Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/470

450 450 DRAWING Modelling, that modelling in design is the art of shading in such a manner as to give everything its due degree of projection or relief, and the practical difficulty of it lies in the necessity for making the degree of projection in any object or part of an object exactly what it ought to be relatively to other projecting masses or details in the same drawing. The simple line-work of the early stages of art was therefore abandoned by the greatest artists of the Renaissance as a general means of study. Even when using the most rapid means of expression for themselves alone, they were accustomed to treat the outline with little respect, and always to indicate shading in some way, often by the very rudest means, as for example by a few hasty diagonal L. da Vinci, strokes of the pen. Leonardo da Vinci retained to the last a good deal of that care about the outline which characterizes the earlier stage of art, but even in his case it was accom panied by an equal degree of care in modelling. In the sketches and studies of Michelangelo the care and time given to the outline are always in exact proportion to the pains taken with the modelling, and this employment of the time at the artist s disposal is a clear proof that he considered modelling as much a part of drawing as the outline itself. When he had time to do the modelling thoroughly, as in his finished studies, he made the outlines very carefully also, but when the time at his disposal was limited he did not economize it by making, as an earlier artist would probably have done, a careful outline without modelling, he still gave both together, but in a rougher and readier way. The student can find no better examples of this treatment than any three sketches and studies of Michel- Michelangelo which may have cost him respectively five ange minutes, half an hour, and three or fours hours of labour. The work in each instance is economized, not by rejection of one portion of his art, but by summarizing the whole, more or less, with the strictest reference to the time at his disposal. The studies of Raphael are done on the same principle. The spirit of the Renaissance was caught from the study of antiquity, but it gave more latitude to original genius by allowing a freer play to personal qualities in art. This led Kxaggi-ra- to bold exaggerations, which became a part of artistic tiou&amp;gt; expression, and were to it what emphasis is to the orator. Michelangelo himself set the example of this, and it may be observed that, whereas when the works of the ancients seem to lose their spirit on reduction to a smaller scale, and require to be accentuated by the copyist who reduces them, those of Michelangelo bear reduction easily by reason of their own strong accents and exaggerations. Leonardo da Vinci, being of a calmer temper, put little exaggeration into his finished works, which are distinguished by great suavity and sobriety of manner ; but he gave it free play in his caricatures, which served as an outlet for the more violent side of his genius. A kind of exaggeration almost universal during and since the Renaissance has been a more than natural mark ing of the muscles, which is opposed to the spirit of the best Greek design, and was directly due to anatomical studies, especially to the habit of dissection. This has continued down to our own day in all the learned schools of Europe. For example, in the St Symphorien of Ingres the figures of the Roman lictors are drawn as if they were without skins, and every muscle is enormously ex aggerated. A better result of the scientific spirit of the Renaissance was the degree of care and attention which artists began Measure- to pay to the measurement of the human body, so as to ueilt&amp;gt; determine its true proportions. Albert Durer made and recorded very numerous and careful measurements both of man and the horse, declaring that &quot; no one could be a good workman without measuring,&quot; and that &quot; it was the true foundation of all painting.&quot; Leonardo affirmed in words of equal plainness that &quot; a young man ought to begin to learn perspective by measuring everything.&quot; This habit of measurement has been continued down to our own day by the more careful artists. Whenever an animal died in the Jardin des Plantes, at Paris, Barye the sculptor went at once to take all its measurements, and drew or modelled it besides ; but he measured animals all his life, notwith standing his great skill in drawing by the eye. It is necessary to say something in this place of the rise Pui of what we call picturesque drawing, which is now more P ict prevalent than any other throughout Europe. We all know (ira what we mean by the word &quot; picturesque &quot; as applied to real objects ; for example, we all consider that a feudal castle or abbey, when it has become an ivied ruin, is a picturesque object, but that a Greek temple in perfect repair is not. Even amongst things in equally good repair the distinction is recognized, thus we say that the costume worn by Charles II. was more picturesque than that worn by William Pitt. We are less acccustomed to recognize the fact that almost any object may be drawn in a manner which is picturesque or not picturesque, according to the temper of the artist. The temper which produces pictur esque work is tolerant, observant, and playful ; the temper which produces the other kind of work is always either simple or severely disdainful, simple in Greece and in the purists of the Middle Ages, disdainful in the great men of the Renaissance and in all their strongest successors. The most perfect development of the picturesque spirit in drawing before our own century took place in Holland, the Dutch school working almost entirely in that spirit. The severe, spirit has maintained itself chiefly as a sort of academic protest against the picturesque, which is never authoritatively taught in any academy of art. The academies direct students continually to Raphael, but never to Rembrandt. On the other hand, the kind of drawing usually taught to amateurs is picturesque, especially through the medium of water-colour. The strongest reaction against the picturesque has been that of the French &quot;n6o-Grecs,&quot; who in study went back to the pure Greek line and flat space, the most earnest of them declaring that nothing more was needed to tbe perfection of art. The most perfect and studied picturesque in modern drawing will be found in the works of etchers and fusinists (artists who draw in charcoal). The picturesque is always easily recognizable by its love of accident and variety of line and character, and by its strong effects of light and shade. When in excess it violently exaggerates these accidents, varieties, and effects. The kind of drawing which is best for landscape differs Lai in some important respects from that which is best for the figure. To perceive the full truth of this, the reader has only to draw a landscape with the simplicity of the line in a Greek figure, when he will see that the more complicated character of landscape material requires a more varied interpretation. Good landscape draftsmen are seldom very accurate as to form, and it is not necessary that they should be ; but they are always careful to preserve truth of character, and have great difficulties of their own to contend against, which are generally much underestimated. The inaccuracy of landscape design comes from the necessity for composition. When the figure painter composes, he can move his models about, and place them in different attitudes, and draw them faithfully after all ; but when a landscape painter does the same thing, by an effort of imagination, with hia mountains, trees, or towers, he unavoidably violates topographic accuracy. The habit of inaccuracy BOOH forms itself, for this reason, in all landscape draftsmen who compose ; and all artists by profession are compelled to compose in order to make their works attractive in appear-