(2) In the fine arts and in literature, Real ism is opposed by Idealism. In general, it may be said that Realism insists on correspondence with nature, on representing things as they are actually found in experience, while idealism tends toward an imaginative treatment which does not limit itself to reality as actually known. These two methods of treatment can never be absolutely exclusive of each other. In the work of any given individual one element or the other may be most prominent, but both must be present if the picture or statue or writing is to rank as an artistic production. Both in the choice of subject and in the details of his treatment the realistic artist idealizes: that is, he interprets the actual by isolating it from the context or environment in which it appears, and which serves to some extent to hide its true significance; and, secondly, he also idealizes by representing in his treatment what is universal and essential, omitting certain things and selecting others with this end in view. On the other hand, the idealist whp "bodies forth the forms of things unseen,' or sings of "a light that never was on sea or land,' must nevertheless be "true to nature,' in the sense that his imagination must work in ac cordance with the laws of reality. Otherwise the result is something grotesque and fantastic. We do, however, speak of the work of any ',articular individual as realistic or idealistic according as the treatment shows more promi nently one tendency or the other. There are three ways in which these different tendencies, or attitudes of mind, are shown in the fine arts and literature. In the choice of a subject mat ter, the realist selects either something actually existing, some familiar scene or well-known event, or at least, if he does not make an exact transcript of a particular object or set of oc currences, it is the concrete individual things of experience with which he deals. Idealism, aim ing more directly at the representation of what is universal and typical, constructs for itself its forms and matter, choosing to express itself through a representation, it may be, of angels, Graces or Madonnas, or through a literary portrayal of events and occurrences of some past time that admits of free imaginative treat ment. This difference in choice of subject mat ter also carries with it important variations in manner of portrayal. As realism aims more directly than idealism at correspondence with nature, it is clear that it must emphasize to a greater extent fullness and accuracy of detail.
But there is also difference in the kind of detail that is chosen, and in the emphasis that is given to details of different characters. As it is the object of realism to represent its subject matter in concrete, individual form, the details which are essential to produce this impression are naturally emphasized. An idealistic treatment, on the other hand, seeking to represent more directly the universal and essential, necessarily gives an entirely different value to the various details, omitting, it may be, much that would be regarded as essential in the school of realism and giving a prominent place to what the latter might keep in the background. It is false art and a false realism, however, that emphasizes what is ugly, unpleasant and pathological in such a way as to make these the most prominent features of the total work. This realism has rightly been held to be characteristic of a de cadent art, of an art that is inevitably suicidal. For the real, which it is the business of art to reveal and portray, in nature and in human nature alike, is the universal, the abiding and hence the normal; what is diseased and mon strous are necessarily particular and transient and, therefore, not real in the fullest sense. Art, like all conscious activity, can only live so long as it assumes that what is rational in the fullest sense must be that which is in the deep est sense real. See IDEALISM.
Bibliography.—Realism in philosophy: Boo din, J. E., (Truth and Reality' (New York 1911) ; Case, Realism' (London 1888); Hamilton, 'Lectures on Metaphysics' (London 1859) ; Holt, E. B., and others, 'The New Realism' (New York 1912) ; Lotze, 'Metaphysics' (Leipzig 1841; tr. 1884) ; Lowe, 'Der Kampfzwischen Nomenalismus and Real ismus im Mittelalter' (Prague 1876) ; Maurice, 'Mediaeval Philosophy> (London 1854) ; Perry, R. B., 'Present Philosophical Tendencies' (New York 1912) ; Russell, B. A. W. (Prob lems of Philosophy' (London 1911) ; (Scientific Method in Philosophy' (Chicago 1914); DeWulf, M., 'History of Mediaeval Philosophy> (tr. London 1909). For realism in art consult Brunetiere, F., (I.e roman Naturalist& (Paris 1892) ; Knight, W., 'Essays in Philosophy' (London 1890) ; Martino, P., (Le roman realiste sons le second empire' (Paris 1913) ; Zola, E., (Le roman experimental' (Paris 1880).