The Virginia enterprise., 1906-04-13
evident rs better II possible to es-
tablish a right point Of view than TO
-

evident. II IS better II possible to es-
tablish a right point Of view than TO
criticise particular instances.
In No. 2 the placing Of the row Of OBJ
jects on tho bottom frame line is objec-
tionable. The ground plane is not felt
TO run back through the picture. Com
pare this With the first combination
given with the subject. The fault is
common to many children and is due to
lack OF visual imagination or, as tho
artist says, the sense of seeing things
as they exist. The placement in NO. 2,
While not SO scattered as in No. /, is NO :
better. The proportions of the trees,
lake and tent are as obviously at fault.
No. 3 is equally out in proportions and
the placement is far from suggestion
of the natural and artistic arrangement
The fault of placing objects in line is
common to No. and No 2, as we'll as To
No. 4. No. 4 is more at fault in, this
than in any other way-though the tent
is small compared with the other OBJ
jects-for its general proportions are
fairly good. 1t would be unnecessary
except in particular cases to so place
objects in line.
Nos. l, 2, 8 and may be instructed by
pointing out the good qualities of No.,
S., Here the proportions are good, the
space well filed but not overcrowded
and the material forms used to the pur-
pose of picture. Point out that place
ment of the objects upon the ground
gives the idea of naturalness to thu
ground plane. That it has qualities Of
balance and arrangement is appreciable
to the artistic instinct. No. 5 may safe
ly serve as model of desirable qualities,
No. 6 is good in proportion, but the
somewhat symmetrical arrangement is
unnecessary. The objects placed in a
line, While not as objectionably done
as in Nos. 2; 3 and 4, might have been
arranged less artifcially.
No. shows much freedom and varie-
ty of proportions and is altogether
| pleasing in treatment The objects are
we'll placed and the same picture pur-
pose evinced as in No. 5. The control
and use of the symbols give picture
that seems almost without the restraint
! expected from the employment of such
! simplified forms.
No. has more qualities to praise than
faults to criticise. It's proportions are
good but it has not the freedom of No.
or No. 5. It's slight stiffness of ar
rangement does not need severe criti-
| cism.
The criticism has not dwelt upon tha
imaginative qualities, for the further
ance of these lies more within the teach
er's>temperament, and here it seems ad-
visable to treat of more technical coz
siderations. Nos. and clearly show
imagination in a greater degree than
the other six. This is from the inven-
ton with which the forms have been
used and the ability to project a picture
before the mental vision.
1t will be seen that the selections have
| been made to give larger percentage
of fairly good drawings. From class
of 80, five good drawings, ten fair, ten
poor and five bad ones were produced
Of which two good, two fair and four
not so good are selected as representing
the character of the good and bad quail
tiles of work which the teacher has tc
criticise. Such a class may be above
the average. but 1t is not unfairly so.