readily all kind of degrees between the monstrous and the natural in
pure fiction. Now, this second use of the term nature is the only one
which is of any vital importance to our judgments upon works of art; yet
current judgments are more often than not based wholly on the first
sense, which means merely all objects perceived by the senses; and this,
draped in the authority and phrases belonging to judgments based on the
second and really pertinent sense.

Whole schools of painting and criticism have arisen and flourish whose
only reason for existence is the extreme facility with which this
confusion is made in European languages. It sounds so plausible that
some have censured Michael Angelo for bad drawing because men are not
from 9 to 15 or 16 heads high, and have not muscles so developed as the
gods and Titans of his creation. And others have objected to the angels,
the anatomical ambiguity of their wing articulations. To say that a
sketch or picture is out of tone or drawing damns, in many circles
to-day; in spite of the fact that the most famous masterpieces, if
judged by the same standard, would be equally offensive. This absurdity,
even where its grosser developments are avoided, breeds abundant
contradictions and confusion in the mouths of those who plume themselves
on culture and discernment. I hope not to have been too saucy,
therefore, in pointing out this pitfall to my readers in regard to these
sentences which I thought it worth while to quote from Duerer, merely
because if I did not do so I foresaw that they would be quoted
against me.




CHAPTER VI