The Press.
London, England, 1857-10-24 00:00:00

THE PRESS, OCTOBER 24, 1857.

We have placed Mr. IVilkins's " grievance "
in a prominent position, because we are sure
that it is the prominent subject in his mind,
and because we think it a duty to warn our
readers of the querulousness they may en-
counter as they approach the end of this
small, and in other respects tolerably readable,
volume.

Mr. Wilkins divides the requisites of a work
of art into three classes; those which may be
called " the mental portion of a picture "—in-
cluding " the Idea, Detail, Concentration and
" Unity, Pictorial Arrangement, and Expres-
" sion " ; those which relate to the more prac-
tical part—including " Colour, Style, Form,
" and Chiaroscuro " ; and those which belong
to the purely mechanical portion, such as
pigments, vehicle, varnish, frames, position in
galleries, &c. This classification is somewhat
similar to that of Aristotle (if Mr. Wilkins
will forgive us for alluding to a writer belong-
ing to " a university education centuries be-
" hind the wants and feelings of the day," see
p. 85.), who divides art into the elements of
Theory, Contrivance, and Production ; and to
that of Goethe (Rinleitung in (lie Propyliien),
who distinguishes in it the Spiritual, Sensuistic,
and Mechanical constituents. Admitting,
however, that his classification is sound in its
outline, we do not understand why " detail,"
or the faithful imitation of nature, should
come under the first of the three heads above
enumerated. Detail, as he elsewhere rightly
implies, is the mere language of art. To settle
what portions of a work require detail and what
do not, is one thing ; to he able to execute detail
is another. Mr. Wilkins, so far as we can
make out from his very cursory treatment of
the subject, seems to us to have confused the
two. " Concentration or Unity " means that
the artist is to keep in view the predominant
sentiment in the natural scene before him ;
and it is perfectly true that a power of grasp-
ing this unity belongs to the higher faculties
of the higher order of artistic minds. The
pictures of David Cox possess this " unity "
in a remarkable degree. But we do not un-
derstand why "Pictorial Arrangement" should
be posited as one of the "mental" portions
of a picture. Surely it is as capable of being
learnt by practice as chiaroscuro, which Mr.
Wilkins places among the more " practical "
requisites. Indeed, a true feeling for light
and shade, like a true feeling for colour, is a
much more uncommon thing than the power
of arrangement, which may be soon learnt by
proper academical training.

We have no remarks to make on the manner
in which Mr. Wilkins discusses these topics.
They seem correct as 'far as they go, but to
those who know anything of Ruskin, or of
that pleasant and able work, " Leslie's Hand-
book for Young Painters," they will appear
meagre and but little exhaustive of the sub-
ject. We cannot by any means agree with
Mr. Wilkins's reason for this reticence :

But as I am not writing for artists or the artistic ama-
teur in art, but for those who have not hitherto made art
or pictures their study, and whose various avocations
preclude their forming any other opinion on matters of
art than those current among partial critics and interested
commercial dealers, what I have said or have to say will,
1 trust, be sufficient ; at least, with the help of the various
works on art already extant.

When artists write for artists, they sometimes trust to
the intuitive perception of the readers. Hence Ruskin's
works, which may sometimes puzzle a logician, are yet
perfectly intelligible to the artist, to whom expressive
writing is of more value than a mathematical demonstra-
tion in matters of art or pictorial beauty.
I may, however, observe that mathematical sequence is
not always to be found in Nature, whose laws are never-
theless fixed. Thus we cannot always demonstrate the
precise height to which a given wave will rise, but we
can determine the height beyond which it cannot go.
And so with art ; it may not be always easy to prove the
existenoe of beauty or truth, but we can always tell where
they are not. The negative proof is certainly that which
is best suited to matters of taste and beauty.
We should have expected a work intended for
artists only to he short—ono intended for the
general public to ho longer and fuller. Rus-
kin's works are voluminous because addressed
to people who know nothing of art, and we
have always been given to understand that
they are no great favourites with the profes-
sion. If they puzzle a logician, which it must
bo said for them they do not often do, it is
because he is not sure under which class of
fallacy ho shall rank au occasionally per•