• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

EveryWriter

A New Community of Writers

  • Home
  • Reading
    • Blog
    • On Writing
    • Interviews
    • Famous Authors
    • Stories
    • Poetry
  • Writing
    • Writing Tips
    • Writing Inspiration
    • Playground
    • Writing Prompts
  • Publishing
    • Publishing Tips
    • Literary Magazines
    • Book Publishers
  • Promotions
    • Book Promotions
    • Promoting Tips
    • Classifieds
    • Newsletter
  • Submit
    • Submit
    • Privacy Policy

Historic Articles by Authors

POETRY AND PAINTING COMPARED by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

May 15, 2010 by admin 2 Comments

The first person who compared painting and poetry with one another was a man of refined feeling, who became aware of a similar effect produced upon himself by both arts. He felt both represent what is absent as if it were present, and appearance as if it were reality; that both deceived, and that the deception of both is pleasing.

A second observer sought to penetrate below the surface of this pleasure, and discovered that in both it flowed from the same source. Beauty, the idea of which we first deduce from bodily objects, possesses universal laws, applicable to more things than one; to actions and to thoughts as well as to forms.

A third reflected upon the value and distribution of these universal laws, and noticed that some are more predominant in painting, others in poetry; that thus, in the latter case, poetry will help to explain and illustrate painting; in the former, painting will do the same for poetry.

The first was the amateur, the second the philosopher, the third the critic.

The first two could not easily make a wrong use of either their feelings or conclusions. On the other hand, the value of the critic’s observations mainly depends upon the correctness of their application to the individual case, and since for one clear-sighted critic there have always been fifty ingenious ones, it would have been a wonder if this application had always been applied with all that caution which is required to hold the balance equally between the two arts.

If Apelles and Protogenes, in their lost writings on painting, affirmed and illustrated its laws by the previously established rules of poetry, we may feel sure that they did it with that moderation and accuracy with which we now see, in the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Horace, and Quintilian, the principles and experience of painting applied to eloquence and poetry. It is the privilege of the ancients never in any matter to do too much or too little.

But in many points we moderns have imagined that we have advanced far beyond them, because we have changed their narrow lanes into highways, even tho the shorter and safer highways contract into footpaths as they lead through deserts.

The dazzling antithesis of the Greek Voltaire, “Painting is dumb poetry, and poetry is speaking painting,” can never have been found in any didactic work; it was an idea, amongst others, of Simonides, and the truth it contains is so evident that we feel compelled to overlook the indistinctness and error which accompany it.

And yet the ancients did not overlook them. They confined the expression of Simonides to the effect of either art, but at the same time forgot not to inculcate that, notwithstanding the complete similarity of this effect, the two were different, both in the objects which they imitated, and in their mode of imitation.

But, just as tho no such difference existed, many recent critics have drawn from this harmony of poetry and painting the most ill-digested conclusions. At one time they compress poetry into the narrower limits of painting; at another they allow painting to occupy the whole wide sphere of poetry. Everything, say they, that the one is entitled to should be conceded to the other; everything that pleases or displeases in the one is necessarily pleasing or displeasing in the other. Full of this idea, they give utterance in the most confident tone to the most shallow decisions; when, criticizing the works of a poet and painter upon the same subject, they set down as faults any divergences they may observe, laying the blame upon the one or the other accordingly as they may have more taste for poetry or for painting.

Indeed, this false criticism has misled in some degree the professors of art. It has produced the love of description in poetry, and of allegory in painting: while the critics strove to reduce poetry to a speaking painting, without properly knowing what it could and ought to paint; and painting to a dumb poem, without having considered in what degree it could express general ideas without alienating itself from its destiny, and degenerating into an arbitrary method of writing.

Filed Under: Classic Articles on Writing, Historic Articles by Authors

POETRY AND NATIONALITY by James Russell Lowell

May 12, 2010 by admin Leave a Comment

POETRY AND NATIONALITY[1]

by James Russell Lowell

This article first appeared in the North American Review in 1868
lowellOne of the dreams of our earlier horoscope-mongers was, that a poet should come out of the West, fashioned on a scale somewhat proportioned to our geographical pretensions. Our rivers, forests, mountains, cataracts, prairies, and inland seas were to find in him their antitype and voice. Shaggy he was to be, brown-fisted, careless of proprieties, unhampered by tradition, his Pegasus of the half-horse, half-alligator breed. By him at last the epos of the New World was to be fitly sung, the great tragi-comedy of democracy put upon the stage for all time. It was a cheap vision, for it cost no thought; and, like all judicious prophecy, it muffled itself from criticism in the loose drapery of its terms. Till the advent of this splendid apparition, who should dare affirm positively that he would never come? that, indeed, he was impossible? And yet his impossibility was demonstrable, nevertheless.

Supposing a great poet to be born in the West, though he would naturally levy upon what had always been familiar to his eyes for his images and illustrations, he would almost as certainly look for his ideal somewhere outside of the life that lay immediately about him. Life in its large sense, and not as it is temporarily modified by manners or politics, is the only subject of the poet; and though its elements lie always close at hand, yet in its unity it seems always infinitely distant, and the difference of angle at which it is seen in India and in Minnesota is almost inappreciable. Moreover, a rooted discontent seems always to underlie all great poetry, if it be not even the motive of it. The Iliad and the Odyssey paint manners that are only here and there incidentally true to the actual, but which in their larger truth had either never existed or had long since passed away. Had Dante’s scope been narrowed to contemporary Italy, the “Divina Commedia” would have been a picture-book merely. But his theme was Man, and the vision that inspired him was of an Italy that never was nor could be, his political theories as abstract as those of Plato or Spinoza. Shakespeare shows us less of the England that then was than any other considerable poet of his time. The struggle of Goethe’s whole life was to emancipate himself from Germany, and fill his lungs for once with a more universal air.

Yet there is always a flavor of the climate in these rare fruits, some gift of the sun peculiar to the region that ripened them. If we are ever to have a national poet, let us hope that his nationality will be of this subtile essence, something that shall make him unspeakably nearer to us, while it does not provincialize him for the rest of mankind. The popular recipe for compounding him would give us, perhaps, the most sublimely furnished bore in human annals. The novel aspects of life under our novel conditions may give some freshness of color to our literature; but democracy itself, which many seem to regard as the necessary Lucina of some new poetic birth, is altogether too abstract an influence to serve for any such purpose. If any American author may be looked on as in some sort the result of our social and political ideal, it is Emerson, who, in his emancipation from the traditional, in the irresponsible freedom of his speculation, and his faith in the absolute value of his own individuality, is certainly, to some extent, typical; but if ever author was inspired by the past, it is he, and he is as far as possible from the shaggy hero of prophecy. Of the sham-shaggy, who have tried the trick of Jacob upon us, we have had quite enough, and may safely doubt whether this satyr of masquerade is to be our representative singer.[2] Were it so, it would not be greatly to the credit of democracy as an element of aesthetics. But we may safely hope for better things.

The themes of poetry have been pretty much the same from the first; and if a man should ever be born among us with a great imagination, and the gift of the right word,—for it is these, and not sublime spaces, that make a poet,—he will be original rather in spite of democracy than in consequence of it, and will owe his inspiration quite as much to the accumulations of the Old World as to the promises of the New. But for a long while yet the proper conditions will be wanting, not, perhaps, for the birth of such a man, but for his development and culture. At present, with the largest reading population in the world, perhaps no country ever offered less encouragement to the higher forms of art or the more thorough achievements of scholarship. Even were it not so, it would be idle to expect us to produce any literature so peculiarly our own as was the natural growth of ages less communicative, less open to every breath of foreign influence. Literature tends more and more to become a vast commonwealth, with no dividing lines of nationality. Any more Cids, or Songs of Roland, or Nibelungens, or Kalewalas are out of the question,—nay, anything at all like them; for the necessary insulation of race, of country, of religion, is impossible, even were it desirable. Journalism, translation, criticism, and facility of intercourse tend continually more and more to make the thought and turn of expression in cultivated men identical all over the world. Whether we like it or not, the costume of mind and body is gradually becoming of one cut.

[Footnote 1: This essay, to which I have given the above title, forms the greater part of a review of poems by John James Piatt. The brief, concluding portion of the review is of little value and is omitted here. Piatt died several years ago. He was a great friend of William Dean Howells, and once published a volume of poems in collaboration with him. A.M.]

[Footnote 2: This is undoubtedly an allusion to Walt Whitman, who is mentioned by name, also derogatorily, in the next essay on Howells. The Howells essay appeared two years before the above. A.M.]

Filed Under: Classic Articles on Writing, Historic Articles by Authors

WHAT LIFE MEANS TO ME by Jack London

May 11, 2010 by admin Leave a Comment

Jack_London_1914_
Jack London 1914

I was born in the working-class.  Early I discovered enthusiasm, ambition, and ideals; and to satisfy these became the problem of my child-life.  My environment was crude and rough and raw.  I had no outlook, but an uplook rather.  My place in society was at the bottom.  Here life offered nothing but sordidness and wretchedness, both of the flesh and the spirit; for here flesh and spirit were alike starved and tormented.

Above me towered the colossal edifice of society, and to my mind the only way out was up.  Into this edifice I early resolved to climb.  Up above, men wore black clothes and boiled shirts, and women dressed in beautiful gowns.  Also, there were good things to eat, and there was plenty to eat.  This much for the flesh.  Then there were the things of the spirit.  Up above me, I knew, were unselfishnesses of the spirit, clean and noble thinking, keen intellectual living.  I knew all this because I read “Seaside Library” novels, in which, with the exception of the villains and adventuresses, all men and women thought beautiful thoughts, spoke a beautiful tongue, and performed glorious deeds.  In short, as I accepted the rising of the sun, I accepted that up above me was all that was fine and noble and gracious, all that gave decency and dignity to life, all that made life worth living and that remunerated one for his travail and misery.

But it is not particularly easy for one to climb up out of the working-class—especially if he is handicapped by the possession of ideals and illusions.  I lived on a ranch in California, and was hard put to find the ladder whereby to climb.  I early inquired the rate of interest on invested money, and worried my child’s brain into an understanding of the virtues and excellences of that remarkable invention of man, compound interest.  Further, I ascertained the current rates of wages for workers of all ages, and the cost of living.  From all this data I concluded that if I began immediately and worked and saved until I was fifty years of age, I could then stop working and enter into participation in a fair portion of the delights and goodnesses that would then be open to me higher up in society.  Of course, I resolutely determined not to marry, while I quite forgot to consider at all that great rock of disaster in the working-class world—sickness.

But the life that was in me demanded more than a meagre existence of scraping and scrimping.  Also, at ten years of age, I became a newsboy on the streets of a city, and found myself with a changed uplook.  All about me were still the same sordidness and wretchedness, and up above me was still the same paradise waiting to be gained; but the ladder whereby to climb was a different one.  It was now the ladder of business.  Why save my earnings and invest in government bonds, when, by buying two newspapers for five cents, with a turn of the wrist I could sell them for ten cents and double my capital?  The business ladder was the ladder for me, and I had a vision of myself becoming a bald-headed and successful merchant prince.

Alas for visions!  When I was sixteen I had already earned the title of “prince.”  But this title was given me by a gang of cut-throats and thieves, by whom I was called “The Prince of the Oyster Pirates.”  And at that time I had climbed the first rung of the business ladder.  I was a capitalist.  I owned a boat and a complete oyster-pirating outfit.  I had begun to exploit my fellow-creatures.  I had a crew of one man.  As captain and owner I took two-thirds of the spoils, and gave the crew one-third, though the crew worked just as hard as I did and risked just as much his life and liberty.

This one rung was the height I climbed up the business ladder.  One night I went on a raid amongst the Chinese fishermen.  Ropes and nets were worth dollars and cents.  It was robbery, I grant, but it was precisely the spirit of capitalism.  The capitalist takes away the possessions of his fellow-creatures by means of a rebate, or of a betrayal of trust, or by the purchase of senators and supreme-court judges.  I was merely crude.  That was the only difference.  I used a gun.

But my crew that night was one of those inefficients against whom the capitalist is wont to fulminate, because, forsooth, such inefficients increase expenses and reduce dividends.  My crew did both.  What of his carelessness he set fire to the big mainsail and totally destroyed it.  There weren’t any dividends that night, and the Chinese fishermen were richer by the nets and ropes we did not get.  I was bankrupt, unable just then to pay sixty-five dollars for a new mainsail.  I left my boat at anchor and went off on a bay-pirate boat on a raid up the Sacramento River.  While away on this trip, another gang of bay pirates raided my boat.  They stole everything, even the anchors; and later on, when I recovered the drifting hulk, I sold it for twenty dollars.  I had slipped back the one rung I had climbed, and never again did I attempt the business ladder.

londonFrom then on I was mercilessly exploited by other capitalists.  I had the muscle, and they made money out of it while I made but a very indifferent living out of it.  I was a sailor before the mast, a longshoreman, a roustabout; I worked in canneries, and factories, and laundries; I mowed lawns, and cleaned carpets, and washed windows.  And I never got the full product of my toil.  I looked at the daughter of the cannery owner, in her carriage, and knew that it was my muscle, in part, that helped drag along that carriage on its rubber tyres.  I looked at the son of the factory owner, going to college, and knew that it was my muscle that helped, in part, to pay for the wine and good fellowship he enjoyed.

But I did not resent this.  It was all in the game.  They were the strong.  Very well, I was strong.  I would carve my way to a place amongst them and make money out of the muscles of other men.  I was not afraid of work.  I loved hard work.  I would pitch in and work harder than ever and eventually become a pillar of society.

And just then, as luck would have it, I found an employer that was of the same mind.  I was willing to work, and he was more than willing that I should work.  I thought I was learning a trade.  In reality, I had displaced two men.  I thought he was making an electrician out of me; as a matter of fact, he was making fifty dollars per month out of me.  The two men I had displaced had received forty dollars each per month; I was doing the work of both for thirty dollars per month.

This employer worked me nearly to death.  A man may love oysters, but too many oysters will disincline him toward that particular diet.  And so with me.  Too much work sickened me.  I did not wish ever to see work again.  I fled from work.  I became a tramp, begging my way from door to door, wandering over the United States and sweating bloody sweats in slums and prisons.

I had been born in the working-class, and I was now, at the age of eighteen, beneath the point at which I had started.  I was down in the cellar of society, down in the subterranean depths of misery about which it is neither nice nor proper to speak.  I was in the pit, the abyss, the human cesspool, the shambles and the charnel-house of our civilization.  This is the part of the edifice of society that society chooses to ignore.  Lack of space compels me here to ignore it, and I shall say only that the things I there saw gave me a terrible scare.

I was scared into thinking.  I saw the naked simplicities of the complicated civilization in which I lived.  Life was a matter of food and shelter.  In order to get food and shelter men sold things.  The merchant sold shoes, the politician sold his manhood, and the representative of the people, with exceptions, of course, sold his trust; while nearly all sold their honour.  Women, too, whether on the street or in the holy bond of wedlock, were prone to sell their flesh.  All things were commodities, all people bought and sold.  The one commodity that labour had to sell was muscle.  The honour of labour had no price in the marketplace.  Labour had muscle, and muscle alone, to sell.

But there was a difference, a vital difference.  Shoes and trust and honour had a way of renewing themselves.  They were imperishable stocks.  Muscle, on the other hand, did not renew.  As the shoe merchant sold shoes, he continued to replenish his stock.  But there was no way of replenishing the labourer’s stock of muscle.  The more he sold of his muscle, the less of it remained to him.  It was his one commodity, and each day his stock of it diminished.  In the end, if he did not die before, he sold out and put up his shutters.  He was a muscle bankrupt, and nothing remained to him but to go down into the cellar of society and perish miserably.

I learned, further, that brain was likewise a commodity.  It, too, was different from muscle.  A brain seller was only at his prime when he was fifty or sixty years old, and his wares were fetching higher prices than ever.  But a labourer was worked out or broken down at forty-five or fifty.  I had been in the cellar of society, and I did not like the place as a habitation.  The pipes and drains were unsanitary, and the air was bad to breathe.  If I could not live on the parlour floor of society, I could, at any rate, have a try at the attic.  It was true, the diet there was slim, but the air at least was pure.  So I resolved to sell no more muscle, and to become a vendor of brains.

Then began a frantic pursuit of knowledge.  I returned to California and opened the books.  While thus equipping myself to become a brain merchant, it was inevitable that I should delve into sociology.  There I found, in a certain class of books, scientifically formulated, the simple sociological concepts I had already worked out for myself.  Other and greater minds, before I was born, had worked out all that I had thought and a vast deal more.  I discovered that I was a socialist.

The socialists were revolutionists, inasmuch as they struggled to overthrow the society of the present, and out of the material to build the society of the future.  I, too, was a socialist and a revolutionist.  I joined the groups of working-class and intellectual revolutionists, and for the first time came into intellectual living.  Here I found keen-flashing intellects and brilliant wits; for here I met strong and alert-brained, withal horny-handed, members of the working-class; unfrocked preachers too wide in their Christianity for any congregation of Mammon-worshippers; professors broken on the wheel of university subservience to the ruling class and flung out because they were quick with knowledge which they strove to apply to the affairs of mankind.

Here I found, also, warm faith in the human, glowing idealism, sweetnesses of unselfishness, renunciation, and martyrdom—all the splendid, stinging things of the spirit.  Here life was clean, noble, and alive.  Here life rehabilitated itself, became wonderful and glorious; and I was glad to be alive.  I was in touch with great souls who exalted flesh and spirit over dollars and cents, and to whom the thin wail of the starved slum child meant more than all the pomp and circumstance of commercial expansion and world empire.  All about me were nobleness of purpose and heroism of effort, and my days and nights were sunshine and starshine, all fire and dew, with before my eyes, ever burning and blazing, the Holy Grail, Christ’s own Grail, the warm human, long-suffering and maltreated, but to be rescued and saved at the last.

And I, poor foolish I, deemed all this to be a mere foretaste of the delights of living I should find higher above me in society.  I had lost many illusions since the day I read “Seaside Library” novels on the California ranch.  I was destined to lose many of the illusions I still retained.

As a brain merchant I was a success.  Society opened its portals to me.  I entered right in on the parlour floor, and my disillusionment proceeded rapidly.  I sat down to dinner with the masters of society, and with the wives and daughters of the masters of society.  The women were gowned beautifully, I admit; but to my naïve surprise I discovered that they were of the same clay as all the rest of the women I had known down below in the cellar.  “The colonel’s lady and Judy O’Grady were sisters under their skins”—and gowns.

It was not this, however, so much as their materialism, that shocked me.  It is true, these beautifully gowned, beautiful women prattled sweet little ideals and dear little moralities; but in spite of their prattle the dominant key of the life they lived was materialistic.  And they were so sentimentally selfish!  They assisted in all kinds of sweet little charities, and informed one of the fact, while all the time the food they ate and the beautiful clothes they wore were bought out of dividends stained with the blood of child labour, and sweated labour, and of prostitution itself.  When I mentioned such facts, expecting in my innocence that these sisters of Judy O’Grady would at once strip off their blood-dyed silks and jewels, they became excited and angry, and read me preachments about the lack of thrift, the drink, and the innate depravity that caused all the misery in society’s cellar.  When I mentioned that I couldn’t quite see that it was the lack of thrift, the intemperance, and the depravity of a half-starved child of six that made it work twelve hours every night in a Southern cotton mill, these sisters of Judy O’Grady attacked my private life and called me an “agitator”—as though that, forsooth, settled the argument.

Nor did I fare better with the masters themselves.  I had expected to find men who were clean, noble, and alive, whose ideals were clean, noble, and alive.  I went about amongst the men who sat in the high places—the preachers, the politicians, the business men, the professors, and the editors.  I ate meat with them, drank wine with them, automobiled with them, and studied them.  It is true, I found many that were clean and noble; but with rare exceptions, they were not alive.  I do verily believe I could count the exceptions on the fingers of my two hands.  Where they were not alive with rottenness, quick with unclean life, there were merely the unburied dead—clean and noble, like well-preserved mummies, but not alive.  In this connection I may especially mention the professors I met, the men who live up to that decadent university ideal, “the passionless pursuit of passionless intelligence.”

I met men who invoked the name of the Prince of Peace in their diatribes against war, and who put rifles in the hands of Pinkertons with which to shoot down strikers in their own factories.  I met men incoherent with indignation at the brutality of prize-fighting, and who, at the same time, were parties to the adulteration of food that killed each year more babies than even red-handed Herod had killed.

I talked in hotels and clubs and homes and Pullmans, and steamer-chairs with captains of industry, and marvelled at how little travelled they were in the realm of intellect.  On the other hand, I discovered that their intellect, in the business sense, was abnormally developed.  Also, I discovered that their morality, where business was concerned, was nil.

This delicate, aristocratic-featured gentleman, was a dummy director and a tool of corporations that secretly robbed widows and orphans.  This gentleman, who collected fine editions and was an especial patron of literature, paid blackmail to a heavy-jowled, black-browed boss of a municipal machine.  This editor, who published patent medicine advertisements and did not dare print the truth in his paper about said patent medicines for fear of losing the advertising, called me a scoundrelly demagogue because I told him that his political economy was antiquated and that his biology was contemporaneous with Pliny.

This senator was the tool and the slave, the little puppet of a gross, uneducated machine boss; so was this governor and this supreme court judge; and all three rode on railroad passes.  This man, talking soberly and earnestly about the beauties of idealism and the goodness of God, had just betrayed his comrades in a business deal.  This man, a pillar of the church and heavy contributor to foreign missions, worked his shop girls ten hours a day on a starvation wage and thereby directly encouraged prostitution.  This man, who endowed chairs in universities, perjured himself in courts of law over a matter of dollars and cents.  And this railroad magnate broke his word as a gentleman and a Christian when he granted a secret rebate to one of two captains of industry locked together in a struggle to the death.

It was the same everywhere, crime and betrayal, betrayal and crime—men who were alive, but who were neither clean nor noble, men who were clean and noble, but who were not alive.  Then there was a great, hopeless mass, neither noble nor alive, but merely clean.  It did not sin positively nor deliberately; but it did sin passively and ignorantly by acquiescing in the current immorality and profiting by it.  Had it been noble and alive it would not have been ignorant, and it would have refused to share in the profits of betrayal and crime.

I discovered that I did not like to live on the parlour floor of society.  Intellectually I was as bored.  Morally and spiritually I was sickened.  I remembered my intellectuals and idealists, my unfrocked preachers, broken professors, and clean-minded, class-conscious working-men.  I remembered my days and nights of sunshine and starshine, where life was all a wild sweet wonder, a spiritual paradise of unselfish adventure and ethical romance.  And I saw before me, ever blazing and burning, the Holy Grail.

So I went back to the working-class, in which I had been born and where I belonged.  I care no longer to climb.  The imposing edifice of society above my head holds no delights for me.  It is the foundation of the edifice that interests me.  There I am content to labour, crowbar in hand, shoulder to shoulder with intellectuals, idealists, and class-conscious working-men, getting a solid pry now and again and setting the whole edifice rocking.  Some day, when we get a few more hands and crowbars to work, we’ll topple it over, along with all its rotten life and unburied dead, its monstrous selfishness and sodden materialism.  Then we’ll cleanse the cellar and build a new habitation for mankind, in which there will be no parlour floor, in which all the rooms will be bright and airy, and where the air that is breathed will be clean, noble, and alive.

Such is my outlook.  I look forward to a time when man shall progress upon something worthier and higher than his stomach, when there will be a finer incentive to impel men to action than the incentive of to-day, which is the incentive of the stomach.  I retain my belief in the nobility and excellence of the human.  I believe that spiritual sweetness and unselfishness will conquer the gross gluttony of to-day.  And last of all, my faith is in the working-class.  As some Frenchman has said, “The stairway of time is ever echoing with the wooden shoe going up, the polished boot descending.”

Newton, Iowa.
November 1905.

Filed Under: Classic Articles on Writing

COMMON-SENSE IN ART by Oscar Wilde

December 2, 2009 by admin Leave a Comment

Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde

At this critical moment in the artistic development of England Mr. John Collier has come forward as the champion of common-sense in art.  It will be remembered that Mr. Quilter, in one of his most vivid and picturesque metaphors, compared Mr. Collier’s method as a painter to that of a shampooer in a Turkish bath. {119}  As a writer Mr. Collier is no less interesting.  It is true that he is not eloquent, but then he censures with just severity ‘the meaningless eloquence of the writers on æsthetics’; we admit that he is not subtle, but then he is careful to remind us that Leonardo da Vinci’s views on painting are nonsensical; his qualities are of a solid, indeed we may say of a stolid order; he is thoroughly honest, sturdy and downright, and he advises us, if we want to know anything about art, to study the works of ‘Helmholtz, Stokes, or Tyndall,’ to which we hope we may be allowed to add Mr. Collier’s own Manual of Oil Painting.

For this art of painting is a very simple thing indeed, according to Mr. Collier.  It consists merely in the ‘representation of natural objects by means of pigments on a flat surface.’  There is nothing, he tells us, ‘so very mysterious’ in it after all.  ‘Every natural object appears to us as a sort of pattern of different shades and colours,’ and ‘the task of the artist is so to arrange his shades and colours on his canvas that a similar pattern is produced.’  This is obviously pure common-sense, and it is clear that art-definitions of this character can be comprehended by the very meanest capacity and, indeed, may be said to appeal to it.  For the perfect development, however, of this pattern-producing faculty a severe training is necessary.  The art student must begin by painting china, crockery, and ‘still life’ generally.  He should rule his straight lines and employ actual measurements wherever it is possible.  He will also find that a plumb-line comes in very useful.  Then he should proceed to Greek sculpture, for from pottery to Phidias is only one step.  Ultimately he will arrive at the living model, and as soon as he can ‘faithfully represent any object that he has before him’ he is a painter.  After this there is, of course, only one thing to be considered, the important question of subject.  Subjects, Mr. Collier tells us, are of two kinds, ancient and modern.  Modern subjects are more healthy than ancient subjects, but the real difficulty of modernity in art is that the artist passes his life with respectable people, and that respectable people are unpictorial.  ‘For picturesqueness,’ consequently, he should go to ‘the rural poor,’ and for pathos to the London slums.  Ancient subjects offer the artist a very much wider field.  If he is fond of ‘rich stuffs and costly accessories’ he should study the Middle Ages; if he wishes to paint beautiful people, ‘untrammelled by any considerations of historical accuracy,’ he should turn to the Greek and Roman mythology; and if he is a ‘mediocre painter,’ he should choose his ‘subject from the Old and New Testament,’ a recommendation, by the way, that many of our Royal Academicians seem already to have carried out.  To paint a real historical picture one requires the assistance of a theatrical costumier and a photographer.  From the former one hires the dresses and the latter supplies one with the true background.  Besides subject-pictures there are also portraits and landscapes.  Portrait painting, Mr. Collier tells us, ‘makes no demands on the imagination.’  As is the sitter, so is the work of art.  If the sitter be commonplace, for instance, it would be ‘contrary to the fundamental principles of portraiture to make the picture other than commonplace.’  There are, however, certain rules that should be followed.  One of the most important of these is that the artist should always consult his sitter’s relations before he begins the picture.  If they want a profile he must do them a profile; if they require a full face he must give them a full face; and he should be careful also to get their opinion as to the costume the sitter should wear and ‘the sort of expression he should put on.’  ‘After all,’ says Mr. Collier pathetically, ‘it is they who have to live with the picture.’

Besides the difficulty of pleasing the victim’s family, however, there is the difficulty of pleasing the victim.  According to Mr. Collier, and he is, of course, a high authority on the matter, portrait painters bore their sitters very much.  The true artist consequently should encourage his sitter to converse, or get some one to read to him; for if the sitter is bored the portrait will look sad.  Still, if the sitter has not got an amiable expression naturally the artist is not bound to give him one, nor ‘if he is essentially ungraceful’ should the artist ever ‘put him in a graceful attitude.’  As regards landscape painting, Mr. Collier tells us that ‘a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the impossibility of reproducing nature,’ but that there is nothing really to prevent a picture giving to the eye exactly the same impression that an actual scene gives, for that when he visited ‘the celebrated panorama of the Siege of Paris’ he could hardly distinguish the painted from the real cannons!  The whole passage is extremely interesting, and is really one out of many examples we might give of the swift and simple manner in which the common-sense method solves the great problems of art.  The book concludes with a detailed exposition of the undulatory theory of light according to the most ancient scientific discoveries.  Mr. Collier points out how important it is for an artist to hold sound views on the subject of ether waves, and his own thorough appreciation of Science may be estimated by the definition he gives of it as being ‘neither more nor less than knowledge.’

Mr. Collier has done his work with much industry and earnestness.  Indeed, nothing but the most conscientious seriousness, combined with real labour, could have produced such a book, and the exact value of common-sense in art has never before been so clearly demonstrated.

A Manual of Oil Painting.  By the Hon. John Collier.  (Cassell and Co.)

First appeared in Pall Mall Gazette, January 8, 1887.

Filed Under: Classic Articles on Writing, Historic Articles by Authors

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 47
  • Go to page 48
  • Go to page 49

Primary Sidebar

Buy Our Print Magazine


Buy the issue!

Below are the top 11 science fiction short stories everyone should read, but here are a few things to remember about this list before I get hate mail. First,

Search

Writing Prompt

science fiction writing prompt

50 Fantastic Science Fiction Writing Prompts Here are 50 fantastic writing prompts that will get you writing sci-fi. If you use one of prompts to write a story, we’d love to read it! Send it to us.  In a future society where humans have achieved immortality, a rebel group arises seeking the right to die. […]

Contests

 2023 50-Word Science Fiction Story Contest

Join our 2023 50-Word Science Fiction Story Get in Our Issues Contest!

2023 50 Word Horror Story We Miss Halloween Contest

  Welcome to our 2023 50 Word Horror Story We Miss Halloween Contest. Everyone wishes they had 2 Halloweens, but no one will listen. Being that I’m missing Halloween, I need horror stories and lots of them. So post your 50-word horror stories in the comments below. The winner gets free promos on our site, […]

Betcha’ Can’t Haiku 2023 Contest

Welcome to our Betcha’ Can’t Haiku 2023 Contest. We are looking for the best Haiku we have ever read! It can be on any topic or written in any style. We want to read your haikus. We are double-dog daring you to write a haiku, even write 5 haiku and leave them in the comments […]

Menu

  • Home
  • Publishing
    • Indy Book Publishers
    • Literary Magazines
  • Writing Lab
    • Articles On Writing
    • Writing Prompts
  • About Us
    • About Us
  • Submissions
  • Social
    • Activity
    • Profile
    • Notifications
    • Messages
    • Forums
    • Settings
    • Log Out
    • Log In
    • Register

Copyright © 2023 · Metro Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
SAVE & ACCEPT