A Popular Handbook to the National Gallery, Volume I, Foreign Schools: Including by Special Permission Notes Collected from the Works of John Ruskin
History
A Popular Handbook to the National Gallery, Volume I, Foreign Schools: Including by Special Permission Notes Collected from the Works of John Ruskin
National Gallery (Great Britain); Painting -- England -- London -- Catalogs
The glide of the muddy
streams of the melancholy Tiber and Anio through the Campagna
is impressive in itself, but altogether ceases to be so when
we disturb their stillness of motion by a weir, adorn their
neglected flow with a handsome bridge, and cover their solitary
surface with punts, nets, and fishermen" (_Modern Painters_,
vol i., preface to second edition, pp. xxxvi.-xxxix.)
Take next the "ideas of truth" in the picture--the perception, that is
to say, of faithfulness in a statement of facts by the thing produced.
And first (1) for truth of _colour_. "Can it be seriously supposed
that those murky browns and melancholy greens are representative of
the tints of leaves under full noonday sun? I know that you cannot
help looking upon all these pictures as pieces of dark relief against
a light wholly proceeding from the distances; but they are nothing
of the kind, they are noon and morning effects with full lateral
light. Be so kind as to match the colour of a leaf in the sun (the
darkest you like) as nearly as you can, and bring your matched colour
and set it beside one of these groups of trees, and take a blade of
common grass, and set it beside any part of the fullest light of
their foregrounds, and then talk about the truth of colour of the old
masters!" (_Modern Painters_, vol. i. pt. ii. sec. ii. ch. ii. § 5).
(2) Next for truth of _chiaroscuro_. Claude neglects that distinctness
of shadow which is the chief means of expressing vividness of light.
Thus "the trunks of the trees between the water-wheel and the white
figure of the middle distance, are dark and visible; but their shadows
are scarcely discernible on the ground, and are quite vague and lost in
the building. In nature, every bit of the shadow, both on the ground
and building, would have been defined and conspicuous; while the trunks
themselves would have been faint, confused, and indistinguishable, in
their illumined parts,[48] from the grass or distance" (_ibid._, ch.
iii. § 4). (3) Thirdly, for truth of _space_. In nature everything is
indistinct, but nothing vacant. But look at the city on the right bank
of the river:--
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account