But even this carelessness, deplorable as it is, is more forgiv able than the custom of the last century of deliberately faking tool marks. Wood cut by machines to give the appearance of being hand-hewn and iron artistically dented to appear hand-forged had come to be almost universally accepted though nothing could show greater evidence of dishonesty of technique and bad taste.
Style.—No two artists can paint the same face or the same landscape in the same way any more than two business men can sign their names in the same way. Neither the style nor the per sonality of the artist need be thought about and certainly should not be artificially cultivated. However, if one is to permit his style to grow he must not hamper it by the slavish copy of some other artist's personal style. He may to advantage copy works of art again and again, but should do so simply to broaden his out look, as a writer may read the books of many other writers.
The present day stressing of originality in art teaching is re sponsible for much of the worst of our modern art. Technique is all that can be taught. Style and originality of real value can only come after the artist's experiences both in life and in art have broadened and enriched his personality, for the artist cannot ex press a personality until he has one and, if he has one, he cannot help but express it. (See THEATRE : Direction and Acting.) Suitability.—Suitability to surroundings is an element often lacking in the art of to-day due to a strange occurrence which took place during the decadence of the Renaissance. It is interesting to know that during the best periods of art the dis tinction between fine arts and applied art was not clear. In Egypt it was unknown. In Greece sculptors did as masterful work for the pediment of a building as for a pedestal. In the Orient the dis tinction has not existed for thousands of years and a porcelain vase or a piece of lacquer may be regarded just as highly as a painting or a piece of sculpture.
Michelangelo and Cellini did not recognize the distinction and were as proud of what might be called their craftsmanship or works of applied art as they were of those which could be labelled "fine art." Both were craftsmen at heart and unspoiled by what occurred immediately following their times.
"Fine Arts" as a term came into use meaning painting, sculp ture, music and poetry, with sometimes the inclusion of architec ture or those arts which exist for the pleasurable qualities alone and apart from any utilitarian consideration, but "fine arts" came to be thought of as of greater importance than applied arts for, if some of the arts are termed fine, the implication is that the other arts are less fine, and the result of this usage was that people came to consider art which had no application superior to art which was applied. They argued "Yes, that is beautiful for its purpose, but this is finer for the very reason that it has no purpose other than that of being beautiful." (See FINE ARTS.)
The result was a tendency toward less and less consideration of the principles of application of art. Sculptors preferred to work in their studios than to co-operate with architects. Great painters ceased to do murals and worked upon easel pictures. Recently, however, there has occurred a happy revolt against this attitude, more especially in America because it was found there that applied art paid better than fine art. In other words the public had judged, and with the disappearance of the marble pedestal and whatnot from the Victorian interior, there was also a disappearance of bibelots and the old time easel paintings so that the artist is now confronted with the necessity of studying the antique as did the great masters and the principles of proper spacing, and must adopt the more modest attitude that his work, in order to be suc cessful, must be considered as only part of an ensemble. (See SCULPTURE : Garden.) Time Consideration.—Works of art differ from works of na ture in that they cannot reproduce themselves and should there fore express in some way their vulnerability before the onslaughts of time. Part of the appeal of the antique is due to the fact that it is bowing with such grace and such pathetic dignity and beauti ful spirit before the inevitable. The patina of an old bronze or the iridescence of an ancient glass vase is the touch of great Na ture bidding it return to its original state. (See BRONZE AND BRASS ORNAMENTAL WORK.) Structure.—Structure itself may be considered but an admis sion of the necessity for fortification against time and when proper structure is not observed one can foresee at a glance the indignity of the final defeat. Some works of art like some people grow more beautiful with age, for the scars of years serve only the more clearly to prove the sturdiness within. It is wise therefore for the artist to think of the final conditions of ruin of his work and build it in such a manner that it will be beautiful as long as it is recog nizable. (See IRON IN ART.) Fragility.—If structure appeals to us because of its intelligent defence against time, fragility undoubtedly appeals because of its pitiful bravery, for just as we have regard for some men for their reasonable sanity we like others for their careless daring. It is this appeal which has undoubtedly been responsible for the pre servance of some of the delicate glass which has been passed from hand to hand down through the ages. Each hand though per haps calloused by the sword or plough has touched it with a cer tain amount of care because of the realization of its brave stand against time. (See GLASS.) Such considerations as those few outlined above will give the reader an idea of what the artist is thinking about as his work proceeds, and an understanding as to why and how it is made to appeal to the mind of his public. (W. E. Cx.)