The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1883-06-17

eDly no 8uXlOu3 luuuiToE UlVoT tu0 b0CIeC VI
success ever reaped from the fields Of ripe
experience bigger harvest Of platitude and
can't.
Scientific Criticism Of Art.
Even tho most competent critics Of art
may differ totally In their estimate OF =
painting. They may agree a. to It's merely
technical merits, but there may be . wide
variance between them - to Its artistic
value, and even a. to its fidelity TO nature.
What appeals most to tho taste Of the ono
fails to please the other. and no matter how
long they dispute about the picture they are
likely to be Of the Same opinion still.
A London scientific journal Of great emi-
hence. however. has introduced a new
method Of art criticism which gives 1t .
novel certainty 80 far a. the method goes.
This journal has begun to discuss paintings
from the point Of view Of science; Of that
branch Of absolute knowledge which has to
do with the anatomy Of light and color.
The Nature Of London recently sent to the
Royal Academy exhibition Of art man dis
tingulshed In that department Of science. to
take notes on tho pictures and report just
how they stood tho test Of scientific exam
| nation. These notes are published In the
last number Of Nature which has reached us.
The scientific expert reports that he found
that English landscape was not advancing.
but rather retrograding. judging by this
Academy exhibition. "Not for many years."
he says, "has there been such an absence OF
landscapes OF the highest order as in tho
present Academy" "In some pictures"
no adds, "the ignorance Of some part Of ma
ture has been as great as II q portrait painter
had painted face In which the mouth was
| represented between tho eyes and tho nose;
or, again, as II he had painted feet instead Of
hands," This is said. be 1t remembered, Of
pictures selected as the best examples of
| contemporary English art. or tho works OF
men who have won the academic distinction.
One artist, says the scientific critic, having
introduced rainbow In his picture, painted
the violet in the middle, being presumably
| ignorant OF the fact that all primary rain.
bows are alike, and that "the order OF colors,
from red through orange, yellow. green,
blue, indigo. to violet. Is dominated by
most rigid law. to which there is and can be
no exception" "This picture" he speaks OF
| as "only typical OF good deal OF artistic
work"
The color OF tho clouds Of another picture
he calls impossible" and explains that
when painter chooses to put q bright
green sky at 80 or 100 elevation ON the right
OF his picture, and then paints blue sky at
the Same elevation above tho horizon on the
loft, he is showing something which is i'm
possible" Speaking Of the incorrect color
ing Of third picture. no says, "green never
rosts on white. nor on gray" Ola fourth, he
says the sky color is wrong. There could
have been no green whore the artist has
placed It," ut Is a pity" he exclaims, re-
garding still another, this artist takes the
trouble to paint sky because 1t Is evident
he does not know the difference between sky
and clouds"
"Thls may be view in Mars" he says OF
painting called might into Day." ct Is
fortunately impossible here" OF the pic
ture entitled "Tipt with Ewes Latest
CLEAN OF Burning Red" no remarks that
cit Is quite impossible that such a moon
should be at such height at sunset, besides
| which the moon is moro shapeless than she
should look under the given cloud condi-
tions." 1.-THE artist has attempted to paint
| the old moon in tho new moons arms. ono nj
tho most beautiful natural phenomena visible
after sunset" he says OF another picture;
"but. by a strange fatality almost every
point where science could have assisted
the artist has boon neglected" Screen Pas
lures and Still Waters" no criticses because
"the reflected images of tho trees in the dis
lance arc about ono and q half times as long
as the trees themselves"
Artists cannot complain OF such criticisms
that they are haphazard and W himsical. They
have the accuracy OF science, and the points
made by tho critic are capable OF demonstra-
tion. They arc not his mere fancies and i'm.
presslons, but are tho fruits OF an impartial
test Of tho pictures by scientific laws we'll es.
tablshed. In that respect they are like the
criticisms OF figure pictures which an expert
anatomist might make; and as tho Ndture's
scientific critic says, some Of tho errors he
points out are as gross as II an artist painted
man with his mouth between the eyes and
the nose. Moreover. as he explains In justi.
fication Of the need Of scientific art criticism
the knowledge Of physical science is bccom
Ing SO much extended in these days among
tho people that g the circle Of those who can
discriminate between fact and fancy as dis.
played In the works which grace the walls Of
our picture galleries is daily becoming q
wider one"
But there Is something In painting which
science cannot reach. That Is sentiment
imagination. tho beauty which Is seen and
interpreted only by the true artist. pic
ture may be In all respects scientifically cor
rect, and yet 1t may not be work OF art
Writing may BIO dramatically and syn
taotically blameless and yet DO destitute Of
the graces Of style and barren OF thought
unbeautiful, unOriginal, and as dry as husk
Hypocrisy In Berkshire.
A Sabbath quiet always reigns through