ARTICLE VIII.-SOME SUGGESTIONS ON POINTS OF CONTACT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND ART. A FEW years ago Cardinal Wiseman delivered an address at the Royal Institution, London, on "Points of Contact between Science and Art," and in the course of his remarks furnished a number of illustrations which very definitely set forth the relations between Science and the Fine Arts. It has occurred to us, however, on again reading over the address, that the Cardinal did not seem to appreciate the fact that the methods of investigation pursued in art are almost identical with those of science. The main distinction lies in their aim; the one inquires for the sake of knowledge; the other, for the sake of production. Not only does art perpetually avail itself of the results of science, but it frequently anticipates science. Not only does it employ science in its methods and forms, but its aim and expression are often involved in considerations which demand the highest exercise of precise knowledge respecting both the sciences of nature and the science of man. "Science per fects genius," said Dryden, and no doubt he himself knew how much of that which is termed genius, on closer inspection turns out to be precise knowledge, knowingly applied. The subject, however, which engaged the Cardinal's attention, seems to be much more fruitful of suggestion and illustration to-day, though but a single decade has passed since the address was delivered. Science has made great advances, and many of her results have found application in connection with art. The principles of art are, perhaps, being more definitely formulated, and the tendency of criticism is to show the scientific character of its products in relation to history, literature, and philosophy. Contact alone with works of art, without any acquaintance with the life and character of their authors, the methods of study they pursued, their indefatigable research in preparation, the difficulties encountered and overcome, not only with respect to methods of art, but concerning that of which art is merely an expression-we repeat, through mere contact with their finished works, we may readily grant that art is indeed nothing more nor less than "an inspiration for the gratification of a divine instinct." But following the artist closely in his methods and manipulations; his choice of subject with respect to the capacities of art for its proper expression; the selection and arrangement of material contributing to this; we find him involved in considerations thoroughly scientific in all respects save as to their special aim and bearing. The Cardinal, in his address, cited Leonardo da Vinci as "the representative man" to illustrate this contact of science with art; and there could be no better selection. Leonardo, in his investigations and discoveries, both in pure and applied science, is ranked high, and "has his place in the history and in the philosophy of the inductive sciences." Whewell ranks him among "the practical reformers of science." He left "thirteen volumes of scientific sketches, of diagrams and mechanism, chiefly connected with hydraulics." But this fact in itself serves as no illustration of the contact of science with art, for they consisted of investigations made purely in the interest of science. The points of real contact—if we can so term them are where science prepares the ground for the ac tion of art, and in connection with its objects. But a slight analysis of any work of art will exhibit these points of contact very definitely. Consider, for instance, what requisites were in demand for the production of Raphael's "School of Athens." An analysis of this work naturally divides under two heads-the philosophy of ideas connected with the subject, and the science of their embodiment by means of art. The former involves a relative estimate of the philos ophies and the sciences illustrated by their most prominent teachers. A central interest is accorded Plato and Aristotle, the one pointing to the heavens, the other, with outstretched palm spread toward the earth; each regards the other with an expression of intense conviction, while their arguments, together with their philosophies, are summed up in this significant and concentrated action. Nothing can exceed the accuracy of artis tic statement in the rendering of this, together with the por trayal of their respective disciples, who, with no less significance, exhibit like distinctions in their sympathies of thought. Below this central group the subordinate sciences find illustration, and with no less intellectual appreciation of their character and aim. The group which surrounds Archimides, who constructs a geometrical figure upon a tablet lying on the ground, evinces the nicest distinctions with respect to the opening of the minds of the spectators to the reception of the thought. On the steps, apart from all, reclines Diogenes the Cynic, attentively scanning a tablet; a youth, directed by an old man, turns from him to the teachers of a higher philosophy. Above, among others, we observe Socrates, addressing a group of listeners who have collected about him, to whom he explains in order (counting on his fingers) his principles and their conclusions. This is but a glance, sufficient, however, to show the nature of the thought pervading this work. Each individual thinking head in this remarkable picture has characteristic expression, and the knowledge requisite for this is the result of scientific insight, which alone enables the artist to use the human form to give accurate expression to ideas or emotions: to determine among the many muscular movements of the features the exact anatomical play that suits the character of thought moving in the mind. Here is a science of the fitness of the means to the end which admits of no deviation. Right expression depends strictly upon the accuracy of the artist's knowl edge. Leonardo, having in mind his conception of the Christ for his picture of The Last Supper, searched for months to find a type that would give him a proper basis upon which to realize this idea in sensible form. In these higher walks of art the judgment is involved with questions quite distinct from the more marked effect passion produces upon the human counteA close sympathy with those placid, yet profounder movements of the mind, is in demand, and a knowledge of their corresponding physical expressions. This finds noble illustration in the repose of antique statuary. Thus anatomical science must be so thoroughly mastered that the artist may give right expression to actions wholly imaginary, and for which it would be impossible to find a living model capable of assuming the exact situation, morally or physically; the Laocoön is a remarkable instance of this. nance. As we descend in our dissection of this picture, numerous points present themselves as having this connection with science; but, fearing to be too tedious, we will merely make reference to the architectural accessories which involve an elaborate perspective, a strictly mathematical science. Indeed, when the Cardinal cited his few points of contact between science and art, a closer inspection might perhaps have revealed the fact that there could be no art save as a superstructure based upon science. The arts have notoriously flourished best when science was making most rapid advances and achieving her highest triumphs. If the subject selected for illustration be taken from ancient history, ethnological as well as archaeological points arise which require accurate knowledge on the part of the artist. The character, manners, customs, and costumes pertaining to public and private life. The spirit of the epoch, gathered from literary and other sources. No art, of any time or people, can be properly interpreted but in connection with its literature. The Cardinal quoted Ruskin's observation, that "a painter should be a man of universal learning." This is what Cicero has said of the finished orator; and the most distinguished masters in art have, to some extent, evinced this breadth of cultivation. The higher and more varied the education the artist receives, the more extensive the learning which he acquires, the more it will assist him in his artistic pursuits. "I see not what, without true genius, study, Nor genius without study, can effect; Each needs each; both, when hand in hand, will thrive." -Horace. Holman Hunt passed several years in the Holy Land searching out those hereditary types by means of which he realized that remarkable embodiment of his subject, "Christ in the Temple "one of the most remarkable works of modern art. He made studies of the oldest types, and, comparing these, was gradually enabled to determine the peculiarity of feature common to the old race of Jews which dwelt at Jerusalem. In respect to the habits, dress, ceremonies, and symbols of the synagogue worship, he applied himself no less diligently. But a slight acquaintance with the requisite preparation such works demand will enable us to estimate the requirements of art, and reveal those points of contact wherein the studies of the artist meet with those of the historian, the archæologist, the scientist, and the philosopher. We find Leonardo and Michael Angelo on the one side expressing their most subjective thought in the sonnet or in the picture, and on the other devising and executing stupendous works of architecture and mechanical engineering. The methods of study pursued in art are eminently fitted for a union of the theoretical with the practical, for while they are directed to the object, they aim to draw from it that which renders it subservient to artistic expression. Thus the object is studied not for its own sake alone, but as a means for the expression of ideas, sentiments, and the like. Art is no less practical than it is fanciful. The very essence of art is invention. The lists of inventors contain many names that have been associated with the fine arts. In this country, Morse and Fulton are noted examples. Albert Dürer was a skilled mathematician and the inventor of several mathematical instruments and machines. Camerarius assures us that he wrote no less than one hundred and fifty books and pamphlets (probably an exaggerated statement); among which were treatises on Civil Architecture, on Fortifications, on the Anatomy and Proportions of the Horse, and on the Art of Fencing. Pirkheimer also informs us that he wrote several works on Painting. In 1525 he brought out his "Instruction in the Art of Mensuration," consisting of four books treating of the "Construction and divisions of lines, of the measurements of plane surfaces and solid bodies, with practical hints in Optics and Perspective," based chiefly on Euclid. He also published a treatise on "Human Propor tions." We have alluded to the scientific works of Leonardo da Vinci. There are now in Paris twelve large volumes of his essays in Science; the balance of his works are in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. They consist of treatises on Mathematics, Chemistry, Hydraulics, and Anatomy. Gustave Uzielli claims for Leonardo "the credit of having first laid down the fundamental laws regulating the distribution of the leaves of plants," thus forestalling the English botanist Brown by more than two centuries. Leonardo also informs us at this early date "that the circles of wood in the section of a branch deVOL. XXXIII. 12 |