The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-18
unworthy. The evil in art is not pardon

evil In artI
Runnymede-Where art undertakes to
destroy what moral beauty there is in the
world it is guilty of crime, and should be
DESTROYED. When it travesties virtue 1t
does evil. Whenever it degrades what we
have conceived to be beautiful, art is In
that sense criminal.
First Babe-in- the Woods-I agree with
Runnymede that the evil in art is not
pardonable. In painting art should con-
Germ itself with what is beautiful to the
eye, or moving to the soul. The domain
of art however, varies with the life and
tastes of people. Beauty of form ap-
pealed to the Greeks, sacred history to the
early Italians, the ideal in religion to
Michael Angelo, the NEUROLOGICAL and his |
torical to later artists. Modern pictorial |
art has reached no height, because OF its |
servile imitation OF nature, an error which |
means stagnation, unless the artist uses |
his skill to express some vital idea. But |
skill must be means, never an end.
The Artist-That is it. There has got to |
edge of nature. You must base yourself
upon nature-must study nature until you
know her thoroughly. Then you can tell
the world what she means; but it is only
her meaning, not her outline and color
ing, that is of any value to the world.
Heterodoxia-In other words, the ideal
in art must, after ALL be based upon real
lists true materials?
The Artist think SO. We must know
the realities, else our localities will be out
of drawing.
Second Babe-1n-the Woods-It is true
that art must deal with realities, but the
highest realities are localities. Nothing
is worth dealing with that is not real-and
by real mean something entirely differ
ent from the mere material forms OF life.
For instance, these rocks about US are not
SO real as genuine fine thought. The real
is anything that is vitality true. Art Is the
catching and making permanent the vital
truths. Anything that is low and sordld
and common is not of permanent truth
Runnymede-Isn't poverty true and
permanent?
Second Babel do not think it is. We
generally Judge of the reality of things by
their permanence. We say, for instance,
that the sunset is not so real thing as
the mountain beneath it. That is because
the sunset is not SO permanent as the
mountain. Just so the rainbow is less real
than the rain itself, because you can gather
the latter up. But the most permanent OF
all things is mind, and the tangible, visible
expressions of mind are more real than
any form of matter. So realism, in
the sense that deals only with things that
are worthy of permanence, is the only
true subject-matter for art.
The Chiel-The only reality that any
thing has is the reality with which mind
invests it. Why, the people that some
novelists have created are more real to me
than most of the people l know. meet
them on the street, on the boat, wherever
go.
Heterodoxia-Yes the people Thackeray,
Victor Hugo and Dickens introduced me
to years ago are more real than the people
/ met Yesterday. The fog on the bay this
morning seemed less real than the logs l
have seen in some of Turner's pictures.
The Chiel-I can understand that. The
Artist showed me, the other day, painting
he had made, that was more really forest
than any wood l ever walked in. And yet it
was like no forest l ever saw or dreamed
Of But it was the very soul of the forest,
aglow with the eight that was never on sea
or land" and deep with suggestions OF
shaded "cells for the passionate pleasure
of prayer" 1t made me feel as though
that were tie only woods l ever knew any
thing about.
The Artist giving the Chiel a gentle
shake(-That was skill. That was realism,
Chiel. And yet-it was idealism. 1t sounds
like affectation to say that L did not paint
that picture, but l almost don't snow
whether I did or not. 1t is just one of the
things that got itself born through me, and
l am thankful for it.
Heterodoxla-But for your long study of
nature, however, your years OF dealing |
with realities until you got into the very |
heart of their meanings, ana mastered the |
technique of their expression, you could |
not have done it. Inspiration is not every
thing. There is the science to be acquired.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. has nothing to do
with art.
Second Babe-in-the-Wood - Science is
an art.
Runnymede-No. Science has no place
in art. 1t is applied to art. 1t uses the
Io,,+ - ar in
cept the material sense, as when 1t takes
the pigments and the brush and applies
them as an artihcer does.
Second Babe-Then you consider science
simply as means?
Runnymede latter some consideration y
Yes.
Second Babe - We must distinguish,
when we speak of science, between the
methods of science and the materials of |
science. You think, do you not, that the |
subiect-matter of science is suitable for
presentation?
misunderstanding.
Mrs White-Runnymedes declaration
that science has nothing to do with art
reminds me of remark made concerning
his pupils by great London art teacher.
In moment of depression he said: They
come to me with so much feeling, and so
very little drawing" The science of num-
bers underlies the universe Itself, and all
ART mas us SClcHlluC Sue. All nave
a substantial basis on which to build.
Having this, the artist rises superior TO the
artisan and demonstrates his creative
power. He develops a sublimated self,
which has the gift to seize upon the finer,
more spiritual qualities of things and, pre-
sent them to the world under the cachet |
OF his individual genius.
Kenneth Malcolm-The laws of every
art are the science of that art. It is an
ever present factor in the wide domain |
which art claims as its own, and cannot
be ignored in any consideration of the sub
ject.
Edith White-Science is literally knowl-
edge. Scientists inquire for the sake of |
knowing, artists for the sake of produc-
ing. l should say science underlies all |
art. Drawing is based upon the science of |
mathematics. So is music. The technical |
part of every art is concerned with science. |
In fact there could be no art without first |
actual knowledge, which, strictly speak
ing, is science.
INSTRUMENTATION are away off the sub |
ject.
Runnymede with a profound bowl
The point is well taken. regret the crude
ness of its expression, but l admit it is