It is under this head that some of the most interesting [Illustration: PICABIA Dance at the Spring] and also some of the most exasperating cubist pictures will be found. To the extent that figures and objects are blocked in in planes and masses in a big, elemental way, the result may be both impressive and beautiful--Derain’s “Forest at Martigues” is an example in point; but in so far as the picture is a _puzzle_, clear only in part, the result is exasperating; the observer, however sympathetic his attitude, is diverted from enjoying the _art_ of the painter to the attempt to discover the hidden objects. To the foregoing two divisions are added two more, which are, in reality, but subdivisions or refinements of _Cubism Scientifique_. There are really but the two extremes--those who represent objects more or less cubically, i.e., in planes and masses of line and color; and those who compose harmonies of line and color that have no relation to figures or objects. In the paintings of the one, objects are more or less apparent; in those of the other no object is discernible, because none is represented or suggested. 3. _Cubism Orphique_ is created entirely by the artist; it takes nothing from visual, objective realities, but is derived wholly from the painter’s imagination; it is pure art. 4. _Cubism instinctive_ is described as the painting of compositions of color, not based upon objective realities, but suggested by the instinct and intentions of the artist. The artist who follows his instinct, his fancy of the moment, though he may paint beautiful compositions, lacks the clear comprehension of him who paints according to some well thought out, artistic creed. * * * * * It is quite obvious that subdivisions three and four are based upon temperamental rather than logical or scientific distinctions. To refer to some of the pictures reproduced: There is no mystery about the “Man on the Balcony.” He is quite in evidence; the background is a little puzzling, yet fairly obvious. The attention of the casual observer is not diverted from the mode and manner of painting--from the Cubism of the picture, so to speak. It is not a question of “Now I see it, now I don’t see it.” It is obviously the figure of a man leaning on something, apparently a railing, with a confused background. But so far as uncertainty regarding the background and accessories is concerned, that troubles no one, for uncertainty in detail is! characteristic of the backgrounds of many fine and famous portraits. The point is that the “Man on the Balcony” belongs to that class of Cubist pictures wherein the object is almost as well defined as in pictures with which the public is more familiar; whereas the “King and Queen” belongs to the extreme class wherein the objects have been reduced to symbols or abstractions. The one is the painting of objects in Cubist fashion; the other is the painting of ideas in Cubist fashion.