Previous Page Close Next Page

fol. 61r  [fol. 60v is blank] 	'Of Truth of Space … Focus of the Eye' (Pt II, Sn II, Ch IV)    (3.320)
      
      
     #64#< < defined in their outline ;  and as the touches representing distance .
     are on the canvas , as near the eye as those of foreground - no difference
     is perceived in their decision , and in consequence . I have not the
     slightest hesitation in asserting  .  that space was never truly
 5   represented by any landscape painter of the old school . >
     And that it is not, <will> {must} be felt by <any> ^ {every} observer -
     					in <places> ^ {cases <of>} where
     any varied forms of ^ {their} sky or distance join ^ {with near} foliage or
     								foreground .
     <for instance> where - though the near leaves may be made almost .
     black for force - and the encountering sky toned into the most
10   exquisite <of> purity of atmosphere - nothing can prevent the eye from
     feeling <that> the intersection and junction of the lines - and that
     there is an <e>inextricable confusion of parts - which many artists
     and critics too , have confounded with harmony of composition - and
     supposed to be unity of arrangement - when i<t>n fact - it is destruction
15   of space.    <Look at> <t>The white clouds behind Salvators tree in
     the National gallery.  <and> are a case in point - the foliage is falsely
     & extravagantly dark - & the <fol> clouds of perfect tone - and yet they
     run clear <and> into each other and the eye is confused between them  .
     and loses its sense of the form of the foliage - to run away on the edges
20   of the clouds .    It is useless to multiply examples.  - for ^ {nearly} every
     									landscape
     of the old masters , <except Rubens's> is one continued example of this
     									falsehood.
     It <was reserved for modern artists to discover and aim at . and for> {P. 40 again.} >
     
      

Previous Page Close Next Page

MW