DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61217#0030
18
JOHN RUSKIN.
alike, “ Ideas of truth are the foundation, and ideas of
imitation the destruction, of art.” On the chapter “ Of
Ideas of Relation ” the criticism of thirty years ago, led
by France on the initiative of Theophile Gautier, and
generally proclaimed by a generation now nearly dis-
possessed, joined issue with Ruskin. He teaches that
art has its highest exercise in “the invention of such
incidents and thoughts as can be expressed in words as
well as on canvas, and are totally independent of any
means of art but such as may serve for the bare sugges-
tion of them.” Let me give the instance cited in the
text:—
“ The principal object in the foreground of Turner’s
‘ Building of Carthage ’ is a group of children sailing toy
boats. The exquisite choice of this incident, as express-
ive of the ruling passion which was to be the source of
future greatness, in preference to the tumult of busy
stonemasons or arming soldiers, is quite as appreciable
when it is told as when it is seen,—it has nothing to do
with the technical difficulties of painting : a scratch of
the pen would have conveyed the idea. . . . Claude, in
subjects of the same kind, commonly introduces people
carrying red trunks with iron locks about; . . . the
intellect can have no occupation here; we must look
to the imitation or to nothing. Consequently, Turner
rises above Claude in the very instant of the conception
of his picture.”
Are we really required to connect this foreground in-
cident essentially with the “ conception ” of Turner’s
picture? And how about Turner’s pictures wherein
no such unlandscape-like accessory occurs ?
JOHN RUSKIN.
alike, “ Ideas of truth are the foundation, and ideas of
imitation the destruction, of art.” On the chapter “ Of
Ideas of Relation ” the criticism of thirty years ago, led
by France on the initiative of Theophile Gautier, and
generally proclaimed by a generation now nearly dis-
possessed, joined issue with Ruskin. He teaches that
art has its highest exercise in “the invention of such
incidents and thoughts as can be expressed in words as
well as on canvas, and are totally independent of any
means of art but such as may serve for the bare sugges-
tion of them.” Let me give the instance cited in the
text:—
“ The principal object in the foreground of Turner’s
‘ Building of Carthage ’ is a group of children sailing toy
boats. The exquisite choice of this incident, as express-
ive of the ruling passion which was to be the source of
future greatness, in preference to the tumult of busy
stonemasons or arming soldiers, is quite as appreciable
when it is told as when it is seen,—it has nothing to do
with the technical difficulties of painting : a scratch of
the pen would have conveyed the idea. . . . Claude, in
subjects of the same kind, commonly introduces people
carrying red trunks with iron locks about; . . . the
intellect can have no occupation here; we must look
to the imitation or to nothing. Consequently, Turner
rises above Claude in the very instant of the conception
of his picture.”
Are we really required to connect this foreground in-
cident essentially with the “ conception ” of Turner’s
picture? And how about Turner’s pictures wherein
no such unlandscape-like accessory occurs ?