intimately associated even with the finer beauties of mere form and
colour for the painter to be able to neglect them; no amount of
technical knowledge will take the place of feeling, or direct the
painter so surely in his selection of what is fine.

There are those who would say, "This is all very well, but the painter's
concern is with form and colour and paint, and nothing else. If he
paints the mountain faithfully from that point of view, it will suggest
all these other associations to those who want them." And others who
would say that the form and colour of appearances are only to be used as
a language to give expression to the feelings common to all men. "Art
for art's sake" and "Art for subject's sake." There are these two
extreme positions to consider, and it will depend on the individual on
which side his work lies. His interest will be more on the aesthetic
side, in the feelings directly concerned with form and colour; or on the
side of the mental associations connected with appearances, according to
his temperament. But neither position can neglect the other without
fatal loss. The picture of form and colour will never be able to escape
the associations connected with visual things, neither will the picture
all for subject be able to get away from its form and colour. And it is
wrong to say "If he paints the mountain faithfully from the form and
colour point of view it will suggest all those other associations to
those who want them," unless, as is possible with a simple-minded
painter, he be unconsciously moved by deeper feelings, and impelled to
select the significant things while only conscious of his paint. But the
chances are that his picture will convey the things he was thinking
about, and, in consequence, instead of impressing us with the grandeur
of the mountain, will say something very like "See what a clever painter
I am!" Unless the artist has painted his picture under the influence of
the deeper feelings the scene was capable of producing, it is not likely