The Relation of Art to Nature

Kant deals with a phase of this subject which is of great interest. In many strong works of art there remain incomplete and often unsatisfactory details. These are permitted to remain because the artist knows that to remove them would weaken or affect the strength of the whole. These, Kant says, are “only of necessity suffered to remain, because they could hardly be removed without loss of force to the idea. This courage has merit only in the case of a genius. A certain boldness of expression, and, in general, many a deviation from the common rule becomes him well; but in no sense is it a thing worthy of imitation. On the contrary it remains all through intrinsically a blemish which one is bound to try to remove, but for which the genius is, as it were, allowed to plead a privilege, on the ground that a scrupulous carefulness would spoil what is inimitable in the impetuous ardor of his soul.”

The genius here referred to by Kant is well understood and his power is fully recognized, but he is not separated from his fellow craftsmen except in the degree of his knowledge and ability. He is a man of superior ability and power who, driving straight to the object of his labor, represents character in a direct and forceful way. To this end he brings to his assistance his superior technical skill, but often in the very impetuosity of his ardor, as Kant suggests, he leaves unfinished parts because he well understands that to labor over these parts would be to reduce the force or power of the whole. This impetuous manner which strives to render the character of the object or person, or of the scene, or of the ephemeral effects of nature, quickly and directly, is well understood by the painter. I recall a large sketch of Daubigny’s owned by Mesdag, probably purchased from the painter. This sketch represents a green hillside with a canal and horses in the foreground. For absolute power and truth of beautiful quality and colour it was probably never surpassed by Daubigny, but it is what the public would call an unfinished picture. In truth, force, and beauty, it might fairly be considered “inspired” as compared with Daubigny’s finished or carefully painted pictures so widely known. In this painting there are many unsatisfactory parts, such as are referred to by Kant as “deformities,” but Daubigny well understood that to remove them or to work over this sketch, which was doubtless made rapidly in the presence of nature and under the influence of the particular mood expressed by nature, would have weakened its power.

I recall another painting that will illustrate this point – a study by Anton Mauve. This study was found among Mauve’s possessions after his death, and was probably never offered for sale during his lifetime because, in minor parts, it is incomplete. Rough lines of the original drawing were permitted to remain. These are the kind of blemishes to which Kant refers, but they do not detract from the supreme beauty and power of the study. Indeed, this picture is considered by many painters to be one of Mauve’s masterpieces, so true and just is it in the representation of a momentary effect in nature. Mauve doubtless recognized the importance of the study and refused to make corrections of minor defects. I have been told that he replied to Weissenbrouck, a fellow painter who urged him to finish this work: “I will leave it as God made it in nature. It is finished.” Mauve had secured the broad, essential truth of nature and with this he was content.

Maeterlinck

Maurice Maeterlinck tersely expressed the same thought when he said: “I myself have now for a long time ceased to look for anything more beautiful in this world, or more interesting, than the truth…”

The reader will not have failed to observe the significant note of agreement running through these opinions touching the importance of selection, the power to perceive and select from among the multitude of forms those which are exceptional or dominant.

“Pure perception”; “the faculty of perceiving and expressing the leading character of objects”; “In nature this essential character is simply dominant; it is the aim of art to render it predominant …”; these expressions of philosophers are in perfect accord with the expressions of painters, as for instance, “The only thing is to see”; or “our only chance lies in selection and combination.”

Symmetry

If what has been written is true, if art is but the revelation of grace and beauty inherent in nature, the making plain that which is revealed to the artist and obscure to the less observant, or to those with less power, it still remains to account for the universal distinction in form which characterizes all great works of art. Reference has been made to the common factor of truth, but there is a second factor or quality possessed by works of art, that of symmetry. This attribute lifts a work above the commonplace and, combined with truth, places it among the masterpieces of art.

There are certain fundamental laws of symmetry existing in nature and these, consciously or unconsciously, govern the masters of art in the production of their works. These undefined laws have been recognized from the earliest time, and the artist who is governed by them in the selection of his subjects and controlled by them in the execution of his work makes a universal appeal to which the aesthetic sense in man responds. These laws are not of man’s creation. They belong to nature. They exist in form and colour. They also exist in sound. Whether or not the Greeks had reduced these laws to definite principles or rules, and were governed by them in the construction of their temples and in the creation of their masterly works in sculpture, is a doubtful question; but certain it is that Hambidge has shown quite conclusively that certain fundamental proportions existing in natural forms are repeated in the Parthenon and in other great architectural structures belonging to the Grecian period.

This does not mean that every great work of art must of necessity be based upon clearly defined, rigid rules of proportion, on what is called Dynamic Symmetry, but rather that works made to conform to these rules do possess a degree of distinction and that the result is an orderliness of arrangement or an agreeable disposition of spaces with relation to each other which produces an aesthetic effect upon the human mind.

Therefore, while truth is essential, it is conceded that symmetry must be added to secure distinction. Commonplace expressions of nature, while satisfying the ignorant, have never been accepted as art by those who have given this subject serious thought.

The quality of design, of pattern, of appropriate and harmonious arrangement, must be taken into account in any discussion touching the philosophy of art. The universal appreciation and enjoyment of design as revealed in rugs, in tapestries, and in a hundred other art forms, may only be accounted for upon the theory of the existence of a universal law of nature governing the judgment of man with reference to these things.

This law is found in nature just as certainly as is found the law of gravitation. The art of design when not literally transcribed from the beautiful forms presented by nature herself is found to rest upon some adaptation of this universal law of symmetry and harmony. With symmetrical forms in nature we become familiar even in our childhood. Take for instance the symmetrical forms of leaves. The grace and symmetry of the leaf of the elm tree is well known, as is also the character of the oak leaf and its almost invariable symmetrical form. When a form that is not symmetrical appears, such, for instance, as that of the leaf of the sassafras tree – one of the three leaf forms borne by this tree being shaped like a mitten – we instantly recognize this exception to the almost universal rule and reject it as unsymmetrical and inharmonious. Illustrations of symmetry might be multiplied, because they are found in flower and animal forms everywhere. With harmony and colour we are made familiar by the passing seasons. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter are successive expressions of harmony.

How far this universal law of symmetry extends throughout nature and what influence it has upon the human mind in its appreciation of the beautiful in nature it would be difficult to estimate. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that it is universal and far reaching in its application and influence.

J. Henri Fabre It is interesting in this connection to note that J. Henri Fabre, the eminent French naturalist, makes reference to this law in describing the uniformity with which certain bees act, their actions seeming to be governed by a mysterious law. In his book on “Bramble Bees and Others” Fabre says: “The first time that I prepared one of these horizontal tubes [for bramble bees] open at both ends, I was greatly struck by what happened. The series consisted of ten cocoons. It was divided into two equal batches. The five on the left went out on the left, the five on the right went out on the right, reversing, when necessary, their original direction in the cell. It was very remarkable from the point of view of symmetry; moreover, it was a very unlikely arrangement among the total number of possible arrangements, as mathematics will show us.” Fabre elucidates this fact by mathematical calculation proving that there had been a spontaneous decision, one half in favor of the exit on the left, one half in favor of that on the right, when the tube was horizontal and gravity ceased to interfere.

This law of harmony has been recognized and to some extent defined by early philosophers and writers as well as by those of recent date.

Plato

It was recognized and referred to by Plato, who said that the world offers the material in graceful and beautiful forms; or again that there is no difficulty in seeing that grace or the absence of grace is an effect of good or bad rhythm … that beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity. He also refers to art as representing proportion, harmony, or unity among the parts. His thought is that there is an absolute principle of beauty which reveals itself in natural objects.

Aristotle

Aristotle expressed the opinion that the essential qualities of beauty are order and symmetry.

Knight

Knight refers to the appreciation of symmetry and proportion on the part of the Greek people and he concludes that the knowledge of this same law of symmetry and its appreciation was doubtless the basis of Greek art.

Kant

Kant in his philosophy refers to this same law of symmetry, grace, and beauty in nature. He says: “The beautiful forms displayed in the organic world all plead eloquently on the side of the realism of the aesthetic finality of nature in support of the plausible assumption that beneath the production of the beautiful there must lie a preconceived idea in the producing cause – that is to say, an end acting in the interest of our imagination. Flowers, blossoms, even the shapes of plants as a whole, the elegance of animal formations of all kinds, unnecessary for the discharge of any function on their part, but chosen as it were with an eye to our taste; and, beyond all else, the variety and harmony in the array of colours (in the pheasant, in crustacea, in insects, down even to the meanest flowers) so pleasing and charming to the eye, but which, inasmuch as they touch the bare surface and do not even here in any way affect the structure of these creatures – a matter which might have a necessary bearing on their internal ends – seem to be planned entirely with a view to outward appearance: all these lend great weight to the mode of explanation which assumes actual ends of nature in favor of our aesthetic judgment.”

Blackie

John Stuart Blackie refers to qualities in nature which create spontaneously in the mind a degree of pleasure because of their symmetry and beauty. He says: “There must be, therefore, in nature and in the constitution of things certain qualities which, being superinduced upon the useful, or mere fitness to achieve a practical end, create in the mind the pleasant sensations which arise spontaneously on the perception of a beautiful object.”

It would seem, therefore, that nature has furnished those forms and colours which are symmetrical and harmonious, and that familiarity with these has created in man, in varying degrees, a love for the beautiful and an appreciation of the symmetrical and orderly. This law of symmetry and proportion not only appeals to our own consciousness but has become a part of our daily life.

It frequently happens that the repetition of beautiful forms results in what comes to be recognized as a conventional or national expression of art. This is especially true of Chinese and Japanese art. Conventional forms adopted by one generation of Chinese or Japanese artists were often handed down to succeeding generations of artists. Not only was this true, but the repetition of these conventional forms, generation after generation, resulted in the adoption of certain arbitrary rules governing the composition and construction of their works of art.

Sei-ichi Taki

Sei-ichi Taki in his “Three Essays on Oriental Painting” noted eighteen rules for the painting of “mountain wrinkles.” Among these rules the following may be mentioned: “Wrinkled like eddying water.” “Wrinkled like a horse’s tooth.” “Wrinkled like bullock’s hair.” “Wrinkled like the veins of a lotus leaf.”

Notwithstanding these conventions, the fundamental or underlying qualities in Chinese and Japanese art do not differ from those characterizing works by artists of other nations. There was the same reliance upon nature and insistence upon selection and the expression of essential character.

Kuo Hsi

For instance, Kuo Hsi, himself a landscape painter, in his work on art criticism, “Noble Features of the Forest and Stream,” wrote as follows: “Observe widely and comprehensively.” And again: “Take in the essentials of a scene and discard the trivialities.”

Lafcadio Hearn

With Chinese and Japanese artists it was always a question of discriminating selection. Lafcadio Hearn, a keen observer and a charming writer upon Japanese life and art, referred with unusual penetration to the importance of selection when he wrote: “The artist looked for dominant laws of contrast and colour, for the general character of nature’s combinations, for the order of the beautiful. He drew actualities but not repellent or meaningless actualities, proving his rank even more by his refusal than by his choice of subjects.” It will be seen from these expressions that Chinese and Japanese art was in fact based upon an intimate and thorough knowledge of nature, influenced by certain conventions which were clearly defined and understood.

La Farge

John La Farge, the American artist who was a profound student of oriental art, suggests this undefined law of harmony in the universe when he says: “I might acknowledge that I have far within me a belief that art is the love of certain balanced proportions and relations which the mind likes to discover and to bring out in what it deals with, be it thought, or the action of man, or the influences of nature, or the material things in which the necessity makes it to work. I should then expand this idea until it stretched from the patterns of earliest pottery to the harmony of the lines of Homer. Then I should say that in our plastic arts the relations of lines and spaces are, in my belief, the first and earliest desires. And again, I should have to say that, in my unexpressed faith, these needs are as needs of the soul and echoes of the laws of the universe, seen and unseen, reflections of the universal mathematics, cadences of the ancient music of the spheres.”

“For I am forced to believe that there are laws for our eyes as well as for our ears, and that when, if ever, these shall have been deciphered, as has been the good fortune with music, then shall we find that all best artists have carefully preserved their instinctive obedience to these, and have all cared together for this before all.”

“For the arrangements of line and balances of spaces which meet these underlying needs are indeed the points through which we recognize the answer to our natural love and sensitiveness for order, and through this answer, we feel, clearly or obscurely, the difference between what we call great men and what we call the average, whatever the personal charm may be.”

Conclusion

It may seem ruthless to destroy the old conception which attributed to the works of the painter and sculptor a place superior to or above the works of men in the field of science or in other spheres of activity, but this, I think, is rapidly being done. The idea that man is capable of adding anything to or improving upon the supreme qualities of beauty as these exist in nature is disappearing. The spirit of a scientific age is dispelling the old conception of art. Men now realize in art as in science that the quality of truth is the sole object to be sought.

Lord James Bryce

Lord James Bryce, the eminent English statesman and author, recently called attention to the dominating influence of the scientific spirit as felt in the various activities of our time. He referred to the effect which the enormous increase in knowledge in the scientific world has had upon our intellectual life and upon the ideas, the habits and ways of thought of mankind. He said that the scientific investigations during the past century and a half have occupied a larger proportion of the energetic intellects of the world than ever before. The results of these investigations have been more read than they ever were before, and by a widening circle. They have more affected men’s minds and become part of our thinking – part of the mental furniture of educated men and women. Lord Bryce pointed out that through the everlasting searching after truth and the facts of nature “the methods and the spirit of science have undoubtedly affected such subjects as metaphysical and ethical philosophy, as economic science and history, as political theory, as oratory, as philology, as literature.” And he added that for some reason (he would not call it inscrutable, because he said that everything is more or less discoverable by sufficient study and attention – everything in the human sphere at least) he believed that there did, in the Eighteenth Century, begin to come over the human mind a change, the results of which are seen in all these fields. The novelty of this method, Lord Bryce said, “lies in the scrupulous care which we bestow upon phenomena, in the determination to examine the minutest details and to record exactly what we see, that and nothing more.” Lord Bryce had also expressed the thought that with all careful study we must strive to communicate an impression, which is much more difficult than merely to state facts. For example, he says, the historian’s general impression of a people is no less an expression of truth and no less accurate than is the presentation of many minor facts. Lord Bryce here states a profound truth, namely, that the impression of the whole is of greater importance than the literal representation of detail. This truth applies to art. The elimination of trifling details but emphasizes the power and beauty of the whole.

I think it is this scientific spirit which has influenced modern art and which is very clearly exemplified in the history of the School of Impressionists. This school has exerted a powerful influence upon the art of painting of the present day. I know that the general opinion has been that the so-called Impressionist painters have departed from the representation of the truths of nature and that their paintings are not faithful representations of nature; but I believe the very reverse of this to be true. I think, in their search for the essential truth of nature, or the essential fact, that they have, in their very intensity of effort, departed from the representation of minute details and of many forms, in order that they might the more fully and perfectly represent the less obvious and more subtle truth.

Take, for instance, the purpose which actuated Monet, probably the leader of this group of painters, in his effort to represent the very truth of nature by a few masses of vibrating colour. For example, his haycock series of pictures was but an effort to represent the most essential qualities of the subjects which he had chosen for his experiment. I recall very well the first painting by Monet which I had the opportunity to see, some thirty years ago, and the impression I received then remains fresh in my memory. It was not the pleasurable or childish sensation created by recognizing the forms of familiar objects, but rather the delight created by an impression of vibrating, sunlit atmosphere. This effect was the result of scientific research. Monet simply applied his power and his wealth of technical ability to reproduce another kind of truth, the truth of nature as broadly represented by beautiful colours in relation to each other. I mention Monet in this connection because he seems to represent, in an important sense, the influence of a scientific age upon the art of the painter.

This view of Claude Monet’s art and the art of the so-called Impressionists is the very opposite of that entertained by many writers who have attributed to these painters careless rather than scientific methods.

If the principles laid down in this work are true, they become of vital importance. We will not think less of art, but we will be inspired by a new devotion to nature and the great laws which govern her. We will seek more diligently after the subtle harmonies and beauties in nature, those qualities which have been discovered by the great masters and translated with measurable success. We will go to nature with more intelligence and devotion, that we may there enjoy these things for ourselves at the source of all beauty. The student may lay aside all preconceived notions with reference to inspiration and creation, and address himself to his task as would any other workman. The result should be a more profound appreciation of all beauty and more joy in a world too often made commonplace by man.