" \ ' e \ /V ) CREATIVE & IMITATIVE ART DECORATION AND ORNAMENTATION « Learn to admire rightly, the great pleasure of life is that. » Thackeray’s, English Humourists. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/creativeimitativOOjtlj CREATIVE & IMITATIVE ART DECORATION AND ORNAMENTATION BY J. T. L. BRUSSELS M. WEISSENBRUCH, PRINTER TO HIS MAJESTY II, PLACE DU MUSEE, II I873 PRIVATE CIRCULATION — 7H&GBTV CENTOS UBRARY' TO THE KIND CONSIDERATION OF THOSE WHO KNEW, AND CHERISHED THEIR AUTHOR THESE HIS THOUGHTS, UPON THE ART HE LOVED ARE RESPECTFULLY COMMITTED 1 PREFACE The following small treatise embodies some vinos upon Fine Art which its Author had made a subject of close study, and much refection. At the present day, it is almost certain that they will be coincided in by the majority of Professors; while they are becoming more, and more diffused amongst the public in general. They arc still, however, as yet, so far from being universally believed in, and understood, that their reiteration can hardly fail to prove of service to all who have this cause at heart. There can be small doubt but that, had life been prolonged, the Author would have added to his works such various arguments, and explanations as further experience, and research might have afforded. Such an opportunity was, alas! not granted. It was, therefore, deemed unadvisable that this essay should le 4 PREFACE subjected to the ordecil of publication. By its appearance, never- theless, under the present form, it may serve to remind the lamented Author’s friends of his considerable talents which a longer career might have rendered better known, while his many amiable qualities would have commanded the esteem of a narrower circle. f • A T- b The writer would beg to acknowledge the obligations she is under to Monsieur and Madame Clement de Faye, for the kind assistance which they afforded in the correction of the proof sheets ; and to M r Brown, an English Artist , long resident in this city, for the able manner in which he has rendered the illustrations ; while her thanks are no less due to Miss IV eissenbruch , and her nephews, Ad. Campan and P. Weissenbruch , for the care which they have bestowed upon the printing of a work which, written in a foreign tongue, demanded more than ordinary attention. Brussels, April iSjj. PREFACE PREFACE The substance of the following pages, was embodied in a paper read by me, to the London architectural Asso- ciation in February 1866. The subject at that time occu- pied my attention so much, that it became to me one of extreme interest. Since then it has been ever revolving in my mind, and, as a result, I am constrained to come to this conclusion, — that the true principles of certain branches of fine Art are constantly being neglected around us; and yet, that the recognition of these princi- ples, by Artists and persons generally, is absolutely neces- sary to the advancement of such Art. 8 PREFACE Objections are sometimes made to a writer upon Art laying down laws and Art principles. I have, for instance, heard persons say that because the tastes of all people more or less differ, all will act, and all have a right to act, according to their own judgment or fancy, so that it is useless to write down laws for their guidance. But this argument implies that there is no such thing as a standard of excellence in Art; and that the opi- nion of the most ignorant and least reflective mind, is as valuable as his, who may have devoted a lifetime to the study of the subject; — an argument which appears to me so absurd that it is not even worthy of refutation. Again, others who do see the necessity of acknowledg- ing such principles, have argued, that it is better to bring correct Art before the eyes of the people, and in that way convince them of its superiority, instead of so much writing and talking about it. But we live in such a free and argumentative age, that, so hr as my experience goes, people in general will not allow of an Art principle being right, unless you can distinctly prove it so to be. What I have found is this, — that if I place two works of fine Art before those who have no opinion of their own in the matter, and I say « this Art is right » and « that is wrong », the invariable answer I receive is, « But why is the one right and the other wrong? » The answer to this question, simple in itself, is so long, and in my PREFACE 9 opinion, so important, that I have attempted to comprise it in the following small work. It will, perhaps, be well here to offer some explanation of my meaning of the term « creative Art ». We may say, according to the abstract meaning of the word « create », that it is impossible for man to create anything, inasmuch, as it is impossible for him to destroy anything; but the word is a convenient one to express that originality of thought and formation, which, to the mind and eye, is certainly original. The most common acceptation of the term « creative Art » is that degree of sentiment, idea, or, as Shakespeare expresses it,« creation of the mind », which a pictorial Artist throws into his picture. This, without doubt, is the very highest signification of the term ; so high that, as M r Ruskin has well shown, the actual for- mation of the object is quite secondary to the idea which is conveyed by the object. The sense in which 1 employ the term is of a lower nature, because it has everything to do with the actual formation of the object, and nothing with this high ideality. I wish it to be considered in the light of creative Art as opposed to imitative; as that art, which is not a direct copy of anything in nature, or of anything which might be supposed to exist in nature. These words will, I trust, be clearly explained in the sequel. FIRST PART CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE ART IN DECORATION PART I CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE ART IN DECORATION Of those Arts which minister to the delight of the eye, Architecture is generally acknowledged to be the first, because all the other arts contribute to its developement and beauty. The Arts of construction, decoration, and ornamentation may be called the three grand divisions of Architectural Art. It is unnecessary to consider what is meant by con- struction ; but there seems to exist a confusion of ideas regarding the terms « decoration » and « ornamentation »; indeed these words are in general used synonymously, and i4 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE yet a real and important difference exists between them, the recognition of which, will lead to a clearer understand- ing of my subject. The word « Decoration » is derived from the Latin « decor » which means, « anything that is seemly or becoming » and the word « Ornamentation » from « Ornamentum » meaning « that which serves to adorn », or, « that with which any person is clothed in a superior manner ». The first of these words then, would imply something which is beautiful in itself; the second, a beauty added on the surface to make the thing itself more beautiful. Suppose we take three rough stones of rectangular shape, and place two of them in an upright position, and lay the third horizontally upon the top of these, so as to form a lintel, we are simply constructing; if we cut these stones square, or round, or in any way try to beautify their form, we are decorating ; and it we clothe or « dress » these stones by cutting or painting beautiful forms upon their surface, we arc ornamenting. There is indeed no building, or no art object whatever, complete in its beauty, which does not possess these three distinct fea- tures. In a Greek temple or a Gothic minster we have what we all understand by their construction ; we see in their well considered form, their decoration; and in the sculptured figures or painted ornament in their sides, their ART IN DECORATION I) ornamentation. In like manner, an ancient Greek vase was of earthen ware construction, elegant in its form or decoration, and beautiful in its carved or painted surface, its ornamentation. As the Art of construction can never be called a fine Art, it will not be farther considered in this subject. The beautifying of the form of an object, and the beau- tifying of its surface, will alone occupy our attention. I purpose devoting the first part of this book to the consideration of the Art principles involved in the beau- tifying the form of an object, that is, in its decoration. Now, there are three ways of decorating ; — by creating, by imitating, and by creating and imitating together. V When we are beautifying the column of a building as by rounding, squaring, or fluting it, we are decorating by creating , because we may say that as such rigidly mathematical forms are so =T A rarely seen in nature, it would be mere affectation to say we were copying nature when making use of them ; (see fig. i) and when we beautify the column by making a Fig. i. Tuscan order, direct copy of some object in nature, as the human figure for instance, we are decorating CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE I 6 by imitating; (see Jig. 2) but when we make it evident that such a figure has merely been our type for the beautifying of the column, then we are decorating by partly creating and partly imitating; (see Jig.])'. Fig. 2. From the temple of Pandrosus. cc Order », observes a well-known author, « is heaven’s first law, and there is a sensible pleasure attending the carrying of it out faithfully to the very smallest things. » It is, I suppose, unnecessary to dwell upon the fact that 1 This figure is, strictly speaking, not partly imitative at all. It is really a piece of creative Art, founded upon, or suggested by, imitative. It is not always possible in a treatise on Art matters to convey one’s meaning in few words ; but the Reader will, I doubt not, clearly understand the above as he proceeds. ART IN DECORATION 17 the whole of living nature, — with certain few exceptions — is based upon an orderly system, although it would seem to be the will of the Creator that this law should be a hidden one to the superficial observer. Such an object as a full grown tree, for instance, never conveys to our minds an idea of perfect order, and yet every Botanist will tell us that the root, trunk, and branches of a tree, are but a constant repetition of the small, mathematically formed plant in the seed from which it sprung, and, as this mathe- matical plant grows, it becomes distorted and irregular, merely through accidents, as in blights, cold winds, and frosts. Man, and the lower animals are made with this perfect balance of parts, but, on account of their ever varying movements, the idea of uniformity becomes to a great degree lost. When man then, is about to create a beautiful object by the invention of his own mind, and the skill of his own hands, he ought surely to attend to this first of laws which we find in the works of the great Creator Himself. Let us see how decorative art, — always understanding by the term the definition I have given, — would gain, if this law were more considered. We build houses full of decorative features, we erect statues, and pretend to make beautiful household objects. Arc we generally successful in these things ? Are out- buildings as grand and imposing as those of the ancient i8 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE Egyptians and Greeks, or of our progenitors in this country during the middle ages ? Is it not true that the statues in England at this time are, as architectural features, — which they really are — far from being successful ? It appeared so to M r . Disraeli, when, on a recent occasion in the house of Commons, he spoke in despair of our ever having satisfactory objects of this kind, and therefore refused to vote for a new one. That our English made household objects, also, intended to be beautiful, are, as a rule, extremely ugly, 1 think all artists will admit. I desire to point out that the first step towards improve- ment in these arts is to acknowledge more the principle of order, that is to say, of symmetrical order. In all our more simple descriptions of buildings or art objects, we do happily find symmetry, and it is for this reason probably that simplicity in art is, in this country, not a little sought after. Cheapness may have something to do with this, as it is generally speaking cheaper to make an object having its two halves alike, than having them unlike, simply because there is a repetition of parts. But it is when an ornate object is wanted, and when money is abundant, that the principle I am advocating is generally neglected. It seems to be the idea of these artists, that principles which are correct when producing some- thing simple should at once be overthrown when we ART IN DECORATION 19 produce something rich. Let us consider one ol the simplest of objects, that of an ordinary egg-cup. One of its chief beauties is its oval outline, and symmetry. From whatever point around we may regard it, a symmetrical form is presented to our view. For this reason, however, appears to argue our Artist, if we are to make an uncom- mon egg-cup, we must do away with our beautiful oval outline, and enrich it with figures sticking out from the side, or perhaps — which is of course so true to nature — carve some natural object — say a partially developed rose — just as we see it growing, with a piece of stalk at the base, and enough of the upright in its position to hold an egg. The oval shaped egg-cup (Jig. 4), I call creative Art; the rose idea (Jig. 4), imitative Art ; and (Jig. 6) where the flower has merely been used as a suggestion for beau- tifying the natural form ol the object, I call partly creative and partly imitative. In this last form the eye of the Fig- 4. Fig- /• Fig. 6. 20 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE beholder is not offended by an ugly outline (as at fig . y ) but pleased by a beautiful one, and his mind is edified by the contemplation of a beautiful natural object. But there might in this appear to be a contradiction, for I have just referred to the rose itself being a beautiful natural object, and yet I observe that the natural outline of the flower ( as at fig. y ) is ugly. But the outline of this figure is not ugly because it is the imitation of a rose, but because it is placed before our eyes, not as a beautiful flower, but as an egg-cup. It is as much as to admit that man is incapable of conceiving for himself such an object as a beautiful egg-cup, and all he can do is to copy some suitable natural flower and scoop out a hole in it for an egg to stand in. But man has no right to make such an admission. The principles of order, and uniformity, and beauty of outline before alluded to are also , almost as a consequence, entirely lost, and what wonder then if the direct imitation of nature is condemned! We find this correct principle also constantly nc- glectcd in the enrichment of our costlv TI , ° J Hamilton s vases, vol. I. vases, challenge cups, and the like. The following illustrations were copied originally from actual specimens. Figure 7, creative art, is from a vase of ART IN DECORATION 2 I pure Greek workmanship. Figure 8 imitative art, — En- glish XIX th . century work; an extreme specimen cer- tainly, but not an uncommon one ; and it well illustrates what our love for nature, unaccompanied by a knowledge of true principle in art, leads to. Figure 9 creative and imitative art , — is taken from an Egyptian cup, the ornament on the side being evidently suggested by the Egyptian Lotus flower. I am not certain whether the ornament on this particular cup was painted or carved in relief ; but if it had been in relief, we may be sure that the Egyptians would have strictly kept it to the pure simplicity of the curve in the outward form. Perhaps the most striking example of figures being maintained rigidly to an outline is on the great co- lumn of Trajan at Rome, where processions and battle scenes are carved in relief and wind round its circumference from the base to the top ; the ornament on that of the place Vendome Paris being founded Fig. 9 Egyptian. upon it. I have observed that the Fig. S. Do Burstem Alcock & C°. 1836. 2 2 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE beautiful outline of an object, as an egg-cup should always be maintained, because that object is placed before our eyes to be looked at from different points of view, and 1 might say the same of such an object as the dome of S. Paul’s cathedral. I may at once observe that the reason why I compare such an insignificant object with such a great structure is simply for the purpose of causing the reader to know and feel that all art objects, great or small, rich or plain, ought to be treated according to those true and everlasting principles of beauty which are by nature im- planted in our minds. The principle of beauty then in both the above cases is exactly the same. In both objects, a general appearance of symmetry is presented to our view from all sides. If however we look at this cathedral as a whole, and not at the dome only, we find that un- like the egg-cup, the whole building is not symmetrical from whatever point we may behold it. There is in fact this difference between the egg-cup and the cathedral; the former has no front, or it is all front, as we choose to describe it ; the latter has but one front, and taking the building in that front aspect, it is symmetrical. A line may be drawn down the centre, and its two halves would be alike. Looking then both at the west and east end of the building we have this symmetrical order, but we cannot say as much for the sides of the building. If a line were drawn down the centre of the sides, their halves ART IN DECORATION would be unlike, as we do not find, for instance, the two towers at the east end, as at the west. The same thing may be said generally of all cathedrals in this country, and abroad, as far as I am aware. As has been already observed, man and the lower animals are made with this balance of parts, that is, taking them in a front or back view, but not so, taking them in a side view. The con- clusion then I come to is that the west end of such a building as I have just described is the front of the build- ing, that it is the portion principally intended to be seen — the face as it were of the highest animal, man. It is, I suppose from a feeling of this kind that we are so much more cautious with regard to clearing space and obtaining a good view ol the west end of our cathedrals than of the sides or east end. We find that these buildings were not always situated so as to be seen equally well from diffe- rent sides; unlike the ancient Greek Temple, which was placed on a height, being intended to be looked at from all points around. It had, in consequence two symme- trical ends, and two symmetrical sides; or it was circular in form. To bring the principle of the former buildings more home to us we may say that in such a common article of furniture as a chair we find this symmetry taking a Iront or back view, but we do not find it taking a side view, and a chair, when placed in position, is usually placed so 2 4 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE that the front principally is seen ; the same may be said of a side board, chiffonier, etc. In the case of a table, on the other hand, intended to be seen from all sides, it is round, oval, square, or oblong, — symmetrical every way. I have observed that the west end of S. Paul’s cathe- dral is symmetrical, and to all general intents and pur- poses it is so, but to my particular intent and purpose at this time, we find it, in certain respects, unsymmetrical. There are a number of naturally sculptured figures on the top of the building which are neither symmetrical in themselves, nor with respect to one another, and these features, I think must be condemned, because they are in opposition to what has before been described as a true art principle. I will indeed at once admit that I feel it to be the most utter presumption on my part to pick out spots in that sun of genius, which is displayed in every line and moulding of this celebrated building. But on the other hand it may be said, that because this building is the work of a great genius, there is all the more reason why any violations of true principle should be detected, in order that these may not be held forth as examples for men of less gifted minds to follow, and, in all probabi- lity, with such high authority before them, still further to increase. Let us again observe the nature of the art principle ART IN DECORATION 2) involved in the beautifying of the egg-cup. Figure io is another mode of treating this small object different from those already given. In the case of (fig. 6) the rose flowing from a continuous stem might have been painted on the surface or it might have been carved in relief, and the simple curved form of the object still maintained. But in the case of (fig. io) the ornament is carved in Fig. 6. Fig. io. relief without any attempt being made at the maintaining of this simple curve. The artist, in fact, in this instance, would have appeared to think more of his ornament, than of the object which the ornament beautifies. Let us now suppose for the sake of clearness that the dome of S. Paul’s cathedral, instead of being formed of its present pure and elegant curve, had been designed with massive fruits and flowers sticking out from its sides like the rose round this egg-cup. Should we not all have felt such a design to be, to say the least of it, a sad violation of good taste ? It would have been more sad in the case of the dome, than of the cup, for the following reason especially. The effect of an architectural building has always to be l6 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE considered under two conditions, — during mid-day and twilight; in the one case where the detail of the building is clearly seen, and in the other case where the detail is lost, so that the outline of the structure only is visible. For this reason then, I think that the principle of main- taining a pure symmetrical outline is of even more importance in the case of a large building, than of a house- hold object. The detail of an object in a room is, gene- rally speaking, easily seen, being always more or less near the eye, so that if its outline is bad, it may be partly re- deemed by the goodness of the ornament; but in the case of the building, intended to be seen very frequently from long distances, and as I have just observed, at certain times daily presented to our view « en masse », the unsymmetrical outline caused by a naturalistic imitation of nature is, in it, most apparent. The figures of apostles and disciples round the top portions of S. Paul’s cathe- dral, like the supposed decoration upon the dome, stand out from, and form no part of, the architectural lines of the building. Their simple purity of outline has been lost, because they have been treated in an imitative, irre- gular, and naturalistic manner, and not, as they ought to have been, in a creative, symmetrical, and architectural manner. Figure 1 1 is a portion of the west front of this building, where some of these figures are seen. Perhaps the reader may think that my criticism of these figures is ART IN DECORATION 2 7 rather a captious one, that they are alter all small com- pared to the immense size of the main structure, and at the worst but little offend the eye. To this it may be answered that the smallness of the figures would not alter the nature of the art principle involved in their design, and that they really appear large enough in certain aspects of the building, to considerably offend the eye. From a drawing of the cathedral to scale from which I traced the above illustration, these figures measure io feet high, and a number of objects of this size, whatever the dimensions of the main structure might be, would always play a very important part in its decoration. In comparing this large building with a small object I observed that the neglect of the principle of symmetry is worse in the former than the latter, because the irregular outline is so much more apparent. This is true ; but on 28 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE the other hand it may be said, that our small objects are, comparatively speaking, much more overloaded with bad decorative enrichment than our buildings, partly, no doubt, on account of the far greater facility for so doing. The outline of the modern English jug (fig. 12) is doubt- less an extreme instance of this, but it only shews to what utter absurdity the neglect, or rather I suppose the ignorance, of true art principle may lead. The subject represented on this jug is that of S. George and the dragon. Make a spade like a spade is all that I contend for. Keep the or- nament on the side of a jug to the shape of the jug, and do not on account of its enrichment, however beautiful that may be in itself, conceal its useful qualities. In like manner make every portion of your architectural outline really architectural, and not mere imitations of natural forms. The following extract from the « Report on design in the exhibition of 1851 » by Richard Red- grave Esq re R. A. alludes to the same thing. M r Redgrave is here writing upon « cabinet work and furniture of all kinds » in the English department. « The laws of orna- ment are as completely set at defiance as those of use and convenience. Many of these works, instead of being ART IN DECORATION 29 useful, would require a rail to keep off the household. A sideboard, for instance, with garlands of imitative flow- ers projecting so far from the slab as to require a « long arm » to reach across it, and ever liable to be chipped and broken ; and cabinets and bookcases so bristling with walnut-wood flowers and oak-wood leaves, as to put use out of the question. Now, besides that such treatments are not ornamental, they are not beautiful, and only enter into competition with stamped leather and gutta-percha. There is great reason to doubt if this merely imitative carving is ever just in principle, when applied ornament- ally to furniture; for, although the masterly chisel of Grinling Gibbons has raised it to great favour in this country, and although it may be tolerated when executed as skilfully as is that on a pier-glass frame by W. G. Rogers, yet it becomes absolutely unbearable under less skilful hands, and when it is lavished in such profusion as we find it on many other works. » I have observed that the principle of order is the same from a small household object up to such a building as S. Paul’s cathedral; but there is another object coming somewhere between these, which is neither household nor a bona fide building, meaning by the latter a structure built with the object of being in itself useful, whether or not with the object of being beautiful. I refer to our monuments, which are set up, as a rule, for the double 30 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE purpose of commemorating a person or an event, and of beautifying a locality. Even those monuments which are built on a large enough scale to be made useful, as a high tower for a view, or an entrance archway to a city, ought still to have beauty for their first object ; a fortiori, when we place upon a pedestal a figure which is not intended to be in itself of actual use, the making a beautiful object should be our first consideration, and the first thing to consider in making that object beautiful, is, as I have said, beauty of outline. Fig. is- Do our stone or bronze figures set upon pedestals, upon ART IN DECORATION 3 1 which so much money and talent are ever expended, present to our view a beautiful outline? No, it must be admitted that, as a rule, they present to our view a very ugly outline, simply because the outline itself has not been specially considered. What wonder then, if this first of principles is neglected, that persons are continually lamenting the failure of our monumental works of art ! Figure 1 3 is an outline of an illustration I lately ob- served in looking over some numbers of the Illustrated London News. This number is dated Aug r 15 th 1868 and the picture is entitled « Place Verte, Antwerp ». A glance at the monumental figure in the foreground, — that of Peter Paul Rubens, — will describe better than any words, what my meaning is with regard to the monuments ol modern times utterly failing in respect to the beauty of a well considered outline. Then the question arises, — How is this beautiful outline to be obtained if we wish to make a natural likeness of one of our great men, to whose memory we are erecting the monu- ment ? If we were to make the figure altogether symmetrical like such an Egyptian figure as at fig. 14, I sup- pose it would be pronounced ugly and unnatural. It most probably would be both, because, so 32 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE far as I am aware, there is not an artist among us who is capable of treating the human figure or any other natural object, in such a purely creative manner, as did the ancient Egyptians. Still, it is none the less true, that, in an architectural sense, — the proper sense — it would be the most beautiful and truly natural way so to treat it. This combination of creative and imitative art, as exemplified among the ancient Egyptian colossi and sphinxes, if not to our minds the most elegant, is assur- edly the most genuine type of monumental decoration which the world has witnessed. It might be said that the Assyrian monumental art was similar to the Egyptian, and might be equally referred to as a model for our study. But the following short quotation from an authority upon this subject 1 respecting the art merits of these two nations, shews that the Egyptian art was the purer. « He » (the Egyptian artist) « did not give his attention to the un- important, and overlook that which was more so. The proportions of the whole are always more correct than the proportions of the parts. He added no trifling orna- ments, no variety of folds in hair, or drapery, to cover the want of grace and beauty. Whereas, all these faults arc to be seen in the Assyrian sculpture. » Far be it from me to sav that there is no artist among us capable of treating Historical notice of the monuments oj Egypt, by Samuel Sharpe, Esq re . ART IN DECORATION 33 the human figure in this creative manner if he were to study the mode of doing it, but this description of beauty in decoration is directly opposed to the art spirit of the age in which we live, and as no artist can avoid — at least to some degree — being influenced by that spirit, he does not raise his mind to the consideration of the subject. And this is indeed the truest excuse that can be offered for the want of creative sculpture upon our build- ings and monuments. It is opposed to the art spirit of our age : only I trust the reader will agree with me that if our usual mode of treating these figures be wrong in principle, they are wrong in practice. If then, we must erect monumental figures, or place them upon our build- ings, and we find ourselves incapable of creating them to stand by themselves, and hold their own in the midst of our stormy world; there is no other resource left for us but to imitate natural figures and to surround them with some architectural structure. Before altogether taking leave of fig. 13 . 1 may refer to the large building tinted in its mass behind the statue. It represents the cathedral of Antwerp, shewing towards the left hand its two towers at the end of the building, one tall and magnificent, the other stunted, and capped with a roof like any windmill. I do not know what may have led to such an anomaly in the case of this cathedral, but Ido know what leads to similar anomalies in the case 34 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE of many modern churches in our country. Money, we will say, is partly subscribed and partly borrowed with the object of building a church, and the idea is to erect an edifice that will outshine as many other edifices of a simi- lar kind as may well be done. Accordingly, the architect sets to work, and he designs a building that is to cost say, — to put it as mildly as possible, — twice as much as the money collected for the purpose. Not that the present building is to cost more than the amount on hand, but the building that is to be at some future day. For the present members of the congregation, from whom the idea of the new church originated, who have probably worked hard to obtain funds for it, and themselves con- tributed largely towards it, a piece of a church is consid- ered quite sufficient. It is begun on an extensive scale. It has a fine nave, but at present only one aisle can be afforded ; at the end of the nave a fine window is de- signed, but at present only a blank wall can be afforded; on the outside two beautiful towers have been designed, but at present only one can be afforded, and so on. In short, a most unsightly edifice is erected, to remain so in all probability for a lengthened period, if ever at all to be completed. What a thousand pities all this is! Do the authorities in matters of this kind never consider that works of art possess a real influence upon the minds ol those who behold them? If people are the better for seeing ART IN DECORATION 35 a well-formed work of art, — which I supposed will be allowed, or works of art may as well be left alone, — they must surely be the worse for seeing an ill-formed work. M r Ruskin in one of his art dissertations, has observed, that « Pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes » ; and this pride of doing something great is, as it appears to me, at the bottom of these unsymmetrical deformities which disfigure so many of our modern churches. I am quite aware that a church is often designed and built with the idea of easily enlarging it at some future day to meet the wants of an increasing population, and it would be unreasonable to find fault with this. But I believe that in by far the majority of cases the money originally collected for the purpose is quite sufficient to build it to this ulti- mate size, only the building must have in consequence a plainer appearance. The argument in favour of the church being begun on a grand scale is the chance that at a future day there may be a grand building; but on the other hand the argument in disfavour of it is the chance that the building may never be further advanced ; so the question comes to be, is it right to make an unsightly structure, one that will create a dissatisfaction in the minds of, — it may be, — many millions of our fellow-men, upon the mere chance or hope that at some future time the evil may be remedied ? I think it is not right, and that the adoption of such a plan as this, is far from acting up to 36 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE the spirit of that faith, for the maintaining of which the church is erected. By all means, if it be desirable, make room for every square inch of the building being orna- mented at a future day, only do not let the pure symme- trical outline of the building itself be sacrificed for this purpose. Allow, if you will, for all carved work, all window traceries, all painted ornament, all stained glass, being done at another time, only do not interfere with the general harmony of the edifice as a whole. And while upon this subject I might say that the principle we act upon so much in this country, that of beautifying a church in a piece-meal fashion is much to be condemned. I know well the difficulties of overcoming this, but with determi- nation they may be overcome. When a stained glass window for instance, is offered for a church, I think it should only be accepted on the condition that the donors wait till enough money has been collected to fill all the windows at once, or at least those forming a series by themselves, and then that one artist and one alone be employed for the work. In the same way with regard to the carving on columns and all else. And when it comes to a question of choosing the artist to be employed, it would be well if the opinion of acknowledged authorities on the subject were sought for, instead of leaving this most important point to be settled, — as it constantly is settled, — by one who thinks he knows something about ART IN DECORATION 37 the matter when he knows nothing, by private interest, or by a « trick of trade ». Another evil is that the artist is constantly called upon by competition or other means to give more than an equivalent value for the price of his work. His art is certain to suffer when this is the case, for then he is driven to what may aptly be termed « sleight of hand » in order to produce an effect of work, and not to honestly think out his subject; for the time he spends in thinking it out, is quite as valuable as the time he spends in working it out. As I have heard it expressed, — it is not that people, at the present day, give too little money for art work, but they are always wanting too much art work for the money. Another important point is that we should be very careful about correcting an artist’s design, unless some very evident blunder has been made. Persons are apt to forget that when they find fault with details in an artist’s work, and ask him to alter them, that they are interfering with the individuality of the artist’s mind, so that even if these details are corrected, it is most probable that the work, as a whole, will lose more than it will gain. If our buildings were erected and beautified on these principles, it appears to me that there would at any rate be a liklihood of one having harmony of design and colour throughout, instead of these things being, as we find them now, so very much more the excep- tion than the rule. CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE But all this is a digression from the main subject for which I must ask the reader’s pardon. To return to it, — - I cannot say much more than I have said in attempting to shew the necessity of attending to symmetry in our objects of beauty. — That all creative art in decoration should be designed in an orderly and symmetrical manner because the works of the Creator Himself are so designed. — That our present imitative statues do not satisfy the mind all authorities that I have heard refer to the subject admit, and indeed the carving some venerable philoso- pher seated in an easy chair, as he might have been at his warm fireside, with his bald pate and thin broadcloth exposed to all the winds and storms of our rugged cli- mate, only shews the utter deadness of feeling that pervades the age in which we live for what may be termed a living, architectural art. But besides all this, if anything is to be gained from the history of art in past ages, it should lead us to the acknowledgement of this creative principle. There is in particular an essence of truth to be extracted from the general history of art that ought never to be lost sight of, especially in our advanced state of civilization upon which we so constantly pride ourselves, viz. that the healthiest art, — it may be the rudest, — has always been produced by men the furthest removed from this our advanced state of civilization, that is to say, by men ot primitive ideas. Macaulay in his essay on Milton refers ART IN DECORATION 39 to the necessity of these primitive or childlike ideas in the writing of poetry ; and what he says, holds equally good in the chiselling or painting of poetry. He writes : — « He who, in an enlightened and literary society, aspires to be a great poet, must first become a little child. He must take to pieces the whole web of his mind. He must unlearn much of that knowledge which has perhaps constituted hitherto his chief title to superiority. His very talents will be a hindrance to him, etc. ». And Goethe in his autobiography refers to the same thing, — « If children grew up according to early indications, we should have nothing but geniuses ». If we then go back as far as poss- ible in the history of art, that is, in examining the earliest remains of the Egyptians, we find that the primitive ideas of creating figures consisted in making them as rigid and symmetrical as possible, and, writes an authority also on this subject: « In Egypt, the further we go back, the more perfect is the art '. It is well known that the Greeks borrowed many of their art ideas from the Egyptians. But we find that the Greek sculptures were more ornamentative than decorative, that is to say, they contributed more to the beautifying the sides of their Temples than to stand by themselves as monuments. The Greeks however did erect many statues which, even at the present day, are justly regarded in an 1 Owen Jones. 40 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE artistic, if not in an architectural sense, as models of excel- lence. We are told that besides the display of architecture upon the Acropolis, extensive series of sculpture were employed in its decoration. No fewer than three statues of Minerva by the hand of Phidias, were visible upon the Acropolis; one of ivory and gold, forty-seven feet high, within the Parthenon ; a second of bronze, which Pausa- nius considered superior to all other works of Phidias. The third a bronze colossus. It was between fifty and sixty feet high, and represented the Goddess holding up both spear and shield in the attitude of a combatant. It is hard to talk of the want of creative principle in this glo- rious age of the arts of Greece. No more perfect building than the Parthenon, considering its virgin purity of architecture, and the truly grand sculpture which that architecture displayed, had the world ever before seen, or ever will see again ; still, I must not hesitate to say that, if the great statue of the Goddess which it enclosed, or the other statues surrounding, which adorned the Acropolis, were not architecturally symmetrical, which they certainly all were not, they were wrong in principle of creative art. One can indeed well imagine the great Phidias, full ol godlike ideas, and feeling within himself an intense power of work, burning to do something beyond the mere beau- tifying of the sides of a building, to build up, as it were, in ivory and gold, a creation of his own, and to display ART IN DECORATION 41 in it all the freedom and grace of nature herself. Any infringement of correct principle here might well be for- given and overlooked, even when a hard reasoner steps in to talk about the flight of genius and its attention to rule, did we not see around us the lamentable results to which a neglect of such rule leads. When the Greeks however, which is rare, shew figures standing out as architectural features of a building, they certainly display, with all their quiet ease and gracefulness of form, just that amount of of these figures (fig . 2, p. 16) as an illustration of imitative art in decoration, and which assuredly is, as a rule, to be condemned. That illustration, taking merely this head portion, was sufficiently near nature to explain my Fig. 15. Turn over. Stuart’s Athens, vol. II, pi. 20. symmetry and rigidity, which keeps them with- in the domain of true architectural art. Fi- gure 15 is an illustration of this. It is called in « Stuart’s Athens », — « The Elevation of the front of the Temple of Pandrosus adorned with caryatides ». The reader will observe that I copied the head portion of one 4^ CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE meaning, and shews how the Greeks in these celebrated figures just verged upon a too naturalistic treatment; but now that we take the whole figure together, we observe that the lower portion is treated in a rigid manner like a The Elevation of the front of the Temple of Pandrosus adorned with caryatides. part of a column. It may be said that this figure is not symmetrical, nor is it in itself, but let it be observed that it is so with regard to the other figures, they being ar- ranged, as the reader will perceive, in pairs on each side of the centre line. The symmetry of the building is thus maintained, and this was my meaning, when, referring to the figures on the top of S. Paul’s, I said that they were neither symmetrical in themselves nor with reference to ART IN DECORATION 43 one another. What I would then most strenuously urge is the constant recognition of those principles of architect- ural symmetry which are displayed in the works of the early Egyptians, and to combine with this as much of the ease and gracefulness of nature, as it is possible to do. Then, and not till then, will there even be a chance of our doing anything great in monumental art. The following passage by George Scharf, Jun. in his excellent description of the Egyptian court, Crystal Palace, appears to aim at the same truth which I have been trying to enforce. « In one merit, and perhaps only one, was the Egyptian artist superior to the Greek. The Greek statues have truth, muscular action, grace, beauty, and strength. They show pain, fear, love, and a variety of passions. But none of them is equal to those of Egypt in impressing on the mind of the beholder the feelings of awe and reverence. The two people were unlike in character; and the artists copying from their own minds, gave the character of the nation to their statues. Plato saw nothing but ugliness in an Egyptian statue. The serious gloomy Egyptians had aimed at an expression not valued by the more gay and active Greeks. The Egyptians however, had learned the superiority of rest over action in representing the sublime ; and the artist who wishes to give religious dignity to his figures should study the quiet sitting Egyptian colossus of the reign of Amunothph III ». 44 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE A few words with regard to Roman art. It has been truly observed that the Romans were a conquering, not an art loving people. They depended, in their earlier days upon the Etruscans for all their refinements in art, as at a later period they depended upon the Greeks. We read that they erected statues of great men in the forum and other places; and that the custom of elevating statues upon columns was peculiar to the Romans, than which, no other fact is needed to shew a corruption of taste. The Greeks, as 1 have shown, had neglected, in their love of nature and great power of imitating it, what the Egyptians had not forgotten, that a figure, when it does not beautify the side of a building, but is made to stand alone, at once takes the place of a building in itself, and becomes archi- tectural ; and the Romans who entirely depended upon the Greeks for their monumental art, allowed this viola- tion of principle to be carried still further. This was just what might have been expected, for imitative art of this kind has been, and always will be, more enticing than creative art, especially to those who have no opinion of their own in the matter, who allow themselves to be carried away by mere feeling, and never consider what really constitutes the difference between the right and the wrong. The Romans had much in common with ourselves in their architectural treatments. They were too much given to overloading their buildings with heavy enrich- ART IN DECORATION 45 ments ; and in decorative art they were apt to neglect for the sake of costly detail, the lasting beauty of a pure symmetrical outline. How true are those words by Owen Jones: - — ■ « The very command of means leads to their abuse; when art struggles, it succeeds; when revelling in its own successes, it as signally fails ». To sum up in few words the principle I have been advocating. — The Egyptian statues are, as they ought to be, creative and architectural, but they perhaps might with advantage be more imitative ; the Greek, Roman, and modern statues are imitative, but they assuredly ought to be more creative and architectural. Perhaps, after having dwelt so long upon this creative art in decoration, the reader will be inclined to ask whether I mean to say that we should have no natural- istic sculpture. If so, I would answer, that I should be glad to see a vast deal more upon our modern buildings than they usually exhibit, only I think that we cannot too carefully guard against such work interfering with the architectural lines of the building. It is, in fact, the niche upon the sides of the building which ought to contain the naturally carved figure. We might say that the figure is to the niche on the side of the house, what the tenant is to the house itself, and that they are as essential to one another. And if, in the case of our monuments it be asked, how we are to imitate nature and yet preserve 46 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE a pure and symmetrical outline to the eye, I would answer, — only by surrounding the figure with some architectural structure. We appear at the present day to look upon a piece of imitative art whether chiselled out of stone or painted upon canvass, as works done for their own sake and not particularly with the idea of contribut- ing to the beauty of an edifice. But this is altogether a false notion of the end of such art. Properly speaking, — although it seems wholly impossible in our age of exhi- bitions and picture traffic, — no imitative work of art should be done without the distinct knowledge of its final resting place, and all that will surround it there. We may say that as much unity of many minds is required to display the perfection of imitative arts upon the sides of a large building, as of one mind to display this per- fection upon the sides of a small vase. The canopy of the monument and the niche of the building are as necessary to enclose naturalistic sculpture, as the frame is necessary to enclose naturalistic painting. These arts are indeed but the offspring of their architectural parent, and they not only do honour to the structure by being maintained within certain boundary lines and limits, but they add, for this very reason, to their own effect and interest; and it is no more humiliating to them to be kept within such judicious rules, than it is humiliating for the child to be guided and protected by the hand of its parent. But it is ART IN DECORATION 47 unnecessary to say more on this subject. The reader will readily understand what is meant by a naturally sculp- tured figure occupying a niche or being under a canopy, and its never obtruding itself beyond the main lines of the architecture. Again, besides those two ways in which the human figure, or any other natural object may legitimately be treated with regard to a monument or a building, the purely creative standing by itself, and the purely imit- ative under its cover, there are other two conditions under which these objects may be placed with regard to monuments or buildings. I refer to what is technically called alto relievo and basso relievo, — high relief, and low relief. The commonly accepted meaning of high relief is that of an object being cut away from a surface, so as to be nearly or altogether relieved from the surface. One cannot find fault with this definition so far as it goes; but when an architect is indulging in high relief sculpture upon the side of his building, the first important question for him to decide is, whether or not that sculpture will play a part in the outline of the building. According to the above defini- tion, the naturally sculptured figure within its own niche or canopy, standing upon its own pedestal, and performing its own duty for which the sculptor has called it into existence, is a figure in high relief, because it is nearly or altogether relieved from the surface immediately behind 4 8 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE it. But I think that this term as here applied is far from a happy one ; because, although such a figure must ever be intimately associated with the edifice which it beau- tifies, still it must ever be an altogether distinct feature from the edifice, and yet the term of high relief implies something which is actually cut upon the side of the edifice. Not but that the figure might be cut away from the side of the edifice, only it should never convey that idea to our minds, any more than a picture painted on a wall should convey the idea of its being on the wall, however much we may know it to be the case. In short, if the figure or any picture conveyed to us the idea that they were part of the wall of the building, they would at once take away from that naturalness which constitutes their greatest charm. If then, it be necessary to employ some technical term to imply the relation of such a figure to the wall, I think that at any rate that one should be avoided which would confound it with the wall itself, and so create a confusion in the mind of the designer. It appears to me then that what we should more particu- larly understand by high relief sculpture is that which so stands out from the surface of the building, that it plays a part in the outline of the building, and so becomes wholly distinct from the sculpture contained within the outline. But it may be said, according to this reasoning, that the figures on the top of S. Paul’s cathedral, because ART IN DECORATION 49 they play a part in the outline of the building, are in high relief. And why not ? If these figures were set at the side of the cathedral, with their backs touching the building, we should at once say they were in high relief, and why, when their feet touch the building, should we not use the same term ? This appears to me to be the true meaning of high relief, any object which so stands out from another object, that it plays an important part in the outline of the whole object. For the same reason then, that the figure in the niche, because it does not play a part in the general outline, is treated imitatively; so the figure out of the niche, because it does play such a part, should be treated creatively. — Let us now observe among some of the architectural remains of ancient Egypt , a figure standing out in high relief; and it may be observed in passing how truly the architect- ure of Egypt in that remote time, has been described as the « healthy mother » of all architecture, and how worthy it is of the closest study by those who desire to un- derstand what is meant by creative art in decoration. — Figure 16 is a striking illustration of symmetry Fig. 16. and rigidity of form in a high relief object. This is one of the eight colossal figures of 50 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE Rameses I erected by his son in a portion of the Rameseun (or abode of Rameses) Thebes. He was king of Egypt in some very remote period, and on account of the great benefits he rendered to his country, came afterwards to be worshipped as a god, — the god Osiris. These colossi are each thirty feet high and project considerably from the main building. Their imposing effect is thus described by an eye-witness 1 : « All the light there is falls on these eight figures of Rameses, now become Osiris, imbued with his almost superhuman strength and majesty, and divine calmness — the swathed legs and the unearthly repose of the face, bespeaking the god of Death, as the crook and the knotted scourge pourtray the god of Judgment. There is little in accordance with our modern ideas of beauty in his fea- tures, yet the mind is more impressed with admiration, — an admiration that almost oppresses the heart, at the majestic, passionless purity, and perfect Fia J7 peace of that countenance, than at the Pr i sse d’Avennes. most exquisite grecian model of all that is most beautiful in man : something more is here, — more than mere 1 Egyptian Sepulchres ami syrian Shrines, by Emily A. Beaufort. ART IN DECORATION 51 symbolism, and far beyond mere human beauty however perfect ». — Figure 17 is a decorative colossus of Rameses II, shewing that even in a more literal imitation of nature this strict symmetry is maintained. By basso relievo or low relief we mean figures or ornament but slightly relieved from the surface upon which they are cut. This relief should be so slight as to form no perceptible difference in the outline of the object which it beautifies, and in this respect it should be at once distinguished from high relief 1 . — Figure 18 is a perspective view in outline of the remains of a building discovered by Stuart in Thessalonica. « Five Corinthian columns » Stuart writes, « on their pedestals support an entablature over which is an attic adorned with figures in 1 It is more convenient to offer these observations on low relief sculpture, and the former observations at p. 45 on naturalistic sculpture, in the first part of this book, although, properly speaking, they should appear in the second part ; because, as neither of these arts should in the least interfere with the decoration of an object, they would naturally come under the head of its ornamentation. CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE )2 alto relievo ». The figures are rightly so described ; but I think that in this case the relief is greatly over done, as it will be seen from the perspective view and the section (fig . iy) that they play a very decided part in the main outline. I give this illustration then to shew that, however beautiful these figures may have appeared taking them in a front view, they were carried too far beyond the main wall, and caused the outline of the building to suffer in a side view. So true it 1 is, — « A very little constitutes all the differ- ence between right and wrong, and yet the difference between right and wrong is not a little difference 1 ». The above figures, are, I may observe, drawn out in detail in « Stuart’s pig. /?. Athens », and are well worthy of study, as they are in themselves, exceedingly beautiful. They are, however, but an instance of what constantly takes place at the present day in a much worse degree, — the confusion of creative and imitative art in relief sculpture 2 . The following illustrations of two small objects show 1 AKHB. - Let it then be distinctly understood that we cannot legitimately have imitative- art in decoration, though we may have both creative and imitative art in orna- mentation. Under what conditions we may have the latter has been already explained ; and in the second part of this work, I trust it may be clearly understood under what conditions we may have the former. ART IN DECORATION 53 how exactly the same conditions of high and low relict may be seen in them as in a large building. Figures 20 et 21 are chalices copied from an illustrated art work. The former was designed by Pugin, and the latter is supposed to be of Spanish workmanship of date 1570. All those parts which stand out from the chalices and so interfere with their outline are in high relief; not only the two side members, — the third being hidden, — that almost stand clear (fig . 21 at A- A), and those bar like ends at B-B (fg. 20), but also the jewel decorations C-D-E-F. My meaning is that those prominent members 54 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE of the main body, itself architectural, should be treated architecturally, that is, regularly and symmetrically, as they are happily so done in these instances. The ornament shewn at G on the side of figure 20 appears from the original drawing to be in low relief, the remainder being partly cut and partly painted, but wherever this low relief does exist, it conforms in a very beautiful manner to the shape of the object. If the S : George and Dragon which so disfigures the jug (jig . 12) had been treated as a high relief object, that is to say, creatively and regularly, instead of imitatively and irregularly, there would have been no legitimate fault to find with it. The reader now, I doubt not, clearly understands what I mean by treating a natural object in a creative manner as a decorative feature and treating it in an imitative manner as an ornamental feature. It is, of course, quite another question which of these two treatments is the most desirable, for each, so long as it is kept within its own sphere, is perfectly correct in itself. There is one thing however which is well worthy of observation, that, in the whole history of art, they have never appeared to llourish together. Where creative art has flourished , imitative art has not, and vice versa; that is to say, in the treatment of natural objects, not of architecture, for we could never say that architecture was imitative art. It is of necessity creative art; with regard then to the treatment ART IN DECORATION 5) of natural objects in architecture. — In ancient Egypt and Assyria the creative principle flourished, the imitative did not. In ancient Greece, Rome, and in western Europe during the later period of the middle ages, and in our own time, the imitative principle has flourished, the creative has not. Among the Eastern nations, as the Chinese, Japanese, and Hindoos, the creative has flou- rished and not the imitative. These nations are given to making their objects of beauty, rigid and symmetrical, although it is most probable that the more they come under European influence, the more unsymmetrical and imitative these objects will become. In Japan, at the present time, exists a symmetrical colossus of the great Buddha, sitting on its pedestal as the Japanese sit on their floors. The height of this image is 50 feet, the length of the face being 8 feet 6 inches. These and other dimensions I received from one who had seen this figure, and who described it as possessing an air of such grandeur and an expression of such sublimity, that the effect could not be conceived by any who had not themselves beheld it. The objects of fantasy, in which the Japanese take so much delight, ought not to be confounded with their more serious works. I have already quoted at pages 43 and 30 the ideas of two independent witnesses as to the peculiar character of creative art in ancient Egypt. The following has 56 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE been written by Owen Jones upon the art merits of some Egyptian lions. These particular lions were not symmetrical in themselves, but with reference to one another, — a number of them being in pairs on each side of an avenue leading to a Temple. « They (lord Prudhoe’s Lions) arc of a very fine character of art, and may be contrasted with advantage with any other than Egyptian attempts at representing this noble animal, which was a favourite and companion of Egypt’s Pharaohs. If these lions are contrasted with the lions of Canova, which have been considered among the finest works of that artist, the superiority of the Egyptian idealized form over the attempted imitation of a natural lion carved in stone will be very apparent. » I cannot but think, myself, that the creative treatment of nature leads to a higher and nobler expression of art than the imitative ; but at any rate, there can be no question, that everything should be done to prevent their confusion. I have observed that an architectural building is of necessity creative art and not imitative. Although then the creative and imitative treatment of natural forms have never flourished together, they have both flourished separately in the midst of a flourishing architecture. In Egypt architecture flourished, and the creative treatment of nature flourished with it. In Greece architecture flou- rished, and the imitative treatment of nature flourished ART IN DECORATION 57 with it. When Constantine, in the fourth century, removed the seat of empire from Rome to Byzantium , the architecture and imitative arts of Rome became greatly influenced by the architecture and the creative arts of the east, and the Byzantine style was the result. A mixture of Roman, Greek, and eastern architecture, decorated and ornamented by creative treatments of natural forms changed into Christian symbolisms of all kinds, were its chief characteristics. This amalgamation of styles by degrees worked its way into western Europe, and like the ancient arts of Egypt, there existed for a time, a flou- rishing architecture with a flourishing creative treatment of nature. This last became by degrees more and more imitative , but even , when the imitative treatment of nature flourished, it was strictly kept within the main architectural lines of the building. Afterwards, as time went on, the imitation of nature began to be more thought of than the architectural building which this imitation beautified. After this again when the renaissance was introduced, or the rebirth of classical architecture, and it became mixed up with mediaeval architecture, already in a state of decline, as might be supposed, a perfect chaos of confusion ensued. Since then the creative spirit of a living architecture which flourished in western Europe, during, especially the early period of the middle ages, has remained so completely overthrown, that it is yet 58 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE impossible to predict if it ever will be recovered. We have certainly for some centuries been progressing in imitative art, but a living creative art either in architecture, or in the treatment of natural forms, still appears to be almost a dead letter among us. « In this art, » once observed to me one of our first architects, « we are children, and our forefathers were giants. » The more I think of the reason of this, the more I am inclined to believe that the strong reactionary spirit of the reformation had greatly to do with it. At that time the minds of men were inflamed against any religion which partook, according to their ideas, of mere human wisdom ; against the dogmata of the church, the evidence of tradition, or in short, against any creations of the mind of man, which appeared to them to savour of being in opposition to the revealed word of his creator. This wisdom of man, which like a stream that had been flowing through the channels of ages, and had gradually become polluted in its course, was believed by those who awoke to its pollution, never to have been pure, and they condemned even its fountain springs, and acknowledged Him who was the great source of all, and Him alone. May we not trace in this some analogy between religion and art ? In religion, the plain worship of God and faith in His word, were substituted for a ceremonial worship which combined with it the wisdom and learning of ages, and which by these means ART IN DECORATION 59 aided in interpreting His word to the minds of His people. In art, the plain imitation of nature, and the belief that everything in nature must of necessity be beautiful, were substituted for that degree of imitation which combined with it a wise discrimination and knowledge as to how these works of the Creator should best be interpreted through the mind of the artist to the minds of his fellow-men. I have referred to the belief that everything in nature must of necessity be beautiful. This was something new in the history of art, and although in our day there appears to be a gradual rejection of the idea, it continues to exercise a pernicious influence upon the art spirit of our age. The argument is this. — « All things in nature must be beautiful, because all things bear upon them the stamp of a divine origin, and therefore if you wish to produce beauty, you have simply to copy nature. » But as it so happens, all things in nature are not beautiful. Are there no ugly men and women in the world ? This is a theme it is needless to dwell upon ; but even supposing that everything in nature was admitted to be truly beautilul, would it be right simply to copy that beauty, to the neglect of appropriateness and adaptability to a purpose, and last not least, what we discover to be, from the very nature of our minds, a correct art principle ? But I have heard persons carry on this argument a step further and say, — « But surely the works of man can never 6o CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE equal the works of God ! Do you mean to say that you can improve upon nature ? » In one sense, man certainly can improve upon nature. Do not those worthy people who ask this question believe, that their daily orderly life and conversation are an improvement upon their original nature ? The order that regulates our conduct in life, and that which regulates our highest phases of art are quite analogous. It was no doubt the wonderful art spirit combined with the stern order of the eight figures of Rameses I which led the lady — from whose work I quoted at page 50 — into such raptures regarding them, — to speak of « their divine calmness », and « the unearthly repose of the face » being « far beyond mere human beauty however perfect ». Such wonderful art spirit then, or life of man’s mind, may be so infused into his work, and so reflect in it all the noblest characteristics of the works of his Creator, that it may appeal to our minds in a higher degree than the individual works themselves, so that in one sense, the works of man may improve upon nature. In another sense, the smallest creeping insect at our feet is a far greater and more wonderful work, than all the art creations of man that ever have been or will be. The insect possesses real life, compared to which the most living art of man is as death itself 1 . 1 I am sure of this, that nothing lias retarded art so much in our country as the ART IN DECORATION 6 1 The result of our neglect of creative art has been, that for centuries past we have produced nothing new in architecture worthy of the name. Our architecture is, in the main, nothing but a constant repetition of the works of former ages. There is no doubt that the constitution of society in our time is not calculated to further the growth of this art. For, just as the growth of a tree depends upon the life giving power of its Creator, so does the growth of an architectural style depend upon the life which is infused into it by the power of men’s minds. If the power of many men’s minds were concentrated upon one architectural tree, spreading out its fruitful branches for the benefit of all around, appearing noble in its orderly development, charming in its variety of detail, it might be at once the delight and the glory of their country ; but if, on the contrary, this power of concentration were neglected, and for every mind that was at work a different tree were produced, what a forest of disorderly confusion might we not expect ! Yet this is very much the condition of things at the present day, — might we not say in religion as well as in art ? All great styles have arisen from this amalgamation of minds , and unless our architects become more amalgamated for the common belief that art, even in the sense in which I have described it, is never to be considered an improvement upon nature ; and I am equally sure that until this truth is generally acknowledged, progress in art is impossible. 62 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE good, and less isolated for their private interest, I do not see how we can ever expect any particular style of architecture to flourish among us. But architects could never amalgamate in this way for their country’s good, unless the country itself were to recognize its importance, and assist in the carrying out of the scheme. So long as our divergent state of art society exists, and any feeling for creative art so seldom, if ever cultivated, it is vain and absurd to demand of architects a new style in architecture. A style of architecture is a national work, and the nation must first help to amalgamate its architects, before the architects can amalgamate to help the nation. We are certainly progressing in imitative art, both in sculpture and painting, but this is, as I have before observed, only the offspring of the art of architecture. We forget the parent in our love for the child ; but so long as this is the case, we may rest assured, that fine art will never make a real progress in our country. I observed at the beginning of this subject that when man is about to create an object by the invention of his own mind, and the skill of his own hands, he ought to attend to the first of laws which we find in the works of the great Creator himself viz. order. I strongly urged the necessity of all art objects from the smallest to the largest being designed in an orderly and symmetrical manner, but I did not consider the case, say, for instance of a large ART IN DECORATION 63 building, — where it might be very inconvenient to make it symmetrical. At that time, however, I was considering the best way of making an object beautiful, not the best way of making it convenient. It may be said that although no art object should be made beautiful merely for its own sake, but for a useful purpose as well, still, that some objects may be made more beautiful than useful, others, more useful than beautiful. I am of opinion that those objects which are intended to be more useful than beautiful, not only quite legitimately forsake this rule of symmetry, but that, having forsaken it, they impress us with the idea of the truth that their usefulness has really been considered before their beauty. But when a useful work of art does impress us with that idea nothing can be more damaging to it as a work of art, however creditable it may be as a work of utility. It may help to explain my meaning if I quote from the Latin-English Lexicon by D r Andrews the following meanings which I find given to the word « dccens », — « i st seemly, becoming, decent, proper, fit — 2 d especially of corporeal fitness and symmetry : regularly, symmetrically, handsomely shaped ; well formed; noble ». The well considered unsymmetrical objects I have just been alluding to may be, « seemly, becoming, decent, proper and fit », but the well considered symmetrical objects are likely to be « handsomely shaped, well formed, and noble ». When I see the tower of a 64 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE modern Gothic church or of a house in the Italian style, placed away in the one corner of the building, it impresses me with the idea that its usefulness in that position has been considered before its beauty. Not that I believe its usefulness is always the first consideration, because I am well aware that such buildings are usually made thus unsymmetrical from a notion, that they are, for this very reason, the more beautiful. How are we to account for this want of symmetry, and in my opinion want of nobleness, in so many modern structures, especially those of the Gothic style of architecture ? I cannot but think that the present rage for imitative art, which is essentially unsymmetrical art, is at the bottom of it. No one can deny that imitative art is excellent in its own way, and capable of producing the very highest of ideas, — see « Modern painters », — but the moment the creative artist allows himself to be led by the imitative, — to borrow a phrase from the eminent author of the work just alluded to, — « it is all over with him ». Little wonder is it that many of our architects have rushed to foreign lands, and have tried to introduce in this country, a fruit of exotic growth, the extreme of rigid, symmetrical architecture ; and that modern French architects fight so shy of our style. The reader may perhaps reply to all this, — « It is scarcely fair to argue that because we discover order to have been the ruling principle of the Creator, that therefore ART IN DECORATION 65 it should be our ruling principle, because it so happens that the works of the Creator, — as we are in the habit of viewing them, — are not orderly, and yet no one can deny that, generally speaking, they possess great beauty. » But I would not deny this. Indeed I believe that a certain amount of what we may call, for want of a better term, disorder, is necessary to perfect the beauty; only, what one must ever bear in mind is, that as the works of living nature are founded upon order, and they are rather accidents which cause the disorder; so, our art, in order to be living, should be founded upon an orderly basis, and accidents only, as it were, should interfere with it. It is the spirit of nature and not her shortcomings that man should endeavour to pourtray; just as it is the spirit of the child that he should strive to attain, and not the weaknesses of its years. Variety in the midst of unity, irregularity in the midst of regularity, form the great charm of man’s creative art, as they do of his Maker’s creative works. One may constantly observe, for instance in the interior of a Gothic church, where a number of carved capitals beautify the pillars, that each capital, although similar in size and main outline, is different in its design of foliage. In the tracery or head portions of the windows also a variety of design will constantly be found, when, as regards their size and main outline, they are alike ; and so with other portions of the building. It will then, 66 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE he found, that this rule of symmetry in apparently symmetrical buildings, has been, by the very genius of the architect himself, purposely infringed, so as to avoid a too formal or mechanical appearance to the eye. Even in the rigidly symmetrical figures of the Egyptians it is found that either a slight turning of the head, or something was done to take away from a too unnatural stiffness. When I look at the different objects of the room in which I am sitting, I find that tables, chairs, davenport, bookcase, mantelpiece, mirror, etc., are all strictly symmetrical, but that one object at least is not viz. the sofa, and yet there is nothing objectionable about the appearance of the sofa. I believe the reason is simply because it forms a pleasing relief to the eye among so many rigidly symmetrical objects. We may also say that there is a pleasing relief to the eye in the formality of a room by a little confusion on the top of a table, by persons sitting about, or by drawings from nature on the walls. The often too mechanical appearance in the interior of a church, is in a similar way, compensated for, by the variety of faces and costumes that are scattered around. Before concluding I must refer to a certain class of objects, which, although they may be made useful, and pleasing, are never made truly beautiful. I refer to those objects we understand by the grotesque, the quaint, or the fantastic. These are the objects more of our caprice ART IN DECORATION 6/ and fancy than of our sober taste and judgment. Those quaint fantastic looking houses which we see in some old towns, have certainly a charm peculiar to themselves ; but what I maintain is, that chiefly from their oddness of lorm or want of symmetry, they can never be said to possess the stamp of a true, enduring, ennobling beauty. I am quite aware that quaint architecture and tumbling ruins are generally the soul’s delight of the pictorial artist, but I can never believe that these things minister to our minds in a high degree ; and in my humble opinion, it does not betoken a very healthy condition of art, when so much pleasure is taken in them. The S l George and Dragon jug was, as I take it, intended to be beautiful, but, from ignorance of the first principles of design, confused with an object of fantasy. Repose is the first essential to true beauty, but there is no repose here. All this attention to symmetry and order, as I have before observed, is man carrying out in his art the truest spirit of nature and we may say that as in man himself the symmetry of nature is modified by movements of life, so in this creative art of man, the symmetry should be modified by the life of the artist’s mind. In conclusion I may say that if the principle of symmetrical order and purity of outline, were more considered in the decoration of our creative objects of art, as in our architecture, monuments, and household objects, 68 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE ART IN DECORATION a very great step in advance would be the consequence. When we constantly hear of our backwardness in these arts compared to our forefathers of many centuries ago, surely these first of principles, — which it cannot be too often repeated, they, as a rule, strictly adhered to, — ought at the present day to be recognized. END OF FIRST TART. SECOND PART CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE ART IN ORNAMENTATION PART II CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE ART IN ORNAMENTATION I observed at the beginning of Part I that the art of architecture, (which is generally acknowledged to be the first, or at any rate the parent of the beautiful arts), might be divided into the arts of construction, decoration, and ornamentation. I also observed that as the art of construction could never be called a fine art, it would not be considered in this work; but that decoration, (or the beautifying the form of an object), and ornamentation, (or the beautifying the surface of an object), would alone occupy our attention. Part I was devoted to the principles involved in the art of decorating an object, and I purpose CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE ..7 2 now considering in Part II the principles involved in the art of ornamenting an object. Fig. 22. Grammar of Ornament PI. 45. PERSIAN N° 1. The three ways by which we may ornament an object are analogous to the three ways by which, I before El nqjg nlnr lUp Qjjk, Ejkj Jp Fig. 22. Grammar of Ornament PI. 15. GREEK N° 1. explained, we may decorate an object. When we are beautifying the surface of a building, or of a small object, ART IN ORNAMENTATION 73 by square, circular, or angular lines, we are ornamenting by creating, because we may say that such rigidly mathematical forms as these are so rarely seen in nature, it would be mere affectation to say we were copying nature when making use of them; (see fig. 22) and when we beautify the surface by a direct copy of some object in nature, we are ornamenting by imitating, (see any picture) ; and when we make it evident that some object in nature has merely been our type for the beautifying of the surface, then we are ornamenting by partly creating and partly imitating, (see fig. 2j). This third point will be afterwards moie clearly explained. I referred in Part I to three different descriptions of egg-cups; the first, creative, formed of a simple curve; the second, imitative, formed from the direct copy of a natural object ; the third, creative and imitative, formed of a simple curve, and the natural object merely used as 74 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE a suggestion for beautifying that form. I then tried to explain how it was that the direct imitation of a rose coming before us as an egg-cup, or in the same way, the direct imitation of the human figure coming before us as the column of a building, or as a statue, rendered these objects, beautiful in themselves, ugly, chiefly because the symmetry of their outline, became, almost as a consequence, lost; so that the direct imitation of nature in decoration was to be condemned. But it could never be said that the direct imitation of nature in ornamentation was to be condemned, as that would he equivalent to saying that every picture which was drawn or painted was wrong art. If we never attempted any kind of ornamentation beyond that of painting pictures, I would have nothing further to say upon the necessity of considering the principles involved in the beautifying of a surface. It is because we attempt to beautify surfaces, not only by imitative art, but by creative art, and by the combination of creative and imitative art, and because in these attempts we are constantly confusing all these arts together, that I am led into offering an explanation as to what really constitutes their points of difference. And in order to do this I must ask the kind indulgence of the reader while I endeavour to define, as briefly as possible, what we really understand by a picture. I have heard it said, that we represent nature in a picture as it ART IN ORNAMENTATION / ) we were holding up a sheet of transparent glass before our eyes, and copying the objects upon that glass as we see them. This is quite true; but there is one thing to be observed in holding up that sheet ol glass, — - it must not be too large; we should be able to see the whole picture before us without moving the body, or scarcely even the head ; and there is only one point of view from which we should take in the whole with ease. We must therefore be able to see the edge of the glass, or, in other words, the line by which the picture is bound; and when we have painted the picture, and placed it on a wall, this boundary line is generally made to separate it still more from surrounding objects by a margin ol some breadth. This boundary line then is one essential characteristic of a picture. (It may here be observed that there are two kinds of boundary lines to a picture, one, which marks it off suddenly from surrounding objects, and the other, which marks it off gradually, as in what are called « vignette pictures ».) Another characteristic of the picture is, that, on account of its perspective, and its light and shade, every needle’s point of the surface painted upon be- comes lost to the eye, with regard to the surface ; that is to say, the surface itself is never considered. This boun- dary line then, and this losing of the surface, are sufficient guides lor our determining what is understood by an ordinary picture, or a piece of imitative art upon a surface. CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE Let us now consider how it is that this imitative or pictorial art may become confused with creative art. Suppose we saw before us the picture of a man, say the size ol life, that he was leisurely standing upon the floor of a room, and that the furniture of the room and all around him looked comfortable and in their right places, — such a « Portrait of a gentleman » in short, as we might see in any Royal academy Exhibition , certainly no infringement of art principle could be found with so respectable a piece of work. But now suppose that the floor, the furniture, and background of the room, and in fact every portion of the picture were obliterated from the canvass, except the gentleman himself, and that he were left alone, dangling, as it were, in mid air. Art principle would be greatly at fault in such a case as this ; because the man himself would have all the characteris- tics of a picture ; he would be in perspective, and in light and shade, exactly as he would be seen in nature from one point of view, and yet he would be wanting in a background, which no man, or no object in nature was ever yet wanting in'. The man would stand before us pretending to be a picture, and yet not a picture, — an 1 The reader who is inclined to be very critical might say that this was not altogether true as we might paint a picture of a piece of sky or plain wall or some such object which would fill up the entire canvass, so that there would be no background to the picture. But this would be taking a very extreme view of the case, and assuredly a most undesirable description of picture. ART IN ORNAMENTATION 77 altogether unsatisfactory work. I have no doubt that such a production on the walls of a pictorial exhibition room would meet with general condemnation, and yet the vast majority of our ornamental works of art are treated upon this principle. To take one or two other illustrations, I suppose there is no more common attempt at rendering objects pleasing upon a signboard, or those over shop doorways, certainly in by far the majority of cases shewing an evident intention to render the letters of these words to some degree beautiful. Perhaps the most common way of attempting to beautify a letter is done in a similar manner to that at figures 24. Now the illustration of the gentle- man out of the picture left dangling in the air is exactly analogous to this. Here we have what I believe is termed a block letter. It conveys to us the idea of its being the J o 1 to the eye than what we see dis- r played in the letters of our alphabet. Any newspaper, periodical, card, circular, or book, which may come Figs. 24. in our way, having any pretension to ornamentation , is generally beautified, first of all in the letters of its titles ; and when we walk in the streets nothing comes before our eyes so directly as the words 73 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE copy of a letter made out of a block of wood or some other material. This letter then, possesses some of the characteristics of a picture, — it is in perspective and in light and shade, exactly as it would be naturally seen from one point of view, and yet it is entirely wanting in a background. It pretends to be a picture, and yet it is not a picture; so that the design is, to say the least of it, very unsatisfactory. If we only saw behind such a letter a piece of wood represented or some material to which the block might have been fastened and that background possessing its natural boundary line, no one could say that art principle was at fault. Figure 25 is a similar letter to this, but carried a degree further, for it is not only in perspective, and light and shade , but has a cast shadow as well. Do not let us despise the art of beautifying an ordinary letter of the alphabet. The J Alphabet-album, par commonness of the art raises it to one of Sylvestre. great importance, and the commonness of the failure shews how little the very first principles of the art are understood. I am entirely of opinion that more talent is required to elaborately beautify a letter of our alphabet, introducing figures and animals in a creative manner, than to paint a very large proportion of our Royal academy pictures ; and that this description of art is despised at the present day, chiefly, if not wholly for the reason, that it Fig. 2/. ART IN ORNAMENTATION 79 Fig. 26. is so constantly confused with the principles of pictorial art. Figure 26 appears to be a design in especial favour as it may often be seen painted on the wall of the « painter and decorator’s » shop displaying upon it in an unmistakable manner his name and occupation. The great merit of this design evidently is, as in the case of the letters, that it should appear to stand out from the surface upon which it is painted. It is drawn in per- spective, possesses light and shade, and a cast shadow; a direct copy of a real scroll fastened to a surface, but wanting the indication of a background which a real scroll seen in this position must possess, and the boundary line of the picture. I have said that the attempt evidently is to make the scroll stand out from the surface on which it is painted, in short, to make us believe that we are looking not at a painting, but at a reality. It would be useless for the designer to say in answer to this, that although he painted a scroll in this manner, he never intended that it should appear a reality. It is clear that the beholder of a work of art must judge from the work itself what the intention of the artist was, and not from what the artist may tell us it was. Is it right that the painter of the above objects should lead us to believe that we are looking at real objects; in other words, that he should 8o CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE deceive us ? Do we naturally like to be deceived by anything whatever ? Yes, we may answer, when it is clearly understood that we are being deceived. If a juggler told us that he could take a sovereign out of our pocket without our being aware of it, we would very probably allow him to try, and if he were successful, might be inclined to give him the money for his cleverness; but if another took it, without our knowledge, should we not feel strongly indignant ? And so it is in art. If the artist in some way gives us to understand that we are not looking at reality, we can enjoy his clever painting, but if he does not in some way convey this impression to our minds, we must, when the deception is discovered, feel indignant at his boldness. And so long as the deception is not discovered, what does the artist gain by his cleverness? That as no one believes he painted it, he does not get the credit for his own work. What a suicidal art is this ! Another result of the false principle involved in such an object as the above scroll is, that supposing an artist were commissioned to paint a picture in which the scroll appeared from certain points of view, if true to his art, lie could not avoid conveying the false impression, that the scroll actually did stick out in that absurd and ugly manner from the wall he was painting. In short, this neglect of correct principle leads to deception and confusion of all kinds. ART IN ORNAMENTATION 8 1 Now, many of these remarks will apply not only to this directly false art which I have been trying to explain, but also to bona fide pictorial art, — a true picture. We may attempt to deceive in a picture, as well as in the case of the scroll, although, on account of its natural boundary line, it is not, by any means, so easily done. It is however a most common and vulgar idea to suppose that the goodness of a picture may be judged by its close outward resemblance to nature; and we have such stories as that of the birds pecking at the painted fruit, and the imaginary curtain drawn accross the picture, which stories are, to say the least, extremely childish, and degrade art in its high calling, to mere trickery. It will invariably be found that the best pictures convey to us the idea that they are pictures, and not that they are realities, in short, they are always true to .themselves. The same idea is expressed in the well known words of Shakspeare : — cc To thine own self be true, and it follows .as the night the day, Thou can’st not then be false to any man. )> Then we have a Latin phrase which seems to hang on the lips of every dilettante : — « Ars est celare artem », which, if I understand aright means, that the end of art is to hide art ; if so, it is clear that the end of art is to hide itself. We have seen what comes of art hiding itself in the case of a painter practising deception on our minds. 82 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE Let us suppose however that the author of this phrase merely meant that a pictorial artist had hidden ways and means of producing certain effects in his picture. One might say that almost every artist had his own particular method of working and of producing certain effects; but surely no artist would allow that the end of his art consisted in hiding his method of working. I think it will be found that the most talented artists are they who are most ready to tell us all about their methods of work. Both these explanations of the above phrase, shew I think, its utter absurdity. We should on the contrary say, that the end of art is to manifest art : « Ars est manifestare artem. » The supposed painting of the man on the bare canvass, (or let us say upon a bare wall) especially if his cast shadow were painted as well, is unsatisfactory as a work of art, principally for the reason that it tends to deceive. The tendency would be to deceive us into the idea that we were beholding a real man dangling in the air, and if a supposed pedestal were painted beneath his feet, the deception would probably be very successful. A figure of this description is very common in some of our art manufactures, especially in paper hangings. One may often see the great Shakspeare portrayed in this material, a direct copy of a sculptured figure in a niche, but nothing around the niche, or any boundary line to convey the ART IN ORNAMENTATION 83 idea of a picture. The effect is unsatisfactory, because whether successful or not, it tends to deceive the beholder into the idea that he is looking, not at a painted figure, but at a sculptured one. Unfortunately, however, this false description of art is not confined to that of paper hanging, but constantly may be seen on the walls of public build- ings, or churches, which appear to demand an ornamental rather than a pictorial treatment of the figure. These figures may invariably be distinguished by light being supposed to fall on their one side, causing a shade and reflected light on their other side, being drawn in true perspective, and sometimes shewing a cast shadow as well. They possess the main attributes of a true picture, but because they are not a true picture, their effect cannot but be unsatisfactory; and I am persuaded that it is nothing but this half and half description of art, which causes such productions to be regarded as an inferior kind of art. From an ordinary letter of the alphabet then up to many of our, in an imitative sense, most carefully drawn figures, the false principle of art, described above, appears to prevail. What is the reason of this? Because, as it appears to me, we are always neglecting the fact that the two great branches of fine art, creative art on the one hand, and imitative art on the other, are totally distinct, and we are constantly confusing them. From what I wrote ^4 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE it Part I, the reader will understand that it is bad enough, in my opinion, to neglect the law of symmetry in deco- rative art ; but I think it is worse to neglect the true principles upon which a surface ought to be treated in ornamental art, because, in the former case, ugliness only is the usual result, but, in the latter case, as has been already observed, the tendency actually is to deceive. Let us now consider what constitutes true principle in ornamental art from the designing of an ordinary letter of the alphabet up to the portraying of the human figure. Figure 27 is a block letter, treated we might say, in a manner equally simple to that at figure 24 but on correct principle, because there is no perspective and no light and shade. It is a piece of pure creative art and could never be confused Fig. 27 . in the slightest degree with imitative art. It might perhaps be said that in this letter there is a line of light throughout the centre and a shaded part all round ; so that in one sense, we might say it possessed light and shade, but this is not the usual sense of these terms. What we generally understand by these terms is, light striking upon an object from one particular side, causing a shade, and, it might be, a cast shadow upon the other side as at figures 24 and 25. I believe it is Owen Jones who has termed the above « light and dark » to distinguish from what we ART IN ORNAMENTATION 85 usually understand by « light and shade ». Figure 28 is the same letter as the last carried out a little further in enrichment. The two letters in figure 29 shew tlie most simplified treatment of the false principle; and the two in figure 30 shew the corresponding simplified treat- ment of the true principle. When lately Fig. 28. walking through the show-rooms of a large furnishing establishment in London, I could not help observing how thoroughly this shade line idea is engrafted into the mind of our artist workmen. A A A Figs. 29. Figs, so- One would have supposed that if they wanted to add to the appearance of a press door by a thick and thin line it might have been done as at figure 32 but no, light must be supposed to fall from one particular quarter as in a Royal academy picture, and so figure 3 1 was the result. We can tell from this bending of the twig how the whole tree of our ornamental art is at present inclined. The quotation 86 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE §x @t /l given in Part I, will be also applicable here : — « A very little makes all the difference between right and wrong, and yet the difference between right and wrong is not a little difference. » It is very re- markable that, till within the last three or four centuries, no artist workmen since the creation of the world, judging from the remains of ancient and mediaeval art, have worked in opposition to those true principles which I am trying to enforce, excepting those who came under the influence of Rome in her most luxurious and corrupt age. But it ought to be observed that there are certain men now in our country who do their utmost to instil into their designs or their manufactures these true principles of ornamental art, and they certainly ought to receive encouragement at Figs. SS- Alphabet -album, par Silvestre. Figs. Tymms & Wyatt. the har ds of the public. Would that the public understood ART IN ORNAMENTATION 87 Fl 'g- 33 - Tymms & Wyatt. Letter blue ornament-red. these principles aright, so that their demand would increase the supply. It is useless to multiply examples of a principle when it is once understood, so I will merely add two very good illustra- tions of letters from the valuable work on illuminating by Tymms and Wyatt. Figures 33 shew some good simple treatments of the letter A and also a letter P of the 7 th cent., and figure 34 a letter D of the 8 th cent. If the latter were seen it its original colours it would be much more readable. Light, it may be ob- served, is not supposed to fall on this letter from any particu- lar quarter, but all the shades or darks (if we may use the term) are made to appear in any way most telling to the beauty of the letter, and withal no por- tion of the ornament is made to appear beyond the surface upon which it is drawn. Having referred to the scroll (fig. 26) as being a very common mode of representing that object, I may attempt Pig- 33 - Tymms &|Wyatt. Shade — a deep brown. Dots — red. 88 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE to give the reader an idea of what I mean by treating Fig. 34. In various colours. The art of illumination as practised in Europe from the earliest times by W. R. Tymms and M. D. Wyatt. it in a creative instead of in an imitative manner ( sec fig- IS)- Here we have the spiral forms of a roll of paper, carried out in what might be considered by the imitative ART IN ORNAMENTATION 89 artist, somewhat too rigid and mechanical. He would probably tell us that his eye detects in a roll of paper not only a mechanical spiral but an oval spiral (if we may so describe it), a spiral in perspective, and that is what his mission is to seize and depict to the eye of the beholder. I do not say that the imitative artist is wrong in this, for it is his mission to depict what he sees, and the perspective view of a spiral is doubtless the most charming in which to behold it ; but what I claim for the creative artist, is, that he is the means of producing in the eyes of beholders, thousands of spirals in perspective instead of only one; for instead of the spiral being seen only from one point of view, as in the former case, it may in the latter case, be seen from thousands of points. A piece of creative ornament then, is not meant to be seen from one point only, but from many points around. Nor is it necessary that the above spiral should be drawn mechanically. On the contrary, the less mechanism there is about it the better; it should be drawn by freehand, that is to say without the use of instruments. So we arrive at the following important truth : creative ornament, which may always be seen in perspective, must never be drawn in perspective ; imitative ornament, which may only be seen properly from one point of view, can only be drawn from that one point. We might, with advantage, make use of an architectural phrase, and say that the above letters and 90 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE scroll are drawn in elevation. Those who know what an architect’s front elevation of a building means, will readily understand this. There is no perspective shewn in an elevation, all the horizontal and perpindicular lines being parallel. However distant a wing, jutting out from the side of the building, might be from the front of the building, the front elevation would shew it on the same plane with the front : so that every portion of the building would be, as it were, upon the surface of the paper. I would call this a creative drawing, because it is entirely opposed to the principles of imitative drawing : and it is exactly this elevation principle which must be maintained in all works of creative art. It would be impossible for us, according to the formation of our eyes, ever to see an object in elevation. We must of necessity see everything we behold in perspective, so that, to repeat the words in the preface, creative art is not a direct copy of anything in nature, or of anything which might be supposed to exist in nature. When the imitative artist represents a building in a picture, one face of which is immediately opposite him, he draws all its horizontal lines parallel, and calls it « parallel perspective » ; although, it is well known, that the bases of our eyes can never admit of our seeing parallel lines in nature. It is simply a conventional way of getting over a difficulty, and is one of those necessary exceptions to all art rules. The important thing ART IN ORNAMENTATION 9 1 is, that the eye of the beholder is not offended by it ; although, on account of its being an anomaly, pictorial artists ought, unquestionably, as a rule, to fight shy of buildings in parallel perspective. Another feature deserving of notice in the above piece of creative ornament (fig. ]$) is, that it is symmetrical, It is by no means so essential to have symmetry in creative ornamental art, as it is, in creative decorative art, still, it will be found that, as a rule, the principle ol symmetry ought to be acknowledged. It is not, for instance, essential to ornament the walls of our rooms with a number of symmetrical forms as is commonly the case; we might do so by a number of leaves, flowers, and fruits, where every leaf, flower, and fruit would be different. It would be necessary, however, in such a case, to be careful that none of these objects stood out one before the other, or the repose of the whole would suffer. Although then, each leaf, flower, and fruit, might be different, so that there would be no actual repetition, yet, because a similarity of scale was maintained throughout, there would be a general apparent repetition. I believe it will be found that, as a rule, the best ornamental works of creative art, in all ages, shew either this apparent or actual repetition of parts; but it should be observed that in judging them we should be careful not to consider only a portion of the work. For instance, one side of a room 92 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE might not shew much symmetrical order in itself, but it might with regard to another side of the room ; or the one side of a box might not shew an actual order in itself, but it might with respect to other sides; just as we saw at page 41 with reference to figure 15 that although the figures possessed no symmetry in themselves, yet they were orderly and symmetrical with reference to one another 1 . 1 The same modification of this rule of symmetry, will hold good in creative ornamental art, as we saw it did in decorative art. At pages 65-66 I wrote: — « It will then be found that this rule of symmetry, in apparently symmetrical buildings, has been, by the very genius of the architect himself, purposely infringed, so as to avoid a too formal or mechanical appearance to the eye. » Now, the frontispiece to this book (jig. 51), — which is copied from a china-crape scarf in my possession, and which I consider a charming piece of orna- ment, explains what I mean by a modification of the rule of symmetry in creative ornament. The two sides of the lower portion may be said to be an exact counterpart, although the careful eye will detect many little differences between them , a sure indication of its having been repeated by hand, and not by mere mecha- nism. In the upper portion of this design, however, there is a clear departure from this rule by the leaf which springs nearest to the bud above the main central flower. This is a most pleasing relief to the eye from the strict symmetry below, but observe how careful the artist has been not to overdo this departure from rule, for he immediately inclines the leaf towards the centre, and recovers the equilibrium bv the stem flowing back again, terminating in a lovely opening flower, forming a centre top weight. Once more it must be observed, that all this, was, and ever Fig. S 1 - Design of a china-crape. ART IN ORNAMENTATION 93 In figures 36, and again in the frontispiece, we may see how flowers are drawn in a creative manner, better than any writing can explain. We cannot say that there is much difficulty in designing a plain letter of the alphabet, the lines round the panel of a door, or those forming spirals, in a creative manner; but when we come to con- sider how the same prin- ciples are to be applied to a growing flower, which seems to depend for its Fig. 3b. Egyptian. beauty upon its charming rotundity in perspective, and its delicate light and shade, should be, without any doubt, a matter of feeling, and not of mere reasoning, on the part of the designer, and my chief regret is that those rigidly mechanical repetitions of our day, should seem to call for any reasoning upon the matter. 94 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE to maintain in our work all the feeling of nature, and yet to do away with these things, the difficulty very much increases. But, let us never lose sight of the fact, whatever the difficulties may be, if we pretend to produce ornament in a creative and not in an imitative manner, it is absolutely neces- sary, in order to be true to our art, to work on the above prin- ciples, to shew in our flower no perspective and no light and shade. Let us now consider the mode of treating the human figure and lower animals in a creative manner, a step as much beyond the treatment of a flower as it is beyond the spiral. To return to the supposed gentleman painted on the wall, without a background. As was observed, if the figure were cor- rectly painted in perspective, and light and shade and colour, there would be nothing to take away from the idea that we were really beholding a living object ; so that art of this Fig. )6. HINDOO. ART IN ORNAMENTATION 95 kind, being in its very nature deceptive, could never be pronounced to be right. I will further observe, that in such a case, nature could not by painting be more nearly approached, so that those persons who would tell us that Fig. } 6. CHINESE. Fig. 36. the art of painting is raised by its direct approach to nature (a most common modern belief), must clearly be in favour of such a monstrosity. Again, this figure can only be seen correctly from that point of view from which the artist painted it, and if we move to the one side or the other, the figure must appear to a certain degree distorted, and the more we move to the side, the more distorted it will appear. The question then arises. — Is it desirable to be able to paint a figure upon a wall, which shall never appear distorted, from whatever point we may view it? The answer to this must surely be that it is most desi- rable, for the plain reason, that we should then be able to look along the side of the room or, — which is perhaps of more consequence, — the outside wall of the building, and clearly see the drawing of the figure. How is this to 96 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE be accomplished ? The ancient Egyptians and Assyrians teach us the secret. Of course, almost all authors, who touch ever so slightly upon the fine art productions of these nations, tell us how woefully ignorant they were of the very first rules of perspective and of light and shade; although, let it be remembered, every object they beheld was seen in perspective and in light and shade. Then how beautifully complicated our rules of perspective are, and what wondrous effects in shading do we not produce ! But if all this be true, how does it come to pass, that scarcely one of our artists is able to draw a figure, which will bear being looked at from all points of view, and the ancients were perfectly at home in this ? It is because this creative art, in figure and animal drawing at least, is almost a dead letter among us, and the want of suffi- ciently understanding it, has led us into those absurdities and falsities, which I have endeavoured to explain. The first and all important thing we have to observe in considering the creative treatment of the human figure is, that in order to avoid an appearance of distortion, we must actually distort the figure. The Assyrian and Egyptian figures arc distorted, and most certainly, in view of correct art principle, they are rightly so. The principle of distortion in those figures, will be also found in the well known outlines peculiar to Greek vases, but these are so wonderfully treated, that with all their ART IN ORNAMENTATION 97 adherence to true principle, the eye is never offended by any feeling of distortion, as is generally the case with the Egyptians. It would scarcely, however, be fair for this reason to say, that the Greeks possess- ed greater art powers than the Egyptians, as they reaped the immense advantage of being able to study from, and found Fig . 37 . rosselini’s Egypt, v. ii, n° 35. their ideas upon , the noble efforts of a former age. Figure 37 is from an Egyptian drawing of the human figure, represented in the original going before some animals. Figure 38 is from a portion of a Greek delineation on the side of a vase representing Medea and Absyrtus. It will be observed that both the Egyptian figure and that of Medea are in similar T , 1 0 „ . , . and impossible attitudes, that Fig. 38. Collection of engravings r from ancient vases mostly \ s j-q saVj impossible in an of pure Greek workmanship. J 1 By sir w. Hamilton, voi, i, pi. 19. imitative sense, or from one point of view. We have a side view of the heads turned in one direction, and a side view of the feet turned in an opposite direction, and a front view of the arms and 98 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE hands. This is what I call a distortion of the human figure, but a correct distortion, because it enables us to see the figure from different sides, without our eye being offended by its distortion. Like the creatively drawn spiral which we before considered, these figures are thrown into perspective by the spectator himself ; and I would advise the reader, who is desirous of understanding my meaning, to hold these outlines a foot or two from him, on a level with his eyes, so that he may glance sideways along the paper. These figures will then be seen as naturally and as well defined in perspective as in a front view. I have hitherto, for the sake of simplicity, avoided employing the term « flat » as applied to the creative treatment of ornamental art, and the term « round » as applied to its imitative treatment ; but these terms are, nevertheless, very comprehensive. They are terms which are well understood by our creative artists. They speak of working « in the flat »; for, it ought to be observed, that since the universal exhibition of 1851, and the subsequent establishment of government art training schools in this country, true ideas with regard to the treatment of a spiral or a flower on flat or creative principles have been disseminated. But so far as I have seen, little is understood , because little appears to have been explained, regarding flat or creative treatment in animal life. I suppose it is scarcely worth while to observe, that ART IN ORNAMENTATION 99 whether the surface itself be flat, as in the case of a wall, or round, as in a vase, we may treat figures upon these surfaces in a round or flat manner; « in the round » being a convenient way of expressing imitative treatment, « in the flat » creative treatment. Figure 39 is a group of Egyptian figures. The first thing to be observed with regard to it, is, that we cannot make much mistake about the subject. A father, we may readily conclude, is handing over his son to the care of an instructor. The three figures are drawn in a creative manner. Every portion of each is upon the surface. The right shoulder and leg of the father and son, and the left shoulder and leg of the instructor, are purposely brought forward with this object. There is no doubt that the drawing of these figures might with great advantage be more true. The arm of the son is absurdly small, and the right arm of the father absurdly long : but I have copied IOO CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE the group, not as a perfect example of art, but with the sole object of explaining what is meant by the creative treat- ment of the human figure. After all, this is but finding faults in the wording of the tale ; the tale itself, which is by far the chief matter, is, in this instance, unmistakeably brought before us. Fig. 40. Retour de la chasse. E. Prisse d’Avennes, Histoire de Yart egyptien, etc. Paris, 1858. It might here be observed, as I have heard it observed, that we surely could never pronounce a natural object to be « correctly drawn », which represents that object in such a position as it could never be seen in nature. But ART IN ORNAMENTATION IOI this presupposes that the term « correct drawing » implies the drawing of an object from one point of view, a supposition by no means true. The first, and all important question which an artist, who is about to produce a work of art upon a surface, must ever determine is, — whether his work is to come before the eye of the spectator as a picture or as a creative work of art. If the former, then « correct drawing » means drawing from one point of Fig. 41. Retour du chasseur en barque. E. Prisse d’Avennes, id. view, and losing the surface; if the latter, then « correct drawing » is drawing from many points of view, and maintaining the surface. Figures 40 and 41 are Egyptian figures of men and 102 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE animals, and very admirably they are rendered. The first is called : — « The return from the chase » ; and the second: — « The return of the hunter in a barque », copied from a very magnificent French work on the fine arts of Egypt by « Prisse d’Avennes ». Every portion then of these figures and animals is maintained upon the surface. See how the left arm (fig. 40) is brought up with this object; and the shoulders (fig . 41) brought to the same plane, to admit of the balance pole being seen in a front view, so as to do away with any notion of perspective. The animals too are all treated on the same principle. It is also curious to observe how the necks of the two storks (fig. 41) run, as it were, into the same body. We might argue, in our wisdom, that as we could never see one body through the other, it is wrong so to represent it. But I would argue that so long as a feature of this kind does not offend the eye of the beholder, but, on the contrary, carries out in a greater degree the spirit of the artist’s work, that it is an art licence permissable in a creative representation of nature. It is a simple way of adding to the force of a simple tale, without the least idea in it of deception. From all we hear and read about the fine arts of Egypt, the drawing of an Egyptian eye, seems to have been for ages past, at least to the western nations of Europe, a most incomprehensible feature. To the mind ART IN ORNAMENTATION IO3 of the imitative artist, as I can readily conceive, nothing appears more inconsistent than drawing the side view of the figure, with the front view of the eye, and many a contemptuous laugh has this apparent anoma- y received at his hands. For my own part, I never could understand the reasonableness of the argument, that although the Egyptian artist was able to display wondrous power and feeling in his drawing of the human figure, and to shew an intimate knowledge of the forms of the lower animals, yet whenever he came to represent the side view of an eye, he shewed an utter ignorance of what it was like. The simple truth is, that the nature of his art demanded his shewing a front view of the eye; because a side view would have been a perspective view, which would at once have caused the eye to be out of keeping with all the rest of the figure, no part of which was in perspective. It was in short a wise piece of distortion. It might perhaps be said that the Greek figures, which, as I have observed, do exhibit a desirable degree of distortion, yet shew the side view of the eye. This is true, but I regard it as a licence which the Greek artist took, and, I should say, a par- donable licence, considering the generally small size of their outlined figures. Althouh true principles of art are really the same both for a large and a small object, still, a certain licence might be admissable in one and not in the other; as was shewn when referring in Part I, to the i04 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE necessity of such a large object as the dome of S'- Paul’s cathedral being strictly kept pure in outline, whereas the goodness of workmanship upon the spherical form of a small household object, might, to a certain degree, redeem the want of such a severe purity. The Egyptian outlines were, as a rule, drawn to a large size upon the flat sides of their buildings, so that « he who ran could read, » and rea- dily depict every feature in perspective; whereas the Greek outlines, were, as a rule, drawn to a small size besides being upon the curved sides of vases, so that the beholder could not always see the whole figure in perspective at once. Before taking final leave of the Egyptian eye I would refer the reader to (fig. 42) the outline of what I suppose we may regard as an Egyp- tian beauty ; and I would ask the artistic reader to observe what a wonderful character this front view of the eye gives to the whole countenance. Does it not appear to throw a spirit of life into it, which no amount of correct drawing of the side view could do ? Let the reader quietly contemplate this charming face , Fig. 42. Rosselini’s Egypt, vol. I, n° 20. ART IN ORNAMENTATION 10} and I think he must be convinced of the truth of what I have advanced. Figure 43 is an Egyptian representation of a charge of charioteers in battle, and figure 44 a Greek representation of a chariot race, where the chariot illustrated is shewn arriving at the winning column. The principle upon which the chariots and horses are drawn is the same in io 6 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE both cases, and will bear out my former remarks upon the artistic treatment necessary in creative art. It is curious that both the Egyptians and Greeks seemed to avoid, as a rule, light and shade, or rather light and dark, painting, in their figures and animals. They are, in most cases mere outlines, excepting of course where actual relief sculpture comes into play. There was a certain wisdom in this, as it is exceedingly difficult to paint animal life ornament in light and dark, for it can only be accomplished by a great genius in the art. The want of light and dark may be also said to be less felt in creative art, than the want of light and shade in imitative art, simply because we are not then so directly copying nature. The reader will observe that in figure 43 I have cut the subject off at A because, with the exception of a slight difference in the attitudes of the figures, it continues repeating itself. The principal thing to notice in these two illustrations is that they are treated upon a principle of flatness ; that every portion of the figures and animals is upon the surface on which they are drawn. The second pair of horses to the right, in figure 43, instead of being smaller than those to the left, as they would be in a perspective view, are actually longer, as if the artist intended there should be no mistake as to their appearing upon the surface of the wall : and the Greek artist, in figure 44, instead of making the retiring horses appear to retire by ART IN ORNAMENTATION IO7 a gradual diminution in size and keeping them slightly more and more back, has rather increased than diminished the thickness of their necks, and has actually brought them more and more forward. These illustrations are also valuable as shewing wherein the chief difference consisted between the Egyptian and Greek manner of treating a subject upon the principles of creative art. The Egyptian subject is, in every respect, more severely true to principle than the Greek. There is scarcely a notion of perspective conveyed by the former; whereas in the latter, we find just that amount of perspective which does not do awav with the flatness of the composition , and yet, by its presence, adds a grace to it. See how severe and mecha- nical in treatment are the lines of the horses legs in the Egyptian drawing, all running in a nearly parallel direction, merely to shew us how many horses were attached to each chariot. In the Greek drawing, however, each horse is separately portrayed, and though the hind legs are mechanical enough, the fore ones exhibit much grace and action. The one leg is raised high above the other; and is not the flat surface, by this very action, the better maintained ? Then the position of the car and oval wheels convey an idea of perspective, which the Egyptian chariots and wheels do not. The female figure, again, upon the car, is, like each horse, in a side view, entirely wrong, pcrspectively considered, with regard to the car, but true ioS CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE to the principles of creative art ; at the same time both charming in drawing, and graceful in action. We have also the branch of laurel at her hand and beneath the horses feet, both unmistakably upon the surface, and indicating that the race has been won by the guiding skill of the lady, and the swiftness of the horses. It may be observed again, that the capital of the Ionic column, which marks the goal of the course, is very slightly curved, conveying by this notion of perspective, that the column was circular. The Egyptians would, in such a case, have been more severely true to principle, and have drawn these lines of the capital horizontally across. Notice also that the flutings of the round column do not become less and less at each side as they would be naturally seen in perspective, so that, in this again, a liberty is taken to maintain, as far as might well be done, an acknowledged principle. To figure 45 I would draw the reader’s attention, as an in- stance of the easy and telling manner in which a subject may be creatively treated. We read at a glance all that was Fig. 4J. Rosselini’s Egypt, vol. II, n° 34. ART IN ORNAMENTATION IO9 meant to be described, viz. how the workmen carried their loaded sacks up a stair. If this subject had been treated in mere outline in perspective, it would not so much satisfy the eye, because then we would merge into imitative art, and in some degree miss the want of light and shade, and the other attributes of a picture'. Figure 46 is from the head ol an Egyptian bull in low relief sculpture. It is copied from the work already referred to by « Prisse d’Avennes x> and the epithet « grandeur d’execution » is applied to it, and to other Egyptian animals executed in E. Prisse d’Avennes, Animaux, a similar manner. Could any race ovine et bovine (Musee du Kaire. ) person be unreasonable enough Fig. 46. Sculpture. 1 How is it that with all our talk at the present day about rules of perspective, high lights, shades, and shadows, etc., etc., and our unfeigned contempt for the fine arts of the ancient Egyptians, who exhibited none of these things ; I ask, how is it that we so very seldom even attempt to beautify the outside walls of our buildings with figures and animals as the Egyptians did ? I have heard it said that it is an expensive thing to do. So it would be if we were to work on imitative art principles, because then we should have to treat the subject, whether as a painting or as a piece of relief sculpture, in a true pictorial manner ; but if we treated it on the principles of creative art, where a mere outline would be felt to be sufficient, as in the last illustration, very little expense indeed would be attached to the work. The truth is, it is simply on account of our partiality for imitative art, and our ignorance of the first principles of creative art, which has caused all the buildings of our day, with few exceptions, to present that blank, uninteresting appearance, so directly in contrast to those of remote ages. 1 10 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE to say that the artist, who, in his work, could shew such an intimate acquaintance with nature as is here manifest, was yet incapable of seeing that the horns did not grow out of the animal’s head in the manner here represented ? It appears to me very evident that the artist desired to shew the bull off to the greatest advantage by distinctly exhibiting his important weapons of defence, and that he thought this could best be done by a wise distortion of nature, by extending them out in a flat and creative manner to meet the surface. Figure 47 was the usual way in which the Egyptians represented a flying bird; the two wings drawn out in a distorted manner so as to be upon the surface, and the tail shewn, for the sake of flatness, as if looking down upon the top of it. It is , , , , Flg ' 47 - more the truth than the beauty of this delineation that I desire to point out. Figure 23, page 73, is a modern Japanese illustration of a Hying stork, and it, in common with Japanese ornaments generally, is designed upon strict principles of creative art, and managed, I should say in a more beautiful way than the Egyptian bird. It will be observed that the head, ART IN ORNAMENTATION I I I neck, and body of this stork, are in a direct side view, that the tail portion, as in the Egyptian bird, is shewn as if looking upon it from above, and yet that it is not treated in so stiff and formal a way as the Egyptian tail, because it is wisely relieved by an idea of perspective. The nearest wing is not drawn out so rigidly as the Egyptian, but gracefully folded over at the top, and the furthest wing, instead of being directly behind this, is beautifully stretched forward the better to aid in main- taining the surface. The one leg is also raised high above the other with this object. Indeed the whole bearing of this Japanese bird is more graceful, and it cleaves the air more forcibly, than does the Egyptian. The reader will now, I doubt not, more clearly under- stand why I made use of this Japanese drawing at page 7 3 to illustrate my mean- ing of an object being partly created and partly imitated. Figure 48 repre- Fig. 4 S. Cathedrale de Char, re, . Se,ltS a portion of a Details du Jube. Lassus direxL Stone Carving ill low relief in Chartres cathedral of 1 3 th or 14 th century date; the I 12 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE subject of the nativity. It is very curious to observe how the virgin mother, and the square pillow on which her head rests, are completely turned round, as they might have been seen from above, solely with the object of maintaining, as much as possible, the flat surface of the wall. The child is also gently turned round with the same object, and kept quite below, and apart from, the mother. Fig. 49. Vitrail du xm e siecle, dit Notre-Dame de Belle-Verriere, cathddrale de Chartres. Emile Beau, del. et cromolith. From « lcs caiques de Paul Durand. » Lassus direx 1 . Figure 49 is copied from a piece of stained glass painting in the same building; the subject is the last supper. We may trace throughout, the lead lines which separate the different pieces of glass. For the sake ol the flat surface again, we find the figures, but especially the ART IN ORNAMENTATION 1 1 5 table and the vessels upon it, treated in a strictly creative manner. The top of the table does not convey the least notion of perspective, a matter it would have been very easy for the artist to do, had he so desired. The creative treatment of the faces, arms, hands, and feet of the different figures are well worthy of observation. Fig. 5 o. Figure 50 is a most successful piece of creative drawing, also copied from stained glass in Chartres cathedral. Nothing could be better than the force of character, so to speak, displayed in this bear. How admirably is the head turned round, yet it is a purely creative treatment, a most distorted piece ol drawing, but full of bear-like energy and naturalness. Every portion of this animal is upon the surface of the glass, and the light and dark rendering of the hair are very successful. It is by close observation of such drawing as this that the creative artist will chiefly gain. At the present day, we find these creative art principles I 1 4 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE as strongly at work among the Eastern nations, generally, as they were in the times of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks; and in my humble opinion, the Western powers cannot be too careful not to interfere with its spirit, for sad experience has taught us, that when this spirit has once gone, it is exceedingly difficult to revive. The spirit of creative art was prevalent in Western Europe during the middle ages, but since about the time of the refor- mation, it appears to have been gradually dying out, and it will be very long before the revival, which is now going on, will take a real hold upon the minds of the people. I can imagine that there are many among us who would argue, that they do not see the necessity for the revival of this creative spirit, for the practising of an art which obliges us to distort nature, and that, if imitative art be a true art, which we all acknowledge, surely we might be content to rest satisfied with it. In reply to this rather plausible way of putting it, I will quote a passage from an address delivered by AT R. Redgrave R. A. « On the necessity of principles in teaching design ». It appears that the above argument was actually adduced, by one who justly stands high as an authority upon principles of imitative art, and M r Redgrave thus refers to it, — « As to another printed fabric, paper-hangings, one of those who object to the principles laid down for the application of ornament to paper hangings, asks, « why ART IN ORNAMENTATION II) « lithochrome — every day reaching perfection and « rendering Turner’s pictures — may not become before (( long the means of giving wall decoration of a more « finished, and, thank God ! of a far more moral character « than those of Pompeii, I do not see. » To which it may he replied, that it cannot be desirable to repeat even Turner’s pictures, however beautifully rendered, over cottage-walls, fitting them into corners, and round chimney-pieces and windows, and cutting them to lengths and widths, as it is said a former Emperor of all the Russias did at the Hermitage with some of the finest pictures of the old masters from the Houghton collection. » This implies that if the walls of our rooms are to be beautified throughout, it is not always convenient to do so by imitative art, so that we may be compelled to resort to creative art. Besides, as M r Redgrave goes on to observe, these pictures should « not be in close juxtaposition hut be enclosed, isolated , and surrounded, if with a surface decorated at all, with one which is quiet, unobtrusive, and giving repose and rest to the eye. » This is quite true, for we do not want to see our rooms present the incongruous appearance of a public exhibition room, but where every imitative work of art is wisely arranged in its fittest place, and against its most suitable background. Hence it is that the creative artist may, in this respect, be the truest friend to the imitative. CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE ii 6 Having referred to the art treatment most desirable on the walls of our rooms, I will briefly state what is, in my opinion, most correct for the ceilings, floors, and furniture. I have heard it said by those who had given consideration and study to the principles which should guide their taste, that a picture upon a ceiling is to be avoided, because it is always more or less awkward to regard a work of art above our heads, even when we do get into position for it, about which there may very possibly be a difficulty; and when we do happen to find ourselves at that side of the room from which the picture should not be viewed, it becomes very offensive from its upside-down appearance. The only way to enrich a ceiling and yet overcome these difficulties is by arranging ornament upon a geometric basis, to radiate from one centre or from many centres, so that it may appear regular and natural from whatever point of the room we may view it ; and the only true method by which to do this, is by strictly adhering to the principles of creative art. And when we come to consider the description of art most desirable upon the floors of our rooms, there appears to be a still greater reason why it should be creative and not imitative. A picture upon a floor, as in the case of the ceiling, is seen only from one side of the room, and looks totally absurd when seen from the other side. But there is a greater absurdity connected with a picture upon a floor, viz. that we walk upon it. ART IN ORNAMENTATION I I 7 To be expected to place our foot with comfort upon a work of art shewing different distances caused by per- spective, our heel it may be upon an object near at hand, and our toe upon another twenty miles away, only shews to what a degree of foolishness the partiality for one particular art will lead us. It is to be hoped that the attention which has been given of late years to the study of principles of design is now having the effect ol discarding such anomalies. It is still however sufficiently common to see our carpets enriched with fruits, flowers, ribands, or architectural devices, drawn in perspective, and possessing all the light and shade treatment of a true picture. In the beautifying of a floor then, we should invariably work upon the principles of creative art, and in order that our design may be seen equally well from all sides, the radiating of ornament on a geometric basis, referred to in the case of the ceiling, ought to be adhered to. I have, besides, for long held the opinion, that imita- tive art is out of place, not only upon a floor which we walk over, but upon every object which we touch with our bodies, or handle with our hands. To see a work ol art in perspective, and light and shade, conveying an idea of different distances, ornamenting the couch upon which we recline, the table upon which we write, the book-cover we handle, the candlestick we grasp, the vase we lift, or the plate from which we eat, appears as incongruous, as 1 1 8 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE to see it on the floor upon which we walk. If this reasoning then be just, the necessity of our artists rightly to understand the principles of creative art, becomes very essential. I have just referred to the art on the plate from which we eat. The reader, I presume, knows what is meant by the common willow pattern plate, and in all probability has one near at hand to refer to. I have often wondered why it is, that this pattern has had such a run, as it is called; and I can come to no other conclusion, than because it is designed upon a principle of art most true to the object on which it appears. This pattern conveys all the idea of an imitative landscape, but treated in a creative manner. The large round fruit upon the tree above the house, we feel to be quite as much upon the surface of the plate, as the fence in the foreground ; so with the people crossing the bridge, the boat on the water, the house on the island, the birds in the air; and, in short, the same thing may be said with regard to every portion of this well known design. That the design is more true than beautiful I will admit, but what I maintain is, that it is so true to its purpose, as to make it of more genuine worth than all our elaborate imitative produc- tions from which, I am confident, on account of the use to which the object is put, we can never derive true satisfaction. If we would only place such directly imitative works of art in a frame, and set them against a wall, ART IN ORNAMENTATION 119 with the intention of being looked at and not handled no fault could be found with them. This willow pattern will also convey to the reader, a further idea of what is meant by light and dark shading. It will be observed that high lights are scattered all over this creative picture, — if we may so call it — an important feature in shading upon creative principles, because it helps to make every part appear more upon the surface. And just as we saw that in the Greek outlines there was conveyed to our minds an idea of perspective, which took away from the feeling of a too severe or mechanical attention to rule, so in this creative picture, an idea of perspective is here and there conveyed. We have in the zig-zag form of the fence in the foreground an idea of perspective. We see the one side of the arches of the bridge; and there are lines of perspective on the top of the large plinth upon which the principal house stands, different, in this respect, to the rather too severe manner in which the lines of the top of the table are carried up in figure 49, p. 1 12. It may also be said that the houses themselves slightly diminish as they retire, and the fact of their ascending into space, conveys the idea of a bird’s-eye view. All this gives a certain relief to the eye in such a necessarily distorted work of art. With regard to the light and dark shading again , the manner of treating the round fruits on the large tree are worthy of observation. It might be said that 120 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE light is here supposed to come directly down upon the top of the tree, causing a shade upon the under side of the fruit. But this is by no means true light and shade. If light fell upon a sphere, as at figure 52, the highest light would appear at the dotted line A, and the deepest shade on the other side coinciding to A viz. B. At C we o should have a middle tone getting gradually lighter up to A, gradually deeper again to B, and lighter again to D; from D towards B forming what is called a reflected light. The way then in which the fruit is treated in the tree referred to is simple and correct, conveying the idea of the light and shade of nature, yet not imitating it, and so fully maintaining the flat or creative treatment essential to the art. Again, I do not say that the Chinaman who designed this ornamental picture reasoned about it as I have done. He, I believe, simply worked from an instinc- tive feeling of what was right ; and all I now desire is, to impress upon the ornamentist the necessity of not allowing this true instinctive feeling to be deadened within him, on account of the partiality of our age for another art, not less true, hut totally distinct. To sum up the above argument in the fewest words, — It is surely most natural and right to cat from a surface which is maintained to our eyes by the nature of the art upon ART IN ORNAMENTATION 12 I it, than to eat from another surface, which, from the nature of its art, tends to the losing of that surface. And I have but one more observation to make upon the ornamentation of a plate, which will indeed be more or less true with regard to the ornamentation of other objects. For the sake of cheapness, patterns are constantly printed upon china, and not painted by the hand. I do not say that this is in itself to be condemned, because a great deal of enjoyment may be derived from a printed pattern, and they are, comparatively speaking, few who can afford to possess the artist’s handiwork. If a printed scroll, however, cannot be made to go round the rim of a plate except in a bungling way, and with no apparent attempt at its fitting properly together, then it would be far better to have no scroll at all, because, we may be sure, the mind will neither be satisfied nor improved in beholding it. I observed that high lights were scattered all over the above design, and that this was an important feature in shading upon creative principles, because it was one means of making every part appear upon the surface. It was so in the case of the flowers at pages 93-95 ; but it is when we apply this light and dark shading to animal life that the chief test of the artist’s abilities will be brought forth. It has been my aim throughout this work, as far as could well be done, to limit the number, and maintain 122 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE the simplicity of its illustrations, so that its price might be within reach of the many instead of the few. On this account I will not attempt to illustrate in an adequate way the truth of what I have just advanced, and indeed it is perhaps better that the artistic reader, for whom I am chiefly writing should try to work out such an illustration for himself. I therefore beg to offer with this object an example in mere outline taken from the well known work upon Glass Painting by the late Charles Winstone (sec fig. 53). If the reader then would be at the trouble of putting shade exactly over these different lines and touches on the face, and letting that shade grad- ually melt into high lights or semi-tones between these lines, so that light be diffused all over the face, yet so as to avoid J Fig. 5 3. Mulls Church, Somersetshire. giving it a spotted appearance Hints on glass painting r by the late Charles Winston. from the presence of too many lights, he will understand what I mean by this creative light and dark shading as applied to the human counte- nance. The principle, in short, is exactly the same as in the Chinese design ; only it must be observed, that when ART IN ORNAMENTATION I 23 we are treating delicate rotundities of form and subtle expression of animal life, no amount of writing upon rules and principles, will meet the ever changing condi- tions which those forms and expressions assume. If then, in the above face, a little shade under the eye brows, or under the underlip, an idea of perspective here, or of light and shade there, will help to make the face express itself in a more telling way, he who really understands what he is doing, will do well to do it. But what the artist has religiously to guard against is the confusing of this creative art with imitative. These arts are, like the polygon and the circle, two extremes which tend to meet. The polygon is a many sided and many angled figure ; the circle has no sides and no angles ; yet the greater the number of sides and angles to the polygon, the more nearly it approaches the circle. To the eye, however, beyond a certain point, the polygon becomes confused with the circle, so that we could not tell which figure we were looking at. This, in an aesthetic point of view, must ever be extremely unsatisfactory. If then, in imitative art, some disregard for perspective and for light and shade, and in creative art, some disregard for flatness and for light and dark, tend, through the very genius of the artist, to make these arts meet, there is yet a point, beyond which no genius, however great, may go, otherwise he will only create a confusion of idea in the mind of the beholder. 124 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE In short, there is no surface ornamentation whatever, the art of which, we ought not to be able to tell at a glance whether it is intended to be creative or imitative. Before concluding this part of my subject, it might be well to refer to a description ol picture painting we have heard a good deal about, of late years, in this country, I mean pre-Raphaelite painting. One often hears the very natural question : « Why does this or that artist paint his distant trees and flowers as distinctly as those in the foreground of the picture? » The usual answer being: « because he is a pre-Raphaelite painter ». I would answer : « because he confuses creative and imitative art. » If painters before the time of Raphael always worked on flat or creative principles, they were right; and if painters after the time of Raphael always worked on round or imitative principles, they were right also ; but for a third class of painters to pretend to give us true art, and to confuse these two principles together, is, unfortunately, only another of the many proofs we possess, that our nineteenth century notions of what constitutes true painting, are very mystical. There is no doubt that the description of painting before the time of Raphael was not always purely creative, because there was for some time previous a leaning towards the imitative ; it was however, a good and careful style of painting, and the infusion of its spirit may be the means of preserving our ART IN ORNAMENTATION 125 artists from slovenly imitations of nature; still, this good result cannot affect the incorrectness of the principle in itself. What we denominate a pre-Raphaelite painting, comes before us as imitative art, yet mixed up with creative principles; the reverse of the supposed painting of the man on the wall, which would appear before us as creative art, but mixed up with imitative principles. And while referring to the time of Raphael I should like to call the attention of the reader to the well known arabesques of that celebrated artist in the Vatican. There are many engravings of them extant, and I have seen some full sized coloured copies from the originals in the south Kensington museum, made I believe for the use ol the students in the government schools. Raphael, as all the world knows, was a great pictorial or imitative artist, and when he was called upon to produce a description of work, which was to come before the eye of the beholder as creative art, the principles involved in it were so totally opposed to those of his own particular art, that a confusion between the two was the almost inevitable consequence. The supposed naturally painted figure on the wall with no background , is the principle upon which Raphael has painted every portion of these arabesques. The French general’s criticism on the famous Balaklava charge: « C’cst magnifique, mais cc n’est pas la guerre », would be most true as applied to a vast number of fine art works, done 126 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE on this false principle ; if only « l’art » were substituted for « la guerre » such a production as the above may be magnificent, but it could never be called true art. In our own day again, we have seen our greatest animal painter, commissioned to do work, much more beyond his province, than were the arabesques beyond the pro- vince of Raphael : to sculpture huge lions, not to come before our eyes as imitative features, difficult enough for any pictorial artist to accomplish, but to appear of necessity creative features. What wonder if creative and imitative art are here confused ? That the painter’s brush is greatly more apparent than the sculptor’s chisel ? That these productions are as good, or it may be, very much better than we had any right to expect, can never justify their failure. Only compare with these specimens that grand work of creative sculpture, the colossal Assyrian lion in the British Museum, and the difference between the painter’s and the sculptor’s work will be sufficiently evident. When we find that the spirit of creative art is absolutely deadened within us, why do we not produce, line for line, and touch for touch, these masterpieces we possess, instead of confining them in the dark corner of a museum ? There would then be no chance of a failure, and they might do an infinity of good, in disseminating an appreciation and a love, for that which is truly excellent. ART IN ORNAMENTATION I2 7 I have hitherto held that the beautifying of a surface, by either creative or imitative art was, as far as true principle went, equally correct, although I did observe, that under certain conditions, imitative art appeared wholly out of place, as in the floor upon which we walked, the couch upon which we reclined, etc. Still, I would not condemn imitation under such circumstances, on the ground of its being a frustration of true principle, as I would the confusion of creative and imitative art ; because, in the former case, the art, although out of place, is still true to itself ; whereas, in the latter case, it is false to itself. But now, I will mention some exceptions to the rule, that it is equally correct as a principle to beautify a surface by means of creative or imitative art. The nature of the surface I have hitherto been considering is one which reflects light ; the nature of the surface I now purpose considering, is one which transmits light. This leads to one of the most vexed questions of the day in the fine arts; viz. as to the true method of treating the art of painting upon glass. This I shall briefly consider, and will first give a very short account of the process of glass painting. There may be said to be two different kinds of glass painting. One, where colours are painted upon the surface of white glass, as they might be upon the surface of white paper; the other, where no colours are painted upon the 128 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE surface of the glass (except black, properly speaking, no colour), but where the glass itself is coloured throughout its thickness, and the window made up of a number of these pieces of differently coloured glasses. The first generally goes by the name of « Enamel painting », because enamel colours are used, and then fused into the glass in a kiln ; the second, generally goes by the name of « Stained glass pain- ting », the lines and shades upon the coloured glass being rendered by black enamel colour, and these lines and shades fused in, as in the case of enamel painting. There is no difficulty in understanding the nature of the first, but the second requires more explanation. Let us suppose that we wish to represent a green leaf in a stained glass window. The glass cutter first cuts with his diamond, out of a sheet of green Fi <: g s. 54. glass, as nearly as possible the shape of the leaf as at A. The glass painter then traces upon the glass with black enamel colour, generally from a drawing previously made, the outline of the leaf, filling up with black to the edge of the glass, as at B. Lines and shades would also now ART IN ORNAMENTATION I29 be put upon the surface if so desired. This piece of glass then goes into the kiln and the black enamel is burnt or fused into the green glass, rendering it imperishable. It then goes into the hands of the glazier, and he puts a strip of lead round the piece as at C (the dotted line shewing the size of the piece B). When held up to the light this black colour and lead line appear as one, as at D. The full sized section of the glass and strip of lead would be similar to that at E. Other strips of lead and pieces of glass might radiate 1 -31* — 3HSBEES from the leaf as shewn at C, e — Fig. si. s0 t | iat t p e w i 10 ] e window is really a piece of mosaic work. It is true that these black lead lines might, to a great degree, be softened off by means of black colour on either side, and this is constantly done, but even then it does not do away with the idea that we are looking at mosaic work. I have been thus particular in explaining how these thick black lines come to be seen in a window, because I have heard many persons observe how ugly they look, and what a pity it is they could not be dispensed with. It might be supposed by many persons that the use of enamal colours on white glass, first referred to, could take the place of the stained glass, or pot-metal colour, as it is technically called. But one insuperable objection to enamal painting is, that after fusion, the colour, (with one exceptional colour called 130 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE yellow stain) always leaves on the surface a certain dull opacity, so that we cannot obtain, as in the pot-metal colour, at once depth and brilliancy of tone. What I desire then, to impress on the mind of the reader is, that we cannot have a bona-fide stained glass window, without the existence of these black lines, to which so many persons foolishly object. The question now arises as to the best mode of treating the material. From what I have written upon the principles of creative and imitative art, I do not think there can be much difficulty in answering this question. If it were possible to produce a picture upon glass, there could be no reason why we should not have window pictures as well as wall pictures, but I hold that true picture painting upon glass is an impossibility and for that reason should not be attempted. The best reason I can offer for its being wrong to attempt pictures upon glass is the following. We saw before, that one essential characteristic of a picture was, that every needle’s point upon the surface, became lost to the eye with regard to the surface. But when we are looking upon a translucent medium, where light will shine through different portions of the painting, and reveal to our senses that we are really looking upon glass, then this losing of the surface painted upon never can take place , so that the absurdity oi attempting the pictorial style is evident. This so called ART IN ORNAMENTATION I 3 I picture painting upon glass, is, besides, another instance of the confusion of creative and imitative art, and how such confusion tends to deception. The lead lines sepa- rating the different pieces of glass are, by the pictorial artist, as much as possible hidden to the eye. His endeavour is to take away from the idea that we are looking on a mosaic of colours, of necessity divided by black lines. The creative artist, on the contrary, is true to the nature of the material upon which he is working, and, by taking every possible advantage of these necessary lines, makes the subject tell a thousand-fold better than when they are purposely concealed. But the advocate of this pictorial style might say, that the fact of our not believing that we are beholding a picture, is an argument for our painting in the pictorial style if we choose. To this we may reply, that if it be true we cannot be deceived into the idea of a picture, then why make the attempt to deceive us ? It is really much more absurd to attempt impossibilities like this, than, as in the case of the painted figure on the wall, to attempt a piece of deception which is very likely to succeed. These remarks will also apply to the right mode of treatment in the mosaic inlay of glass enamels, marble or wood mosaics, and the enamel work, common on the sides of Chinese vases, called « cloisonne » (because the different colours are « partitioned » off' by upright strips of metal) these, and the divisions between I32 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE mosaic inlays, corresponding to the necessary lead lines in the window. I can well imagine those manufacturers, who aim at what they call, perfection of mechanical art, asserting, that they are able to do away with division lines between mosaic pieces, and can shew us glass mosaic brooches, for instance, exhibiting a pictorial landscape, requiring a microscope almost to see that it is composed of small pieces. But this is at the best but a trick, and not worthy the name of high art. Like hundreds of other mechanical arts « of our vulgar age » it is perfection of the hand, mistaken for perfection of the mind. Why should we be ashamed of shewing these necessary divi- sion lines and leads? Not so much, it may be, that we are really ashamed of them, as that we so little understand how to make use of them. Because we do not sufficiently consider the principles of creative art, we resort to any scheme that will produce imitative art. The above observations will also apply to all kinds of needle work produced by square or angular stitches; or in short to any art work where necessary set forms will take away from the idea of a lost surface. In conclusion, I think the reader would do well to bear in mind the following maxim : — Every art should be true to itself; and to whatever degree the spirit of one art may borrow from that of another, there should never be the slightest confusion between the two arts. ART IN ORNAMENTATION Before concluding this small work, it might be well to write a very few words on the subject of colour harmony. I remember, as a boy, visiting at the house of sir David Brewster, and sir David kindly amusing me by exhibiting one of his inventions, called the chromatic stereoscope. Certain colours, when seen through this instrument, appeared to advance, and others to retire. Red stood forward, and blue seemed a long way in the distance, so that a soldier with a red tunic and blue trowsers, appeared not a little absurd. This invention I consider of great value to the artist if only to prove to him that certain colours in painting stand out in our vision before others, so that, if he desire to beautify his creative art by flat harmonious colour, but does not himself possess an instinctive eye for colour harmony, some consideration of its laws will be necessary for his guidance. It is, I believe, true that, comparatively speaking, few of our artists do possess a correct eye for harmonious colour and although this acquirement, perhaps even more than form, must ever be rather a matter of innate genius than of any amount of reasoning, still, the fact of this natural genius being so rare, seems to call for a few guiding words on the subject. Sir David Brewster, as is well known, reduced the seven colours of the spectrum to three, and discovered that they made white light in the following proportions J 34 CREATIVE AND IMITATIVE viz. 8 of blue, 5 of red, and 3 of yellow : that the secondary colours, purple, orange, and green, harmonized in these proportions, as 8 H~ 5 = 1 3 of purple, to its compliment- ary 3 of yellow, and so on ; and that the proportion of the tertiary colours, russet, citron, and olive, were again discovered in a similar way from the secondary. But if I begin to teach harmony of colour by saying that the artist should always have in his composition, 8 parts of blue, 5 parts of red, and 3 parts of yellow; or that if he only employ purple and yellow, that he should have 13 times of the former to 3 of the latter, I may assist him to some degree in his endeavour to obtain harmony of colour, but I am far from giving him an infallible guide lor the purpose. The reason of this is, because there are an infinite variety of the tones of what we call blue, red, and yellow; and that, although these colours in light neutralize in the above proportions, it is difficult always to obtain the particular pigment colours which will produce a similar effect. It appears to me then, that all the advice which can be truly given to a modern painter on the subject of colour harmony, is to study the tones of colour employed in those ages of the world’s history, which all men, who have given their consideration to the subject, pronounce to be correct. I should say that no artist, be he in his work creative or imitative, can possibly err in his tone of colour, if he take as a model the ART IN ORNAMENTATION 1 35 colouring of the illuminated missals, and stained glass of Western Europe, of the 12 th , 13 th , and 14 th centuries. In our own York minster, and Canterbury cathedral, we find magnificent specimens of the latter. In pictorial art the colouring of the great Titian is deserving of the closest study. In modern times the tone of colour in the Chinese, Japanese, and Indian designs arc, in general, perfect in harmony. I would also advise the reader to observe the tone of colour adopted by our own most eminent architects and artists, as it will be found that it is generally very much in keeping with that of the works to which I have referred. Above all things, the young artist should do his utmost, to rise superior to that most vulgar demand in our day lor bright and gaudy colours, which, though the ignorant know it not, must be hurtful to their sight, and prejudicial to the best feelings ol their nature. END OF SECOND AND LAST TART. At CONCLUSION The forgoing pages have been written not so much to bring forward what is new as what is true. The writer is fully aware that the principles he has been advocating, although but little considered by the mass of our artists, are yet those which are now taught in all our government schools of art, and practised by all our first architects. But the writer, although he has read books referring to these flat or creative treatments of natural objects, and other most excellent remarks upon them, still, has never found them distinctly insisted upon, or anything like proof brought forward to shew their correctness. Again, the word « conventional » is in every day use to express my meaning of the word creative; but it has 1)8 CONCLUSION not been employed in the foregoing pages, because it is not so truly expressive. « Conventional » really means « suitable », a word we might with equal justice apply to imitative as to creative art; because each is a suitable art according to circumstances. END. TABLE OF MATTERS Dedication i Preface 7 First part. — Art in decoration 13 Second part. — Art in ornamentation 71 Conclusion 137 ILLUSTRATIONS OF ST&IHSD 01. A SS WIS0OWS, DESIGNED AND EXECUTED BY J. T. LYON & Co., 40, FITZROY SQUARE, LONDON, W. In order that those who are unacquainted with the prices of Stained Glass work may be able to calculate for themselves about how much a Window would cost, it will be most convenient to observe the price per square foot of those Designs we have here illustrated. This will represent an average price over the whole surface of the Window, certain portions of each Design being more or less expensive than others. No. I. made for St. Paul’s, Camden Town 4 s - to 5 s - „ II. ,, Glassingak, N.B. .... 6 s. y y 8 s. „ III. ,, Bangalore, India .... • i 5 '- y y 1 8r. „ iv. ,, Trinity Church, Irvine . 17 s. y y 2 Or. „ v. ,, St. Mary’s, Aberdeen 2 Or. y y 2 5 s - „ VI. ,, Bishopstone, Wilts .... 25/. y y 40/. „ VII. ,, Hall Window, Port Glasgow . 251. yy 40/. „ VIII. ,, Whitchurch, Edgware . 30r. & upwards „ IX. ,, Ditto ditto • 3 ° J - y y „ X. ,, Ditto ditto • 3 os - yy „ XI. ,, Ditto ditto • 3 os - y y „ XII. ,, Bradenham, Bucks .... • 40/. y y „ XIII. ,, St. Lawrence’s, near Gloucester 40r. yy N.B. — Designs and Estimates are also made for Mural Painting , isfc. k-17 s V / fi n T7 V / V ? r o or c VI v / r> > * / x V / c 7 X / X ZLV 4 f * \ k i foot v /» — c 7 X v ? £_ \ /*S S ' f\ 4 N vnr fOO T S' \ * £7 £_ s V * c z-lV / fi ^-T\ X Z2* V7 v * l? x t