Part 4

I would then point out to the accomplished craftsman, that he, upon sitting down to paint from Nature, must first ask himself what it is which makes a picture (in the true sense of the word) in what is before him, and why he has chosen this particular subject: and he must never for a moment allow himself to lose sight of this. Much there is he must of necessity leave out, but he must grasp the essentials and retain these. His study has taught him to see things as they present themselves to his eye, rather than as he knows them to be. In a sentence, he has learned to know what he sees, not to see what he knows: he is aware that yonder hill in the distance, were he there, would be green, but that seeing it as he does, affected by the intervening atmosphere & light, it is blue. The painter must by training, and power of analysing causes of effects, be able to see his subject somewhat as he would were he suddenly dropped into his seat from another planet, without any knowledge of the appearance on closer inspection of the component parts of his subject. May I explain some of what I have said, with the aid of a simple example, a stone wall bounding a green field, the wall casting a shadow on the grass. Of drawing pure and simple there is not much; there is the form of the stones in the wall, the irregularities of the contour of the field, the shadow of the wall & the modifications which the rise and fall of the surface of the field effect in it, presenting it to the eye now more foreshortened and now less as the angle between the wall and the ground changes. In the reflected light there is much to note and dissociate in our minds from the direct lighting. In this we should see that the shadow on the shade side of the wall is much lighter than the shadow cast by the wall upon the grass. This results from the fact that the grass from its horizontal position receives far more diffused light from the atmosphere and the sky than does the vertical surface of the wall; therefore it reflects more light upon the wall than the wall can in its turn reflect on to it. But though the shadow on the shade side of the wall is lighter than the shadow on the grass, the shade side of the wall will be darker than the grass within the shadow of the wall; and this is not due to the local tint, the grey of the stone and the green of the grass, for probably the horizontal surfaces of the stones on the top of the wall, show as light as the part of the grass which is also in the full blaze of the sun; it is due to the different character of surface or texture of the grass field and the stone wall, and the different effect upon each of varying degrees of lighting. So observe, all these, the light and shade, the diffused and the reflected light, the character of the surfaces, the local tints and the atmosphere & distance from the observer, all affect the relative value of the tone of the grass and wall, which value must be _seen_ truly before it can be painted truly.

As I said, for simplicity, I have herein so far followed out the course of study as applied in landscape only, but at the right stages I would have the student, in exactly the same way, study the seeing rightly, and then drawing rightly, first plants, then animals, then the human figure; then finally I would let him apply his knowledge and artistic feeling to design.

Art is at its greatest when applied. If the great picture, while retaining all its merits as a picture, can at the same time also hold its own as an element of decoration and lend its aid to producing the general effect to be made upon us by the whole building, it is by so much the greater. I would not, until the final stage, encourage the study of any form of applied art. None of the figures drawn or studied should be those applied to the decoration of a building, used in flat design, or in any way conventionally treated or grouped. I would encourage no study of ornament of any style, period, or nation. Our need is for a system of education which will strengthen our inborn perception for what _constitutes_ real beauty. It is comparatively easy to learn to distinguish a beautiful thing from an ugly thing, but to know wherein the difference lies is quite another matter. It is our education in art that must strengthen our power to see what are the essentially beautiful properties which the one possesses and the other does not. We, whose work it is to design, frequently find the client who has best been able to appreciate the difference between the good and bad design in the finished result, will, when a design is being worked out for him, be most emphatic in his instructions that one by one every feature which has contributed to that difference shall be eliminated: and the bearing upon this of what I have said, about educating those who are not to practise the arts, but to appreciate, will be easily seen.

He who has studied landscape earnestly and lovingly, and learnt to see wherein its beauty lies, when he comes to apply that landscape to an architectural or decorative purpose, such for instance as the decoration of wall surfaces, stained glass, or what not, will find his own characteristic way of conventionalising it. His conventionalisation will be such as is dictated to him clearly by the limitations of the material in which his design is to be produced, and by questions of fitness and suitability. And his feeling for true beauty will enable him to retain the _essentials_ of the beauty in the landscape he is applying, & to discard what is less necessary. He will suggest the mood of Nature and convey her influence upon the beholder. He will also, in his freedom from the influence of long established conventions, be able unconsciously to impart his own personality and feeling, and so give real originality to his handiwork.

For him who would practise the art of the architect, a course of study directed primarily to the strengthening of the power to see wherein lies the secret of the beauty of one form over another, and not merely that one form _is_ more beautiful than another, is perhaps more important than to him who follows any other art appealing to the eye: for this art is further removed from the influence of Nature’s own teaching.

I have been obliged to dismiss in a single sentence the training by means of drawing and studying plants, animals, & the human form, which I would advocate; and fear I may so have given a very wrong impression as to the importance I attach to this study. I must ask that this be not measured by the time I have devoted to it; for I hold it to be all-important, and the work at it should be long and thorough. In this work the student could be carried much further in many of the separate branches of his study I have indicated, than he could be in landscape. The plants & animals would demand of him a far greater perception of the subtleties of form than did the landscape, and of course his drawing would be carried very much further. He would have to apply all he had learnt of light & shade and reflected light under very much more complex conditions. Much more subtle distinction of the character of surfaces and textures would be required of him; and also greater nicety of perception in local tints. But composition or grouping should not enter yet into his consideration. Before he thought of these I should want him to specialise, and decide in what field of artistic labour his feeling & knowledge were to find expression. I should then require that he get a complete mastery of the technicalities of this, and of its methods, restrictions, and capabilities. If he elected to be an architect, I would have him acquire a comprehensive knowledge of pure building construction, but no architecture--in so far as it can be separated from building construction. If possible, I would have him learn one of the handicrafts for which he is eventually to design, that he might show forth his feeling for beauty of form modified by, and in due and proper relation to, complete mastery over methods of construction. If he were to be a sculptor I would have him next master the technical side of the art. If a glass painter he should be able to make a window before he attempted to design one. The embryo painter should master all the details of the painter’s art; the would-be textile designer should work at a loom; and the ceramic designer with wheel, mould, glazes, & kiln. Then at length, each should in his own line attempt to give expression to his own ideas, his own feeling, and his own love of beauty, in something really to be used, and for which there was a definite requirement and a place in the world already assigned.

And this brings us to what I consider perhaps the most vital point in the whole system I am advocating. The student is now in a position to solve the difficulties which will beset him on every hand. In his own way he sets himself to create that which will best fulfil certain definite conditions and requirements, and to give it what he conceives to be the best and most beautiful form in which it can do this. At this stage, _having first encountered the difficulties_, he may, with advantage to himself and his work, look round and see how others before him have met and overcome similar difficulties; and how, out of the way they have done this, certain historic styles, accepted forms, and recognised conventions have resulted. As each difficulty presents itself it will help and stimulate him to study how it has been overcome in old work, but if he is saturated with knowledge of the forms and finished result of old work, without first having met the problems which brought them into existence, he will simply have his own instincts swamped by them, and will blindly reproduce them without any feeling for the spirit which prompted them. Really vital design will be well-nigh impossible to him.

That we substitute suggestion for development is one great defect in our educational system to-day in all things, but especially in those things appertaining to the arts. Our schools of art begin their training in design with an exhaustive study of historic styles of ornament and applied form of every kind. The course of study laid down by the Institute of British Architects for its pupils, commences with “Evidences of Study” of old Greek and Gothic buildings; in all cases suggestion is substituted for development, and in consequence we have turned out by the thousand men capable of reproducing works in all styles, but with no vital appreciation of the spirit and causes which lead to the existence of any one of them, and not one who can evolve a really vital work of art among them.

If we look round among those who are the leading spirits in the really great forward movement in art which is going on among us, how many of them shall we find to be the product of our recognised educational authorities in art? How many have got their art training on the lines laid down by our schools of art, for instance? If they come out of government schools at all, we shall generally find they have acquired their grasp & mastery _in spite_ of that system, and owe it to influences arising in some by-path, there, or outside its curriculum altogether; or to the fact that their own individuality has been too big to be drowned or stamped out by it. Still we cannot fail to be struck by the very small percentage of these leading spirits which it can be claimed are the outcome of any system of training at present recognised.

The embryo architect is in a somewhat better position than those intending to follow other arts, for the old apprenticeship system still obtains in this profession; and in his master’s office he is at anyrate engaged upon work for a definite purpose and designed to fulfil definite conditions. He has opportunities to go some depth into the why and wherefore of things, and must of necessity do so. Very differently is he situated from one who is patiently acquiring a knowledge of the outward forms of things in a large technical school. The advocates of this “Study from the beginning of the best examples,” talk of getting imbued with the spirit of the old work. It is not for me to go now into the many reasons why it is not possible for us in these later times to enter fully into the spirit which prompted the beautiful work of the past: this one reason, that we have not first met with the difficulties the overcoming of which brought it into existence, is all that is within my province at the moment. Get yourself saturated with knowledge of form, of beautiful form, presented for your study by Nature on every hand, and apply this in your own way to meeting requirements and overcoming difficulties which you fully comprehend, which present themselves to you in the work which _you_ have to do. Be not swamped with anothers’ ways of fulfilling other (though perhaps similar) conditions, meeting the requirements of another age, or overcoming other difficulties which you at best understand very imperfectly.

It would be very easy to give numberless illustrations of the harm resulting from this very wide-spread and far-reaching error in our conception and teaching of the duties of the designer, of the way he should go to work, and the methods he should follow.

We do not now require to be told that to fasten thin strips of wood to the face of a brick or stone wall in imitation of half-timber work is bad; but I may just in passing point out, that it was this same fault in our training and in our conception of the whole question, which ever made this possible, and rendered us able to tolerate it. We saw the beauty of old timber and plaster construction, and not seeing also that that beauty resulted from straightforwardly & honestly using the best form of construction known for these materials, we thought of the finished effect only, and imagined we got it by imitating it in other construction, where the conditions and requirements and the difficulties to be met and overcome were different. Nor do we need to think about these things much before we can see that it is wrong to erect gable, projection, cove, parapet, continuation of a bay window, or what not, for no useful purpose but solely for the display of even constructionally genuine half-timber work, that it may, by its echo of the beauties we have felt to exist in some true art work in the past, lead us to suppose that it too is beautiful.

But to avoid all possibility of becoming in the least personal, I will not take my illustrations from recent times, for it is easy to find them in abundance without. The abominations of the Renaissance are in themselves enough. These abominations were simply the outcome of giving the study of the finished result in the beautiful work of the past undue prominence in men’s minds, and allowing this study to smother the feeling for what had _constituted_ the beauty in that work. As all know, the Renaissance came from the revival of the study of old Greek and Roman work in the 14th, 15th & 16th centuries. Men then began again to see the beauty that was in a Greek capital, shaft and base, but had not first learned to see that that beauty was the result primarily of the simple and direct way in which the pillar fulfilled its functions, in the form of construction in which it was used; and they began to use it again, and tried to work it in just as it was, and at the stage it had reached in the process of its evolution. They began to introduce it in buildings of a different construction, and in places where the conditions were very different from those under which it was so great. It had been beautiful where it supported a roof and cornice, and stood strong and adequate under their dead crushing weight: but it was now introduced in conjunction with the dome, the thrust of which it was entirely unsuited to sustain, therefore chains hidden in the masonry (like those in our own St. Paul’s Cathedral), were requisitioned, and we got an apparently stone building so constructed that it would not stand up in stone, just as we have to-day on every hand imitation half-timber buildings which would not stand up if of timber construction. It had been beautiful in the sunny climes of Greece and Italy, where the shade of the entablature it supported was needed, and an attribute of beauty: but it was now placed where the wall could not be set back from it, but must be brought out to it, and must have windows unshaded by cornice, frieze, & architrave. Therefore the pillar stood in front of it, carrying nothing, doing nothing, and a melancholy, painful thing to all who beheld it rightly.

They studied the ornament of the Greeks, but failed to notice how it was in all cases subordinated to, and explained and enhanced the general forms and contours and emphasized the construction; and the result was the meaningless inanity and vapid gracefulness of their compiled arabesques and ornament on pilasters, their festoons, and all the rest of the imitative and uninspired artificialities of the style.

The work became lifeless & compiled. In a Gothic cathedral, of the times before the Renaissance tainted our northern work, one feels the mason honestly developing the resources of his material, age by age. Behind one of Wren’s spires one always sees the man with paper and drawing instruments, hard mechanical lines laboriously measured off on a drawing board, with mathematical calculations of proportion figured all round the margin.

And apropos of all this, may I be allowed parenthetically to say, that there is a movement on foot to make architecture a close profession. I do not propose to enter here into this, or into the question whether any true standard of qualification in architecture, or any other art, can possibly be secured by examination; but all I have been saying has a very distinct bearing on the policy of those who advocate that all who would enter the profession of an architect, should go through the same course of study as definitely laid down by them; a course which begins with the study of ancient work, and, in so far as it includes at all those things which constitute the true training, brings them forward in the reverse order from the one indicated above. But this is not the point I wish to show; I wish emphatically to say that to train all would-be architects in such a way that they can pass the same examinations is bad enough; but for all to go through the same mill in preparation for these examinations, not allowing those who have other ideas of what an architect’s training should be a free hand to act upon their own convictions, can only have most disastrous results to architecture, as it would to any other art.

It is well to think earnestly of our education in art, and to fit ourselves for true appreciation; but when we have done this, if we come to actively practise an art, to keep a watch upon our motives is our only true guide. Everything depends on this. If the motive is unworthy the art will be unworthy. Unless we create any work of art, unless we write, paint, design, or whatever it may be, first with a desire to create an influence for good, to bring home to others something of the true & beautiful which might otherwise escape them, our art will be unworthy.

The first thing that must go to the making of an artist is not that he shall have the power to express himself, but that he shall have that within him which needs expression. The artist’s duty is a very grave and solemn one; it is for him to rouse in others the power of seeing truth and beauty, “The best impart the gift of seeing to the rest.”

BARRY PARKER.

ART AND SIMPLICITY.

“Ability to live without furniture, without impedimenta, with the least possible amount of neat clothing, shows more than the advantage held by this Japanese race in the struggle of life; it shows also the real character of some weaknesses in our civilization. It forces reflection upon the useless multiplicity of our daily wants.” _Kokoro, Lafcadio Hearn._

Looking over some colour prints from Japan, I have been much impressed by the extreme simplicity which characterizes the interiors of Japanese houses as depicted in them. Print after print shows us a room almost bare, the walls in some delicate brown or grey tint, with the wood framing exposed: this latter consists of bamboo cane or simple squared posts and beams, with now and then a door head slightly arched. For the elaborately ornamented screens and bric-à-brac which are associated with Japan one searches these prints in vain: the rooms are characterized by an almost complete absence of mere ornament. There is in one a single panel of the wall or screen adorned with a landscape very slightly suggested; in another a blind or hanging of some sort bears a text or painted floral decoration; or a vase standing on a slightly raised dais, holds a carefully arranged spray of flowers; or ajar on the centre of a wall displays a single peony or chrysanthemum exquisitely poised; but beyond this there is no ornamentation.

There is considerable variety in the shape of the rooms shown, none seemingly being just four-square. A complete absence of furniture characterizes them, and only such things as are actually being used find a place there. Yet the whole suggestion conveyed is one of refined and elegant life: the lady arranging flowers does not have the sprays from which she is to select on the floor by her, but on a beautifully lacquered tray; while all the utensils one sees represented, such as boxes, candle-sticks, tea-cups, or platters, are elegant in shape and colour and often much ornamented. They are quite obviously in the room for use however, not for ornament.

Judging from these prints, the refinement of Japan seems to result in no desire for beautiful ornaments or elaborate decorations, but rather in the demand that everything that is required for use shall be elegant or even highly ornamental. Their æstheticism evidently does not bring a craving to be always surrounded by innumerable articles of _vertu_, but rather a demand that such things as must come to their hands justified by their use, shall come also graced by beauty.

In contrast with the extreme simplicity of the rooms is a lavish display of bright colour and ornament on the dresses of the ladies, as they are represented chatting or working; this tells with wonderful effect against the soft grey or brown, or the pale green of the dried rush matting, which are the prevailing colours shown on the walls and floors.

Such rooms as these are obviously thought of mainly as the back-ground to the people and their life. There is evidently in the Japanese no lack of love for the beauty of Nature and of ornament; only there is a dignity which makes them demand a suitable setting for their lives; and a very rare refinement which teaches them to prefer the complete realization and enjoyment of the beauty of a few simple things, to the superficial appreciation of many elaborately beautiful ones; which leads them to spend their thought rather in showing to the best advantage the utmost beauty of one spray, than in finding places for a basketful of rare flowers.

How different is the common estimate of art and refinement here in the west. When we think of the elaborately upholstered houses of our ‘artistic circles,’ the people of taste--crowded as they are with costly decorations and ornaments; when we find that one of the most refined of our modern painters is in danger of being remembered as much for the gorgeous palace in which he lived as for the works of art he painted; what wonder if philosophers and moralists tell us that art is the enemy of simplicity, the fosterer of luxury!