The Practice & Science of Drawing: I. INTRODUCTION - マンガ自習室wiki

I
INTRODUCTION

I
イントロダクション

The best things in an artist's work are so much a matter of intuition, that there is much to be said for the point of view that would altogether discourage intellectual inquiry into artistic phenomena on the part of the artist. Intuitions are shy things and apt to disappear if looked into too closely. And there is undoubtedly a danger that too much knowledge and training may supplant the natural intuitive feeling of a student, leaving only a cold knowledge of the means of expression in its place. For the artist, if he has the right stuff in him, has a consciousness, in doing his best work, of something, as Ruskin has said, "not in him but through him." He has been, as it were, but the agent through which it has found expression.

芸術家の作品の中でもっとも良いものは直観に満ちているので、芸術家の要素をなす芸術的才能なるものについての知的な探究を完全に思いとどまらせようとする立場にとってはかなり有利である。直観は引っ込み思案で、近づいて見ようとすれば消えてしまいやすいものである。そして過剰な知識とトレーニングには、学生の自然で直観的な感性を、表現の意味についての冷めた知識に置き換えてしまうおそれがたしかにある。芸術家としては、彼が正しい資質を備えており、傑作を描く中でラスキンの言う「彼の中にはないが彼の中を通る」何ものかについての自覚を持つならば、彼はいわばそれを通して表現を発見する代理人であるだろう。

Talent can be described as "that which we have," and Genius as "that which has us." Now, although we may have little control over this power that "has us," and although it may be as well to abandon oneself unreservedly to its influence, there can be little doubt as to its being the business of the artist to see to it that his talent be so developed, that he may prove a fit instrument for the expression of whatever it may be given him to express; while it must be left to his individual temperament to decide how far it is advisable to pursue any intellectual analysis of the elusive things that are the true matter of art.

才能は「われわれが持っているもの」、天才は「われわれをとらえるもの」と言える。さて、われわれはこの「われわれをとらえる」力をほとんどコントロールできないし、そのうえわれわれはその影響力にいやおうなく溺れてしまうが、どんな表現であれそれに適切な道具を示せるほどに才能を伸ばすようにするのが、芸術家の仕事であるということには、ほとんど疑いがないだろう。他方、芸術の本質というつかみどころのないものを知的に分析することを続けるのがどれだけ賢明であるかどうかは、彼個人の気質によって判断されるはずである。

Provided the student realises this, and that art training can only deal with the perfecting of a means of expression and that the real matter of art lies above this and is beyond the scope of teaching, he cannot have too much of it. For although he must ever be a child before the influence that moves him, if it is not with the knowledge of the grown man that he takes off his coat and approaches the craft of painting or drawing, he will be poorly equipped to make them a means of conveying to others in adequate form the things he may wish to express. Great things are only done in art when the creative instinct of the artist has a well-organised executive faculty at its disposal.

このことや、芸術のトレーニングはある表現手段の徹底を扱うにすぎないこと、また本当の芸術というものはその上に存在し、教育の範疇を超えているということを理解している生徒は、いすぎて困るということはない。なぜなら彼は彼を動かす影響力の前では子ども同然でさえあるが、もし彼にコートを脱ぎペインティングやドローイングの技術に近づくだけの成長した人間の知性がなければ、彼は自分が表現したいことを十分な形式で他人に伝える手段にすることができないだろう。偉大なものは、芸術家の創造的直観が、彼が自由に使えるよく組織されたな実践的な能力を持つときに、芸術においてのみなされる。

＊　＊　＊　＊　＊

     *       *       *       *       *

Of the two divisions into which the technical study of painting can be divided, namely Form and Colour, we are concerned in this book with Form
alone. But before proceeding to our immediate subject something should be said as to the nature of art generally, not with the ambition of
arriving at any final result in a short chapter, but merely in order to give an idea of the point of view from which the following pages are written, so that misunderstandings may be avoided.

絵画の技術的な学習は、フォルムと色という、2つの領域に分けられるが、われわれは本書においてフォルムのみを扱う。しかし本論に進む前に、芸術一般の本質についていくらか言及しておくべきだろう。これはいきなり最終的な結論に達しようというのではなく、以降の論述が立脚する視点の考え方を示し、誤解を避けるためのものにすぎない。

The variety of definitions that exist justifies some inquiry. The following are a few that come to mind:

   "Art is nature expressed through a personality."

But what of architecture? Or music? Then there is Morris's

   "Art is the expression of pleasure in work."

But this does not apply to music and poetry. Andrew Lang's

   "Everything which we distinguish from nature"

seems too broad to catch hold of, while Tolstoy's

   "An action by means of which one man, having experienced a feeling,
   intentionally transmits it to others"

is nearer the truth, and covers all the arts, but seems, from its omitting any mention ofrhythm, very inadequate.

存在する数多くの定義がいくつかの探究を正当化している。以下に思いつくものを若干挙げてみよう。

「芸術とは個性を通して表現される本質である」

しかし建築はどうだろう？　あるいは音楽は？　それならウィリアム・モリスによるものがある。

「芸術とは仕事における喜びの表現である」

しかしこれは音楽と詩には当てはまらない。アンドリュー・ラングによる、

「われわれが自然から区別するすべてのもの」

という定義は広すぎて捉えられない。一方、トルストイの

「ある感情を経験した人間が、それを他者に伝えようとして用いられる行為」

という定義はより真実に近く、すべての芸術をカバーしているが、しかし“リズム”について言及していない点で、あまり適当ではないように思われる。

＊　＊　＊　＊　＊

     *       *       *       *       *

Now the facts of life are conveyed by our senses to the consciousness within us, and stimulate the world of thought and feeling that constitutes our real life. Thought and feeling are very intimately connected, few of our mental perceptions, particularly when they first dawn upon us, being unaccompanied by some feeling. But there is this general division to be made, on one extreme of which is what we call pure intellect, and on the other pure feeling or emotion. The arts, I take it, are a means of giving expression to the emotional side of this mental activity, intimately related as it often is to the more purely intellectual side. The more sensual side of this feeling is perhaps its lowest, while the feelings associated with the intelligence, the little sensitivenesses of perception that escape pure intellect, are possibly its noblest experiences.

さて、現実は知覚によってわれわれの意識に伝えられ、われわれの真の生活を構成する思考と感覚の世界を刺激する。思考と感覚はひじょうに密接に繋がっており、精神的認識は、とくにはじめてそれがもたらされる場合、ほとんど何らかの感覚を伴う。しかしここに一般的な区分を設けて、一方の極を純粋な知性、他方を純粋な感覚や感情と呼ぶことにしよう。私の言う芸術とは、この精神的活動の感覚的側面に表現を与える手段のことであり、それはじっさいはより純粋な知的側面としばしば密接に結びつく。この感覚の官能的な部分が多いものは、おそらく最低だろう。一方、知性に結びついた感覚、つまり純然たる知性を逃れるだけのごくわずかな感受性は、もっとも崇高な体験であるだろう。

Pure intellect seeks to construct from the facts brought to our consciousness by the senses, an accurately measured world of phenomena, uncoloured by the human equation in each of us. It seeks to create a point of view outside the human standpoint, one more stable and accurate, unaffected by the ever-changing current of human life. It therefore invents mechanical instruments to do the measuring of our sense perceptions, as their records are more accurate than human observation unaided.

純粋な知性は、知覚によってわれわれの意識にもたらされた事実から、正確に計測され、誰にとっても等しいありのままの現象界を組み立てようとする。それは人間の外に立ち、たとえ現在の人間の生活が変わったとしても影響をを受けないような、より確実かつ正確な視点を作ろうとする。それゆえ、知性はわれわれの知覚を計測するのに機械的な道具を発明する。それらの記録は、機械の補助のない人間が行う観察よりも正確なのだ。

But while in science observation is made much more effective by the use of mechanical instruments in registering facts, the facts with which art deals, being those of feeling, can only be recorded by the feeling instrument--man, and are entirely missed by any mechanically devised substitutes.

しかし、科学的観測では事実の記載に機械的道具を使うことがより有効だとしても、芸術が扱う事実は、感覚的道具――人間によってしか記録できず、機械的に発明された物体によってはまったく理解できない。

The artistic intelligence is not interested in things from this standpoint of mechanical accuracy, but in the effect of observation on the living consciousness--the sentient individual in each of us. The same fact accurately portrayed by a number of artistic intelligences should be different in each case, whereas the same fact accurately expressed by a number of scientific intelligences should be the same.

芸術的な知性は、この機械的正確さの観点から見たものではなく、生きた認識――感覚を持ったわれわれ個人――についての観察結果に関心を持つ。科学者たちが同じ事実を正確に表現すればどれも同一になるが、芸術家たちが正確に描いた同じ事実は、それぞれ異なったものになるにちがいない。

But besides the feelings connected with a wide range of experience, each art has certain emotions belonging to the particular sense perceptions connected with it. That is to say, there are some that only music can convey: those connected with sound; others that only painting, sculpture, or architecture can convey: those connected with the form and colour that they severally deal with.

しかし幅広い経験と結びついた感覚のほかに、それぞれの芸術には、それと関係する特別な知覚を伴った、ある感情が存在する。すなわち、音と関係するものは、音楽だけが伝えることができ、フォルムと色に関係するものは、それらを各々扱う絵画、彫刻、建築だけが伝えることができる。

In abstract form and colour--that is, form and colour unconnected with natural appearances--there is an emotional power, such as there is in music, the sounds of which have no direct connection with anything in nature, but only with that mysterious sense we have, the sense of Harmony, Beauty, or Rhythm (all three but different aspects of the same thing).

抽象的なフォルムと色、つまり自然にはないフォルムと色には、感情的なパワーがある。それはまるで音楽――そこでは音が自然とは直接には結びつかず、われわれが持つその不思議な感覚、すなわち、調和、美、リズム（これら3つは同じものの異なる側面を表す）だけに結びついている――にあるようなパワーである。

This inner sense is a very remarkable fact, and will be found to some extent in all, certainly all civilised, races. And when the art of a remote people like the Chinese and Japanese is understood, our senses of harmony are found to be wonderfully in agreement. Despite the fact that their art has developed on lines widely different from our own, none the less, when the surprise at its newness has worn off and we begin to understand it, we find it conforms to very much the same sense of harmony.

この内的な感覚は非常に重要な事実であり、すべての（たしかにすべての文明的な）人種に広範に見出されるはずである。そして中国や日本のような遠く離れた人々の芸術が理解されるとき、われわれの調和の感覚が驚くほど同じであることがわかる。彼らの芸術がわれわれのものとは大きく異なる系譜の中で発展してきたという事実にもかかわらず、それでもなお、その目新しさへの驚きが薄れてそれを理解しはじめたときには、われわれはそれがわれわれの調和の感覚とひじょうによく一致していることを知るのである。

But apart from the feelings connected directly with the means of expression, there appears to be much in common between all the arts in their most profound expression; there seems to be a common centre in our inner life that they all appeal to. Possibly at this centre are the great primitive emotions common to all men. The religious group, the deep awe and reverence men feel when contemplating the great mystery of the Universe and their own littleness in the face of its vastness--the desire to correspond and develop relationship with the something outside themselves that is felt to be behind and through all things. Then there are those connected with the joy of life, the throbbing of the great life spirit, the gladness of being, the desire of the sexes; and also those connected with the sadness and mystery of death and decay, &c.

しかし表現方法と直接関係する感覚のほかにも、全ての芸術に共通するものは、彼らの最も深い表現の中に多く見られる。われわれの内的生活には、彼ら全てがそれに訴える共通の核心があるように思われる。おそらく、この核心にあるものは、全ての人間に共通する偉大で原始的な感情だろう。宗教家たちは、大いなる宇宙の神秘とその広大に対する己の卑小さについて人間が熟考したときに感じる深い畏怖と尊敬の念――彼らの外部にあり、あらゆるものを通してその存在を感じられるあの何ものかと通じて関係を深めたいという欲求――を集合させる。そしてこれらを、生の楽しみ、偉大な魂の鼓動、生きることの喜び、性への欲望、また死や衰えの悲しみと神秘といったことと結びつける。

The technical side of an art is, however, not concerned with these deeper motives but with the things of sense through which they find expression; in the case of painting, the visible universe.

しかし、芸術の技術的な側面は、これら深遠なモチーフとではなく、彼らが表現を見つける感覚についてのことがらと関係がある。絵画の場合、それは視覚の宇宙である。

The artist is capable of being stimulated to artistic expression by all things seen, no matter what; to him nothing comes amiss. Great pictures have been made of beautiful people in beautiful clothes and of squalid people in ugly clothes, of beautiful architectural buildings and the ugly hovels of the poor. And the same painter who painted the Alps painted the Great Western Railway.

芸術家は見たものすべてから芸術表現への刺激を受けることができる。たとえどんなものでも、彼にとって不都合なものはない。偉大な絵画は、美しい服装の美しい人々と、醜い服を着た汚い人々、そして美しい建築と、貧民の掘っ立て小屋から作られる。そしてアルプスを描いたその同じ画家が、グレート・ウェスタン鉄道を描くのである。［訳者注：ターナーおじさんのこと］

The visible world is to the artist, as it were, a wonderful garment, at times revealing to him the Beyond, the Inner Truth there is in all things. He has a consciousness of some correspondence with something the other side of visible things and dimly felt through them, a "still, small voice" which he is impelled to interpret to man. It is the expression of this all-pervading inner significance that I think we recognise as beauty, and that prompted Keats to say:

   "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."

目に見える世界は芸術家のものであり、いわばすばらしい衣服である。それはときどき彼に、すべてに内在する内なる真実の向こうを見せてくれる。彼は視角の向こう側にあるものと通じているという意識を持ち、誰かに説明したくなるような「静かで、小さな声」を通してそれをかすかに感じる。このすべてに広がる内的な意味の表現こそが、われわれが美として認識し、ジョン・キーツにかのように言わしめたものである。

「美は真であり、真は美である」

And hence it is that the love of truth and the love of beauty can exist
together in the work of the artist. The search for this inner truth is
the search for beauty. People whose vision does not penetrate beyond the
narrow limits of the commonplace, and to whom a cabbage is but a vulgar
vegetable, are surprised if they see a beautiful picture painted of one,
and say that the artist has idealised it, meaning that he has
consciously altered its appearance on some idealistic formula; whereas
he has probably only honestly given expression to a truer, deeper vision
than they had been aware of. The commonplace is not the true, but only
the shallow, view of things.

それゆえ真と美への愛は芸術家の作品の中でともに存在できることになる。この内的な真理の探究が美の探究である。凡庸さの狭い限界を超えた認識をする視点を持たない人々（彼らにとってキャベツは庶民の野菜でしかないのだが）は、芸術家の描いた美しい絵を見て驚き、そしてこう言うのである。この芸術家はそれを理想化した、つまり彼はその外観をある理想的な様式に意識的に変化させたのだと。しかし彼はおそらく、彼らがすでに気づいていたある真なる深遠なビジョンに対して誠実に表現を与えただけだろう。平凡さは真実ではなく、単にものの見方の浅薄さにすぎない。

 

[Illustration: Plate II.

DRAWING BY LEONARDO DA VINCI FROM THE ROYAL COLLECTION AT WINDSOR

_Copyright photo, Braun & Co._]

Fromentin's

   "Art is the expression of the invisible by means of the visible"

expresses the same idea, and it is this that gives to art its high place
among the works of man.

Beautiful things seem to put us in correspondence with a world the
harmonies of which are more perfect, and bring a deeper peace than this
imperfect life seems capable of yielding of itself. Our moments of peace
are, I think, always associated with some form of beauty, of this spark
of harmony within corresponding with some infinite source without. Like
a mariner's compass, we are restless until we find repose in this one
direction. In moments of beauty (for beauty is, strictly speaking, a
state of mind rather than an attribute of certain objects, although
certain things have the power of inducing it more than others) we seem
to get a glimpse of this deeper truth behind the things of sense. And
who can say but that this sense, dull enough in most of us, is not an
echo of a greater harmony existing somewhere the other side of things,
that we dimly feel through them, evasive though it is.

But we must tread lightly in these rarefied regions and get on to more
practical concerns. By finding and emphasising in his work those
elements in visual appearances that express these profounder things, the
painter is enabled to stimulate the perception of them in others.

In the representation of a fine mountain, for instance, there are,
besides all its rhythmic beauty of form and colour, associations
touching deeper chords in our natures--associations connected with its
size, age, and permanence, &c.; at any rate we have more feelings than
form and colour of themselves are capable of arousing. And these things
must be felt by the painter, and his picture painted under the influence
of these feelings, if he is instinctively to select those elements of
form and colour that convey them. Such deeper feelings are far too
intimately associated even with the finer beauties of mere form and
colour for the painter to be able to neglect them; no amount of
technical knowledge will take the place of feeling, or direct the
painter so surely in his selection of what is fine.

There are those who would say, "This is all very well, but the painter's
concern is with form and colour and paint, and nothing else. If he
paints the mountain faithfully from that point of view, it will suggest
all these other associations to those who want them." And others who
would say that the form and colour of appearances are only to be used as
a language to give expression to the feelings common to all men. "Art
for art's sake" and "Art for subject's sake." There are these two
extreme positions to consider, and it will depend on the individual on
which side his work lies. His interest will be more on the aesthetic
side, in the feelings directly concerned with form and colour; or on the
side of the mental associations connected with appearances, according to
his temperament. But neither position can neglect the other without
fatal loss. The picture of form and colour will never be able to escape
the associations connected with visual things, neither will the picture
all for subject be able to get away from its form and colour. And it is
wrong to say "If he paints the mountain faithfully from the form and
colour point of view it will suggest all those other associations to
those who want them," unless, as is possible with a simple-minded
painter, he be unconsciously moved by deeper feelings, and impelled to
select the significant things while only conscious of his paint. But the
chances are that his picture will convey the things he was thinking
about, and, in consequence, instead of impressing us with the grandeur
of the mountain, will say something very like "See what a clever painter
I am!" Unless the artist has painted his picture under the influence of
the deeper feelings the scene was capable of producing, it is not likely
anybody will be so impressed when they look at his work.

And the painter deeply moved with high ideals as to subject matter, who
neglects the form and colour through which he is expressing them, will
find that his work has failed to be convincing. The immaterial can only
be expressed through the material in art, and the painted symbols of the
picture must be very perfect if subtle and elusive meanings are to be
conveyed. If he cannot paint the commonplace aspect of our mountain, how
can he expect to paint any expression of the deeper things in it? The
fact is, both positions are incomplete. In all good art the matter
expressed and the manner of its expression are so intimate as to have
become one. The deeper associations connected with the mountain are only
matters for art in so far as they affect its appearance and take shape
as form and colour in the mind of the artist, informing the whole
process of the painting, even to the brush strokes. As in a good poem,
it is impossible to consider the poetic idea apart from the words that
express it: they are fired together at its creation.

Now an expression by means of one of our different sense perceptions
does not constitute art, or the boy shouting at the top of his voice,
giving expression to his delight in life but making a horrible noise,
would be an artist. If his expression is to be adequate to convey his
feeling to others, there must be some arrangement. The expression must
be ordered, rhythmic, or whatever word most fitly conveys the idea of
those powers, conscious or unconscious, that select and arrange the
sensuous material of art, so as to make the most telling impression, by
bringing it into relation with our innate sense of harmony. If we can
find a rough definition that will include all the arts, it will help us
to see in what direction lie those things in painting that make it an
art. The not uncommon idea, that painting is "the production by means of
colours of more or less perfect representations of natural objects" will
not do. And it is devoutly to be hoped that science will perfect a
method of colour photography finally to dispel this illusion.

What, then, will serve as a working definition? There must be something
about feeling, the expression of that individuality the secret of which
everyone carries in himself; the expression of that ego that perceives
and is moved by the phenomena of life around us. And, on the other hand,
something about the ordering of its expression.

But who knows of words that can convey a just idea of such subtle
matter? If one says "Art is the rhythmic expression of Life, or
emotional consciousness, or feeling," all are inadequate. Perhaps the
"rhythmic expression of life" would be the more perfect definition. But
the word "life" is so much more associated with eating and drinking in
the popular mind, than with the spirit or force or whatever you care to
call it, that exists behind consciousness and is the animating factor
of our whole being, that it will hardly serve a useful purpose. So that,
perhaps, for a rough, practical definition that will at least point away
from the mechanical performances that so often pass for art, "#the
Rhythmic expression of Feeling#" will do: for by Rhythm is meant that
ordering of the materials of art (form and colour, in the case of
painting) so as to bring them into relationship with our innate sense of
harmony which gives them their expressive power. Without this
relationship we have no direct means of making the sensuous material of
art awaken an answering echo in others. The boy shouting at the top of
his voice, making a horrible noise, was not an artist because his
expression was inadequate--was not related to the underlying sense of
harmony that would have given it expressive power.

[Illustration: Plate III.

STUDY FOR "APRIL"

In red chalk on toned paper.]

Let us test this definition with some simple cases. Here is a savage,
shouting and flinging his arms and legs about in wild delight; he is not
an artist, although he may be moved by life and feeling. But let this
shouting be done on some ordered plan, to a rhythm expressive of joy and
delight, and his leg and arm movements governed by it also, and he has
become an artist, and singing and dancing (possibly the oldest of the
arts) will result.

Or take the case of one who has been deeply moved by something he has
seen, say a man killed by a wild beast, which he wishes to tell his
friends. If he just explains the facts as he saw them, making no effort
to order his words so as to make the most telling impression upon his
hearers and convey to them something of the feelings that are stirring
in him, if he merely does this, he is not an artist, although the
recital of such a terrible incident may be moving. But the moment he
arranges his words so as to convey in a telling manner not only the
plain facts, but the horrible feelings he experienced at the sight, he
has become an artist. And if he further orders his words to a rhythmic
beat, a beat in sympathy with his subject, he has become still more
artistic, and a primitive form of poetry will result.

Or in building a hut, so long as a man is interested solely in the
utilitarian side of the matter, as are so many builders to-day, and just
puts up walls as he needs protection from wild beasts, and a roof to
keep out the rain, he is not yet an artist. But the moment he begins to
consider his work with some feeling, and arranges the relative sizes of
his walls and roof so that they answer to some sense he has for
beautiful proportion, he has become an artist, and his hut has some
architectural pretensions. Now if his hut is of wood, and he paints it
to protect it from the elements, nothing necessarily artistic has been
done. But if he selects colours that give him pleasure in their
arrangement, and if the forms his colour masses assume are designed with
some personal feeling, he has invented a primitive form of decoration.

And likewise the savage who, wishing to illustrate his description of a
strange animal he has seen, takes a piece of burnt wood and draws on the
wall his idea of what it looked like, a sort of catalogue of its
appearance in its details, he is not necessarily an artist. It is only
when he draws under the influence of some feeling, of some pleasure he
felt in the appearance of the animal, that he becomes an artist.

Of course in each case it is assumed that the men have the power to be
moved by these things, and whether they are good or poor artists will
depend on the quality of their feeling and the fitness of its
expression.

[Illustration: Plate IV.

STUDY ON TISSUE-PAPER IN RED CHALK FOR FIGURE OF BOREAS]

The purest form of this "rhythmic expression of feeling" is music. And
as Walter Pater shows us in his essay on "The School of Giorgione,"
"music is the type of art." The others are more artistic as they
approach its conditions. Poetry, the most musical form of literature, is
its most artistic form. And in the greatest pictures form, colour, and
idea are united to thrill us with harmonies analogous to music.

The painter expresses his feelings through the representation of the
visible world of Nature, and through the representation of those
combinations of form and colour inspired in his imagination, that were
all originally derived from visible nature. If he fails from lack of
skill to make his representation convincing to reasonable people, no
matter how sublime has been his artistic intention, he will probably
have landed in the ridiculous. And yet, #so great is the power of
direction exercised by the emotions on the artist that it is seldom his
work fails to convey something, when genuine feeling has been the
motive#. On the other hand, the painter with no artistic impulse who
makes a laboriously commonplace picture of some ordinary or pretentious
subject, has equally failed as an artist, however much the skilfulness
of his representations may gain him reputation with the unthinking.

The study, therefore, of the #representation of visible nature# and of
#the powers of expression possessed by form and colour# is the object of
the painter's training.

And a command over this power of representation and expression is
absolutely necessary if he is to be capable of doing anything worthy of
his art.

This is all in art that one can attempt to teach. The emotional side is
beyond the scope of teaching. You cannot teach people how to feel. All
you can do is to surround them with the conditions calculated to
stimulate any natural feeling they may possess. And this is done by
familiarising students with the best works of art and nature.

     *       *       *       *       *

It is surprising how few art students have any idea of what it is that
constitutes art. They are impelled, it is to be assumed, by a natural
desire to express themselves by painting, and, if their intuitive
ability is strong enough, it perhaps matters little whether they know or
not. But to the larger number who are not so violently impelled, it is
highly essential that they have some better idea of art than that it
consists in setting down your canvas before nature and copying it.

芸術を構成するものについて理解している美術学生の少なさは、おどろくべきことである。彼らはおそらく、絵画によって彼ら自身を表現したいという自然な欲求によって駆り立てられている。もし彼らの直観的な能力が十分に強いのであれば、彼らが知っているどうかはたいした問題ではないだろう。しかしそこまで暴力的に駆り立てられない多くの学生にとって、芸術についてよりよく理解することは、自然の前にキャンバスを据えてそれを模写することよりも、ひじょうに重要で不可欠なことである。

Inadequate as this imperfect treatment of a profoundly interesting
subject is, it may serve to give some idea of the point of view from
which the following pages are written, and if it also serves to disturb
the "copying theory" in the minds of any students and encourages them to
make further inquiry, it will have served a useful purpose.

大いに興味深い主題についてこのような不完全な論じ方をするのは不適当であるが、以降の論述がもとづく視点の考え方を示すことにはなるだろう。そしてまた、学生の心に浮かぶ「模写説」を防ぎ、彼らをさらなる探究へ促すことにもなったのならば、役立つ目的は果たしたことになる。