Easy, indeed, but not sure, even in cloud-color only. It is true that
the smoke of a town may be of a rich brick red against golden twilight;
and of a very lovely, though not bright, blue against shade. But I never
saw crimson or scarlet smoke, nor ultramarine smoke.
Even granting that watery vapor in its purity may give the colors more
clearly, the red colors are by no means always relieved against light.
The finest scarlets are constantly seen in broken flakes on a deep
purple ground of heavier cloud beyond, and some of the loveliest
rose-colors on clouds in the east, opposite the sunset, or in the west
in the morning. Nor are blues always attainable by throwing vapor over
shade. Especially, you cannot get them by putting it over blue itself. A
thin vapor on dark blue sky is of a warm gray, not blue. A
thunder-cloud, deep enough to conceal everything behind it, is often
dark lead-color, or sulphurous blue; but the thin vapors crossing it,
milky-white. The vividest hues are connected also with another attribute
of clouds, their lustre--metallic in effect, watery in reality. They not
only reflect color as dust or wool would, but, when far off, as water
would; sometimes even giving a distinct image of the sun underneath the
orb itself;--in all cases becoming dazzling in lustre, when at a low
angle, capable of strong reflection. Practically, this low angle is only
obtained when the cloud seems near the sun, and hence we get into the
careless habit of looking at the golden reflected light as if it were
actually caused by nearness to the fiery ball.
[Illustration: 66. Light in the West, Beauvais.]
§ 19. Without, however, troubling ourselves at all about laws, or causes
of color, the visible consequences of their operation are notably
these--that when near us, clouds present only subdued and uncertain
colors; but when far from us, and struck by the sun on their under
surfaces--so that the greater part of the light they receive is
reflected--they may become golden, purple, scarlet, and intense fiery
white, mingled in all kinds of gradations, such as I tried to describe
in the chapter on the upper clouds in the first volume, in hope of being
able to return to them "when we knew what was beautiful."
The question before us now is, therefore, What value ought this
attribute of clouds to possess in the human mind? Ought we to admire
their colors, or despise them? Is it well to watch them as Turner does,
and strive to paint them through all deficiency and darkness of
inadequate material? Or, is it wiser and nobler--like Claude, Salvator,
Ruysdael, Wouvermans--never to look for them--never to portray? We must
yet have patience a little before deciding this, because we have to
ascertain some facts respecting the typical meaning of color itself;
which, reserving for another place, let us proceed here to learn the
forms of the inferior clouds.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Before going farther, I must say a word or two respecting method
of drawing clouds.
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