indicate the character of his enjoyment and perception of nature. Mr. CHURCH, too, is perhaps the other name that we should mention with these two as full of hope and promise. If he avoids a little mannerism, to which he seems to be susceptible--not of course forgetting that all greatness has its own manner--and pursues with the same devotion as hitherto his studies of sea and sky, a very happy and brilliant career seems open to him. The works of none of the younger artists have attracted more attention. And the fame and position of Turner show the reward of a devoted student and artistic delineator of the peculiarities of atmospheric phenomena. We exhort Mr. Church to entire boldness in his attempts. Why should he hope always to please those who have only a vague susceptibility of natural observation for their standard of criticism? He is to show us in the splendid play of the light, and air, and clouds, that which we do not see, or seeing, do not perceive. Messrs. CRANCH, BOUTELLE, GIFFORD, and others, take high rank among the landscapists, nor must we omit a very beautiful winter piece of GIGNOUX, at the Academy, in which the crisp clearness of the sharp air, the brittle outline of the bare boughs, and the quality of ice, are most accurately and poetically rendered. We are arrested by the feeling and promise of Mr. RICHARD'S contributions, and the very beautiful poetic sentiment of Mr. HUBBARD'S. Mr. HUNTINGDON is not great, this year. His landscapes are not natural, and his portraits lack that vigorous moulding to which we are accustomed upon his canvas. Mr. RANNEY has some characteristic hunting-pieces. They are getting too much mannered. On a prairie, the chief interest of art is not a horse or a buffalo, but the sentiment of space. But we do not yield to any in our satisfaction at the spirit and vigor of these works.