Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1903 (Heft 3))

outlines and in detail; now, with his hypermetropic eyes which are deficient
in short as well as distant vision, and capable of clear vision only where the
entrant rays are focused in the retina, he saw everything indistinct, oscillant,
in masses without clear outlines, just as he wished to paint it. Also, George
Fuller, who saw everything as in a mist, suffered of hypermetropia, and I
read in a French scientific journal that Carrière, Gustave Moreau, and Israels
all “were handicapped (?) by lack of clear vision.”
Following this line of investigation one may easily arrive at some
conclusions. It would be interesting to investigate whether the majority of
the painters of the Hudson River School were not either emmetropic (i.e.,
in the possession of normal eyesight) or presbyopic (far-sighted). Their
photographic accuracy in distances points to presbyopia. I found that quite
a number of the old Academicians had no difficulty in seeing distant objects,
but in reading had to hold books or newspapers inconveniently far away.
A far-sighted person has less talent for painting, as we understand the
term to-day, than others. It is difficult for him to see distant objects
pictorially and in harmony, while foreground-work does not lend itself so
readily to broad treatment. Vollon is one of the exceptions. D. W. Tryon,
who is slightly presbyopic, is another. He has the habit of depicting his
distances more distinctly than his foregrounds, which he constructs en masse.
And there is no doubt in my mind (of course, all these observations are
meant more as suggestions for further investigation than as indisputable
facts) that the younger painters, who broaden details and see life with a
superb breadth, are nearly all short-sighted (myopic). Since the introduction
of compulsory school attendance, almost fifty per cent. of all art-students are
short-sighted. This may explain much of the difference between the old
and new school of painting.
Short-sightedness (i.e., an eye in which the focal point of parallel rays
entering the eye lies before the retina) has one decided disadvantage for the
professional painter. He will never perfectly master the constructive
elements of form, as he sees distant objects all his life in a more pictorial,
harmonious way than others, for short-sightedness generally begins in
childhood, and rarely, unless aggravated, advances after twenty-five. This
lack of form knowledge could easily be rectified, but the way in which nature
composes itself for the young art-student is too entrancing a way to be
seriously opposed. He tries at once to paint like a master. But this does
not necessarily exclude understanding of line and perception. Short-sighted-
ness is of all visual perception really the most favorable to the artist. The
short-sighted artist does not only see objects well at short distances, but by
half-closing the eyelids—an unconscious habit with many short-sighted
people—can obtain a more distinct vision of distant objects, and unless his
is a case of extreme myopia, he really sees his surroundings as artists with
normal eye-sight would like to see them, somewhat blurred, and yet
distinct. If, on the other hand, a short-sighted artist is devoted to fore-
ground studies and still-life, he has all chances to rival the little Dutch
Masters in accuracy of detail, for the myopic eye sees objects within the

24