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
153. Now the exquisiteness with which the painter has applied all his
skill in composition, all his dexterity in touch of pencil, and all his
experience of the sources of expression, to complete the rendering of
his comparison, cannot, in any of the finest subtleties of it, be
explained; but the first steps of its science may be easily traced; and
with little pains you may see how a simple and large mass of white is
opposed to a rugged one of grey; how the child's face is put in front
light, that no shadow may detract from the brightness which makes her,
as in Arabian legends, "a princess like to the full moon"--how, in this
halo, the lips and eyes are brought out in deep and rich colour, while
scarcely a gleam of reflection is allowed to disturb the quietness of
the eyes;--(the terrier's, you feel, would glitter enough, if you could
see them, and flash back in shallow fire; but the princess's eyes are
thinking, and do not flash;)--how the quaint cap surrounds, with its not
wholly painless formalism, the courtly and patient face, opposed to the
rugged and undressed wild one; and how the easy grace of soft limb and
rounded neck is cast, in repose, against the uneasily gathered up
crouching of the short legs, and petulant shrug of the eager shoulders,
in the ignobler creature.
154. Now, in his doing of all this, Sir Joshua was thinking of, and
seeing, whatever was best in the creatures, within and without. Whatever
was most perfectly doggish--perfectly childish--in soul and body. The
absolute truth of outer aspect, and of inner mind, he seizes infallibly;
but there is one part of the creatures which he never, for an instant,
thinks of, or cares for,--their bones. Do you suppose that, from first
to last, in painting such a picture, it would ever enter Sir Joshua's
mind to think what a dog's skull would look like, beside a baby's? The
quite essential facts to him are those of which the skull gives no
information--that the baby has a flattish pink nose, and the dog a bossy
black one. You might dissect all the dead dogs in the water supply of
London without finding out, what, as a painter, it is here your only
business precisely to know,--what sort of shininess there is on the end
of a terrier's nose; and for the position and action of the creatures,
all the four doctors together, who set Bustle's leg for him the other
day, when he jumped out of a two-pair-of-stairs window to bark at the
volunteers, could not have told Sir Joshua how to make his crouching
terrier look ready to snap, nor how to throw the child's arm over its
neck in complete, yet not languid, rest.
155. Sir Joshua, then, does not think of, or care for, anatomy, in this
picture; but if he had, would it have done him harm? You may easily see
that the child's limbs are not drawn with the precision that Mantegna,
Dürer, or Michael Angelo would have given them. Would some of their
science not have bettered the picture?
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