SEARCH
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Prev | Current Page 67 | Next

Various

"Notes and Queries, Number 65, January 25, 1851"


Hence it follows that wherever, in any design, separate portions are
intended to arrest attention, the outline should be more defined and,
accordingly, we may remark that Albert Durer, and others like him, who were
very careful of minutiae, are also distinct and hard in their outlines,
which is also the case, for the most part, in the Dutch school, and in
architectural paintings, fruit-pieces, &c.; and we find that in proportion
as the artist discards the comparatively unworthy minute accompaniments of
his subject, and aims at unity of effect, so does he neglect sharpness of
outline. Which is the _correct_ practice--distinctness, or indistinctness
of outline--will be differently judged by those who hold different opinions
on painting in general. While one person will maintain that a picture, to
be perfect, must be an exact copy of nature, in short an artistic
daguerreotype; another will hold almost the contrary; so that the subject
of outline must be matter of opinion still. However, the lover of general
effect has this rational ground of argument on his side, viz., there is no
such thing as a strictly defined outline in nature, even to an eye at rest;
while to one in motion, which is perhaps the normal state, that outline is
rendered still more indistinct.


Pages:
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79