The Eagle's Nest: Ten Lectures on the Relation of Natural Science to Art, Given Before the University of Oxford, in Lent Term, 1872Ruskin, John
Philosophy
The Eagle's Nest: Ten Lectures on the Relation of Natural Science to Art, Given Before the University of Oxford, in Lent Term, 1872
Ruskin, John
Art and science
125. Perhaps you would not call that 'science' at all. It is no matter
what either you or I call it. It _is_ science of a certain order of
facts. Two summers ago, looking from Verona at sunset, I saw the
mountains beyond the Lago di Garda of a strange blue, vivid and rich
like the bloom of a damson. I never saw a mountain-blue of that
particular quality before or since. My science as an artist consists in
my knowing that sort of blue from every other sort, and in my perfect
recollection that this particular blue had such and such a green
associated with it in the near fields. I have nothing whatever to do
with the atmospheric causes of the colour: that knowledge would merely
occupy my brains wastefully, and warp my artistic attention and energy
from their point. Or to take a simpler instance yet: Turner, in his
early life, was sometimes good-natured, and would show people what he
was about. He was one day making a drawing of Plymouth harbour, with
some ships at the distance of a mile or two, seen against the light.
Having shown this drawing to a naval officer, the naval officer
observed with surprise, and objected with very justifiable indignation,
that the ships of the line had no port-holes. "No," said Turner,
"certainly not. If you will walk up to Mount Edgecumbe, and look at the
ships against the sunset, you will find you can't see the port-holes."
"Well, but," said the naval officer, still indignant, "you know the
port-holes are there." "Yes," said Turner, "I know that well enough; but
my business is to draw what I see, and not what I know is there."
126. Now, that is the law of all fine artistic work whatsoever; and,
more than that, it is, on the whole, perilous to you, and undesirable,
that you _should_ know what is there. If, indeed, you have so perfectly
disciplined your sight that it cannot be influenced by prejudice;--if
you are sure that none of your knowledge of what is there will be
allowed to assert itself; and that you can reflect the ship as simply as
the sea beneath it does, though you may know it with the intelligence of
a sailor,--then, indeed, you may allow yourself the pleasure, and what
will sometimes be the safeguard from error, of learning what ships or
stars, or mountains, are in reality; but the ordinary powers of human
perception are almost certain to be disturbed by the knowledge of the
real nature of what they draw: and, until you are quite fearless of your
faithfulness to the appearances of things, the less you know of their
reality the better.
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