at once that there has been cost uselessly thrown away for the sake of formality.[57]

Now, this type of bridge, which resonates with the essence of the river and reflects the challenges it faces, represents the ideal bridge. Any attempts to create it in a grand engineering style, with a flat road and uniform arches, are misguided. This is not only because all repetitive designs are inherently unattractive, but also because people immediately recognize that money has been wasted on unnecessary formality.[57]

Fig. 34.
Fig. 34.

204. Well, to return to our continuity. We see that the Turnerian bridge in Fig. 32 is of the absolutely perfect type, and is still farther interesting by having its main arch crowned by a watch-tower. But as I want you to note especially what perhaps was not the case in the real bridge, but is entirely Turner's doing, you will find that though the 145]
146
arches diminish gradually, not one is regularly diminished—they are all of different shapes and sizes: you cannot see this clearly in Fig. 32, but in the larger diagram, Fig. 34, over leaf, you will with ease. This is indeed also part of the ideal of a bridge, because the lateral currents near the shore are of course irregular in size, and a simple builder would naturally vary his arches accordingly; and also, if the bottom was rocky, build his piers where the rocks came. But it is not as a part of bridge ideal, but as a necessity of all noble composition, that this irregularity is introduced by Turner. It at once raises the object thus treated from the lower or vulgar unity of rigid law to the greater unity of clouds, and waves, and trees, and human souls, each different, each obedient, and each in harmonious service.

204. So, back to our discussion. The Turnerian bridge in Fig. 32 is a perfect example, and it's even more interesting because its main arch is topped with a watchtower. But I want you to especially notice something that might not be true for actual bridges but is completely Turner's creation: while the arches gradually decrease in size, none of them are regularly sized—they all have different shapes and dimensions. You can't see this clearly in Fig. 32, but in the larger diagram, Fig. 34, on the next page, it will be easy to spot. This is also part of what makes a bridge ideal, as the lateral currents near the shore are obviously irregular, so a simple builder would naturally vary his arches to match; plus, if the riverbed was rocky, he'd place his piers where the rocks are. However, it’s not just part of the ideal bridge but a necessity of all great compositions that Turner introduces this irregularity. It instantly elevates the subject from the lower, mundane order of strict rules to a higher unity, like clouds, waves, trees, and human souls—each unique, each obedient, and all working together in harmony.

4. THE LAW OF CURVATURE.

4. The Law of Curvature.

205. There is, however, another point to be noticed in this bridge of Turner's. Not only does it slope away unequally at its sides, but it slopes in a gradual though very subtle curve. And if you substitute a straight line for this curve (drawing one with a rule from the base of the tower on each side to the ends of the bridge, in Fig. 34, and effacing the curve), you will instantly see that the design has suffered grievously. You may ascertain, by experiment, that all beautiful objects whatsoever are thus terminated by delicately curved lines, except where the straight line is indispensable to their use or stability; and that when a complete system of straight lines, throughout the form, is necessary to that stability, as in crystals, the beauty, if any exists, is in color and transparency, not in form. Cut out the shape of any crystal you like, in white wax or wood, and put it beside a white lily, and you will feel the force of the curvature in its purity, irrespective of added color, or other interfering elements of beauty.

205. There’s, however, another detail to notice in Turner's bridge. Not only does it slope unevenly on its sides, but it also slopes in a gradual yet very subtle curve. If you replace this curve with a straight line (by drawing one with a ruler from the base of the tower on each side to the ends of the bridge, in Fig. 34, and removing the curve), you’ll quickly see that the design has been seriously compromised. You can experiment to find that all beautiful objects are shaped by gently curved lines, except when a straight line is essential for their function or stability. And when a full system of straight lines is necessary for that stability, like in crystals, any beauty that exists is found in color and transparency, not in form. Cut out the shape of any crystal you like, in white wax or wood, and place it next to a white lily, and you’ll feel the impact of the curvature in its purity, regardless of added color or any other elements of beauty.

Fig. 35.
Fig. 35.

206. Well, as curves are more beautiful than straight lines, it is necessary to a good composition that its continuities of 147 object, mass, or color should be, if possible, in curves, rather than straight lines or angular ones. Perhaps one of the simplest and prettiest examples of a graceful continuity of this kind is in the line traced at any moment by the corks of a net as it is being drawn: nearly every person is more or less attracted by the beauty of the dotted line. Now, it is almost always possible, not only to secure such a continuity in the arrangement or boundaries of objects which, like these bridge arches or the corks of the net, are actually connected with each other, but—and this is a still more noble and interesting kind of continuity—among features which appear at first entirely separate. Thus the towers of Ehrenbreitstein, on the left, in Fig. 32, appear at first independent of each other; but when I give their profile, on a larger scale, Fig. 35, the reader may easily perceive that there is a subtle cadence and harmony among them. The reason of this is, that they are all bounded by one grand curve, traced by the 148 dotted line; out of the seven towers, four precisely touch this curve, the others only falling hack from it here and there to keep the eye from discovering it too easily.

206. Well, since curves are more beautiful than straight lines, it’s important for a good composition that the continuity of its object, mass, or color should ideally be in curves, rather than straight or angular lines. One of the simplest and most attractive examples of a graceful continuity like this can be seen in the line formed by the corks of a net as it’s being pulled: almost everyone is drawn to the beauty of that dotted line. It’s almost always possible to achieve such continuity in the arrangement or boundaries of objects that are, like these bridge arches or the corks of the net, actually connected to each other, but—this is an even more noble and interesting type of continuity—among features that seem completely separate at first glance. For instance, the towers of Ehrenbreitstein, on the left, in Fig. 32, initially appear independent of one another; however, when I present their profile on a larger scale, Fig. 35, the reader can easily notice a subtle rhythm and harmony among them. The reason for this is that they are all outlined by one grand curve, traced by the dotted line; out of the seven towers, four precisely touch this curve, while the others slightly fall back from it in places to prevent the eye from spotting it too easily.

Fig. 36.
Fig. 36.

207. And it is not only always possible to obtain continuities of this kind: it is, in drawing large forests or mountain forms, essential to truth. The towers of Ehrenbreitstein might or might not in reality fall into such a curve, but assuredly the basalt rock on which they stand did; for all mountain forms not cloven into absolute precipice, nor covered by straight slopes of shales, are more or less governed by these great curves, it being one of the aims of Nature in all her work to produce them. The reader must already know this, if he has been able to sketch at all among mountains; if not, let him merely draw for himself, carefully, the outlines of any low hills accessible to him, where they are tolerably steep, or of the woods which grow on them. The steeper shore of the Thames at Maidenhead, or any of the downs at Brighton or Dover, or, even nearer, about Croydon (as Addington Hills), is easily accessible to a Londoner; and he will soon find not only how constant, but how graceful the curvature is. Graceful curvature is distinguished from ungraceful by two characters; first in its moderation, that is to say, its close approach to straightness in some part of its course;[58] and, secondly, by its variation, that is to say, its never remaining equal in degree at different parts of its course.

207. It's not only always possible to get continuities like this; it's actually crucial for accuracy when drawing large forests or mountain shapes. The towers of Ehrenbreitstein might curve in reality, or they might not, but the basalt rock they sit on definitely does; because all mountain shapes that aren’t sheer cliffs or covered by straight shale slopes are influenced by these big curves. One of Nature’s goals in all her work is to create them. The reader should already know this if they've managed to sketch in the mountains; if not, they can simply draw the outlines of any nearby low hills that have a decent slope, or the woods growing on them. The steeper bank of the Thames at Maidenhead, or any of the hills at Brighton or Dover, or even closer to Croydon (like Addington Hills), are easily reachable for someone from London; and they'll soon see how consistent and graceful the curvature is. Graceful curvature is different from ungraceful curvature in two ways: first, it’s moderate, meaning it closely approaches straightness at some points; and second, it varies, meaning it never stays the same degree at different parts of its path.

208. This variation is itself twofold in all good curves.

208. This variation is actually twofold in all good curves.

149

149

Fig. 37.
Fig. 37.

A. There is, first, a steady change through the whole line, from less to more curvature, or more to less, so that no part of the line is a segment of a circle, or can be drawn by compasses in any way whatever. Thus, in Fig. 36, a is a bad curve because it is part of a circle, and is therefore monotonous throughout; but b is a good curve, because it continually changes its direction as it proceeds.

A. First, there’s a consistent change along the entire line, from less curvature to more, or vice versa, so that no part of the line is just a segment of a circle or can be drawn with compasses in any way. Therefore, in Fig. 36, a is an ineffective curve because it’s part of a circle and is therefore monotonous throughout; however, b is an effective curve because it continually changes its direction as it goes along.

Fig. 38.
Fig. 38.

The first difference between good and bad drawing of tree boughs consists in observance of this fact. Thus, when I put leaves on the line b, as in Fig. 37, you can immediately feel the springiness of character dependent on the changefulness of the curve. You may put leaves on the other line for yourself, but you will find you cannot make a right tree spray of it. For all tree boughs, large or small, as well as all noble natural lines whatsoever, agree in this character; and it is a point of primal necessity that your eye should always seize and your hand trace it. Here are two more portions of good curves, with leaves put on them at the extremities instead of the flanks, Fig. 38; and two showing the 150 arrangement of masses of foliage seen a little farther off, Fig. 39, which you may in like manner amuse yourself by turning into segments of circles—you will see with what result. I hope however you have beside you, by this time, many good studies of tree boughs carefully made, in which you may study variations of curvature in their most complicated and lovely forms.[59]

The first difference between good and bad drawing of tree branches is in recognizing this fact. So, when I place leaves on the line b, as seen in Fig. 37, you can immediately sense the lively character that depends on the flow of the curve. You can add leaves on the other line for yourself, but you will find you can't create a proper tree branch from it. For all tree branches, big or small, as well as all elegant natural lines in general, share this characteristic; it's essential that your eye always captures it and your hand traces it. Here are two more sections of good curves, with leaves placed at the tips instead of the sides, Fig. 38; and two showing the arrangement of clusters of leaves seen from a bit farther away, Fig. 39, which you can also experiment with turning into segments of circles—you’ll see what happens. I hope you have, by now, many well-made studies of tree branches nearby, where you can explore variations of curvature in their most intricate and beautiful forms.[59]

Fig. 39.
Fig. 39.
Fig. 40.
Fig. 40.

209. B. Not only does every good curve vary in general tendency, but it is modulated, as it proceeds, by myriads of subordinate curves. Thus the outlines of a tree trunk are never as at a, Fig. 40, but as at b. So also in waves, clouds, and all other nobly formed masses. Thus another essential difference between good and bad drawing, or good and bad sculpture, depends on the quantity and refinement of minor curvatures carried, by good work, into the great lines. Strictly speaking, however, this is not variation in large curves, but composition of large curves out of small ones; it is an increase in the quantity of the beautiful element, but not a change in its nature.

209. B. Not only does every good curve change in general direction, but it is also shaped along the way by countless smaller curves. So, the outlines of a tree trunk are never like at a, Fig. 40, but like at b. This is also true for waves, clouds, and all other beautifully formed shapes. Therefore, another key difference between good and bad drawing, or good and bad sculpture, is based on the amount and refinement of the minor curves that good work incorporates into the larger lines. However, strictly speaking, this isn't a variation in the large curves, but rather the composition of large curves from smaller ones; it’s an increase in the quantity of the beautiful element, but not a change in its essence.

151

151

5. THE LAW OF RADIATION.

5. THE RADIATION LAW.

210. We have hitherto been concerned only with the binding of our various objects into beautiful lines or processions. The next point we have to consider is, how we may unite these lines or processions themselves, so as to make groups of them.

210. So far, we've focused only on arranging our different objects into beautiful lines or processions. The next thing we need to think about is how to connect these lines or processions themselves to create groups of them.

Fig. 41.
Fig. 41.
Fig. 42.
Fig. 42.

Now, there are two kinds of harmonies of lines. One in which, moving more or less side by side, they variously, but evidently with consent, retire from or approach each other, intersect or oppose each other; currents of melody in music, for different voices, thus approach and cross, fall and rise, in harmony; so the waves of the sea, as they approach the shore, flow into one another or cross, but with a great unity through all; and so various lines of composition often flow harmoniously through and across each other in a picture. But the most simple and perfect connection of lines is by radiation; that is, by their all springing from one point, or closing towards it; and this harmony is often, in Nature almost always, united with the other; as the boughs of trees, though they intersect and play amongst each other irregularly, indicate by their general tendency their origin from one root. An essential part of the beauty of all vegetable form is in this radiation; it is seen most simply in a single flower or leaf, as in a convolvulus bell, or chestnut leaf; but more beautifully in the complicated arrangements of the large boughs and sprays. For a leaf is only a flat piece of radiation; but the tree throws its branches on all sides, and even in every profile view of it, which presents a radiation more or less correspondent to that of its leaves, it is more beautiful, because varied by the freedom of the separate branches. I believe it has been ascertained that, in all trees, the angle at which, in their leaves, the lateral ribs are set on their central rib is approximately the same at which the branches leave the great stem; and thus each section of the tree would present a kind of magnified view of its own leaf, were it not for the interfering force of gravity on the masses of foliage. This force in proportion to their age, and the 152 lateral leverage upon them, bears them downwards at the extremities, so that, as before noticed, the lower the bough grows on the stem, the more it droops (Fig. 17, p. 67); besides this, nearly all beautiful trees have a tendency to divide into two or more principal masses, which give a prettier and more complicated symmetry than if one stem ran all the way up the center. Fig. 41 may thus be considered the simplest type of tree radiation, as opposed to leaf radiation. In this figure, however, all secondary ramification is unrepresented, for the sake of simplicity; but if we take one half of such a tree, and merely give two secondary branches to each main branch (as represented in the general branch structure shown at b, Fig. 18, p. 68), we shall have the form Fig. 42. This I consider the perfect general type of tree structure; and it is curiously connected with certain forms of Greek, Byzantine, and Gothic ornamentation, into the discussion of which, however, we must not enter here. It will be observed, that both in Figs. 41 and 42 all the branches so spring from the main stem as very nearly to suggest their united radiation from the root R. This is by no means universally the case; but if the branches do not bend towards a point in the root, they at least converge to some point or other. In the examples in Fig. 43, the mathematical center of curvature, a, is thus, in one case, on the ground, at some distance from the 153 root, and in the other, near the top of the tree. Half, only, of each tree is given, for the sake of clearness: Fig. 44 gives both sides of another example, in which the origins of curvature are below the root. As the positions of such points may be varied without end, and as the arrangement of the lines is also farther complicated by the fact of the boughs springing for the most part in a spiral order round the tree, and at proportionate distances, the systems of curvature which regulate the form of vegetation are quite infinite. Infinite is a word easily said, and easily written, and people do not always mean it when they say it; in this case I do mean it: the number of systems is incalculable, and even to furnish anything like a representative number of types, I should have to give several hundreds of figures such as Fig. 44.[60]

Now, there are two types of harmony in lines. One involves lines moving more or less side by side, that variously retreat from or approach each other, intersecting or opposing one another; melodies in music for different voices accordingly come together and overlap, rising and falling in harmony; similarly, the waves of the sea, as they approach the shore, merge or cross each other, yet maintain a strong unity overall; and so various lines of composition often harmoniously flow through and across one another in a picture. The simplest and most perfect connection of lines is through radiation; that is, when they all originate from a single point or converge towards it; this harmony often, almost always in nature, combines with the other type; as the branches of trees, although they intersect and curve around each other irregularly, indicate a general tendency that shows they come from one root. A key aspect of the beauty of all plant forms lies in this radiation; it's seen most simply in a single flower or leaf, like a morning glory bell or a chestnut leaf; but it’s more beautiful in the intricate arrangements of the larger branches and sprays. A leaf is just a flat piece of radiation; the tree extends its branches in all directions, and even in every profile view, which corresponds to the radiation of its leaves, it looks more beautiful because it's varied by the freedom of the separate branches. It seems to have been established that, in all trees, the angle at which the lateral ribs are attached to the central rib of their leaves is roughly the same as the angle at which the branches leave the main trunk; thus, each section of the tree would show a kind of enlarged view of its own leaf, if not for the downward pull of gravity on the masses of foliage. This force, in proportion to their age, and the lateral leverage acting on them, pulls them downwards at the ends, so that, as previously noted, the lower the branch grows on the trunk, the more it droops. Furthermore, almost all beautiful trees tend to split into two or more main masses, which create a prettier and more intricate symmetry than if a single trunk went all the way up the center. A basic type of tree radiation, as opposed to leaf radiation, can thus be considered. In this figure, however, all secondary branching is omitted for simplicity; but if we take one half of such a tree and just add two secondary branches to each main branch (as shown in the general branch structure at b), we will arrive at a form. I consider this the perfect general type of tree structure; interestingly, it's linked with certain forms of Greek, Byzantine, and Gothic ornamentation, though we won’t delve into that here. It can be noticed that in both Figs. all branches emerge from the main trunk in a way that suggests their combined radiation from the root R. This is not always the case; however, if the branches don't point towards a single point at the root, they at least converge toward some other point. In the examples, the mathematical center of curvature is, in one case, on the ground at some distance from the root, and in the other, near the top of the tree. Only half of each tree is shown for clarity: gives both sides of another example, where the origins of curvature are below the root. Since the positions of such points can vary infinitely, and since the arrangement of lines is further complicated by the fact that branches mostly grow in a spiral pattern around the tree and at proportional distances, the systems of curvature regulating plant forms are practically limitless. "Infinite" is a term that's easy to say and write, and people don’t always mean it when they use it; in this instance, I genuinely mean it: the number of systems is incalculable, and even to provide a representation of just a few types, I would need to show several hundred figures.

Fig. 43. Fig. 44.
Fig. 43. Fig. 44.
Fig. 45.
Fig. 45.

211. Thus far, however, we have only been speaking of the great relations of stem and branches. The forms of the branches themselves are regulated by still more subtle laws, for they occupy an intermediate position between the form of 154 the tree and of the leaf. The leaf has a flat ramification; the tree a completely rounded one; the bough is neither rounded nor flat, but has a structure exactly balanced between the two, in a half-flattened, half-rounded flake, closely resembling in shape one of the thick leaves of an artichoke or the flake of a fir cone; by combination forming the solid mass of the tree, as the leaves compose the artichoke head. I have before pointed out to you the general resemblance of these branch flakes to an extended hand; but they may be more accurately represented by the ribs of a boat. If you can imagine a very broad-headed and flattened boat applied by its keel to the end of a main branch,[61] as in Fig. 45, the lines which its ribs will take, supposing them outside of its timbers instead of inside, and the general contour of it, as seen in different directions, from above and below, will give you the closest approximation to the perspectives and foreshortenings of a well-grown branch-flake. Fig. 25 above, p. 89, is an unharmed and unrestrained shoot of healthy young oak; and, if you compare it with Fig. 45, you will understand at once the action of the lines of leafage; the boat only failing as a type in that its ribs are too nearly parallel to each other at the sides, while the bough sends all its ramification well forwards, rounding to the head, that it may accomplish its part in the outer form of the whole tree, yet always 155 securing the compliance with the great universal law that the branches nearest the root bend most back; and, of course, throwing some always back as well as forwards; the appearance of reversed action being much increased, and rendered more striking and beautiful, by perspective. Fig. 25 shows the perspective of such a bough as it is seen from below; Fig. 46 gives rudely the look it would have from above.

211. So far, we've only talked about the main relationships between the trunk and branches. The shapes of the branches are governed by even more subtle laws since they sit in between the shape of the 154 tree and the leaf. The leaf has a flat structure; the tree has a completely rounded shape; the branch is neither fully rounded nor flat but has a form that is perfectly balanced between the two, resembling a half-flattened, half-rounded flake, similar in shape to one of the thick leaves of an artichoke or the scale of a fir cone; together, they form the solid mass of the tree, just as leaves make up the artichoke head. I've previously pointed out that these branch flakes generally resemble an extended hand, but they can be more accurately compared to the ribs of a boat. If you can picture a broad-headed and flattened boat placed on its keel at the end of a main branch, [61] as in Fig. 45, the lines that its ribs would create—if imagined outside its frame instead of inside—and the overall shape of it, viewed from different angles, above and below, will give you the closest likeness to the perspectives and foreshortenings of a well-developed branch flake. Fig. 25 above, p. 89, is a healthy and free-growing shoot of young oak; if you compare it with Fig. 45, you'll instantly grasp the dynamics of the leaf lines; the boat fails as a model only because its ribs are too parallel at the sides, while the branch sends all its branching well forward, curving towards the tip, so it can fulfill its role in the overall shape of the tree, while still adhering to the great universal rule that the branches closest to the trunk bend back the most, and, of course, always throwing some back as well as forwards; the appearance of this reversed action is emphasized and made more striking and beautiful by perspective. Fig. 25 shows the perspective of such a branch as seen from below; Fig. 46 roughly depicts how it would look from above.

Fig. 46.
Fig. 46.

212. You may suppose, if you have not already discovered, what subtleties of perspective and light and shade are involved in the drawing of these branch-flakes, as you see them in different directions and actions; now raised, now depressed: touched on the edges by the wind, or lifted up and bent back so as to show all the white under surfaces of the leaves shivering in light, as the bottom of a boat rises white with spray at the surge-crest; or drooping in quietness towards the dew of the grass beneath them in windless mornings, or bowed down under oppressive grace of deep-charged snow. Snow time, by the way, is one of the best for practice in the placing of tree masses; but you will only be able to understand them thoroughly by beginning with a single bough and a few leaves placed tolerably even, as in Fig. 38, p. 149. First one with three leaves, a central and two lateral ones, as at a; then with five, as at b, and so on; directing your whole attention to the expression, both by contour and light and shade, of the boat-like arrangements, which, in your earlier studies, will have been a good deal confused, partly owing to your inexperience, and partly to the depth of shade, or absolute blackness of mass required in those studies.

212. You might already realize, if you haven't figured it out yet, how intricate the play of perspective, light, and shadow is when drawing these branch-flakes, as you observe them from different angles and in various positions; sometimes lifted, sometimes lowered: touched by the wind at the edges, or raised and bent back to reveal all the white undersides of the leaves shimmering in the light, like the bottom of a boat glistening with spray at the crest of a wave; or drooping gently toward the dew on the grass below in calm morning air, or weighed down by the heavy grace of deep snow. Speaking of snow, it’s one of the best times to practice placing tree masses; however, you'll only grasp them fully by starting with a single branch and a few leaves arranged fairly evenly, as in Fig. 38, p. 149. First, try one with three leaves: a central one and two on the sides, as at a; then go for five leaves, as at b, and so on; concentrate entirely on expressing the boat-like arrangements, which will have felt quite confusing in your earlier studies, partly due to your lack of experience and partly because of the deep shadows or solid black masses needed in those studies.

213. One thing more remains to be noted, and I will let 156 you out of the wood. You see that in every generally representative figure I have surrounded the radiating branches with a dotted line: such lines do indeed terminate every vegetable form; and you see that they are themselves beautiful curves, which, according to their flow, and the width or narrowness of the spaces they inclose, characterize the species of tree or leaf, and express its free or formal action, its grace of youth or weight of age. So that, throughout all the freedom of her wildest foliage, Nature is resolved on expressing an encompassing limit; and marking a unity in the whole tree, caused not only by the rising of its branches from a common root, but by their joining in one work, and being bound by a common law. And having ascertained this, let us turn back for a moment to a point in leaf structure which, I doubt not, you must already have observed in your earlier studies, but which it is well to state here, as connected with the unity of the branches in the great trees. You must have noticed, I should think, that whenever a leaf is compound,—that is to say, divided into other leaflets which in any way repeat or imitate the form of the whole leaf,—those leaflets are not symmetrical, as the whole leaf is, but always smaller on the side towards the point of the great leaf, so as to express their subordination to it, and show, even when they are pulled off, that they are not small independent leaves, but members of one large leaf.

213. One more thing needs to be mentioned, and then I’ll let you off the hook. You’ll notice that in every generally representative figure, I’ve outlined the radiating branches with a dotted line: these lines actually define every plant form; they are beautiful curves that, depending on their shape and the width or narrowness of the spaces they enclose, characterize the type of tree or leaf, expressing its free or formal movement, its youthful grace or mature weight. So, even amidst the freedom of its wildest foliage, Nature aims to communicate a defining limit and establish a unity in the entire tree, not just because its branches rise from a common root, but also because they come together in a single existence and adhere to a common principle. Having established this, let’s briefly revisit a point in leaf structure that, I’m sure, you've already encountered in your earlier studies, but it’s important to mention here as it relates to the unity of the branches in large trees. You’ve likely observed that whenever a leaf is compound—that is, divided into smaller leaflets that somewhat replicate the whole leaf’s shape—those leaflets are not symmetrical like the whole leaf. They are always smaller on the side towards the tip of the main leaf, indicating their dependency on it, and even when they are separated, they show that they are not small independent leaves, but part of one larger leaf.

214. Fig. 47, which is a block-plan of a leaf of columbine, without its minor divisions on the edges, will illustrate the principle clearly. It is composed of a central large mass, A, and two lateral ones, of which the one on the right only is lettered, B. Each of these masses is again composed of three others, a central and two lateral ones; but observe, the minor one, a of A, is balanced equally by its opposite; but the minor b 1 of B is larger than its opposite b 2. Again, each of these minor masses is divided into three; but while the central mass, A of A, is symmetrically divided, the B of B is unsymmetrical, its largest side-lobe being lowest. Again, in b 2, the lobe c 1 (its lowest lobe in relation to B) is larger than c 2; 157 and so also in b 1. So that universally one lobe of a lateral leaf is always larger than the other, and the smaller lobe is that which is nearer the central mass; the lower leaf, as it were by courtesy, subduing some of its own dignity or power, in the immediate presence of the greater or captain leaf, and always expressing, therefore, its own subordination and secondary character. This law is carried out even in single leaves. As far as I know, the upper half, towards the point of the spray, is always the smaller; and a slightly different curve, more convex at the springing, is used for the lower side, giving an exquisite variety to the form of the whole leaf; so that one of the chief elements in the beauty of every subordinate leaf throughout the tree is made to depend on its confession of its own lowliness and subjection.

214. Fig. 47, which is a block plan of a columbine leaf, without its minor edge divisions, illustrates the principle clearly. It consists of a large central mass, A, and two side masses, with only the one on the right labeled B. Each of these masses is made up of three smaller parts: a central one and two lateral ones. Notice that the minor part a of A is balanced equally by its opposite, while the minor b 1 of B is larger than its opposite b 2. Furthermore, each of these minor parts is divided into three; however, while the central mass A of A is symmetrically divided, B of B is asymmetrical, with its largest side lobe being the lowest. Additionally, in b 2, the lobe c 1 (the lowest lobe in relation to B) is larger than c 2; and the same is true for b 1. This shows that one lobe of a lateral leaf is always larger than the other, and the smaller lobe is closer to the central mass; the lower leaf, as if to show courtesy, diminishes some of its own power in the presence of the larger or main leaf, always expressing its own subordination and secondary role. This principle holds even in single leaves. As far as I know, the upper half, towards the tip of the spray, is always the smaller part; and a slightly different curve, more convex at the base, is used for the lower side, providing a beautiful variety to the shape of the entire leaf. Thus, one of the main aspects of the beauty of every subordinate leaf throughout the tree relies on its acknowledgment of its own humility and subservience.

Fig. 47.
Fig. 47.

215. And now, if we bring together in one view the principles we have ascertained in trees, we shall find they may be summed under four great laws; and that all perfect[62] 158 vegetable form is appointed to express these four laws in noble balance of authority.

215. Now, if we take a look at the principles we've discovered in trees, we can see that they can be summed up under four main laws. All perfect plant forms are designed to express these four laws in a harmonious balance of authority. 158

1. Support from one living root.

1. Support from one living root.

2. Radiation, or tendency of force from some one given point, either in the root or in some stated connection with it.

2. Radiation, or the tendency of force from a specific point, either at the root or in some defined relationship with it.

3. Liberty of each bough to seek its own livelihood and happiness according to its needs, by irregularities of action both in its play and its work, either stretching out to get its required nourishment from light and rain, by finding some sufficient breathing-place among the other branches, or knotting and gathering itself up to get strength for any load which its fruitful blossoms may lay upon it, and for any stress of its storm-tossed luxuriance of leaves; or playing hither and thither as the fitful sunshine may tempt its young shoots, in their undecided states of mind about their future life.

3. Each branch has the freedom to pursue its own needs for survival and happiness, acting in ways that may be unpredictable in both its growth and its work. It reaches out for nourishment from light and rain, finds enough space to breathe among the other branches, or twists and gathers itself to gain strength for the weight of its blossoms and the challenges of its stormy, lush leaves. It also moves back and forth as the changing sunlight encourages its young shoots, which are still figuring out their future direction.

4. Imperative requirement of each bough to stop within certain limits, expressive of its kindly fellowship and fraternity with the boughs in its neighborhood; and to work with them according to its power, magnitude, and state of health, to bring out the general perfectness of the great curve, and circumferent stateliness of the whole tree.

4. Each branch must stay within certain limits, showing its friendly connection and brotherhood with the nearby branches; and work with them based on its strength, size, and health, to contribute to the overall beauty of the tree’s shape and the impressive stature of the whole tree.

216. I think I may leave you, unhelped, to work out the moral analogies of these laws; you may, perhaps, however, be a little puzzled to see the meaning of the second one. It typically expresses that healthy human actions should spring radiantly (like rays) from some single heart motive; the most beautiful systems of action taking place when this motive lies at the root of the whole life, and the action is clearly seen to proceed from it; while also many beautiful secondary systems of action taking place from motives not so deep or central, but in some beautiful subordinate connection with the central or life motive.

216. I think I might leave you to figure out the moral implications of these laws on your own; you may, however, be a bit confused by the meaning of the second one. It usually suggests that healthy human actions should radiate from a single core motive, like rays of light. The most beautiful actions happen when this motive is at the foundation of someone's entire life and it's clear that the actions flow from it. Additionally, there can be many lovely secondary actions derived from motives that aren't as deep or central, but are still beautifully connected to the main life motive.

The other laws, if you think over them, you will find equally significative; and as you draw trees more and more in 159 their various states of health and hardship, you will be every day more struck by the beauty of the types they present of the truths most essential for mankind to know;[63] and you will see what this vegetation of the earth, which is necessary to our life, first, as purifying the air for us and then as food, and just as necessary to our joy in all places of the earth,—what these trees and leaves, I say, are meant to teach us as we contemplate them, and read or hear their lovely language, written or spoken for us, not in frightful black letters nor in dull sentences, but in fair green and shadowy shapes of waving words, and blossomed brightness of odoriferous wit, and sweet whispers of unintrusive wisdom, and playful morality.

The other laws, if you think about them, will also seem significant; and as you draw trees more and more in their various states of health and struggle, you’ll be increasingly struck by the beauty of the lessons they offer about the truths that are essential for humanity to understand; and you’ll realize what this vegetation of the earth, which is essential for our survival—first, by purifying the air for us, and then as food, and just as crucial for our happiness everywhere—what these trees and leaves, I mean, are meant to teach us as we observe them, and read or hear their beautiful messages, written or spoken for us, not in ugly black letters or boring sentences, but in graceful green and shadowy forms of flowing words, and vibrant expressions of fragrant wit, and gentle whispers of unobtrusive wisdom, and playful morality.

217. Well, I am sorry myself to leave the wood, whatever my reader may be; but leave it we must, or we shall compose no more pictures to-day.

217. Well, I'm sorry to leave the woods, no matter what my reader thinks; but we have to leave, or we won't create any more pictures today.

This law of radiation, then, enforcing unison of action in arising from, or proceeding to, some given point, is perhaps, of all principles of composition, the most influential in producing the beauty of groups of form. Other laws make them forcible or interesting, but this generally is chief in rendering them beautiful. In the arrangement of masses in pictures, it is constantly obeyed by the great composers; but, like the law of principality, with careful concealment of its imperativeness, the point to which the lines of main 160 curvature are directed being very often far away out of the picture. Sometimes, however, a system of curves will be employed definitely to exalt, by their concurrence, the value of some leading object, and then the law becomes traceable enough.

This law of radiation, which ensures that everything moves toward or stems from a specific point, is arguably the most important principle of composition when it comes to creating beauty in groups of shapes. Other laws make them powerful or interesting, but this one is key in making them beautiful. In the arrangement of shapes in artworks, the great artists consistently follow this law; however, like the law of dominance, it often hides its importance well, as the point to which the main curves are directed can frequently be far away from the artwork. Sometimes, though, a series of curves is intentionally used to enhance the significance of a main subject, making this law clear and evident.

218. In the instance before us, the principal object being, as we have seen, the tower on the bridge, Turner has determined that his system of curvature should have its origin in the top of this tower. The diagram Fig. 34, p. 145, compared with Fig. 32, p. 137, will show how this is done. One curve joins the two towers, and is continued by the back of the figure sitting on the bank into the piece of bent timber. This is a limiting curve of great importance, and Turner has drawn a considerable part of it with the edge of the timber very carefully, and then led the eye up to the sitting girl by some white spots and indications of a ledge in the bank; then the passage to the tops of the towers cannot be missed.

218. In the situation we're looking at, the main focus is the tower on the bridge. Turner has decided that his curvature system should start from the top of this tower. The diagram Fig. 34, p. 145, compared with Fig. 32, p. 137, will demonstrate how this is achieved. One curve connects the two towers and continues along the back of the figure sitting on the bank into the piece of bent timber. This is a crucial limiting curve, and Turner has meticulously drawn a significant portion of it with the edge of the timber. He then guides the viewer's eye up to the sitting girl using some white dots and hints of a ledge in the bank; thus, the transition to the tops of the towers is unmistakable.

219. The next curve is begun and drawn carefully for half an inch of its course by the rudder; it is then taken up by the basket and the heads of the figures, and leads accurately to the tower angle. The gunwales of both the boats begin the next two curves, which meet in the same point; and all are centralized by the long reflection which continues the vertical lines.

219. The next curve starts and is carefully drawn for half an inch by the rudder; then it’s picked up by the basket and the heads of the figures, leading directly to the tower corner. The gunwales of both boats start the next two curves, which converge at the same point; and all are centered by the long reflection that extends the vertical lines.

220. Subordinated to this first system of curves there is another, begun by the small crossing bar of wood inserted in the angle behind the rudder; continued by the bottom of the bank on which the figure sits, interrupted forcibly beyond it,[64] but taken up again by the water-line leading to the bridge foot, and passing on in delicate shadows under the arches, not easily shown in so rude a diagram, towards the other extremity 161 of the bridge. This is a most important curve, indicating that the force and sweep of the river have indeed been in old times under the large arches; while the antiquity of the bridge is told us by a long tongue of land, either of carted rubbish, or washed down by some minor stream, which has interrupted this curve, and is now used as a landing-place for the boats, and for embarkation of merchandise, of which some bales and bundles are laid in a heap, immediately beneath the great tower. A common composer would have put these bales to one side or the other, but Turner knows better; he uses them as a foundation for his tower, adding to its importance precisely as the sculptured base adorns a pillar; and he farther increases the aspect of its height by throwing the reflection of it far down in the nearer water. All the great composers have this same feeling about sustaining their vertical masses: you will constantly find Prout using the artifice most dexterously (see, for instance, the figure with the wheelbarrow under the great tower, in the sketch of St. Nicholas, at Prague, and the white group of figures under the tower in the sketch of Augsburg[65]); and Veronese, Titian, and Tintoret continually put their principal figures at bases of pillars. Turner found out their secret very early, the most prominent instance of his composition on this principle being the drawing of Turin from the Superga, in Hakewell's Italy. I chose Fig. 20, already given to illustrate foliage drawing, chiefly because, being another instance of precisely the same arrangement, it will serve to convince you of its being intentional. There, the vertical, formed by the larger tree, is continued by the figure of the farmer, and that of one of the smaller trees by his stick. The lines of the interior mass of the bushes radiate, under the law of radiation, from a point behind the farmer's head; but their outline curves are carried on and repeated, under the law of continuity, by the curves of the dog and boy—by the way, note the remarkable instance in these of the use of darkest lines towards the light—all more or less guiding the 162 eye up to the right, in order to bring it finally to the Keep of Windsor, which is the central object of the picture, as the bridge tower is in the Coblentz. The wall on which the boy climbs answers the purpose of contrasting, both in direction and character, with these greater curves; thus corresponding as nearly as possible to the minor tongue of land in the Coblentz. This, however, introduces us to another law, which we must consider separately.

220. Underneath this first set of curves is another one, starting with the small wooden crossbar positioned in the angle behind the rudder; it continues along the bottom of the bank where the figure sits, but is abruptly interrupted beyond it, [64] before picking up again at the waterline leading to the foot of the bridge, flowing gently in delicate shadows under the arches. It's not easy to represent in such a rough diagram, extending toward the opposite end of the bridge. This curve is very significant, revealing that the force and flow of the river were once strong beneath the large arches; the age of the bridge is indicated by a long spit of land—either man-made from carted debris or naturally formed from a minor stream—that interrupts this curve and is now used as a landing spot for boats and for loading goods. Some bales and bundles are stacked directly beneath the great tower. A typical artist might have placed these bales off to one side, but Turner does it differently; he uses them as a base for his tower, enhancing its significance much like a sculpted base enhances a column. He also emphasizes its height by reflecting it beautifully in the water nearby. All great artists share this instinct for supporting their vertical structures: you will often see Prout expertly employing this technique (for example, in the figure with the wheelbarrow beneath the great tower in his sketch of St. Nicholas in Prague, and the group of white figures under the tower in his Augsburg sketch [65]); Veronese, Titian, and Tintoret frequently position their main subjects at the bases of pillars. Turner discovered this principle early on, with one of his most notable compositions based on it being his drawing of Turin from the Superga, as seen in Hakewell's Italy. I selected Fig. 20, which has already been showcased to illustrate foliage drawing, primarily because it serves as another example of the same arrangement, proving its intentionality. Here, the vertical line created by the larger tree is continued by the farmer's figure, with one of the smaller trees being suggested by his stick. The lines of the bush mass radiate from a point behind the farmer's head, according to the law of radiation; meanwhile, their curved outlines are carried on and echoed by the shapes of the dog and boy, which notably utilize dark lines towards the light—all of which guide the eye upward to the right, ultimately leading it to the Keep of Windsor, which is the picture's central focus, just as the bridge tower is in Coblentz. The wall the boy climbs serves to contrast, both in direction and character, with these larger curves, closely aligning with the minor spit of land in Coblentz. However, this brings us to another principle that we must consider separately.

6. THE LAW OF CONTRAST.

6. THE LAW OF CONTRAST.

221. Of course the character of everything is best manifested by Contrast. Rest can only be enjoyed after labor; sound to be heard clearly, must rise out of silence; light is exhibited by darkness, darkness by light; and so on in all things. Now in art every color has an opponent color, which, if brought near it, will relieve it more completely than any other; so, also, every form and line may be made more striking to the eye by an opponent form or line near them; a curved line is set off by a straight one, a massy form by a slight one, and so on; and in all good work nearly double the value, which any given color or form would have uncombined, is given to each by contrast.[66]

221. The true nature of everything is best revealed through contrast. You can only appreciate rest after hard work; sound can only be clearly heard after silence; light is defined by darkness, and darkness by light; this principle applies to everything. In art, every color has a complementary color that enhances it more than any other; similarly, each shape and line can stand out more when paired with a contrasting shape or line nearby. A curved line is highlighted by a straight one, a heavy shape is accentuated by a delicate one, and so forth; in all great work, the combined effect of contrast nearly doubles the impact that any single color or shape would have on its own.[66]

In this case again, however, a too manifest use of the artifice vulgarizes a picture. Great painters do not commonly, or very visibly, admit violent contrast. They introduce it by stealth, and with intermediate links of tender change; allowing, indeed, the opposition to tell upon the mind as a surprise, but not as a shock.[67]

In this situation, though, an obvious use of trickery makes the artwork feel cheap. Great artists usually don’t openly show stark contrasts. They incorporate it subtly, using gentle transitions; allowing the contrast to hit you as a surprise, not a jolt.[67]

163

163

222. Thus in the rock of Ehrenbreitstein, Fig. 35, the main current of the lines being downwards, in a convex swell, they are suddenly stopped at the lowest tower by a counter series of beds, directed nearly straight across them. This adverse force sets off and relieves the great curvature, but it is reconciled to it by a series of radiating lines below, which at first sympathize with the oblique bar, then gradually get steeper, till they meet and join in the fall of the great curve. No passage, however intentionally monotonous, is ever introduced by a good artist without some slight counter current of this kind; so much, indeed, do the great composers feel the necessity of it, that they will even do things purposely ill or unsatisfactorily, in order to give greater value to their well-doing in other places. In a skillful poet's versification the so-called bad or inferior lines are not inferior because he could not do them better, but because he feels that if all were equally weighty, there would be no real sense of weight anywhere; if all were equally melodious, the melody itself would be fatiguing; and he purposely introduces the laboring or discordant verse, that the full ring may be felt in his main sentence, and the finished sweetness in his chosen rhythm.[68] And continually in painting, inferior artists destroy their work by giving too much of all that they think is good, while the great painter gives just enough to be enjoyed, and passes to an opposite kind of enjoyment, or to an inferior state of enjoyment: he gives a passage of rich, involved, exquisitely wrought color, then passes away into slight, and pale, and simple color; he paints for a minute or two with intense decision, then suddenly becomes, as the spectator thinks, slovenly; but he is not slovenly: you could not have taken any more decision from him just then; you have had as much 164 as is good for you: he paints over a great space of his picture forms of the most rounded and melting tenderness, and suddenly, as you think by a freak, gives you a bit as jagged and sharp as a leafless blackthorn. Perhaps the most exquisite piece of subtle contrast in the world of painting is the arrow point, laid sharp against the white side and among the flowing hair of Correggio's Antiope. It is quite singular how very little contrast will sometimes serve to make an entire group of forms interesting which would otherwise have been valueless. There is a good deal of picturesque material, for instance, in this top of an old tower, Fig. 48, tiles and stones and sloping roof not disagreeably mingled; but all would have been unsatisfactory if there had not happened to be that iron ring on the inner wall, which by its vigorous black circular line precisely opposes all the square and angular characters of the battlements and roof. Draw the tower without the ring, and see what a difference it will make.

222. In the rock of Ehrenbreitstein, Fig. 35, the main flow of the lines goes downwards in a convex curve, but they are suddenly halted at the lowest tower by a counter series of layers that run almost straight across them. This opposing force breaks up and eases the great curve, but it aligns with it through a series of radiating lines below, which at first match the angled line, then gradually steepen until they converge with the fall of the great curve. No passage, no matter how intentionally monotonous, is ever created by a good artist without some slight counterforce like this; indeed, great composers feel so strongly about it that they will even do things purposefully poorly or unsatisfactorily to make their successes in other areas stand out more. In a skillful poet's verses, the so-called bad or inferior lines aren't inferior because he couldn't do them better, but because he understands that if everything were equally significant, there would be no sense of weight anywhere; if all were equally melodious, the melody itself would become tiring; and he deliberately introduces heavier or discordant lines so that the full impact is felt in his main statements, and the refined sweetness in his chosen rhythm.[68] Similarly, in painting, lesser artists ruin their work by including too much of what they think is good, while the great painter balances just enough to provide enjoyment, moving to an opposite or lesser kind of enjoyment: he might create a section with rich, complex, beautifully crafted color, then shift to light, pale, and simple colors; he paints with great determination for a moment, then suddenly appears, as the viewer thinks, careless; but he is not careless: he couldn't have made it any more decisive at that moment; you have received as much as is beneficial for you: he paints large areas of his picture with forms of the softest and most flowing tenderness, and suddenly, as you might think randomly, gives you a segment that’s jagged and sharp like a leafless blackthorn. Perhaps the most exquisite example of subtle contrast in the world of painting is the sharp arrow point against the white side and among the flowing hair of Correggio's Antiope. It's remarkable how little contrast can sometimes make an entire group of forms interesting that would otherwise have no value. For instance, there’s quite a bit of picturesque material at the top of an old tower, Fig. 48, with tiles and stones and a sloping roof that blend nicely; but it would all be unsatisfactory if it weren't for that iron ring on the inner wall, which by its strong black circular line directly opposes all the square and angular features of the battlements and roof. Draw the tower without the ring, and see how much of a difference it makes.

Fig. 48.
Fig. 48.

223. One of the most important applications of the law of contrast is in association with the law of continuity, causing an unexpected but gentle break in a continuous series. This artifice is perpetual in music, and perpetual also in good illumination; the way in which little surprises of change are prepared in any current borders, or chains of ornamental 165 design, being one of the most subtle characteristics of the work of the good periods. We take, for instance, a bar of ornament between two written columns of an early fourteenth century MS., and at the first glance we suppose it to be quite monotonous all the way up, composed of a winding tendril, with alternately a blue leaf and a scarlet bud. Presently, however, we see that, in order to observe the law of principality, there is one large scarlet leaf instead of a bud, nearly half-way up, which forms a center to the whole rod; and when we begin to examine the order of the leaves, we find it varied carefully. Let A stand for scarlet bud, b for blue leaf, c for two blue leaves on one stalk, s for a stalk without a leaf, and R, for the large red leaf. Then, counting from the ground, the order begins as follows:

223. One of the most important uses of the law of contrast is in connection with the law of continuity, creating an unexpected but gentle break in a continuous series. This technique is constant in music and also in effective lighting; the way little surprises of change are introduced in any current boundaries or chains of decorative design is one of the most subtle features of quality craftsmanship in good periods. For example, consider a decorative bar between two written columns of an early fourteenth-century manuscript. At first glance, it seems quite monotonous, made up of a winding tendril with alternating blue leaves and scarlet buds. However, we soon notice that to follow the law of principal design, there is one large scarlet leaf instead of a bud, nearly halfway up, which serves as a focal point for the entire design; and when we start to look closely at the arrangement of the leaves, we find it is carefully varied. Let A represent a scarlet bud, b for a blue leaf, c for two blue leaves on one stalk, s for a stalk without a leaf, and R for the large red leaf. Then, counting from the base, the order starts as follows:

b, b, A; b, s, b, A; b, b, A; b, b, A; and we think we shall have two b's and an A all the way, when suddenly it becomes b, A; b, R; b, A; b, A; b, A; and we think we are going to have b, A continued; but no: here it becomes b, s; b, s; b, A; b, s; b, s; c, s; b, s; b, s; and we think we are surely going to have b, s continued, but behold it runs away to the end with a quick b, b, A; b, b, b, b![69] Very often, however, the designer is satisfied with one surprise, but I never saw a good illuminated border without one at least; and no series of any kind was ever introduced by a great composer in a painting without a snap somewhere. There is a pretty one in Turner's drawing of Rome with the large balustrade for a foreground in the Hakewell's Italy series: the single baluster struck out of the line, and showing the street below through the gap, simply makes the whole composition right, when otherwise it would have been stiff and absurd.

b, b, A; b, s, b, A; b, b, A; b, b, A; and we think we’ll have two b's and an A all the way, when suddenly it changes to b, A; b, R; b, A; b, A; b, A; and we believe we’re going to have b, A continued; but no: it turns into b, s; b, s; b, A; b, s; b, s; c, s; b, s; b, s; and we think we’re definitely going to have b, s continued, but lo and behold, it rushes to the end with a quick b, b, A; b, b, b, b![69] Very often, though, the designer is happy with one surprise, but I’ve never seen a good illuminated border without at least one; and no series of any kind was ever introduced by a great composer in a painting without a snap somewhere. There’s a nice one in Turner’s drawing of Rome with the large balustrade for a foreground in the Hakewell's Italy series: the single baluster breaking the line and showing the street below through the gap makes the whole composition come together, when otherwise it would have been stiff and absurd.

224. If you look back to Fig. 48 you will see, in the arrangement of the battlements, a simple instance of the use of such variation. The whole top of the tower, though actually three sides of a square, strikes the eye as a continuous series of five masses. The first two, on the left, somewhat 166 square and blank, then the next two higher and richer, the tiles being seen on their slopes. Both these groups being couples, there is enough monotony in the series to make a change pleasant; and the last battlement, therefore, is a little higher than the first two,—a little lower than the second two,—and different in shape from either. Hide it with your finger, and see how ugly and formal the other four battlements look.

224. If you look back to Fig. 48, you’ll see a straightforward example of variation in the way the battlements are arranged. Although the top of the tower is actually three sides of a square, it visually appears as a continuous series of five sections. The first two on the left are somewhat square and plain, while the next two are taller and more elaborate, with their tiles visible on the slopes. Since both groups are pairs, there's enough repetition to make a change feel refreshing; thus, the last battlement is slightly higher than the first two, slightly lower than the second two, and shaped differently than either. Cover it with your finger, and you'll see how unappealing and rigid the other four battlements look.

225. There are in this figure several other simple illustrations of the laws we have been tracing. Thus the whole shape of the walls' mass being square, it is well, still for the sake of contrast, to oppose it not only by the element of curvature, in the ring, and lines of the roof below, but by that of sharpness; hence the pleasure which the eye takes in the projecting point of the roof. Also, because the walls are thick and sturdy, it is well to contrast their strength with weakness; therefore we enjoy the evident decrepitude of this roof as it sinks between them. The whole mass being nearly white, we want a contrasting shadow somewhere; and get it, under our piece of decrepitude. This shade, with the tiles of the wall below, forms another pointed mass, necessary to the first by the law of repetition. Hide this inferior angle with your finger, and see how ugly the other looks. A sense of the law of symmetry, though you might hardly suppose it, has some share in the feeling with which you look at the battlements; there is a certain pleasure in the opposed slopes of their top, on one side down to the left, on the other to the right. Still less would you think the law of radiation had anything to do with the matter: but if you take the extreme point of the black shadow on the left for a center, and follow first the low curve of the eaves of the wall, it will lead you, if you continue it, to the point of the tower cornice; follow the second curve, the top of the tiles of the wall, and it will strike the top of the right-hand battlement; then draw a curve from the highest point of the angled battlement on the left, through the points of the roof and its dark echo; and you will see how the whole top of the tower radiates from this 167 lowest dark point. There are other curvatures crossing these main ones, to keep them from being too conspicuous. Follow the curve of the upper roof, it will take you to the top of the highest battlement; and the stones indicated at the right-hand side of the tower are more extended at the bottom, in order to get some less direct expression of sympathy, such as irregular stones may be capable of, with the general flow of the curves from left to right.

225. In this illustration, there are several other simple examples of the principles we've been discussing. Since the overall shape of the walls is square, it's effective to contrast it not just with the curves of the ring and the lines of the roof below, but also with sharpness; this is why the pointed part of the roof is visually pleasing. Additionally, because the walls are thick and solid, contrasting their strength with something more fragile heightens the effect; thus, we appreciate the clear decay of the roof as it sinks between them. With the entire structure being almost white, we need a contrasting shadow, which we find under our sign of decay. This shadow, along with the tiles at the base of the wall, creates another pointed shape that's necessary to the first due to the principle of repetition. Cover this lower angle with your finger, and you’ll see how unattractive the rest looks. You might not think symmetry plays a role, yet it affects how you perceive the battlements; there's a certain satisfaction in the opposing slopes at the top, one sloping down to the left, the other to the right. You might also be surprised to find that radiation law is relevant here: if you take the outer point of the black shadow on the left as a center and trace the low curve of the eaves, it will lead you, if you continue it, to the tip of the tower's cornice; trace the second curve along the top of the wall's tiles, and it will connect to the peak of the right-hand battlement. Then, draw a curve from the highest point of the left angled battlement through the roof points and its dark reflection, and you'll see how the entire top of the tower radiates from this lowest dark point. There are additional curves intersecting these main ones to prevent them from being too obvious. If you follow the curve of the upper roof, it will lead you to the top of the tallest battlement; also, the stones indicated on the right side of the tower are broader at the bottom to offer some subtler expression of sympathy, akin to what irregular stones can provide, with the overall flow of curves from left to right.

226. You may not readily believe, at first, that all these laws are indeed involved in so trifling a piece of composition. But, as you study longer, you will discover that these laws, and many more, are obeyed by the powerful composers in every touch: that literally, there is never a dash of their pencil which is not carrying out appointed purposes of this kind in twenty various ways at once; and that there is as much difference, in way of intention and authority, between one of the great composers ruling his colors, and a common painter confused by them, as there is between a general directing the march of an army, and an old lady carried off her feet by a mob.

226. You might not easily believe at first that all these rules are involved in such a trivial piece of work. But as you study longer, you'll find that these rules, and many more, are followed by talented composers in every touch: that every stroke of their pencil is fulfilling specific purposes in multiple ways at once; and that there's as much difference in intention and authority between a great composer controlling his colors and an ordinary painter overwhelmed by them, as there is between a general leading an army and an elderly woman swept away by a crowd.

7. THE LAW OF INTERCHANGE.

7. THE LAW OF EXCHANGE.

227. Closely connected with the law of contrast is a law which enforces the unity of opposite things, by giving to each a portion of the character of the other. If, for instance, you divide a shield into two masses of color, all the way down—suppose blue and white, and put a bar, or figure of an animal, partly on one division, partly on the other, you will find it pleasant to the eye if you make the part of the animal blue which comes upon the white half, and white which comes upon the blue half. This is done in heraldry, partly for the sake of perfect intelligibility, but yet more for the sake of delight in interchange of color, since, in all ornamentation whatever, the practice is continual, in the ages of good design.

227. Closely related to the law of contrast is a principle that emphasizes the unity of opposites by allowing each to reflect some of the characteristics of the other. For example, if you divide a shield into two sections of color—let’s say blue and white—and then add a bar or an image of an animal that spans both sections, it will be more visually pleasing if the part of the animal on the white side is blue and the part on the blue side is white. This approach is used in heraldry not only for clarity but also for the enjoyment derived from the interplay of colors, as this technique has been consistently employed in decorative designs throughout the ages.

228. Sometimes this alternation is merely a reversal of 168 contrasts; as that, after red has been for some time on one side, and blue on the other, red shall pass to blue's side and blue to red's. This kind of alternation takes place simply in four-quartered shields; in more subtle pieces of treatment, a little bit only of each color is carried into the other, and they are as it were dovetailed together. One of the most curious facts which will impress itself upon you, when you have drawn some time carefully from Nature in light and shade, is the appearance of intentional artifice with which contrasts of this alternate kind are produced by her; the artistry with which she will darken a tree trunk as long as it comes against light sky, and throw sunlight on it precisely at the spot where it comes against a dark hill, and similarly treat all her masses of shade and color, is so great, that if you only follow her closely, every one who looks at your drawing with attention will think that you have been inventing the most artificially and unnaturally delightful interchanges of shadow that could possibly be devised by human wit.

228. Sometimes this alternation is just a flip of contrasts; for example, after red has been on one side for a while and blue on the other, red will switch to blue's side and blue will move over to red's. This type of alternation happens simply in four-quartered shields; in more intricate designs, a bit of each color is blended into the other, as if they are interlocked. One of the most fascinating things you'll notice after you've spent some time drawing carefully from Nature in light and shadow is the apparent intention behind how she creates these alternating contrasts. The way she darkens a tree trunk when it faces a bright sky, and shines sunlight on it exactly where it meets a dark hill, and similarly manages all her areas of shade and color, is so remarkable that if you closely observe her, anyone who looks at your drawing with care will think that you've come up with the most artfully and unnaturally beautiful exchanges of shadow that could possibly be imagined by human creativity.

229. You will find this law of interchange insisted upon at length by Prout in his Lessons on Light and Shade: it seems of all his principles of composition to be the one he is most conscious of; many others he obeys by instinct, but this he formally accepts and forcibly declares.

229. You'll see this principle of interchange emphasized extensively by Prout in his Lessons on Light and Shade: it appears to be the one principle of composition he's most aware of; many others he follows instinctively, but this one he acknowledges and strongly asserts.

The typical purpose of the law of interchange is, of course, to teach us how opposite natures may be helped and strengthened by receiving each, as far as they can, some impress or reflection, or imparted power, from the other.

The main goal of the law of interchange is to show us how opposing natures can support and enhance each other by receiving, to the extent possible, some influence or energy from one another.

8. THE LAW OF CONSISTENCY.

8. THE LAW OF CONSISTENCY.

230. It is to be remembered, in the next place, that while contrast exhibits the characters of things, it very often neutralizes or paralyzes their power. A number of white things may be shown to be clearly white by opposition of a black thing, but if we want the full power of their gathered light, the black thing may be seriously in our way. Thus, while contrast displays things, it is unity and sympathy which 169 employ them, concentrating the power of several into a mass. And, not in art merely, but in all the affairs of life, the wisdom of man is continually called upon to reconcile these opposite methods of exhibiting, or using, the materials in his power. By change he gives them pleasantness, and by consistency value; by change he is refreshed, and by perseverance strengthened.

230. It should be noted that while contrast highlights the qualities of things, it often diminishes or weakens their impact. A bunch of white objects can be clearly seen as white when placed next to a black object, but if we want to harness the full power of their combined light, that black object can be quite obstructive. So, while contrast reveals things, it's unity and connection that truly utilize them, channeling the energy of many into a singular force. This isn't just in art, but in all areas of life, where human wisdom is constantly challenged to balance these opposing ways of displaying or using the resources available. Through change, he brings enjoyment, and with consistency, he adds value; change refreshes him, while perseverance strengthens him.

231. Hence many compositions address themselves to the spectator by aggregate force of color or line, more than by contrasts of either; many noble pictures are painted almost exclusively in various tones of red, or gray, or gold, so as to be instantly striking by their breadth of flush, or glow, or tender coldness, these qualities being exhibited only by slight and subtle use of contrast. Similarly as to form; some compositions associate massive and rugged forms, others slight and graceful ones, each with few interruptions by lines of contrary character. And, in general, such compositions possess higher sublimity than those which are more mingled in their elements. They tell a special tale, and summon a definite state of feeling, while the grand compositions merely please the eye.

231. Many artworks appeal to the viewer through the overall impact of color or line rather than through contrasts of either. Many impressive pictures are created almost entirely in different shades of red, gray, or gold, making them instantly eye-catching due to their rich tones, radiance, or soft coolness, with these qualities presented through only subtle contrasts. The same goes for form; some compositions combine bold and rough shapes, while others feature delicate and graceful ones, each with minimal interruptions from lines of different styles. Overall, such compositions have a greater sense of majesty than those that mix their elements more. They convey a specific message and evoke a particular emotional response, whereas grander compositions simply appeal to the eye.

232. This unity or breadth of character generally attaches most to the works of the greatest men; their separate pictures have all separate aims. We have not, in each, gray color set against somber, and sharp forms against soft, and loud passages against low: but we have the bright picture, with its delicate sadness; the somber picture, with its single ray of relief; the stern picture, with only one tender group of lines; the soft and calm picture, with only one rock angle at its flank; and so on. Hence the variety of their work, as well as its impressiveness. The principal bearing of this law, however, is on the separate masses or divisions of a picture: the character of the whole composition may be broken or various, if we please, but there must certainly be a tendency to consistent assemblage in its divisions. As an army may act on several points at once, but can only act effectually by having somewhere formed and regular masses, 170 and not wholly by skirmishers; so a picture may be various in its tendencies, but must be somewhere united and coherent in its masses. Good composers are always associating their colors in great groups; binding their forms together by encompassing lines, and securing, by various dexterities of expedient, what they themselves call "breadth:" that is to say, a large gathering of each kind of thing into one place; light being gathered to light, darkness to darkness, and color to color. If, however, this be done by introducing false lights or false colors, it is absurd and monstrous; the skill of a painter consists in obtaining breadth by rational arrangement of his objects, not by forced or wanton treatment of them. It is an easy matter to paint one thing all white, and another all black or brown; but not an easy matter to assemble all the circumstances which will naturally produce white in one place, and brown in another. Generally speaking, however, breadth will result in sufficient degree from fidelity of study: Nature is always broad; and if you paint her colors in true relations, you will paint them in majestic masses. If you find your work look broken and scattered, it is, in all probability, not only ill composed, but untrue.

232. This unity or breadth of character typically belongs most to the works of the greatest artists; their individual pieces have distinct goals. We don’t see gray against dark, sharp shapes against soft ones, or loud parts against quiet ones; instead, we see the vibrant piece with its subtle sadness, the dark piece with its single beam of relief, the stern piece featuring only one tender group of lines, the gentle and calm piece with just one rocky angle at its edge, and so forth. This is why their work is both diverse and impactful. The main idea behind this principle, however, focuses on the separate parts or sections of a piece: the overall character of the composition can be broken or varied as we wish, but there must certainly be an effort towards consistent arrangement in its sections. Just as an army can operate at multiple points simultaneously, but can only be effective if it forms organized groups, a piece may have various tendencies but must maintain unity and coherence in its sections. Good artists always group their colors into large collections, linking their shapes with surrounding lines, and securing, through various clever techniques, what they call "breadth": that is, a substantial gathering of each kind of element in one place; light gathering together, darkness pooling, and color merging. However, if this is done by inserting false lights or false colors, it becomes absurd and monstrous; a painter's skill lies in achieving breadth through a sensible arrangement of their elements, not through forced or reckless handling. It's easy to paint one thing entirely white and another completely black or brown, but it's not easy to gather all the aspects that will naturally produce white in one area and brown in another. Generally speaking, though, breadth will result sufficiently from accurate observation: Nature is always broad; if you paint her colors in true relationships, you’ll portray them in powerful masses. If your work appears broken and scattered, it’s probably not only poorly composed but also inaccurate.

233. The opposite quality to breadth, that of division or scattering of light and color, has a certain contrasting charm, and is occasionally introduced with exquisite effect by good composers.[70] Still it is never the mere scattering, but the order discernible through this scattering, which is the real source of pleasure; not the mere multitude, but the constellation of multitude. The broken lights in the work of a good painter wander like flocks upon the hills, not unshepherded, speaking of life and peace: the broken lights of a bad painter fall like hailstones, and are capable only of mischief, leaving it to be wished they were also of dissolution.

233. The opposite quality to breadth, which involves dividing or scattering light and color, has a certain contrasting charm and is occasionally introduced with beautiful effect by skilled composers. [70] Still, it’s not just the scattering itself, but the order that can be seen within this scattering that truly brings pleasure; it’s not just the sheer number, but the arrangement of that number. The fragmented lights in the work of a good painter move gracefully like flocks on the hills, not lost, conveying life and tranquility; while the fragmented lights of a bad painter are like hailstones, causing only chaos, making one wish they would just disappear.

171

171

9. THE LAW OF HARMONY.

9. THE LAW OF BALANCE.

234. This last law is not, strictly speaking, so much one of composition as of truth, but it must guide composition, and is properly, therefore, to be stated in this place.

234. This last law isn't just about composition; it's more about truth. However, it should guide composition, so it's important to mention it here.

Good drawing is, as we have seen, an abstract of natural facts; you cannot represent all that you would, but must continually be falling short, whether you will or no, of the force, or quantity, of Nature. Now, suppose that your means and time do not admit of your giving the depth of color in the scene, and that you are obliged to paint it paler. If you paint all the colors proportionately paler, as if an equal quantity of tint had been washed away from each of them, you still obtain a harmonious, though not an equally forcible, statement of natural fact. But if you take away the colors unequally, and leave some tints nearly as deep as they are in Nature, while others are much subdued, you have no longer a true statement. You cannot say to the observer, "Fancy all those colors a little deeper, and you will have the actual fact." However he adds in imagination, or takes away, something is sure to be still wrong. The picture is out of harmony.

Good drawing is, as we've seen, an abstract of natural facts; you can't capture everything you want to, and you'll always end up missing some of the impact or richness of Nature. Now, imagine you don’t have the time or resources to show the full depth of color in a scene, and you need to paint it lighter. If you lighten all the colors evenly, as if an equal amount of pigment has been removed from each, you'll still achieve a harmonious, though less intense, representation of the natural reality. But if you lighten the colors unevenly, leaving some hues almost as rich as they are in Nature while others are significantly toned down, then it’s no longer an accurate representation. You can't tell the viewer, "Just imagine all those colors a bit deeper, and you’ll see the real thing." No matter how much they adjust in their mind, something will still feel off. The picture loses its harmony.

235. It will happen, however, much more frequently, that you have to darken the whole system of colors, than to make them paler. You remember, in your first studies of color from Nature, you were to leave the passages of light which were too bright to be imitated, as white paper. But, in completing the picture, it becomes necessary to put color into them; and then the other colors must be made darker, in some fixed relation to them. If you deepen all proportionately, though the whole scene is darker than reality, it is only as if you were looking at the reality in a lower light: but if, while you darken some of the tints, you leave others undarkened, the picture is out of harmony, and will not give the impression of truth.

235. However, it will happen much more often that you need to darken the entire color scheme rather than make it lighter. You probably remember that in your early studies of color from nature, you were advised to leave the areas of light that were too bright to replicate as white paper. But when finishing the picture, it becomes essential to add color to those areas; then, the other colors must be made darker in some consistent relationship to them. If you darken all of them proportionately, even though the whole scene is darker than reality, it’s as if you’re viewing reality in lower light. But if you darken some of the shades while leaving others unchanged, the picture becomes unbalanced and won't convey a sense of truth.

236. It is not, indeed, possible to deepen all the colors so much as to relieve the lights in their natural degree, you 172 would merely sink most of your colors, if you tried to do so, into a broad mass of blackness: but it is quite possible to lower them harmoniously, and yet more in some parts of the picture than in others, so as to allow you to show the light you want in a visible relief. In well-harmonized pictures this is done by gradually deepening the tone of the picture towards the lighter parts of it, without materially lowering it in the very dark parts; the tendency in such pictures being, of course, to include large masses of middle tints. But the principal point to be observed in doing this, is to deepen the individual tints without dirtying or obscuring them. It is easy to lower the tone of the picture by washing it over with gray or brown; and easy to see the effect of the landscape, when its colors are thus universally polluted with black, by using the black convex mirror, one of the most pestilent inventions for falsifying Nature and degrading art which ever was put into an artist's hand.[71] For the thing required is not to darken pale yellow by mixing gray with it, but to deepen the pure yellow; not to darken crimson by mixing black with it, but by making it deeper and richer crimson: and thus the required effect could only be seen in Nature, if you had pieces of glass of the color of every object in your landscape, and of every minor hue that made up those colors, and then could see the real landscape through this deep gorgeousness of the varied glass. You cannot do this with glass, but you can do it for yourself as you work; that is to say, you can put deep blue for pale blue, deep gold for pale gold, and so on, in the proportion you need; and then you may paint as forcibly as you choose, but your work will still be in the manner of Titian, not of Caravaggio or Spagnoletto, or any other of the black slaves of painting.[72]

236. It’s really not possible to darken all the colors enough to make the lights display their natural brightness; if you tried, you’d just create a big mass of darkness instead. However, you can lower the colors harmoniously, doing so more in some areas of the picture than in others, allowing you to show the desired light in a clear way. In well-balanced artworks, this is achieved by gradually darkening the tones toward the lighter areas, without significantly lowering them in the very dark regions; the goal in such pictures is usually to include large sections of middle tones. The key point to remember is to deepen the individual colors without dirtying or obscuring them. It’s easy to darken the overall tone of the artwork by washing it with gray or brown, and it's simple to notice how the landscape looks when all its colors are tainted with black by using the black convex mirror—one of the worst tools for distorting nature and degrading art ever given to an artist. What’s needed isn’t to darken light yellow by mixing it with gray, but to make the pure yellow deeper; not to darken crimson by mixing in black, but to create a richer, more intense crimson. The effect you want can only be seen in nature if you had pieces of glass in the color of every object in your landscape and all the subtle shades that made up those colors, and could view the actual landscape through this deep, vibrant glass. You can’t achieve this with glass, but you can do it while you paint; that is, you can replace pale blue with deep blue, pale gold with deep gold, and so forth, in whatever proportions you need. Then you can paint with as much strength as you like, but your work will still be in the style of Titian, not Caravaggio, Spagnoletto, or any of the other practitioners of dark painting. [72]

173

173

237. Supposing those scales of color, which I told you to prepare in order to show you the relations of color to gray, were quite accurately made, and numerous enough, you would have nothing more to do, in order to obtain a deeper tone in any given mass of color, than to substitute for each of its hues the hue as many degrees deeper in the scale as you wanted, that is to say, if you wanted to deepen the whole two degrees, substituting for the yellow No. 5 the yellow No. 7, and for the red No. 9 the red No. 11, and so on: but the hues of any object in Nature are far too numerous, and their degrees too subtle, to admit of so mechanical a process. Still, you may see the principle of the whole matter clearly by taking a group of colors out of your scale, arranging them prettily, and then washing them all over with gray: that represents the treatment of Nature by the black mirror. Then arrange the same group of colors, with the tints five or six degrees deeper in the scale; and that will represent the treatment of Nature by Titian.

237. If those color scales I asked you to create to show the relationship between color and gray were made accurately and were numerous enough, you would only need to replace each color in a given mass with a color that is as many degrees deeper in the scale as you want. For example, if you wanted to deepen the entire tone by two degrees, you would swap yellow No. 5 for yellow No. 7 and red No. 9 for red No. 11, and so on. However, the colors in nature are far too varied, and their shades too subtle, to allow for such a mechanical approach. Still, you can clearly see the principle by taking a group of colors from your scale, arranging them nicely, and then washing them all with gray: this shows how nature is treated by the black mirror. Next, arrange the same group of colors with their shades five or six degrees deeper in the scale, which will illustrate how nature is treated by Titian.

238. You can only, however, feel your way fully to the right of the thing by working from Nature.

238. However, you can only truly understand what's right about things by starting with Nature.

The best subject on which to begin a piece of study of this kind is a good thick tree trunk, seen against blue sky with some white clouds in it. Paint the clouds in true and tenderly gradated white; then give the sky a bold full blue, bringing them well out; then paint the trunk and leaves grandly dark against all, but in such glowing dark green and brown as you see they will bear. Afterwards proceed to more complicated studies, matching the colors carefully first by your old method; then deepening each color with its own tint, and being careful, above all things, to keep truth of equal change when the colors are connected with each other, as in dark and light sides of the same object. Much more aspect and sense of harmony are gained by the precision with which you observe the relation of colors in dark sides and light sides, and the influence of modifying reflections, than by mere accuracy of added depth in independent colors.

The best topic to start studying this kind of art is a thick tree trunk against a blue sky with some white clouds. Paint the clouds in a true, softly blended white; then give the sky a bold, rich blue to make them stand out; then paint the trunk and leaves in a deep, dark color against it all, but in a vibrant dark green and brown that suits them. After that, move on to more complex studies, carefully matching the colors first using your old technique; then deepen each color with its own shade, making sure, above all, to maintain a consistent transition when the colors are connected with each other, like in the light and dark sides of the same object. You’ll achieve a better sense of harmony and depth by how accurately you observe the relationship between colors in the light and dark sides, as well as the effects of reflective changes, rather than just focusing on adding depth to individual colors.

239. This harmony of tone, as it is generally called, is 174 the most important of those which the artist has to regard. But there are all kinds of harmonies in a picture, according to its mode of production. There is even a harmony of touch. If you paint one part of it very rapidly and forcibly, and another part slowly and delicately, each division of the picture may be right separately, but they will not agree together: the whole will be effectless and valueless, out of harmony. Similarly, if you paint one part of it by a yellow light in a warm day, and another by a gray light in a cold day, though both may have been sunlight, and both may be well toned, and have their relative shadows truly cast, neither will look like light; they will destroy each other's power, by being out of harmony. These are only broad and definable instances of discordance; but there is an extent of harmony in all good work much too subtle for definition; depending on the draughtsman's carrying everything he draws up to just the balancing and harmonious point, in finish, and color, and depth of tone, and intensity of moral feeling, and style of touch, all considered at once; and never allowing himself to lean too emphatically on detached parts, or exalt one thing at the expense of another, or feel acutely in one place and coldly in another. If you have got some of Cruikshank's etchings, you will be able, I think, to feel the nature of harmonious treatment in a simple kind, by comparing them with any of Richter's illustrations to the numerous German story-books lately published at Christmas, with all the German stories spoiled. Cruikshank's work is often incomplete in character and poor in incident, but, as drawing, it is perfect in harmony. The pure and simple effects of daylight which he gets by his thorough mastery of treatment in this respect, are quite unrivaled, as far as I know, by any other work executed with so few touches. His vignettes to Grimm's German stories, already recommended, are the most remarkable in this quality. Richter's illustrations, on the contrary, are of a very high stamp as respects understanding of human character, with infinite playfulness and tenderness of fancy; but, as drawings, they are almost unendurably out of harmony, 175 violent blacks in one place being continually opposed to trenchant white in another; and, as is almost sure to be the case with bad harmonists, the local color hardly felt anywhere. All German work is apt to be out of harmony, in consequence of its too frequent conditions of affectation, and its willful refusals of fact; as well as by reason of a feverish kind of excitement, which dwells violently on particular points, and makes all the lines of thought in the picture to stand on end, as it were, like a cat's fur electrified; while good work is always as quiet as a couchant leopard, and as strong.

239. This balance of tone, as it's usually called, is 174 the most crucial aspect that artists need to pay attention to. However, there are various types of harmony in a painting, depending on how it was created. There’s even a harmony of technique. If you paint one part quickly and forcefully, and another part slowly and delicately, each section might be perfect on its own, but together they won't match: the overall effect will be ineffective and lacking value, out of sync. Similarly, if you paint one area under a warm, yellow light on a sunny day, and another under a gray light on a cold day, though both may be sunlight and well-toned with correctly cast shadows, they won't seem like light; they'll cancel each other out by being out of harmony. These are just clear examples of discordance; however, there's a level of harmony in all good work that's much too subtle to define. It depends on the artist balancing everything they draw in terms of finish, color, tonal depth, emotional intensity, and style of technique all at once, without focusing too much on separate parts, favoring one element over another, or feeling intensely in one area while remaining indifferent in another. If you have some of Cruikshank's etchings, you'll probably grasp the notion of harmonious treatment in a straightforward way by comparing them to any of Richter's illustrations for the numerous German storybooks published at Christmas, which all unfortunately distorted the German tales. Cruikshank's work can often feel unfinished and lacking in narrative, but in terms of drawing, it's perfect in harmony. The pure and simple effects of daylight he achieves through his remarkable mastery of technique are, to my knowledge, unmatched by any other work done with so few strokes. His vignettes for Grimm's German stories, which I've already mentioned, are particularly notable for this quality. On the other hand, Richter's illustrations are quite impressive when it comes to understanding human character, filled with endless playfulness and gentle imagination; but, as drawings, they are extremely out of balance, with harsh blacks in one area constantly contrasted with sharp whites in another; and, as is often the case with poor harmonists, the local color is barely noticeable anywhere. All German works tend to be out of harmony due to their frequent pretentiousness and willful rejection of reality, along with a frenzied kind of excitement that focuses intensely on specific points, making all the thoughts in the painting seem to stand upright, like a cat's fur when it's statically charged; whereas good work is always as calm as a resting leopard, yet incredibly strong. 175


240. I have now stated to you all the laws of composition which occur to me as capable of being illustrated or defined; but there are multitudes of others which, in the present state of my knowledge, I cannot define, and others which I never hope to define; and these the most important, and connected with the deepest powers of the art. I hope, when I have thought of them more, to be able to explain some of the laws which relate to nobleness and ignobleness; that ignobleness especially which we commonly call "vulgarity" and which, in its essence, is one of the most curious subjects of inquiry connected with human feeling. Others I never hope to explain, laws of expression, bearing simply on simple matters; but, for that very reason, more influential than any others. These are, from the first, as inexplicable as our bodily sensations are; it being just as impossible, I think, to show, finally, why one succession of musical notes[73] shall be lofty and pathetic, and such as might have been sung by Casella to Dante, and why another succession is base and ridiculous, and would be fit only for the reasonably good ear of Bottom, as to explain why we like sweetness, and dislike bitterness. 176 The best part of every great work is always inexplicable: it is good because it is good; and innocently gracious, opening as the green of the earth, or falling as the dew of heaven.

240. I have shared with you all the composition rules that come to mind which I think can be explained or illustrated; however, there are many others that I currently can’t define and some that I don’t ever expect to define. These are the most significant and connected to the deepest aspects of the art. I hope that as I ponder them more, I can clarify some of the principles related to nobility and baseness, particularly that baseness we often refer to as "vulgarity," which is fundamentally one of the most interesting subjects tied to human emotions. There are other rules I don’t expect to explain, those of expression that focus only on simple matters; but for that reason, they are more impactful than any others. These are as inexplicable from the start as our physical sensations are; it is just as impossible, in my view, to ultimately demonstrate why one sequence of musical notes [73] feels elevated and moving, like something Casella might have sung to Dante, while another sequence comes across as low and silly, suitable only for Bottom's good ear, as it is to explain why we enjoy sweetness and dislike bitterness. 176 The best part of every significant work is always beyond explanation: it is good simply because it is good; and it has an innocent grace that opens up like the earth's greenery or falls gently like heavenly dew.

241. But though you cannot explain them, you may always render yourself more and more sensitive to these higher qualities by the discipline which you generally give to your character, and this especially with regard to the choice of incidents; a kind of composition in some sort easier than the artistical arrangements of lines and colors, but in every sort nobler, because addressed to deeper feelings.

241. But even if you can't explain them, you can always make yourself more sensitive to these higher qualities through the discipline you apply to your character, especially when it comes to choosing events. This kind of composition is somewhat easier than the artistic arrangement of lines and colors, but in every way it is nobler because it appeals to deeper emotions.

242. For instance, in the "Datur Hora Quieti," the last vignette to Rogers's Poems, the plow in the foreground has three purposes. The first purpose is to meet the stream of sunlight on the river, and make it brighter by opposition; but any dark object whatever would have done this. Its second purpose is, by its two arms, to repeat the cadence of the group of the two ships, and thus give a greater expression of repose; but two sitting figures would have done this. Its third and chief, or pathetic, purpose is, as it lies abandoned in the furrow (the vessels also being moored, and having their sails down), to be a type of human labor closed with the close of day. The parts of it on which the hand leans are brought most clearly into sight; and they are the chief dark of the picture, because the tillage of the ground is required of man as a punishment: but they make the soft light of the setting sun brighter, because rest is sweetest after toil. These thoughts may never occur to us as we glance carelessly at the design; and yet their under current assuredly affects the feelings, and increases, as the painter meant it should, the impression of melancholy, and of peace.

242. For example, in "Datur Hora Quieti," the final vignette of Rogers's Poems, the plow in the foreground serves three purposes. The first purpose is to reflect the sunlight on the river, making it brighter by contrast; though, any dark object would have achieved this. Its second purpose is, through its two arms, to echo the rhythm of the group of two ships, thereby enhancing the sense of calm; yet, two seated figures would have accomplished this as well. Its third and most important, or emotional, purpose is to represent human labor coming to an end as it lies abandoned in the furrow (with the vessels also anchored and their sails furled). The parts where the hand rests are highlighted most clearly; they form the main dark area of the picture since the cultivation of the ground is seen as a punishment for humanity. However, they also make the gentle light of the setting sun seem brighter, as rest is most appreciated after hard work. These thoughts might not immediately strike us as we glance at the design, but their underlying presence certainly influences our feelings and enhances, as the artist intended, the sense of melancholy and tranquility.

243. Again, in the "Lancaster Sands," which is one of the plates I have marked as most desirable for your possession: the stream of light which falls from the setting sun on the advancing tide stands similarly in need of some force of near object to relieve its brightness. But the incident which Turner has here adopted is the swoop of an angry sea-gull at a dog, who yelps at it, drawing back as the wave rises over 177 his feet, and the bird shrieks within a foot of his face. Its unexpected boldness is a type of the anger of its ocean element, and warns us of the sea's advance just as surely as the abandoned plow told us of the ceased labor of the day.

243. Again, in "Lancaster Sands," which is one of the plates I’ve marked as most desirable for you to own: the stream of light coming from the setting sun on the rising tide needs something nearby to balance out its brightness. The scene Turner has captured here is of an angry seagull swooping down at a dog, which yelps and pulls back as the wave rises over his feet, while the bird screams within a foot of his face. Its unexpected bravery represents the fury of the ocean and warns us of the sea’s approach just like the abandoned plow signified the end of the day’s work.

244. It is not, however, so much in the selection of single incidents of this kind, as in the feeling which regulates the arrangement of the whole subject, that the mind of a great composer is known. A single incident may be suggested by a felicitous chance, as a pretty motto might be for the heading of a chapter. But the great composers so arrange all their designs that one incident illustrates another, just as one color relieves another. Perhaps the "Heysham," of the Yorkshire series, which, as to its locality, may be considered a companion to the last drawing we have spoken of, the "Lancaster Sands," presents as interesting an example as we could find of Turner's feeling in this respect. The subject is a simple north-country village, on the shore of Morecambe Bay; not in the common sense a picturesque village; there are no pretty bow-windows, or red roofs, or rocky steps of entrance to the rustic doors, or quaint gables; nothing but a single street of thatched and chiefly clay-built cottages, ranged in a somewhat monotonous line, the roofs so green with moss that at first we hardly discern the houses from the fields and trees. The village street is closed at the end by a wooden gate, indicating the little traffic there is on the road through it, and giving it something the look of a large farmstead, in which a right of way lies through the yard. The road which leads to this gate is full of ruts, and winds down a bad bit of hill between two broken banks of moor ground, succeeding immediately to the few inclosures which surround the village; they can hardly be called gardens: but a decayed fragment or two of fencing fill the gaps in the bank; a clothes-line, with some clothes on it, striped blue and red, and a smock-frock, is stretched between the trunks of some stunted willows; a very small haystack and pig-sty being seen at the back of the cottage beyond. An empty, two-wheeled, lumbering cart, drawn by a pair of horses with huge wooden 178 collars, the driver sitting lazily in the sun, sideways on the leader, is going slowly home along the rough road, it being about country dinner-time. At the end of the village there is a better house, with three chimneys and a dormer window in its roof, and the roof is of stone shingle instead of thatch, but very rough. This house is no doubt the clergyman's: there is some smoke from one of its chimneys, none from any other in the village; this smoke is from the lowest chimney at the back, evidently that of the kitchen, and it is rather thick, the fire not having been long lighted. A few hundred yards from the clergyman's house, nearer the shore, is the church, discernible from the cottages only by its low two-arched belfry, a little neater than one would expect in such a village; perhaps lately built by the Puseyite incumbent:[74] and beyond the church, close to the sea, are two fragments of a border war-tower, standing on their circular mound, worn on its brow deep into edges and furrows by the feet of the village children. On the bank of moor, which forms the foreground, are a few cows, the carter's dog barking at a vixenish one: the milkmaid is feeding another, a gentle white one, which turns its head to her, expectant of a handful of fresh hay, which she has brought for it in her blue apron, fastened up round her waist; she stands with her pail on her head, evidently the village coquette, for she has a neat bodice, and pretty striped petticoat under the blue apron, and red stockings. Nearer us, the cowherd, bare-footed, stands on a piece of the limestone rock (for the ground is thistly and not pleasurable to bare feet);—whether boy or girl we are not sure: it may be a boy, with a girl's worn-out bonnet on, or a girl with a pair of ragged trousers on; probably the first, as the old bonnet is evidently useful to 179 keep the sun out of our eyes when we are looking for strayed cows among the moorland hollows, and helps us at present to watch (holding the bonnet's edge down) the quarrel of the vixenish cow with the dog, which, leaning on our long stick, we allow to proceed without any interference. A little to the right the hay is being got in, of which the milkmaid has just taken her apronful to the white cow; but the hay is very thin, and cannot well be raked up because of the rocks; we must glean it like corn, hence the smallness of our stack behind the willows; and a woman is pressing a bundle of it hard together, kneeling against the rock's edge, to carry it safely to the hay-cart without dropping any. Beyond the village is a rocky hill, deep set with brushwood, a square crag or two of limestone emerging here and there, with pleasant turf on their brows, heaved in russet and mossy mounds against the sky, which, clear and calm, and as golden as the moss, stretches down behind it towards the sea. A single cottage just shows its roof over the edge of the hill, looking seawards: perhaps one of the village shepherds is a sea captain now, and may have built it there, that his mother may first see the sails of his ship whenever it runs into the bay. Then under the hill, and beyond the border tower, is the blue sea itself, the waves flowing in over the sand in long curved lines slowly; shadows of cloud, and gleams of shallow water on white sand alternating—miles away; but no sail is visible, not one fisher-boat on the beach, not one dark speck on the quiet horizon. Beyond all are the Cumberland mountains, clear in the sun, with rosy light on all their crags.

244. It’s not just in the choice of individual incidents that the skill of a great composer shows, but in the overall feeling that shapes the arrangement of the entire subject. A single incident might come up by chance, similar to a catchy motto for a chapter title. But great composers organize everything so that one event enhances another, just like one color complements another. Perhaps the "Heysham," from the Yorkshire series, which can be seen as a companion to the previous drawing we discussed, the "Lancaster Sands," offers a fascinating example of Turner's approach in this regard. The subject is a simple village in the north, situated on the shore of Morecambe Bay; it’s not typically what you would call a picturesque village; there are no charming bow-windows, red roofs, rocky steps leading to rustic doors, or quirky gables; just a single street lined with thatched and mainly clay-built cottages, arranged in a somewhat dull line, their roofs so covered in moss that at first, we can hardly distinguish the houses from the fields and trees. The village street ends with a wooden gate, hinting at the little traffic along the road, giving it a look reminiscent of a large farmhouse where a right of way runs through the yard. The road leading to this gate is full of ruts, winding down a rough hill between two worn banks of moorland, right next to the few enclosures surrounding the village; they can hardly be called gardens: there are a few decayed fencing fragments filling the gaps in the bank; a clothesline, strung between the trunks of some stunted willows, has clothes hanging on it, with blue and red stripes, along with a smock-frock. There’s a very small haystack and a pigsty visible behind the cottage. An empty, two-wheeled cart, drawn by a pair of horses wearing bulky wooden collars, with the driver lazily sitting sideways in the sun on the lead horse, moves slowly home along the bumpy road, it being around country dinner time. At the end of the village, there’s a larger house with three chimneys and a dormer window in the roof, which is made of stone shingles rather than thatch, but still quite rough. This house probably belongs to the clergyman: smoke is coming from one of its chimneys, while there’s none from any other house in the village; the smoke is from the lowest chimney at the back, obviously the kitchen, and it’s fairly thick, indicating the fire hasn't been burning long. A few hundred yards from the clergyman’s house, closer to the shore, is the church, distinguishable from the cottages by its low two-arched belfry, looking a bit tidier than expected for such a village; perhaps it was recently built by the Puseyite incumbent:[74] and beyond the church, near the sea, are two remnants of a border war tower, sitting on their circular mound, worn down into edges and grooves by the feet of village children. On the moor bank that forms the foreground, a few cows are present, with the carter's dog barking at a feisty one: the milkmaid is feeding another, a gentle white cow that turns its head toward her, anticipating a handful of fresh hay she has brought in her blue apron tied around her waist; she stands with her pail balanced on her head, obviously the village beauty, as she has a neat bodice and pretty striped petticoat under the blue apron, along with red stockings. Closer to us, the cowherd, barefoot, stands on a piece of limestone rock (since the ground is thorny and not pleasant for bare feet);—we’re not entirely sure if it's a boy or a girl: it could be a boy with a girl’s worn-out bonnet, or a girl in ragged trousers; probably the former, since the old bonnet is clearly useful to keep the sun out of our eyes while searching for strayed cows amongst the moorland dips, and it helps us at the moment to watch (keeping the edge of the bonnet down) the altercation between the feisty cow and the dog, which we allow to unfold without interference as we lean on our long stick. Just to the right, hay is being gathered in, of which the milkmaid has just grabbed an apronful for the white cow; but the hay is pretty sparse and can hardly be raked up due to the rocks; we have to glean it like grain, hence the small size of our haystack behind the willows; and a woman is pressing a bundle tightly together, kneeling against the rock's edge to carry it to the hay cart without dropping any. Beyond the village is a rocky hill, densely filled with scrub, with a few square crags of limestone emerging here and there, covered in pleasant grass on their tops, heaved into russet and mossy mounds against the sky, which is clear and calm, as golden as the moss, stretching down behind it towards the sea. A single cottage just peeks its roof over the hill's edge, looking towards the sea: maybe one of the village shepherds is now a sea captain and built it there so his mother could see the sails of his ship whenever it comes into the bay. Then below the hill, beyond the border tower, is the blue sea itself, with waves rolling in over the sand in long curved lines; shadows of clouds and glimmers of shallow water on white sand alternate—miles away; but no sails are visible, not a single fishing boat on the beach, not one dark speck on the calm horizon. Beyond everything are the Cumberland mountains, clear in the sun, with rosy light illuminating all their crags.

245. I should think the reader cannot but feel the kind of harmony there is in this composition; the entire purpose of the painter to give us the impression of wild, yet gentle, country life, monotonous as the succession of the noiseless waves, patient and enduring as the rocks; but peaceful, and full of health and quiet hope, and sanctified by the pure mountain air and baptismal dew of heaven, falling softly between days of toil and nights of innocence.

245. I think the reader can’t help but appreciate the kind of harmony in this piece; the painter’s goal is to convey the feeling of wild yet gentle country life, as steady as the endless waves, patient and enduring like the rocks; but also peaceful, filled with health and quiet hope, and blessed by the fresh mountain air and heavenly dew, gently falling between days of hard work and nights of innocence.

246. All noble composition of this kind can be reached 180 only by instinct; you cannot set yourself to arrange such a subject; you may see it, and seize it, at all times, but never laboriously invent it. And your power of discerning what is best in expression, among natural subjects, depends wholly on the temper in which you keep your own mind; above all, on your living so much alone as to allow it to become acutely sensitive in its own stillness. The noisy life of modern days is wholly incompatible with any true perception of natural beauty. If you go down into Cumberland by the railroad, live in some frequented hotel, and explore the hills with merry companions, however much you may enjoy your tour or their conversation, depend upon it you will never choose so much as one pictorial subject rightly; you will not see into the depth of any. But take knapsack and stick, walk towards the hills by short day's journeys,—ten or twelve miles a day—taking a week from some starting-place sixty or seventy miles away: sleep at the pretty little wayside inns, or the rough village ones; then take the hills as they tempt you, following glen or shore as your eye glances or your heart guides, wholly scornful of local fame or fashion, and of everything which it is the ordinary traveler's duty to see, or pride to do. Never force yourself to admire anything when you are not in the humor; but never force yourself away from what you feel to be lovely, in search of anything better; and gradually the deeper scenes of the natural world will unfold themselves to you in still increasing fullness of passionate power; and your difficulty will be no more to seek or to compose subjects, but only to choose one from among the multitude of melodious thoughts with which you will be haunted, thoughts which will of course be noble or original in proportion to your own depth of character and general power of mind; for it is not so much by the consideration you give to any single drawing, as by the previous discipline of your powers of thought, that the character of your composition will be determined. Simplicity of life will make you sensitive to the refinement and modesty of scenery, just as inordinate excitement and pomp of daily life will make you enjoy coarse colors and affected 181 forms. Habits of patient comparison and accurate judgment will make your art precious, as they will make your actions wise; and every increase of noble enthusiasm in your living spirit will be measured by the reflection of its light upon the works of your hands.—Faithfully yours,

246. You can only achieve true artistry like this through instinct; you can't just decide to create something like that. You might see it and seize it whenever, but you can’t forcefully invent it. Your ability to recognize the best expressions in natural subjects completely relies on your mindset; especially, it's crucial that you spend enough time alone to sharpen your sensitivity in that quiet. The noisy pace of modern life is completely at odds with genuinely understanding natural beauty. If you take the train down to Cumberland, stay in a busy hotel, and explore the hills with cheerful friends, no matter how much fun you have on your trip or in their company, you won’t end up choosing a single great subject; you won’t see any of it deeply. Instead, grab a backpack and a walking stick, and make your way towards the hills one short day at a time—ten to twelve miles a day—taking a week starting from somewhere sixty or seventy miles away: stay at charming little inns or the rustic village ones; let the hills draw you in as you wander, following a valley or a shore as your eyes wander or your heart leads, completely disregarding local hype or trends, and everything that typically famous travelers feel obliged to see or brag about doing. Don’t force yourself to admire anything when you’re not in the mood; but don’t turn away from what you find beautiful in search of something supposedly better; over time, the deeper landscapes of nature will reveal themselves to you with increasing intensity; your challenge will no longer be about seeking or creating subjects, but simply choosing one from the countless beautiful ideas that will fill your mind, which will undoubtedly be noble or original in line with your character and mental power. The nature of your composition will be shaped more by how well you've honed your thinking skills than by the attention you give to any single drawing. A simple life will heighten your appreciation for the delicacy and subtlety of landscapes, just as excessive excitement and glamour in your daily life will lead you to enjoy garish colors and superficial forms. Practices of careful comparison and precise judgment will enhance your art, just like they’ll make your actions wise; and any growth in your noble enthusiasm will reflect in the quality of your work.—Faithfully yours,

J. Ruskin.

J. Ruskin.


[41] I give Rossetti this pre-eminence, because, though the leading Pre-Raphaelites have all about equal power over color in the abstract, Rossetti and Holman Hunt are distinguished above the rest for rendering color under effects of light; and of these two, Rossetti composes with richer fancy, and with a deeper sense of beauty, Hunt's stern realism leading him continually into harshness. Rossetti's carelessness, to do him justice, is only in water-color, never in oil.

[41] I give Rossetti this top position because, while all the main Pre-Raphaelites have similar skill with color in the abstract, Rossetti and Holman Hunt stand out for their ability to depict color in light. Among these two, Rossetti uses a richer imagination and has a deeper sense of beauty, while Hunt's strict realism often leads him to be harsh. To be fair to Rossetti, his carelessness is only in watercolor, never in oil.

[42] All the degradation of art which was brought about, after the rise of the Dutch school, by asphaltum, yellow varnish, and brown trees would have been prevented, if only painters had been forced to work in dead color. Any color will do for some people, if it is browned and shining; but fallacy in dead color is detected on the instant. I even believe that whenever a painter begins to wish that he could touch any portion of his work with gum, he is going wrong.

[42] All the decline of art that happened after the rise of the Dutch school, caused by asphaltum, yellow varnish, and brown trees, could have been avoided if painters had been required to work with flat colors. Some people will accept any color, as long as it’s brown and shiny; but flaws in flat colors are spotted immediately. I even think that whenever a painter starts to wish they could apply any part of their work with varnish, they are headed in the wrong direction.

It is necessary, however, in this matter, carefully to distinguish between translucency and luster. Translucency, though, as I have said above, a dangerous temptation, is, in its place, beautiful; but luster or shininess is always, in painting, a defect. Nay, one of my best painter-friends (the "best" being understood to attach to both divisions of that awkward compound word,) tried the other day to persuade me that luster was an ignobleness in anything; and it was only the fear of treason to ladies' eyes, and to mountain streams, and to morning dew, which kept me from yielding the point to him. One is apt always to generalize too quickly in such matters; but there can be no question that luster is destructive of loveliness in color, as it is of intelligibility in form. Whatever may be the pride of a young beauty in the knowledge that her eyes shine (though perhaps even eyes are most beautiful in dimness), she would be sorry if her cheeks did; and which of us would wish to polish a rose?

It’s important, however, to carefully distinguish between translucency and luster in this matter. Translucency, as I've mentioned earlier, can be a tempting but beautiful quality in its right context; however, luster or shininess is always a flaw in painting. In fact, one of my best painter friends (with "best" referring to both meanings of that tricky term) was trying to convince me the other day that luster is a weakness in anything. It was only my concern for the delicate beauty of women’s eyes, mountain streams, and morning dew that prevented me from agreeing with him. It’s easy to jump to conclusions in such discussions, but there’s no doubt that luster ruins the beauty of color, just as it undermines the clarity of form. No matter how proud a young woman might be of her sparkling eyes (though perhaps eyes are most beautiful when they’re a bit dim), she certainly wouldn’t want her cheeks to shine, and who among us would want to polish a rose?

[43] But not shiny or greasy. Bristol board, or hot-pressed imperial, or gray paper that feels slightly adhesive to the hand, is best. Coarse, gritty, and sandy papers are fit only for blotters and blunderers; no good draughtsman would lay a line on them. Turner worked much on a thin tough paper, dead in surface; rolling up his sketches in tight bundles that would go deep into his pockets.

[43] But not shiny or greasy. Bristol board, hot-pressed imperial, or gray paper that feels slightly sticky to the touch is best. Coarse, gritty, and sandy papers are only good for blotting and mistakes; no good draftsman would draw on them. Turner often worked on a thin, tough paper with a flat surface, rolling up his sketches into tight bundles that easily fit into his pockets.

[44] I insist upon this unalterability of color the more because I address you as a beginner, or an amateur: a great artist can sometimes get out of a difficulty with credit, or repent without confession. Yet even Titian's alterations usually show as stains on his work.

[44] I emphasize this fixedness of color even more because I'm speaking to you as a beginner or an amateur: a great artist can sometimes skillfully navigate a challenge or change their mind without admitting it. Yet even Titian's adjustments usually appear as marks on his work.

[45] It is, I think, a piece of affectation to try to work with few colors: it saves time to have enough tints prepared without mixing, and you may at once allow yourself these twenty-four. If you arrange them in your color-box in the order I have set them down, you will always easily put your finger on the one you want.

[45] I believe it's a bit pretentious to try to use only a few colors: having enough shades ready without mixing actually saves time, and you might as well use these twenty-four. If you organize them in your color box in the order I’ve listed, you’ll always be able to quickly find the one you need.

Cobalt Smalt Antwerb blue Prussian blue
Black Gamboge Emerald green Hooker's green
Lemon yellow Cadmium yellow Yellow ocher Roman ocher
Raw sienna Burnt sienna Light red Indian red
Mars orange Extract of vermilion Carmine Violet carmine
Brown madder Burnt umber Vandyke brown Sepia

Antwerp blue and Prussian blue are not very permanent colors, but you need not care much about permanence in your work as yet, and they are both beautiful; while Indigo is marked by Field as more fugitive still, and is very ugly. Hooker's green is a mixed color, put in the box merely to save you loss of time in mixing gamboge and Prussian blue. No. 1 is the best tint of it. Violet carmine is a noble color for laying broken shadows with, to be worked into afterwards with other colors.

Antwerp blue and Prussian blue aren't very permanent colors, but you don’t need to worry too much about permanence in your work just yet, and they’re both beautiful. Indigo is noted by Field as even more fugitive and is quite unattractive. Hooker's green is a mixed color included in the box just to save you time mixing gamboge and Prussian blue. No. 1 is the best shade of it. Violet carmine is a rich color great for laying down broken shadows, which can then be blended with other colors later.

If you wish to take up coloring seriously you had better get Field's "Chromatography" at once; only do not attend to anything it says about principles or harmonies of color; but only to its statements of practical serviceableness in pigments, and of their operations on each other when mixed, etc.

If you want to get serious about coloring, you should get Field's "Chromatography" right away. Just ignore anything it says about the principles or harmonies of color, and focus only on its practical advice about pigments and how they interact when mixed, etc.

[46] A more methodical, though under general circumstances uselessly prolix way, is to cut a square hole, some half an inch wide, in the sheet of cardboard, and a series of small circular holes in a slip of cardboard an inch wide. Pass the slip over the square opening, and match each color beside one of the circular openings. You will thus have no occasion to wash any of the colors away. But the first rough method is generally all you want, as, after a little practice, you only need to look at the hue through the opening in order to be able to transfer it to your drawing at once.

[46] A more systematic, but often unnecessarily long-winded method, is to cut a square hole about half an inch wide in a piece of cardboard, and a series of small circular holes in a strip of cardboard that’s an inch wide. Place the strip over the square opening and align each color next to one of the circular holes. This way, you won’t need to wash any of the colors away. However, the first straightforward method is typically all you need, as after a bit of practice, you’ll only have to look at the color through the opening to immediately transfer it to your drawing.

[47] If colors were twenty times as costly as they are, we should have many more good painters. If I were Chancellor of the Exchequer I would lay a tax of twenty shillings a cake on all colors except black, Prussian blue, Vandyke brown, and Chinese white, which I would leave for students. I don't say this jestingly; I believe such a tax would do more to advance real art than a great many schools of design.

[47] If colors were twenty times as expensive as they currently are, we would have many more skilled painters. If I were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would impose a tax of twenty shillings per cake on all colors except black, Prussian blue, Vandyke brown, and Chinese white, which I would reserve for students. I'm not saying this lightly; I genuinely believe that such a tax would do more to advance true art than a lot of design schools.

[48] I say modern, because Titian's quiet way of blending colors, which is the perfectly right one, is not understood now by any artist. The best color we reach is got by stippling; but this is not quite right.

[48] I say modern, because Titian's subtle approach to blending colors, which is the most accurate method, isn't recognized by any artist today. The best color we achieve is through stippling, but that's not quite right.

[49] See Note 6 in Appendix I.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ in Appendix A.

[50] The worst general character that color can possibly have is a prevalent tendency to a dirty yellowish green, like that of a decaying heap of vegetables; this color is accurately indicative of decline or paralysis in missal-painting.

[50] The worst quality that color can have is a strong tendency towards a dirty yellowish green, like that of a rotting pile of vegetables; this color is precisely indicative of decline or stagnation in missal-painting.

[51] That is to say, local color inherent in the object. The gradations of color in the various shadows belonging to various lights exhibit form, and therefore no one but a colorist can ever draw forms perfectly (see Modern Painters, vol. iv. chap. iii. at the end); but all notions of explaining form by superimposed color, as in architectural moldings, are absurd. Color adorns form, but does not interpret it. An apple is prettier because it is striped, but it does not look a bit rounder; and a cheek is prettier because it is flushed, but you would see the form of the cheek bone better if it were not. Color may, indeed, detach one shape from another, as in grounding a bas-relief, but it always diminishes the appearance of projection, and whether you put blue, purple, red, yellow, or green, for your ground, the bas-relief will be just as clearly or just as imperfectly relieved, as long as the colors are of equal depth. The blue ground will not retire the hundredth part of an inch more than the red one.

[51] This means the local color that's part of the object. The different shades in the various shadows created by different lights show the form, so only someone skilled in color can accurately draw forms (see Modern Painters, vol. iv. chap. iii. at the end); however, the idea of explaining form through added color, like in architectural moldings, is ridiculous. Color enhances form but doesn’t define it. An apple looks nicer because it's striped, but it doesn’t seem any rounder; and a flushed cheek looks nicer, but you can see the cheekbone better if it isn't. Color can separate one shape from another, such as when setting up a bas-relief, but it always makes the projection look less pronounced. Whether you use blue, purple, red, yellow, or green as your background, the bas-relief will appear just as clear or just as unclear, provided the colors have the same depth. The blue background won’t set back even a tiny fraction more than the red one.

[52] See, however, at the close of this letter, the notice of one more point connected with the management of color, under the head "Law of Harmony."

[52] However, at the end of this letter, check out the notice about one more aspect related to color management, under the section "Law of Harmony."

[53] See farther, on this subject, Modern Painters, vol. iv. chap. viii. § 6.

[53] For more on this topic, check out Modern Painters, vol. iv. chap. viii. § 6.

[54] See Note 7 in Appendix I.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Check out __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__ in Appendix I.

[55] "In general, throughout Nature, reflection and repetition are peaceful things, associated with the idea of quiet succession in events; that one day should be like another day, or one history the repetition of another history, being more or less results of quietness, while dissimilarity and non-succession are results of interference and disquietude. Thus, though an echo actually increases the quantity of sound heard, its repetition of the note or syllable gives an idea of calmness attainable in no other way; hence also the feeling of calm given to a landscape by the voice of a cuckoo."

[55] "In general, throughout nature, reflection and repetition are calming things, tied to the idea of smooth succession in events; that one day should be like another day, or one story a repeat of another story, being more or less outcomes of tranquility, while difference and lack of succession come from disruption and unease. So, although an echo actually amplifies the sound we hear, its repetition of a note or syllable creates a sense of peace that can't be achieved in any other way; this is also why a landscape can feel serene when it features the call of a cuckoo."

[56] This is obscure in the rude wood-cut, the masts being so delicate that they are confused among the lines of reflection. In the original they have orange light upon them, relieved against purple behind.

[56] This is unclear in the rough woodcut, with the masts being so subtle that they get lost among the lines of reflection. In the original, they have an orange glow on them, standing out against a purple background.

[57] The cost of art in getting a bridge level is always lost, for you must get up to the height of the central arch at any rate, and you only can make the whole bridge level by putting the hill farther back, and pretending to have got rid of it when you have not, but have only wasted money in building an unnecessary embankment. Of course, the bridge should not be difficultly or dangerously steep, but the necessary slope, whatever it may be, should be in the bridge itself, as far as the bridge can take it, and not pushed aside into the approach, as in our Waterloo road; the only rational excuse for doing which is that when the slope must be long it is inconvenient to put on a drag at the top of the bridge, and that any restiveness of the horse is more dangerous on the bridge than on the embankment. To this I answer: first, it is not more dangerous in reality, though it looks so, for the bridge is always guarded by an effective parapet, but the embankment is sure to have no parapet, or only a useless rail; and secondly, that it is better to have the slope on the bridge and make the roadway wide in proportion, so as to be quite safe, because a little waste of space on the river is no loss, but your wide embankment at the side loses good ground; and so my picturesque bridges are right as well as beautiful, and I hope to see them built again some day instead of the frightful straight-backed things which we fancy are fine, and accept from the pontifical rigidities of the engineering mind.

[57] The cost of making a bridge level is always wasted because you have to reach the height of the central arch anyway. The only way to make the whole bridge level is by moving the hill farther back and pretending to have dealt with it when you actually haven't—you're just wasting money on building an unnecessary embankment. Naturally, the bridge shouldn't be overly steep or dangerous, but whatever slope is necessary should be integrated into the bridge itself, as much as the bridge can handle, instead of being pushed into the approach like on our Waterloo road. The only reasonable justification for doing this is that when the slope needs to be long, it's inconvenient to have a drag at the top of the bridge, and any skittishness from the horse is more hazardous on the bridge than on the embankment. To this, I respond: first, it's not actually more dangerous, even though it seems like it, because the bridge is always protected by a solid parapet, while the embankment often lacks any proper protection or just has a useless rail. Secondly, it's better to have the slope on the bridge and make the roadway wider accordingly for safety, since a small waste of space over the river isn't a loss, while a wide embankment loses valuable ground; therefore, my beautiful bridges are both right and attractive, and I hope to see them constructed again someday instead of the ugly, straight-backed designs that we mistakenly think are impressive and accept from the rigid perspectives of traditional engineering.

[58] I cannot waste space here by reprinting what I have said in other books; but the reader ought, if possible, to refer to the notices of this part of our subject in Modern Painters, vol. iv. chap xvii.; and Stones of Venice, vol. iii. chap. i. § 8.

[58] I can't take up space by repeating what I've written in other books; however, the reader should, if possible, check out the sections on this topic in Modern Painters, vol. iv. chap. xvii.; and Stones of Venice, vol. iii. chap. i. § 8.

[59] If you happen to be reading at this part of the book, without having gone through any previous practice, turn back to the sketch of the ramification of stone pine, Fig. 4, p. 17, and examine the curves of its boughs one by one, trying them by the conditions here stated under the heads A and B.

[59] If you’re reading this part of the book without having done any previous practice, go back to the sketch of the stone pine branches, Fig. 4, p. 17, and look at the curves of its branches one by one, testing them against the conditions outlined here under A and B.

[60] The reader, I hope, observes always that every line in these figures is itself one of varying curvature, and cannot be drawn by compasses.

[60] I hope the reader notices that every line in these figures has its own curve and can’t be drawn using a compass.

[61] I hope the reader understands that these wood-cuts are merely facsimiles of the sketches I make at the side of my paper to illustrate my meaning as I write—often sadly scrawled if I want to get on to something else. This one is really a little too careless; but it would take more time and trouble to make a proper drawing of so odd a boat than the matter is worth. It will answer the purpose well enough as it is.

[61] I hope the reader realizes that these woodcuts are just copies of the sketches I make in the margins of my paper to clarify my thoughts as I write—often done quickly when I want to move on to something else. This one is actually a bit too sloppy; but it would take more time and effort to create a proper drawing of such a quirky boat than it's worth. It will serve its purpose just fine as it is.

[62] Imperfect vegetable form I consider that which is in its nature dependent, as in runners and climbers; or which is susceptible of continual injury without materially losing the power of giving pleasure by its aspect, as in the case of the smaller grasses. I have not, of course, space here to explain these minor distinctions, but the laws above stated apply to all the more important trees and shrubs likely to be familiar to the student.

[62] An imperfect vegetable form is one that depends on its environment, like runners and climbers; or one that can be damaged repeatedly without losing its ability to look appealing, like smaller grasses. I don't have enough space here to explain these subtle differences, but the principles mentioned apply to all the major trees and shrubs that a student is likely to encounter.

[63] There is a very tender lesson of this kind in the shadows of leaves upon the ground; shadows which are the most likely of all to attract attention, by their pretty play and change. If you examine them, you will find that the shadows do not take the forms of the leaves, but that, through each interstice, the light falls, at a little distance, in the form of a round or oval spot; that is to say, it produces the image of the sun itself, cast either vertically or obliquely, in circle or ellipse according to the slope of the ground. Of course the sun's rays produce the same effect, when they fall through any small aperture: but the openings between leaves are the only ones likely to show it to an ordinary observer, or to attract his attention to it by its frequency, and lead him to think what this type may signify respecting the greater Sun; and how it may show us that, even when the opening through which the earth receives light is too small to let us see the Sun Himself, the ray of light that enters, if it comes straight from Him, will still bear with it His image.

[63] There's a really delicate lesson in the shadows of leaves on the ground; shadows that are likely to catch your eye with their pretty movement and change. If you take a closer look, you'll see that the shadows don't exactly mimic the shapes of the leaves. Instead, light shines through each gap, creating round or oval spots at a little distance; essentially, it's projecting the image of the sun itself, cast either straight down or at an angle, in a circle or an ellipse depending on the ground's slope. Of course, the sun's rays create the same effect when they pass through any small opening, but the spaces between leaves are the only ones that are likely to show this to a casual observer, grabbing their attention with its regularity and prompting them to ponder what this could mean about the greater Sun; how it illustrates that even when the gap through which the Earth receives light is too small for us to see the Sun directly, the rays of light that come through, if they are coming straight from Him, will still carry His image.

[64] In the smaller figure (32), it will be seen that this interruption is caused by a cart coming down to the water's edge; and this object is serviceable as beginning another system of curves leading out of the picture on the right, but so obscurely drawn as not to be easily represented in outline. As it is unnecessary to the explanation of our point here, it has been omitted in the larger diagram, the direction of the curve it begins being indicated by the dashes only.

[64] In the smaller figure (32), you can see that this interruption is caused by a cart coming down to the water's edge. This object serves as the start of another set of curves leading out of the picture on the right, but it's drawn so faintly that it's hard to outline. Since it’s not essential to our explanation here, it has been left out of the larger diagram, with only the dashes indicating the direction of the curve it starts.

[65] Both in the Sketches in Flanders and Germany.

[65] Both in the Sketches in Flanders and Germany.

[66] If you happen to meet with the plate of Dürer's representing a coat-of-arms with a skull in the shield, note the value given to the concave curves and sharp point of the helmet by the convex leafage carried round it in front; and the use of the blank white part of the shield in opposing the rich folds of the dress.

[66] If you come across Dürer's plate showing a coat of arms with a skull in the shield, pay attention to the significance of the concave curves and pointed helmet surrounded by the convex leaves in the front; and how the blank white area of the shield contrasts with the luxurious drapes of the attire.

[67] Turner hardly ever, as far as I remember, allows a strong light to oppose a full dark, without some intervening tint. His suns never set behind dark mountains without a film of cloud above the mountain's edge.

[67] Turner rarely, as far as I can recall, lets a bright light clash with deep darkness without some kind of color in between. His sunsets never dip behind dark mountains without a layer of clouds hovering over the mountain tops.

[68]

"A prudent chief not always must display
His powers in equal ranks and fair array,
But with the occasion and the place comply,
Conceal his force; nay, seem sometimes to fly.
Those oft are stratagems which errors seem,
Nor is it Homer nods, but we that dream."
Essay on Criticism.

"A wise leader doesn’t always need to show
Their strength in equal measure and fair display,
But should adapt to the situation and context,
Hide their power; at times, even pretend to retreat.
What often looks like mistakes are actually tactics,
And it’s not that Homer is careless, but that we are asleep."
Essay on Criticism.

[69] I am describing from an MS., circa 1300, of Gregory's Decretalia, in my own possession.

[69] I'm describing from a manuscript, around 1300, of Gregory's Decretalia, which I own.

[70] One of the most wonderful compositions of Tintoret in Venice, is little more than a field of subdued crimson, spotted with flakes of scattered gold. The upper clouds in the most beautiful skies owe great part of their power to infinitude of divisions; order being marked through this division.

[70] One of the most amazing works by Tintoretto in Venice is just a rich field of muted red, speckled with bits of scattered gold. The upper clouds in the loveliest skies owe much of their impact to countless divisions; order is defined through this division.

[71] I fully believe that the strange gray gloom, accompanied by considerable power of effect, which prevails in modern French art, must be owing to the use of this mischievous instrument; the French landscape always gives me the idea of Nature seen carelessly in the dark mirror, and painted coarsely, but scientifically, through the veil of its perversion.

[71] I truly think that the odd gray darkness, which has a strong impact, that exists in modern French art must be due to this tricky tool; the French landscape always makes me feel like I’m seeing Nature carelessly reflected in a dark mirror, painted roughly yet scientifically, through the distortion of its portrayal.

[72] Various other parts of this subject are entered into, especially in their bearing on the ideal of painting, in Modern Painters, vol. iv. chap. iii.

[72] Different aspects of this topic are discussed, particularly regarding the ideal of painting, in Modern Painters, vol. iv. chap. iii.

[73] In all the best arrangements of color, the delight occasioned by their mode of succession is entirely inexplicable, nor can it be reasoned about; we like it just as we like an air in music, but cannot reason any refractory person into liking it, if they do not: and yet there is distinctly a right and a wrong in it, and a good taste and bad taste respecting it, as also in music.

[73] In all the best color combinations, the joy we get from the way colors follow each other is completely mysterious and can't really be explained; we enjoy it just like we enjoy a melody in music, but we can't convince someone who doesn't like it to change their mind. Still, there is definitely a right and wrong way to do it, and there are standards of good taste and bad taste in it, just like in music.

[74] "Puseyism" was unknown in the days when this drawing was made; but the kindly and helpful influences of what may be called ecclesiastical sentiment, which, in a morbidly exaggerated condition, forms one of the principal elements of "Puseyism,"—I use this word regretfully, no other existing which will serve for it,—had been known and felt in our wild northern districts long before.

[74] "Puseyism" didn't exist when this drawing was created; however, the warm and supportive feelings related to what can be described as church sentiment, which, in an overly exaggerated state, makes up a key part of "Puseyism"—I use this term reluctantly since there isn't another that fits—had already been present and experienced in our wild northern areas long before.

182

182




183

183

APPENDIX.


I.

ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES.

ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES.

Note 1, p. 42.—"Principle of the stereoscope."

Note 1, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.—"Stereoscope Principle."

247. I am sorry to find a notion current among artists, that they can, in some degree, imitate in a picture the effect of the stereoscope, by confusion of lines. There are indeed one or two artifices by which, as stated in the text, an appearance of retirement or projection may be obtained, so that they partly supply the place of the stereoscopic effect, but they do not imitate that effect. The principle of the human sight is simply this:—by means of our two eyes we literally see everything from two places at once; and, by calculated combination, in the brain, of the facts of form so seen, we arrive at conclusions respecting the distance and shape of the object, which we could not otherwise have reached. But it is just as vain to hope to paint at once the two views of the object as seen from these two places, though only an inch and a half distant from each other, as it would be if they were a mile and a half distant from each other. With the right eye you see one view of a given object, relieved against one part of the distance; with the left eye you see another view of it, relieved against another part of the distance. You may paint whichever of those views you please; you cannot paint both. Hold your finger upright, between 184 you and this page of the book, about six inches from your eyes, and three from the book; shut the right eye, and hide the words "inches from," in the second line above this, with your finger; you will then see "six" on one side of it, and "your," on the other. Now shut the left eye and open the right without moving your finger, and you will see "inches," but not "six." You may paint the finger with "inches" beyond it, or with "six" beyond it, but not with both. And this principle holds for any object and any distance. You might just as well try to paint St. Paul's at once from both ends of London Bridge as to realize any stereoscopic effect in a picture.

247. I’m sorry to see that some artists believe they can somewhat replicate the effect of the stereoscope in a painting by confusing lines. There are indeed a couple of tricks that can create an illusion of depth or projection, as mentioned in the text, which partially mimic the stereoscopic effect, but they don’t actually imitate it. The way human sight works is this: with our two eyes, we see everything from two different perspectives at the same time. Through a complex combination in our brain of the shapes we see, we can determine the distance and shape of an object in ways we couldn’t otherwise. It’s as pointless to try to paint both views of an object seen from just an inch and a half apart as it would be if they were a mile and a half apart. With your right eye, you perceive one view of an object set against one part of the background; with your left eye, you see a different view against another part of the background. You can paint either view, but not both simultaneously. Hold your finger upright between you and this page, about six inches from your eyes and three inches from the book; close your right eye and cover the words "inches from," in the second line above, with your finger. You’ll see "six" on one side and "your" on the other. Now close your left eye and open your right without moving your finger, and you’ll see "inches," but not "six." You can paint the finger with "inches" behind it or with "six" behind it, but not both. This principle applies to any object and any distance. You might as well try to paint St. Paul's from both ends of London Bridge as to create any stereoscopic effect in a painting.

Note 2, p. 59.—"Dark lines turned to the light."

Note 2, p. 59.—"Dark lines facing the light."

248. It ought to have been farther observed, that the inclosure of the light by future shadow is by no means the only reason for the dark lines which great masters often thus introduce. It constantly happens that a local color will show its own darkness most on the light side, by projecting into and against masses of light in that direction; and then the painter will indicate this future force of the mass by his dark touch. Both the monk's head in Fig. 11 and dog in Fig. 20 are dark towards the light for this reason.

248. It should be noted that the way light is surrounded by future shadow isn't the only reason why great artists often use dark lines like this. It's common for a local color to appear darker on the light side by contrasting with lighter areas; the artist will then show this future impact of the mass using dark strokes. Both the monk's head in Fig. 11 and the dog in Fig. 20 appear dark towards the light for this reason.

Note 3, p. 98.—"Softness of reflections."

Note 3, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.—"Gentle reflections."

249. I have not quite insisted enough on the extreme care which is necessary in giving the tender evanescence of the edges of the reflections, when the water is in the least agitated; nor on the decision with which you may reverse the object, when the water is quite calm. Most drawing of reflections is at once confused and hard; but Nature's is at once intelligible and tender. Generally, at the edge of the water, you ought not to see where reality ceases and reflection begins; as the image loses itself you ought to keep all its subtle and varied veracities, with the most exquisite softening of its edge. 185 Practice as much as you can from the reflections of ships in calm water, following out all the reversed rigging, and taking, if anything, more pains with the reflection than with the ship.

249. I haven’t emphasized enough how important it is to carefully capture the delicate fading of the edges of reflections when the water is even slightly agitated; nor have I stressed how definitively you can invert the subject when the water is completely calm. Most drawings of reflections end up being both unclear and harsh; however, Nature’s reflections are both clear and gentle. Typically, at the water’s edge, you shouldn't be able to tell where reality stops and reflection starts; as the image fades, you should retain all its subtle and varied truths, with the most exquisite softening of its edges. 185 Practice as much as you can by observing the reflections of ships in calm water, paying close attention to all the inverted rigging, and if anything, putting even more effort into the reflection than the ship itself.

Note 4, p. 100.—"Where the reflection is darkest, you will
see through the water best.
"

Note 4, p. 100.—"The clearer the reflection, the easier it is to see through the water."

250. For this reason it often happens that if the water be shallow, and you are looking steeply down into it, the reflection of objects on the bank will consist simply of pieces of the bottom seen clearly through the water, and relieved by flashes of light, which are the reflection of the sky. Thus you may have to draw the reflected dark shape of a bush: but, inside of that shape, you must not draw the leaves of the bush, but the stones under the water; and, outside of this dark reflection, the blue or white of the sky, with no stones visible.

250. Because of this, it often happens that if the water is shallow and you're looking straight down into it, the reflection of objects on the bank will only show bits of the bottom clearly visible through the water, highlighted by flashes of light that reflect the sky. So, you might need to sketch the dark outline of a bush, but instead of drawing the bush’s leaves inside that outline, you should depict the stones under the water. Outside of this dark reflection, you’ll just see the blue or white of the sky, with no stones visible.

Note 5, p. 101.—"Approach streams with reverence."

Note 5, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.—"Respect the streams."

251. I have hardly said anything about waves of torrents or waterfalls, as I do not consider them subjects for beginners to practice upon; but, as many of our younger artists are almost breaking their hearts over them, it may be well to state at once that it is physically impossible to draw a running torrent quite rightly, the luster of its currents and whiteness of its foam being dependent on intensities of light which art has not at its command. This also is to be observed, that most young painters make their defeat certain by attempting to draw running water, which is a lustrous object in rapid motion, without ever trying their strength on a lustrous object standing still. Let them break a coarse green-glass bottle into a great many bits, and try to paint those, with all their undulations and edges of fracture, as they lie still on the table; if they cannot, of course they need not try the 186 rushing crystal and foaming fracture of the stream. If they can manage the glass bottle, let them next buy a fragment or two of yellow fire-opal; it is quite a common and cheap mineral, and presents, as closely as anything can, the milky bloom and color of a torrent wave: and if they can conquer the opal, they may at last have some chance with the stream, as far as the stream is in any wise possible. But, as I have just said, the bright parts of it are not possible, and ought, as much as may be, to be avoided in choosing subjects. A great deal more may, however, be done than any artist has done yet, in painting the gradual disappearance and lovely coloring of stones seen through clear and calm water.

251. I haven’t really talked much about torrents or waterfalls because I don’t think they’re good subjects for beginners to practice on. However, since many of our younger artists are really struggling with them, it’s important to point out that it’s physically impossible to accurately draw a flowing torrent; the shine of its currents and the whiteness of its foam depend on light intensities that art can't fully capture. It’s also worth noting that most young painters set themselves up for failure by trying to draw moving water, which is a shiny object in fast motion, without first working on a shiny object that is still. They should start by breaking a coarse green-glass bottle into a lot of pieces and try to paint those, capturing all their curves and jagged edges as they lie still on the table. If they can’t do that, then they definitely shouldn’t attempt to capture the rushing water and foamy breaks of a stream. If they manage the glass bottle, they can then buy a piece or two of yellow fire-opal; it’s a pretty common and inexpensive mineral that closely resembles the milky glow and color of a wave. If they can master the opal, they might eventually have a shot at painting the stream, at least to some extent. But as I mentioned, the bright highlights of it aren’t possible and should generally be avoided when choosing subjects. Nevertheless, there’s a lot more that can be achieved than what any artist has tackled so far, especially in painting the gradual fading and beautiful colors of stones seen through clear, calm water.

Students living in towns may make great progress in rock-drawing by frequently and faithfully drawing broken edges of common roofing slates, of their real size.

Students living in towns can improve a lot in rock-drawing by regularly and diligently sketching the rough edges of regular roofing slates, at their actual size.

Note 6, p. 125.—"Nature's economy of color."

Note 6, p. 125.—"Nature's way of using color wisely."

252. I heard it wisely objected to this statement, the other day, by a young lady, that it was not through economy that Nature did not color deep down in the flower bells, but because "she had not light enough there to see to paint with." This may be true; but it is certainly not for want of light that, when she is laying the dark spots on a foxglove, she will not use any more purple than she has got already on the bell, but takes out the color all round the spot, and concentrates it in the middle.

252. I recently heard a young lady wisely challenge this statement by saying that Nature doesn’t color deep inside the flower bells not out of frugality, but because “she doesn’t have enough light there to see to paint with.” That may be true; however, it’s certainly not due to a lack of light that, when she’s adding the dark spots on a foxglove, she doesn’t use more purple than what’s already on the bell. Instead, she removes the color all around the spot and concentrates it in the middle.

Note 7, p. 138.—"The law of repetition."

Note 7, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.—"The law of repetition."

253. The reader may perhaps recollect a very beautiful picture of Vandyck's in the Manchester Exhibition, representing three children in court dresses of rich black and red. The law in question was amusingly illustrated, in the lower corner of that picture, by the introduction of two crows, in a similar color of court dress, having jet black feathers and bright red beaks.

253. The reader might remember a stunning painting by Vandyck at the Manchester Exhibition, showing three children dressed in luxurious black and red court outfits. The law in question was humorously depicted in the lower corner of that painting by the addition of two crows, also in matching court dress colors, with shiny black feathers and vibrant red beaks.

187

187

254. Since the first edition of this work was published, I have ascertained that there are two series of engravings from the Bible drawings mentioned in the list at p. 50. One of these is inferior to the other, and in many respects false to the drawing; the "Jericho," for instance, in the false series, has common bushes instead of palm trees in the middle distance. The original plates may be had at almost any respectable printseller's; and ordinary impressions, whether of these or any other plates mentioned in the list at p. 50, will be quite as useful as proofs: but, in buying Liber Studiorum, it is always well to get the best impressions that can be had, and if possible impressions of the original plates, published by Turner. In case these are not to be had, the copies which are in course of publication by Mr. Lupton (4 Keppel Street, Russell Square) are good and serviceable; but no others are of any use.—[Note of 1857.]

254. Since the first edition of this work was published, I have found out that there are two series of engravings from the Bible drawings mentioned in the list at p. 50. One of these is lower quality than the other and is, in many ways, not true to the drawing; the "Jericho," for example, in the inferior series, has regular bushes instead of palm trees in the background. You can find the original plates at almost any reputable printseller; and standard prints, whether from these or from any other plates listed at p. 50, will be just as useful as proofs. However, when buying Liber Studiorum, it's always best to get the highest quality prints available, and if possible, prints of the original plates published by Turner. If those aren't available, the copies being published by Mr. Lupton (4 Keppel Street, Russell Square) are good and usable, but no others are worth getting.—[Note of 1857.]

I have placed in the hands of Mr. Ward (Working Men's College) some photographs from the etchings made by Turner for the Liber; the original etchings being now unobtainable, except by fortunate accident. I have selected the subjects carefully from my own collection of the etchings; and though some of the more subtle qualities of line are lost in the photographs, the student will find these proofs the best lessons in pen-drawing accessible to him.—[Note of 1859]

I have given some photographs of the etchings created by Turner for the Liber to Mr. Ward (Working Men's College); the original etchings are now impossible to find, unless by some lucky chance. I've picked the subjects carefully from my own collection of etchings, and while some of the more delicate qualities of line are missing in the photographs, students will find these proofs to be the best lessons in pen drawing available to them.—[Note of 1859]


188

188

II.

THINGS TO BE STUDIED.

TOPICS TO STUDY.

255. The worst danger by far, to which a solitary student is exposed, is that of liking things that he should not. It is not so much his difficulties, as his tastes, which he must set himself to conquer: and although, under the guidance of a master, many works of art may be made instructive, which are only of partial excellence (the good and bad of them being duly distinguished), his safeguard, as long as he studies alone, will be in allowing himself to possess only things, in their way, so free from faults, that nothing he copies in them can seriously mislead him, and to contemplate only those works of art which he knows to be either perfect or noble in their errors. I will therefore set down, in clear order, the names of the masters whom you may safely admire, and a few of the books which you may safely possess. In these days of cheap illustration, the danger is always rather of your possessing too much than too little. It may admit of some question, how far the looking at bad art may set off and illustrate the characters of the good; but, on the whole, I believe it is best to live always on quite wholesome food, and that our enjoyment of it will never be made more acute by feeding on ashes; though it may be well sometimes to taste the ashes, in order to know the bitterness of them. Of course the works of the great masters can only be serviceable to the student after he has made considerable progress himself. It only wastes the time and dulls the feelings of young persons, to drag them through picture galleries; at least, unless they themselves wish to look at particular pictures. Generally, young people only care to enter a picture gallery when there is a chance of getting leave to run a race to the other end of it; and they had better do that in the garden below. If, however, they have any real enjoyment of 189 pictures, and want to look at this one or that, the principal point is never to disturb them in looking at what interests them, and never to make them look at what does not. Nothing is of the least use to young people (nor, by the way, of much use to old ones), but what interests them; and therefore, though it is of great importance to put nothing but good art into their possession, yet, when they are passing through great houses or galleries, they should be allowed to look precisely at what pleases them: if it is not useful to them as art, it will be in some other way; and the healthiest way in which art can interest them is when they look at it, not as art, but because it represents something they like in Nature. If a boy has had his heart filled by the life of some great man, and goes up thirstily to a Vandyck portrait of him, to see what he was like, that is the wholesomest way in which he can begin the study of portraiture; if he loves mountains, and dwells on a Turner drawing because he sees in it a likeness to a Yorkshire scar or an Alpine pass, that is the wholesomest way in which he can begin the study of landscape; and if a girl's mind is filled with dreams of angels and saints, and she pauses before an Angelico because she thinks it must surely be like heaven, that is the right way for her to begin the study of religious art.

255. The biggest danger a solitary student faces is developing a taste for the wrong things. It's not just the challenges they encounter, but the preferences they need to overcome. While a mentor can make a lot of art instructive, even if it's only moderately good (with clear distinctions between the good and the bad), the best protection for someone studying alone is to only engage with works that are so free of flaws that nothing they copy from them can mislead them. They should only look at art they know to be either perfect or worthy, even in their imperfections. So, I will list clearly the names of the masters you can admire safely, along with a few books you can possess without worry. Nowadays, with so much cheap illustration available, the real risk is having too much rather than too little. There might be some debate about how looking at poor art can highlight the good, but overall, I believe it's best to stick to quality food for thought, and our enjoyment won’t be enhanced by consuming junk, although it may be insightful to experience it occasionally to appreciate its badness. Of course, the works of great masters are only useful to students after they've made significant progress themselves. Dragging young people through art galleries just wastes their time and dulls their senses, unless they specifically want to see certain pieces. Generally, young folks only want to visit an art gallery if they can race to the other end, and they'd be better off doing that in the garden below. However, if they genuinely enjoy some pictures and want to look at one or another, the key is never to interrupt their interest and never force them to look at things they don’t care about. Nothing is useful to young people (nor to older ones, for that matter) except what engages their interest. Therefore, while it’s crucial to ensure they only have access to good art, when they find themselves in grand homes or galleries, they should be free to focus on what they like. If a piece isn’t useful to them as art, it could still serve other purposes, and the most beneficial way for art to engage them is when they appreciate it not just as art but because it represents something they love in nature. If a boy is inspired by the life of an illustrious figure and eagerly approaches a Van Dyck portrait to see what he looked like, that's the best way for him to start studying portraiture. If he loves mountains and is drawn to a Turner drawing because it reminds him of a Yorkshire cliff or an Alpine path, that's the ideal way to begin studying landscapes. And if a girl is enchanted by visions of angels and saints and pauses before an Angelico because she believes it must resemble heaven, that's the right way for her to start studying religious art.

256. When, however, the student has made some definite progress, and every picture becomes really a guide to him, false or true, in his own work, it is of great importance that he should never look, with even partial admiration, at bad art; and then, if the reader is willing to trust me in the matter, the following advice will be useful to him. In which, with his permission, I will quit the indirect and return to the epistolary address, as being the more convenient.

256. When the student has made some real progress and every picture serves as a guide for his own work, whether it's good or bad, it's really important that he never looks at bad art with even a hint of admiration. If the reader is willing to take my advice, the following suggestions will be helpful. With that in mind, I will shift from the indirect style and return to a more direct address, as it’s more convenient.


First, in Galleries of Pictures:

First, in Picture Galleries:

1. You may look, with trust in their being always right, at Titian, Veronese, Tintoret, Giorgione, John Bellini, and Velasquez; the authenticity of the picture being of course established for you by proper authority.

1. You can confidently look at Titian, Veronese, Tintoret, Giorgione, John Bellini, and Velasquez, knowing that the authenticity of the artwork has been confirmed by credible sources.

190

190

2. You may look with admiration, admitting, however, question of right and wrong,[75] at Van Eyck, Holbein, Perugino, Francia, Angelico, Leonardo da Vinci, Correggio, Vandyck, Rembrandt, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Turner, and the modern Pre-Raphaelites.[76] You had better look at no other painters than these, for you run a chance, otherwise, of being led far off the road, or into grievous faults, by some of the other great ones, as Michael Angelo, Raphael, and Rubens; and of being, besides, corrupted in taste by the base ones, as Murillo, Salvator, Claude, Gaspar Poussin, Teniers, and such others. You may look, however, for examples of evil, with safe universality of reprobation, being sure that everything you see is bad, at Domenichino, the Carracci, Bronzino, and the figure pieces of Salvator.

2. You can admire, but you should also consider the question of right and wrong, **A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0** with artists like Van Eyck, Holbein, Perugino, Francia, Angelico, Leonardo da Vinci, Correggio, Vandyck, Rembrandt, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Turner, and the modern Pre-Raphaelites. **A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1** It's best to focus on these painters, as looking at others could lead you off track or into serious mistakes with some of the other greats, like Michelangelo, Raphael, and Rubens, and it could also ruin your taste with lesser artists, such as Murillo, Salvator, Claude, Gaspar Poussin, Teniers, and others like them. However, you can safely examine examples of bad art universally criticized, knowing that everything you find in the works of Domenichino, the Carracci, Bronzino, and the figure pieces by Salvator is bad.

Among those named for study under question, you cannot look too much at, nor grow too enthusiastically fond of, Angelico, Correggio, Reynolds, Turner, and the Pre-Raphaelites; but, if you find yourself getting especially fond of any of the others, leave off looking at them, for you must be going wrong some way or other. If, for instance, you begin to like Rembrandt or Leonardo especially, you are losing your feeling for color; if you like Van Eyck or Perugino especially, you must be getting too fond of rigid detail; and if you like Vandyck or Gainsborough especially, you must be too much attracted by gentlemanly flimsiness.

Among those recommended for study, you shouldn't focus too much on, or become overly attached to, Angelico, Correggio, Reynolds, Turner, and the Pre-Raphaelites; however, if you find yourself really liking any of the others, it's best to stop looking at them, as you might be heading in the wrong direction. For example, if you start to favor Rembrandt or Leonardo, you're likely losing your appreciation for color; if you're drawn to Van Eyck or Perugino, you might be getting too caught up in rigid detail; and if you prefer Vandyck or Gainsborough, you might be too drawn to superficial elegance.


257. Secondly, of published, or otherwise multiplied, art, such as you may be able to get yourself, or to see at private houses or in shops, the works of the following masters are the most desirable, after the Turners, Rembrandts, and Dürers, which I have asked you to get first:

257. Secondly, of published or otherwise reproduced art, like what you can find for yourself or see in private homes or shops, the works of the following masters are the most desirable, after the Turners, Rembrandts, and Dürers, which I’ve recommended you get first:

191

191

1. Samuel Prout.[77]

Samuel Prout. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

All his published lithographic sketches are of the greatest value, wholly unrivaled in power of composition, and in love and feeling of architectural subject. His somewhat mannered linear execution, though not to be imitated in your own sketches from Nature, may be occasionally copied, for discipline's sake, with great advantage: it will give you a peculiar steadiness of hand, not quickly attainable in any other way; and there is no fear of your getting into any faultful mannerism as long as you carry out the different modes of more delicate study above recommended.

All of his published lithographic sketches are incredibly valuable, unmatched in their compositional strength and emotional connection to architectural subjects. His somewhat stylized line work, while not something you should try to imitate in your own sketches from real life, can be occasionally copied for practice, and it can be very beneficial. It will give you a unique steadiness of hand that's not easily achieved through other methods; and as long as you follow the different approaches for more delicate studies that I suggested, you won't have to worry about developing any bad habits.

If you are interested in architecture, and wish to make it your chief study, you should draw much from photographs of it; and then from the architecture itself, with the same completion of detail and gradation, only keeping the shadows of due paleness,—in photographs they are always about four times as dark as they ought to be,—and treat buildings with as much care and love as artists do their rock foregrounds, drawing all the moss, and weeds, and stains upon them. But if, without caring to understand architecture, you merely want the picturesque character of it, and to be able to sketch it fast, you cannot do better than take Prout for your exclusive master; only do not think that you are copying Prout by drawing straight lines with dots at the end of them. Get first his "Rhine," and draw the subjects that have most hills, and least architecture in them, with chalk on smooth paper, till you can lay on his broad flat tints, and get his gradations of light, which are very wonderful; then take up the architectural subjects in the "Rhine," and draw again and again the groups of figures, etc., in his "Microcosm," and "Lessons on Light and 192 Shadow." After that, proceed to copy the grand subjects in the "Sketches in Flanders and Germany;" or "in Switzerland and Italy," if you cannot get the Flanders; but the Switzerland is very far inferior. Then work from Nature, not trying to Proutize Nature, by breaking smooth buildings into rough ones, but only drawing what you see, with Prout's simple method and firm lines. Don't copy his colored works. They are good, but not at all equal to his chalk and pencil drawings; and you will become a mere imitator, and a very feeble imitator, if you use color at all in Prout's method. I have not space to explain why this is so, it would take a long piece of reasoning; trust me for the statement.

If you're interested in architecture and want to make it your main focus, you should rely heavily on photographs; then study the architecture itself, paying close attention to detail and shading, but keep the shadows a bit lighter—photographs usually make them look four times darker than they should. Treat buildings with as much care and affection as artists do their rock foregrounds, capturing all the moss, weeds, and stains on them. However, if you’re not interested in truly understanding architecture and just want to capture its picturesque quality quickly, Prout should be your go-to teacher. Just don't think you're copying him by drawing simple straight lines with dots at the ends. Start with his "Rhine" and draw subjects that have more hills and less architecture using chalk on smooth paper until you can apply his broad, flat tints and achieve his amazing gradations of light. After that, focus on the architectural subjects in the "Rhine" and repeatedly draw the groups of figures, etc., in his "Microcosm" and "Lessons on Light and Shadow." Next, work on copying the grand subjects from "Sketches in Flanders and Germany," or "Switzerland and Italy" if you can’t get the Flanders version, though the Switzerland series is much weaker. Then, draw from nature without trying to alter it to fit Prout's style by breaking smooth buildings into rough ones; instead, just draw what you see using Prout's straightforward technique and strong lines. Don’t copy his colored works. They’re good, but they don’t compare to his chalk and pencil sketches, and if you use color at all following Prout's method, you'll just become a weak imitator. I can't explain why this is the case—it would require a long discussion—but you can trust me on this.

2. John Lewis.

John Lewis.

His sketches in Spain, lithographed by himself, are very valuable. Get them, if you can, and also some engravings (about eight or ten, I think, altogether) of wild beasts, executed by his own hand a long time ago; they are very precious in every way. The series of the "Alhambra" is rather slight, and few of the subjects are lithographed by himself; still it is well worth having.

His sketches from Spain, lithographed by him, are very valuable. Get them if you can, along with some engravings (about eight or ten, I think, in total) of wild animals, created by him a long time ago; they are very precious in every way. The series on the "Alhambra" is somewhat limited, and few of the subjects are lithographed by him; still, it's worth having.

But let no lithographic work come into the house, if you can help it, nor even look at any, except Prout's, and those sketches of Lewis's.

But don’t let any lithographic work come into the house, if you can avoid it, and don’t even look at any, except for Prout’s and those sketches by Lewis.

3. George Cruikshank.

George Cruikshank.

If you ever happen to meet with the two volumes of "Grimm's German Stories," which were illustrated by him long ago, pounce upon them instantly; the etchings in them are the finest things, next to Rembrandt's, that, as far as I know, have been done since etching was invented. You cannot look at them too much, nor copy them too often.

If you ever come across the two volumes of "Grimm's German Stories," which he illustrated long ago, grab them immediately; the etchings in them are some of the best, second only to Rembrandt's, that I know of since etching was invented. You can't look at them too often or copy them too much.

All his works are very valuable, though disagreeable when they touch on the worst vulgarities of modern life; and often much spoiled by a curiously mistaken type of face, divided so as to give too much to the mouth and eyes and leave too little for forehead, the eyes being set about two 193 thirds up, instead of at half the height of the head. But his manner of work is always right; and his tragic power, though rarely developed, and warped by habits of caricature, is, in reality, as great as his grotesque power.

All his works are very valuable, although they can be off-putting when they deal with the worst aspects of modern life; and they are often undermined by a strangely misguided facial structure, where too much emphasis is placed on the mouth and eyes, leaving too little for the forehead, with the eyes set about two193 thirds up instead of at half the height of the head. However, his technique is always on point; and his tragic ability, though not often showcased and distorted by a tendency for exaggeration, is actually as significant as his talent for the grotesque.

There is no fear of his hurting your taste, as long as your principal work lies among art of so totally different a character as most of that which I Have recommended to you; and you may, therefore, get great good by copying almost anything of his that may come in your way; except only his illustrations, lately published, to "Cinderella," and "Jack and the Bean-stalk," and "Tom Thumb," which are much overlabored, and confused in line. You should get them, but do not copy them.

There’s no need to worry about him messing up your taste, especially since your main work is in a completely different style from the art I’ve suggested to you; because of that, you could really benefit from copying just about anything of his that you come across, except for his recent illustrations for "Cinderella," "Jack and the Beanstalk," and "Tom Thumb," which are overly detailed and messy. You should still check them out, but don’t try to copy them.

4. Alfred Rethel.

4. Alfred Rethel.

I only know two publications by him; one, the "Dance of Death," with text by Reinick, published in Leipsic, but to be had now of any London bookseller for the sum, I believe, of eighteen pence, and containing six plates full of instructive character; the other, of two plates only, "Death the Avenger," and "Death the Friend." These two are far superior to the "Todtentanz," and, if you can get them, will be enough in themselves to show all that Rethel can teach you. If you dislike ghastly subjects, get "Death the Friend" only.

I only know two works by him; one is the "Dance of Death," with text by Reinick, published in Leipzig, but you can find it now at any London bookseller for what I think is eighteen pence, and it includes six plates that are quite informative. The other is a smaller piece with just two plates, called "Death the Avenger" and "Death the Friend." These two are much better than the "Todtentanz," and if you can find them, they'll be enough to show you everything Rethel can teach. If you’re not into dark subjects, just get "Death the Friend."

5. Bewick.

Bewick.

The execution of the plumage in Bewick's birds is the most masterly thing ever yet done in wood-cutting; it is worked just as Paul Veronese would have worked in wood, had he taken to it. His vignettes, though too coarse in execution, and vulgar in types of form, to be good copies, show, nevertheless, intellectual power of the highest order; and there are pieces of sentiment in them, either pathetic or satirical, which have never since been equaled in illustrations of this simple kind; the bitter intensity of the feeling being just like that which characterizes some of the leading Pre-Raphaelites. Bewick is the Burns of painting.

The way Bewick captures the feathers in his birds is the most impressive woodcutting ever done; it's as if Paul Veronese would have approached wood if he had taken it up. His small illustrations, while too rough and lacking in refinement to be considered great replicas, still display a remarkable level of intellectual brilliance. They contain emotional depth, whether touching or satirical, that has never been matched in similar illustrations; the intensity of the emotions mirrors what you find in some of the top Pre-Raphaelites. Bewick is the Burns of painting.

194

194

6. Blake.

6. Blake.

The "Book of Job," engraved by himself, is of the highest rank in certain characters of imagination and expression; in the mode of obtaining certain effects of light it will also be a very useful example to you. In expressing conditions of glaring and flickering light, Blake is greater than Rembrandt.

The "Book of Job," created by him, is top-tier in certain aspects of creativity and expression. It also serves as a great example for achieving specific light effects. When it comes to depicting bright and flickering light, Blake surpasses Rembrandt.

7. Richter.

7. Richter scale.

I have already told you what to guard against in looking at his works. I am a little doubtful whether I have done well in including them in this catalogue at all; but the imaginations in them are so lovely and numberless, that I must risk, for their sake, the chance of hurting you a little in judgment of style. If you want to make presents of story-books to children, his are the best you can now get; but his most beautiful work, as far as I know, is his series of Illustrations to the Lord's Prayer.

I've already mentioned what to watch out for when looking at his works. I'm not entirely sure if including them in this catalog was the right decision, but the creativity in them is so beautiful and vast that I must take the risk of possibly confusing your judgment on style for their sake. If you're looking to give storybooks as gifts to children, his are the best available right now; however, his most outstanding work, as far as I know, is his series of illustrations for the Lord's Prayer.

8. Rossetti.

8. Rossetti.

An edition of Tennyson, lately published, contains wood-cuts from drawings by Rossetti and other chief Pre-Raphaelite masters. They are terribly spoiled in the cutting, and generally the best part, the expression of feature, entirely lost;[78] still they are full of instruction, and cannot be studied too closely. But observe, respecting these wood-cuts, that if you have been in the habit of looking at much spurious work, in which sentiment, action, and style are borrowed or artificial, you will assuredly be offended at first by all genuine work, which is intense in feeling. Genuine art, which is merely art, such as Veronese's or Titian's, may not offend you, though the chances are that you will not care about it; but genuine works of feeling, such as "Maud" or "Aurora 195 Leigh" in poetry, or the grand Pre-Raphaelite designs in painting, are sure to offend you: and if you cease to work hard, and persist in looking at vicious and false art, they will continue to offend you. It will be well, therefore, to have one type of entirely false art, in order to know what to guard against. Flaxman's outlines to Dante contain, I think, examples of almost every kind of falsehood and feebleness which it is possible for a trained artist, not base in thought, to commit or admit, both in design and execution. Base or degraded choice of subject, such as you will constantly find in Teniers and others of the Dutch painters, I need not, I hope, warn you against; you will simply turn away from it in disgust; while mere bad or feeble drawing, which makes mistakes in every direction at once, cannot teach you the particular sort of educated fallacy in question. But, in these designs of Flaxman's, you have gentlemanly feeling, and fair knowledge of anatomy, and firm setting down of lines, all applied in the foolishest and worst possible way; you cannot have a more finished example of learned error, amiable want of meaning, and bad drawing with a steady hand.[79] Retzsch's outlines have more real material in them 196 than Flaxman's, occasionally showing true fancy and power; in artistic principle they are nearly as bad, and in taste, worse. All outlines from statuary, as given in works on classical art, will be very hurtful to you if you in the least like them; and nearly all finished line engravings. Some particular prints I could name which possess instructive qualities, but it would take too long to distinguish them, and the best way is to avoid line engravings of figures altogether.[80] If you happen to be a rich person, possessing quantities of them, and if you are fond of the large finished prints from Raphael, Correggio, etc., it is wholly impossible that you can make any progress in knowledge of real art till you have sold them all,—or burnt them, which would be a greater benefit to the world. I hope that, some day, true and noble engravings will be made from the few pictures of the great schools, which the restorations undertaken by the modern managers of foreign galleries may leave us; but the existing engravings have nothing whatever in common with the good in the works they profess to represent, and, if you like them, you like in the originals of them hardly anything but their errors.

An edition of Tennyson that was recently published includes woodcuts based on drawings by Rossetti and other leading Pre-Raphaelite artists. They have been badly damaged in the cutting, and generally the best part—the expression of features—is completely lost;[78] however, they are still very instructive and deserve close study. But keep in mind that if you've been used to looking at a lot of fake work, where the sentiment, action, and style feel borrowed or artificial, you will likely be put off at first by any genuine work that is emotionally intense. Authentic art, like that of Veronese or Titian, may not offend you, but chances are you won't be interested in it. However, genuine emotional works, like "Maud" or "Aurora Leigh" in poetry, or the grand Pre-Raphaelite designs in painting, will definitely offend you; and if you stop working hard and keep looking at corrupt and false art, they will continue to bother you. It's important, then, to have one clear example of entirely false art to know what to avoid. Flaxman's outlines for Dante include examples of almost every type of falsehood and weakness that a skilled artist, not lacking in thought, can create or accept, both in design and execution. You’re likely to easily turn away in disgust from low or degrading subject matters, like those often found in Teniers and other Dutch painters, while simply bad or weak drawing that makes mistakes all over won't teach you the specific educated fallacy I'm talking about. But in Flaxman's designs, you get gentlemanly feelings, a decent understanding of anatomy, and confident linework, all applied in the most foolish and ineffective way; it's a perfect example of learned error, a charming lack of meaning, and bad drawing executed with a steady hand.[79] Retzsch's outlines have more substance than Flaxman's, occasionally displaying real imagination and power; in artistic principles, they are nearly as flawed, and in taste, even worse. Any outlines derived from statuary, as shown in classic art books, will be very harmful to you if you have any affinity for them; and almost all finished line engravings will be similar. There are specific prints I could mention that have some educational value, but naming them would take too long, so it's best to avoid line engravings of figures entirely.[80] If you happen to be wealthy and own a lot of them, and if you enjoy the large, polished prints from Raphael, Correggio, etc., there's simply no way you can make any real progress in understanding true art until you've sold them all—or burned them, which would be an even greater benefit to society. I hope that one day, true and great engravings will be produced from the few surviving works of the great schools that the restorations by modern managers of foreign galleries may leave us; but the engravings that currently exist have nothing in common with the good in the works they claim to represent, and if you like them, you're likely attracted to the errors in their originals.

258. Finally, your judgment will be, of course, much affected by your taste in literature. Indeed, I know many persons who have the purest taste in literature, and yet false taste in art, and it is a phenomenon which puzzles me not a little; but I have never known any one with false taste in books, and true taste in pictures. It is also of the greatest importance to you, not only for art's sake, but for all kinds of sake, in these days of book deluge, to keep out of the salt 197 swamps of literature, and live on a little rocky island of your own, with a spring and a lake in it, pure and good. I cannot, of course, suggest the choice of your library to you: every several mind needs different books; but there are some books which we all need, and assuredly, if you read Homer,[81] Plato, Æschylus, Herodotus, Dante,[82] Shakspeare, and Spenser, as much as you ought, you will not require wide enlargement of shelves to right and left of them for purposes of perpetual study. Among modern books avoid generally magazine and review literature. Sometimes it may contain a useful abridgment or a wholesome piece of criticism; but the chances are ten to one it will either waste your time or mislead you. If you want to understand any subject whatever, read the best book upon it you can hear of: not a review of the book. If you don't like the first book you try, seek for another; but do not hope ever to understand the subject without pains, by a reviewer's help. Avoid especially that class of literature which has a knowing tone; it is the most poisonous of all. Every good book, or piece of book, is full of admiration and awe; it may contain firm assertion or stern satire, but it never sneers coldly, nor asserts haughtily, and it always leads you to reverence or love something with your whole heart. It is not always easy to distinguish the satire of the venomous race of books from the satire of the noble and pure ones; but in general you may notice that the cold-blooded, Crustacean and Batrachian books will sneer at sentiment; and the warm-blooded, human books, at sin. Then, in general, the more you can restrain your serious reading to reflective or lyric poetry, history, and natural history, avoiding fiction and the drama, the healthier your mind will become. Of modern poetry, keep to Scott, Wordsworth, 198 Keats, Crabbe, Tennyson, the two Brownings, Thomas Hood, Lowell, Longfellow, and Coventry Patmore, whose "Angel in the House" is a most finished piece of writing, and the sweetest analysis we possess of quiet modern domestic feeling; while Mrs. Browning's "Aurora Leigh" is, as far as I know, the greatest poem which the century has produced in any language. Cast Coleridge at once aside, as sickly and useless; and Shelley, as shallow and verbose; Byron, until your taste is fully formed, and you are able to discern the magnificence in him from the wrong. Never read bad or common poetry, nor write any poetry yourself; there is, perhaps, rather too much than too little in the world already.

258. Ultimately, your judgment will definitely be influenced by your taste in literature. In fact, I know many people who have excellent taste in literature but poor taste in art, and that phenomenon baffles me quite a bit; however, I've never met anyone who has poor taste in books yet good taste in art. It's also really important for you, not just for the sake of art but for various reasons, in this age of overwhelming books, to steer clear of the useless parts of literature and find a little rocky island of your own, with a spring and a lake that are pure and good. I can't suggest specific books for your library, as each mind needs different reading material; but there are certain books we all need, and certainly, if you read Homer, Plato, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Dante, Shakespeare, and Spenser as much as you should, you won’t need to expand your shelves endlessly for constant studying. Among modern books, generally avoid magazine and review literature. Occasionally, it might have a useful summary or some beneficial criticism, but it’s likely to waste your time or lead you astray. If you want to truly understand any subject, read the best book on it that you can find; don’t rely on a review of that book. If the first book you pick doesn’t resonate with you, look for another; but don’t think you can grasp the subject without effort through a reviewer's words. Stay away especially from literature that takes a sarcastic tone; that's the most toxic of all. Every good book, or piece of writing, is full of admiration and awe; it might make strong assertions or harsh satire, but it never sneers coldly or boasts arrogantly, and it always inspires you to respect or love something with your whole heart. It isn’t always easy to tell the difference between the biting satire of inferior books and the satire of noble, pure ones; but generally, you can notice that the cold, detached books tend to mock sentiment, while the warm, human books critique sin. Therefore, the more you can focus your serious reading on reflective or lyric poetry, history, and natural history while avoiding fiction and drama, the healthier your mind will be. For modern poetry, stick to Scott, Wordsworth, Keats, Crabbe, Tennyson, the two Brownings, Thomas Hood, Lowell, Longfellow, and Coventry Patmore, whose "Angel in the House" is an exceptionally well-crafted work and the sweetest analysis we have of quiet modern domestic feelings; while Mrs. Browning's "Aurora Leigh" is, as far as I know, the greatest poem produced in this century in any language. Dismiss Coleridge as weak and unhelpful right away, and Shelley as shallow and verbose; save Byron until your taste is fully developed, allowing you to differentiate his magnificence from his flaws. Never read poor or mediocre poetry, nor write any poetry yourself; there is probably already too much of it in the world.

259. Of reflective prose, read chiefly Bacon, Johnson, and Helps. Carlyle is hardly to be named as a writer for "beginners," because his teaching, though to some of us vitally necessary, may to others be hurtful. If you understand and like him, read him; if he offends you, you are not yet ready for him, and perhaps may never be so; at all events, give him up, as you would sea-bathing if you found it hurt you, till you are stronger. Of fiction, read "Sir Charles Grandison," Scott's novels, Miss Edgeworth's, and, if you are a young lady, Madame de Genlis', the French Miss Edgeworth; making these, I mean, your constant companions. Of course you must, or will, read other books for amusement once or twice; but you will find that these have an element of perpetuity in them, existing in nothing else of their kind; while their peculiar quietness and repose of manner will also be of the greatest value in teaching you to feel the same characters in art. Read little at a time, trying to feel interest in little things, and reading not so much for the sake of the story as to get acquainted with the pleasant people into whose company these writers bring you. A common book will often give you much amusement, but it is only a noble book which will give you dear friends. Remember, also, that it is of less importance to you in your earlier years, that the books you read should be clever than that they should be right. I 199 do not mean oppressively or repulsively instructive; but that the thoughts they express should be just, and the feelings they excite generous. It is not necessary for you to read the wittiest or the most suggestive books: it is better, in general, to hear what is already known, and may be simply said. Much of the literature of the present day, though good to be read by persons of ripe age, has a tendency to agitate rather than confirm, and leaves its readers too frequently in a helpless or hopeless indignation, the worst possible state into which the mind of youth can be thrown. It may, indeed, become necessary for you, as you advance in life, to set your hand to things that need to be altered in the world, or apply your heart chiefly to what must be pitied in it, or condemned; but, for a young person, the safest temper is one of reverence, and the safest place one of obscurity. Certainly at present, and perhaps through all your life, your teachers are wisest when they make you content in quiet virtue, and that literature and art are best for you which point out, in common life, and in familiar things, the objects for hopeful labor, and for humble love.

259. For reflective writing, mainly read Bacon, Johnson, and Helps. Carlyle isn’t really a writer for beginners because his lessons, while crucial for some, might be harmful to others. If you get him and enjoy his work, go ahead and read; if he bothers you, you’re not ready for him yet, and maybe you never will be. In that case, set him aside like you would beach trips if they upset you, until you're stronger. For fiction, read "Sir Charles Grandison," Scott's novels, Miss Edgeworth's works, and if you're a young lady, Madame de Genlis, the French equivalent of Miss Edgeworth; make these your regular reads. Of course, you’ll read other books for fun now and then, but you’ll find these possess something lasting that other books of their kind don’t have; their unique calmness and tranquility will be incredibly valuable in helping you appreciate the same qualities in art. Read in small doses, focusing on finding interest in little details, and don’t read just for the story but to get to know the delightful people these authors introduce you to. Common books can be fun, but only great books can provide you with true friends. Also, remember that during your younger years, it matters less for the books you read to be clever and more for them to be right. I don’t mean annoyingly or uncomfortably instructive, but that the ideas they convey should be accurate, and the feelings they inspire should be generous. It’s not necessary for you to read the funniest or most thought-provoking books; it’s often better to hear what’s already known and can be expressed simply. Much of today’s literature, while suitable for mature readers, tends to agitate rather than reassure and often leaves its readers feeling helpless or hopeless, which is the worst state for a young mind. As you grow older, you may indeed feel compelled to tackle issues that need change in the world or focus your heart on what deserves compassion or criticism; however, for a young individual, the safest approach is one of respect, and the safest state is one of humility. Certainly, at present, and possibly throughout your life, your educators are most effective when they help you find satisfaction in quiet virtue, and the best literature and art for you highlight, in everyday life and familiar experiences, the areas for hopeful effort and sincere love.


[75] I do not mean necessarily to imply inferiority of rank in saying that this second class of painters have questionable qualities. The greatest men have often many faults, and sometimes their faults are a part of their greatness; but such men are not, of course, to be looked upon by the student with absolute implicitness of faith.

[75] I don’t intend to suggest that this second group of painters is inferior in status by saying they have questionable qualities. The greatest artists often have many flaws, and sometimes those flaws contribute to their greatness; however, students shouldn’t view these artists with blind faith.

[76] Including, under this term, John Lewis, and William Hunt of the Old Water-color, who, take him all in all, is the best painter of still life, I believe, that ever existed.

[76] This includes John Lewis and William Hunt from the Old Water-color movement, who, all things considered, is the best still life painter I believe has ever existed.

[77] The order in which I place these masters does not in the least imply superiority or inferiority. I wrote their names down as they occurred to me; putting Rossetti's last because what I had to say of him was connected with other subjects; and one or another will appear to you great, or be found by you useful, according to the kind of subjects you are studying.

[77] The order in which I list these masters doesn't imply that one is better or worse than the others. I wrote their names as they came to mind, placing Rossetti last because what I have to say about him relates to other topics; and one or another may seem impressive to you, or be useful depending on the subjects you're studying.

[78] This is especially the case in the St. Cecily, Rossetti's first illustration to the "Palace of Art," which would have been the best in the book had it been well engraved. The whole work should be taken up again, and done by line engraving, perfectly; and wholly from Pre-Raphaelite designs, with which no other modern work can bear the least comparison.

[78] This is particularly true for St. Cecily, Rossetti's first illustration for the "Palace of Art," which would have been the best in the book if it had been properly engraved. The entire work should be revisited and done with precise line engraving, completely based on Pre-Raphaelite designs, which have no equal among other modern works.

[79] The praise I have given incidentally to Flaxman's sculpture in the "Seven Lamps," and elsewhere, refers wholly to his studies from Nature, and simple groups in marble, which were always good and interesting. Still, I have overrated him, even in this respect; and it is generally to be remembered that, in speaking of artists whose works I cannot be supposed to have specially studied, the errors I fall into will always be on the side of praise. For, of course, praise is most likely to be given when the thing praised is above one's knowledge; and, therefore, as our knowledge increases, such things may be found less praiseworthy than we thought. But blame can only be justly given when the thing blamed is below one's level of sight; and, practically, I never do blame anything until I have got well past it, and am certain that there is demonstrable falsehood in it. I believe, therefore, all my blame to be wholly trust-worthy, having never yet had occasion to repent of one depreciatory word that I have ever written, while I have often found that, with respect to things I had not time to study closely, I was led too far by sudden admiration, helped, perhaps, by peculiar associations, or other deceptive accidents; and this the more, because I never care to check an expression of delight, thinking the chances are, that, even if mistaken, it will do more good than harm; but I weigh every word of blame with scrupulous caution. I have sometimes erased a strong passage of blame from second editions of my books; but this was only when I found it offended the reader without convincing him, never because I repented of it myself.

[79] The praise I have given to Flaxman's sculpture in the "Seven Lamps," and elsewhere, relates entirely to his studies from Nature and simple marble groups, which were always good and interesting. Still, I realize I may have overrated him in this regard; and it should be noted that when I discuss artists whose work I haven’t specifically studied, my mistakes are usually on the side of praise. Praise tends to be given when the subject of admiration is beyond one's knowledge, and as our knowledge grows, we may find that these things are less deserving of praise than we initially thought. However, criticism can only be justified when the subject of blame falls below our understanding; in practice, I don’t criticize anything until I’ve moved past it and am sure that there’s clear falsehood in it. Thus, I believe all my criticisms are entirely reliable, as I have never regretted any negative comment I've made, whereas I have often realized that in cases where I didn't have time to study closely, I was swayed too much by sudden admiration, possibly influenced by unique associations or other misleading factors. I tend not to hold back my expressions of delight, thinking that even if I'm wrong, it will likely do more good than harm; however, I scrutinize every word of criticism very carefully. I have sometimes removed a strong critique from later editions of my books, but only when I found it offended the reader without persuading them, never because I regretted it myself.

[80] Large line engravings, I mean, in which the lines, as such, are conspicuous. Small vignettes in line are often beautiful in figures no less than landscape; as, for instance, those from Stothard's drawings in Rogers's Italy; and, therefore, I have just recommended the vignettes to Tennyson to be done by line engraving.

[80] Large line engravings, I mean, where the lines are clearly noticeable. Small line vignettes can be just as beautiful in figures as in landscapes; for example, those from Stothard's drawings in Rogers's Italy. That's why I just suggested to Tennyson that the vignettes be created using line engraving.

[81] Chapman's, if not the original.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Chapman's, if not the first.

[82] Gary's or Cayley's, if not the original. I do not know which are the best translations of Plato. Herodotus and Æschylus can only be read in the original. It may seem strange that I name books like these for "beginners:" but all the greatest books contain food for all ages; and an intelligent and rightly bred youth or girl ought to enjoy much, even in Plato, by the time they are fifteen or sixteen.

[82] Whether it's Gary's or Cayley's, I'm not sure which are the best translations of Plato. You can only read Herodotus and Aeschylus in the original language. It might seem odd that I mention books like these for "beginners," but all the greatest books have something valuable for everyone; an intelligent and well-educated young person, whether a boy or a girl, should be able to appreciate a lot of Plato by the time they’re fifteen or sixteen.

 

 


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!