The followers of this decadent idealism, claim that every man has a right to his own idealism; that an artist must first of all be "personal," "individual" and even "peculiar," and therefore can do whatsoever he pleases in the direction of realizing "his idea," be it noble or ignoble; that an artist can change the proportions and the construction and the form of natural objects to suit his own taste and idealize (stylize) the things in nature, up or down, as he pleases, to the degree that an expression of his "personal" conceptions may require.

That realism has produced many fine, though uninspiring things, momentarily appealing merely to the curiosity of the ever curious mind, cannot be questioned. But it has produced few, if any, truly beautiful or poetic works, such as call forth and retain for a long time the love of mankind-by emotioning the soul.

To quote Sainte-Beuve, acknowledged to be one of the greatest critics of the 19th Century:

If, in remembrance of all these questions of reality and realism, you desire, absolutely, from me a more general conclusion and a broader significance, I would not refuse to express all my thought, and I would say again: "Reality-thou art the basis of life, and as such, even with thy asperities, even with thy rudenesses, thou attractest serious minds and thou hast for them a charm. And yet, in the long run and all alone, thou wilt end by imperceptibly repelling and satiating; for thou art too often flat, vulgar and tiresome. It is already sufficient to meet thee at every step in life; but in art at least we wish even in always finding and feeling thee present or near-to be occupied with something else than thee. Yes! thou hast need at all times of being renewed and refreshed, to be seasoned in some way, under pain of depressing and perhaps of wearying, as being too ordinary. Thou hast need at least to possess and to add to thy merits that imitative genius so perfect, so animated, so delicate that it becomes like a creation and a magic in its own terms, that marvellous use of means and processes of art which, without display or parading, breathes or shines in each detail as well as in the ensemble. In one word, thou hast need of Style.

Thou hast need also, if possible, of sentiment, a nook of sympathy, a moral ray, to penetrate and to enlighten thee, were it only by some crevice or some opening-otherwise thou wilt soon leave us cold, indifferent-and, human as we are, since we carry ourselves with us everywhere, and since we never quit ourselves, we become weary in not finding in thee our share and our place.

Thou hast need also, and therein lies the great triumph, thou hast need, while being observed and respected, of a something—I do not know what to complete thee and to finish thee, to rectify without falsifying thee, to lift thee without making thee quit the earth; to give thee as much soul as thou canst possess without ceasing to be natural, and which leaves thee recognizable to all, but more luminous than ordinarily in life, more adorable and more beautiful; in fine-thou hast need of the Ideal.

CHAPTER VI

ABSTRACTION VS. REPRESENTATION

ONE would suppose that the foregoing chapter, would be superfluous, since it expresses nothing but ideas that are so axiomatic, if not obvious, that to state them at all seems tantamount to insulting the intelligence of a person of average culture. But the Reader will soon see that it was necessary to re-state those ideas and at length, even at the risk of boring him.

For, we are, today, face to face with another new, and a more revolutionary, theory of art which, if not proven to be false, will alter our entire outlook on life, and rapidly topsyturvey our social structure.

The fundamental idea of this strange new "theory" of art is: that there should be absolutely no representation by means of imitation however limited in any work of art, that representation in art should disappear, and be supplanted by abstraction: thus revolutionizing the entire point of view held by mankind since the denizens of the caves of Dordogne represented their animal compeers, on the bones that remained after the animals were eaten!

These abstractionist æstheticians claim: that there is no such thing as un-personal style; that there is only personal style, and only personal idealism; that all the elements of past styles, which have succeeded and grown out of each other, as the rose does from the bud, are mere rubbish; and that only personal "creations," absolutely detached from the past, in the form, in idea, intention and spirit, and totally different from anything that ever went before, in heaven or on earth, are the only kinds of things which should be considered as art, or should have any value, and all others to be thrown in the fire, forgetting the truth in the remark of Ampère:

Absolute originality is impossible.

"Abstract art" is the name given to the "creations" produced according to this new philosophy. We give eight examples of such art, Figs. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83. Examine them carefully, and prayerfully, Reader. Here we have "style" and "idealism"-a departure from Nature with a vengeance!

Nothing proves more conclusively, than do these specimens of "abstract art," how inevitably a class of men will drift, on and on, towards a precipice and rush over it, into a pit of insanity, if they follow, unreasoningly to the end, a stream of tendency, started by a false philosophy, based on a false point of view, and on a misconception of the real sense of an epigram, made by a great man of the past.

The basis of this revolutionary theory was publicly stated by one of its exponents thus:

"Art Begins Where Nature Ends." That's why our aim is, not to reproduce nature in a photographic manner, though we admit the indispensability of studying it. I teach you how to find the essential elements of painting and sculpture. Only after careful analysis of each separate element and in accordance with the individuality of each student we begin to realize creation.

This looks like impudent charlatanism, since no one, ever, advocated the reproduction of nature, "in a photographic manner!"

One would suppose that, a camera can give an accurate report of the drawing and color and feeling of life and as the human eye sees an object, or a living body, even when standing still. But it cannot. The reasons would be too technical and long to give here. But, how could an artist ever photograph an historical incident of the past? He could never pose and photograph ten men, so as to make a successful picture. Even so simple a picture, as Raphael's "Sistine Madonna, Fig. 103, with only three main figures, could never be posed by models, and which, when photographed, in colors even, would not begin to render the beauty of line of the composition. And how about the supra-human spiritual expression, on all the faces? These must be imagined by the artist, no human model could offer them to him: to copy and imitate. Raphael had to see those qualities in his imagination, and then express them without models, direct. And that, is direct and true