Chapter III: Introduction

Sir Joshua Reynolds in one of his Discourses has stated, that the Edifice of Art has been gradually raised by the contributions of the great men of past ages, and that although every addition to knowledge required the exertion of a mind far in advance of its contemporaries to effect it, the results have now become the common property of all artists, and may easily be appropriated by every Student--"that much may now be taught, which it required vast genius to discover."

It will not be necessary to adduce any argument in support of this proposition. The difference of opinion will principally refer to "what part can be taught?" And hereon there have been as great divisions and disputes as have arisen with regard to the part of the pig that was forbidden to be eaten by the followers of Mahomet; only it should be observed that the discussions have terminated in an almost opposite result; for whereas the whole pig was eaten, scarcely any of the Art has been taught.

Numerous works have been published and numerous methods of instruction adopted; but they are almost all directed to points of mechanical execution, or the representation of individual objects, which mainly depend upon skill.

Skill is the natural result of practice or fortunate organization, and will, of course, differ with the perseverance or capacity of the student, which has led to the persuasion that the productions of Art are dependent upon what is called natural genius.

But what is _known_ of Art may be as easily communicated as any other fact, and as easily acquired as a knowledge of history, or any other appeal to the memory, and is indispensable equally to the critic and to the amateur. On this subject there are few if any works; and it is rarely touched by professed teachers of the Art.

The method of private tuition at present in favour is, to make a drawing before the pupil, who is expected to appreciate the course of proceeding, and to imitate the effect.

Watching a drawing thus in progress, it will be observed that the greater part is done apparently without a thought; it appears to be literally at the "fingers' ends" of the artist: and this will be found to comprehend much, it not all that confers the effect of a picture. But in what does this consist? Repeated practice, and continued study of works of art, will undoubtedly, _in time_, bring it to the "fingers' ends" of the student also, and it will insensibly become an inexplicable habit, manner or style. But this is, in fact, what may be taught or communicated in a short time; it is the knowledge resulting from the experience of ages,--the edifice built up of discoveries from time to time contributed to the fund of Art by the success and failures of our predecessors. This is the _knowledge_ or science of painting, which should precede all practice or attainment of skill, and such portion as relates to colouring, it is the intention of the present work to supply. Skill will follow as a result of the endeavour to make use of the means to produce the end--Pictures.

There has been, unfortunately, so great confusion in the use of the terms applicable to Colours, that it becomes difficult to convey any distinct information respecting them, without hazarding the charge of pedantry by limiting the signification of certain words. Tints, Tones, and Shades of Colour have been, and still are, too commonly used so indiscriminately to mean the same and different things, that no definite impression can be given, unless there exist a previous knowledge of the mode in which each word is applied. It will, therefore, be necessary to explain the meanings with which each word will be used in the present work.

TINTS are those specific and definite qualities of colours, by which the individuals of a class are distinguished from each other: as of Reds; Scarlet, Crimson, Pink, Rose-colour, &c.: of Greens; Apple-green, Olive-green, Pea-green, &c.: of Yellows; Straw-colour, Amber, &c.: of Blues; Sky-blue, Garter-blue, Indigo, &c.

SHADES OF COLOUR imply the degree of brilliancy or depth, as bright or deep Crimson; light or dark Blue.

TONES OF COLOUR are of more general application, as indicating the general aspect of classes of Tints or Shades; and especially designating the degree of warmth or coldness: as cool greens, warm greys. There may be lighter and darker _Shades_ of the same TONE, but not of the same TINT. Rose-colour and Crimson may be said to be lighter and darker shades of the same _Tone_.

The word Tone is also used by itself in opposition to crudity or rawness of colour; and hence is technically descriptive of the ternary compounds, of whatever tint or shade; while the primary colours and the binary compounds, Blue, Red and Yellow, and Purple, Orange and Green, are technically distinguished as Colour. The lighter shades of Tone in this sense are technically included under the term _Greys_; warm, as they contain Orange; cool, as they contain Purple or Green. Tints and Tones are further classed as _pure_, as they approach purple, and those tints observed in Mother of Pearl, hence, also pearly tints; warm or hot as they approach Orange; heavy, and unless they are exceedingly transparent, muddy, as they approach Green.

HALF-TINTS express those gradations of _colour_, and HALF-LIGHTS those gradations of _light_, between the greatest brilliancy and the shadows.

Colours are said to be SUPPORTED by others which present some resemblance, but are inferior in brilliancy; as blues by purples, crimsons by reddish-browns, yellows by orange:

--CONTRASTED by those which are the most opposite, as blues by orange or browns, reds by green, yellows by purples:

--BALANCED when by opposition they are so neutralized that no one appears principal or predominant.

The author of a recent publication on Colour is quite in error, when, in describing technical terms, he states "the Balance of Colouring is the harmony produced by _supporting_ one colour by _another_ introduced in _different parts_ of the picture, either _of the same colour_, or one approaching to it." This is SPREADING _a colour_ THROUGH the picture, and though it may _contribute_ to the balance of colouring by _contrasting_ and _neutralizing_ the _other_ colours in the work, it is in itself the very opposite of the _balance_ of _colouring_, as it consists entirely in loading one side of the beam. To this it may be added that colours are said to be SUPPORTED by similar tints _adjacent_, and ECHOED by them when "in different parts of the picture."

There are many other errors in the book above-mentioned, but as this is not intended to be a controversial disquisition, those mistakes only will be noticed which might otherwise lead to confusion; but to the correction.

The definition of "MELLOWNESS," as "caused by those warm colours which, when blended, produce an agreeable _tone_ or _hue_, and would then be said to _sympathize_ and create _harmony_," is as incorrect and indefinite, as the remainder of the paragraph is without foundation:--"On the contrary, if, in mixing two or more colours, a disagreeable and harsh effect were produced, they would be said to have an _antipathy_, and create _rawness_--this adulteration of one colour by another causes what painters term a MUDDY effect." Painters term an effect _muddy_ when it is dirty in colour and wanting in transparency. This fancy respecting the sympathy and antipathy of certain colours, which is more distinctly alluded to in the following passage:--"when, to produce a particular tint, the mixing of two colours which do not sympathize is unavoidable; one or more may be introduced whose sympathy is greater, that a pleasing and harmonious effect may be produced, &c."--this is wholly groundless. How the sympathy and antipathy alluded to are supposed to act is not very evident, but they have no existence whatever.

The definition of a "PEARLY HUE," as "obtained by softening or blending the _warm_ colours without adulterating one with the other," is equally liable to objection as untrue.

The attempt at a philosophical account of the _cause_ of the colours produced at sunset and sunrise, has been incidentally exposed in the third chapter of the present work. This error undoubtedly does not originate with the professed author of the publication alluded to; and as the greater part of the book is evidently, though without acknowledgment, compiled from Mr. Burnett and other writers on the subject, the other errors are probably in a great measure also the result of compilation.