William Hazlitt
On the Pleasure of
Painting (1821)
THERE is a pleasure in
painting which none but painters know.
In writing, you have to contend with the world; in painting, you have
only to carry on a friendly strife with Nature. You sit down to your task, and
are happy. From the moment that you take up the pencil, and look Nature in the
face, you are at peace with your own heart. No angry passions rise to disturb
the silent progress of the work, to shake the hand, or dim the brow; no
irritable humours are set afloat: you have no absurd opinions to combat, no
point to strain, no adversary to crush, no fool to annoy you are actuated by
fear or favour to no man. There is Œno juggling here,¹ no sophistry, no
intrigue, no tampering with the evidence, no attempt to make black white, or
white black: but you resign yourself into the hands of a greater power, that of
Nature, with the simplicity of a child, and the devotion of an
enthusiast‹Œstudy with joy her manner, and with rapture taste her style.¹ The
mind is calm, and full at the same time. The hand and eye are equally employed.
In tracing the commonest object, a plant or the stump of a tree, you learn
something every moment. You perceive unexpected differences, and discover
likenesses where you looked for no such thing. You try to set down what you
see‹find out your error, and correct it. You need not play tricks, or purposely
mistake: with all your pains, you are still far short of the mark. Patience
grows out of the endless pursuit, and turns it into a luxury. A streak in a
flower, a wrinkle in a leaf, a tinge in a cloud, a stain in an old wall or ruin
grey, are seized with avidity as the spolia optima of this sort of mental warfare, and furnish out
labour for another half day. The hours pass away untold, without chagrin, and
without weariness; nor would you ever wish to pass them otherwise. Innocence is joined with industry,
pleasure with business; and the mind is satisfied, though it is not engaged in
thinking or in doing harm.
I have not much pleasure
in writing these Essays, or in reading them afterwards; though I own I now and
then meet with a phrase that I like, or a thought that strikes me as a true
one. But after I begin them, I am only anxious to get to the end of them, which
I am not sure I shall do, for I seldom see my way a page or even a sentence
beforehand; and when I have as by a miracle escaped, I trouble myself little
more about them. I sometimes have to write them twice over: then it is
necessary to read the proof, to prevent mistakes by the printer; so that by the
time they appear in a tangible shape, and one can con them over with a
conscious, sidelong glance to the public approbation, they have lost their
gloss and relish, and become Œmore tedious than a twice-told tale.¹ For a
person to read his own works over with any great delight, he ought first to
forget that he ever wrote them. Familiarity naturally breeds contempt. It is,
in fact, like poring fondly over a piece of blank paper; from repetition, the
words convey no distinct meaning to the mind, are mere idle sounds, except that
our vanity claims an interest and property in them. I have more satisfaction in
my own thoughts than in dictating them to others: words are necessary to
explain the impression of certain things upon me to the reader, but they rather
weaken and draw a veil over than strengthen it to myself. However, I might say
with the poet, ŒMy mind to me a kingdom is,¹ yet I have little ambition Œto set
a throne or chair of state in the understandings of other men.¹ The ideas we
cherish most, exist best in a kind of shadowy abstraction,
Pure in the last recesses of the mind;
and derive neither force
nor interest from being exposed to public view. They are old established
acquaintance, and any change in them, arising from the adventitious ornaments
of style or dress, is hardly to their advantage. After I have once written on a
subject, it goes out of my mind: my feelings about it have been melted down
into words, and them I forget. I have, as it were, discharged my memory of its
old habitual reckoning, and rubbed out the score of real sentiment. In future,
it exists only for the sake of others. But I cannot say, from my own
experience, that the same process takes place in transferring our ideas to
canvas; they gain more than they lose in the mechanical transformation. One is
never tired of painting, because you have to set down not what you knew
already, but what you have just discovered. In the former case, you translate
feelings into words; in the latter, names into things. There is a continual
creation out of nothing going on. With every stroke of the brush, a new field
of inquiry is laid open; new difficulties arise, and new triumphs are prepared
over them. By comparing the imitation with the original, you see what you have
done, and how much you have still to do. The test of the senses is severer than
that of fancy, and an over-match even for the delusions of our self-love. One
part of a picture shames another, and you determine to paint up to yourself, if
you cannot come up to Nature. Every object becomes lustrous from the light
thrown back upon it by the mirror of art: and by the aid of the pencil we may
be said to touch and handle the objects of sight. The air-drawn visions that
hover on the verge of existence have a bodily presence given them on the
canvas: the form of beauty is changed into a substance: the dream and the glory
of the universe is made Œpalpable to feeling as to sight.¹ And see! a rainbow
starts from the canvas, with all its humid train of glory, as if it were drawn
from its cloudy arch in heaven. The spangled landscape glitters with drops of
dew after the shower. The Œfleecy fools¹ show their coats in the gleams of the
setting sun. The shepherds pipe their farewell notes in the fresh evening air.
And is this bright vision made from a dead dull blank, like a bubble reflecting
the mighty fabric of the universe? Who would think this miracle of Ruben's
pencil possible to be performed? Who, having seen it, would not spend his life
to do the like? See how the rich fallows, the bare stubble-field, the scanty
harvest-home, drag in Rembrandt's landscapes! How often have I looked at them
and Nature, and tried to do the same, till the very Œlight thickened,¹ and
there was an earthiness in the feeling of the air! There is no end of the
refinements of art and Nature in this respect. One may look at the misty
glimmering horizon till the eye dazzles and the imagination is lost, in hopes
to transfer the whole interminable expanse at one blow upon canvas. Wilson
said, he endeavoured to paint the effect of the motes dancing in the setting
sun. At another time, a friend coming into his painting-room when he was
sitting on the ground in a melancholy posture, observed that his picture looked
ike a landscape after a shower: he started up with the greatest delight, and
said, ŒThat is the effect I intended to represent, but thought I had failed.¹
Wilson was neglected; and, by degrees, neglected his art to apply himself to
brandy. His band became unsteady, so that it was only by repealed attempts that
he could reach the place, or produce the effect he aimed at; and when he had
done a little to a picture, he would say to any acquaintance who chanced to
drop in, ŒI have painted enough for one day: come let us go somewhere.¹ It was
not so Claude left his pictures, or his studies on the banks of the Tiber, to
go in search of other enjoyments, or ceased to gaze upon the glittering sunny
vales and distant hills; and while his eye drank in the clear sparkling hues
and lovely forms of Nature, his hand stamped them on the lucid canvas to remain
there forever! One of the most delightful parts of my life was one fine
summer, when I used to walk out of an evening to catch the last light of the
sun, gemming the green slopes or russet lawns, and gilding tower or tree, while
the blue sky gradually turning to purple and gold, or skirted with dusky grey,
hung its broad marble pavement over all, as we see it in the great master of
Italian landscape. But to come to a more particular explanation of the subject.
The first head I ever
tried to paint was an old woman with the upper part of the face shaded by her
bonnet, and I certainly laboured it with great perseverance. It took me
numberless sittings to do it. I have it by me still, and sometimes look at it
with surprise, to think how much pains were thrown away to little purpose,‹yet
not altogether in vain, if it taught me to see good in everything, and to know
that there is nothing vulgar in Nature seen with the eye of science or of true
art. Refinement creates beauty everywhere: it is the grossness of the spectator
that discovers nothing but grossness in the object. Be this as it may, I spared
no pains to do my best. If art was long, I thought that life was so too at that
moment. I got in the general effect the first day; and pleased and surprised
enough I was at my success. The rest was a work of time‹of weeks and months (if
need were) of patient toil and careful finishing. I had seen an old head by
Rembrandt at Burleigh House, and if I could produce a head at all like
Rembrandt in a year, in my life-time, it would be glory and felicity, and
wealth and fame enough for me! The head I had seen at Burleigh was an exact and
wonderful facsimile of Nature, and I resolved to make mine (as nearly as I
could) an exact facsimile of Nature. I did not then, nor do I now believe, with
Sir Joshua, that the perfection of art consists in giving general appearances
without individual details, but in giving general appearances with individual
details. Otherwise, I had done my work the first day. But I saw something more
in Nature than general effect, and I thought it worth my while to give it in
the picture. There was a gorgeous effect of light and shade: but there was a
delicacy as well as depth in the chiaro scuro, which I was bound to follow into all its dim and
scarce perceptible variety of tone and shadow. Then I had to make the
transition from a strong light to as dark a shade, preserving the masses, but
gradually softening off the intermediate parts. It was so in Nature: the difficulty
was to make it so in the copy. I tried, and failed again and again; I strove
harder, and succeeded, as I thought. The wrinkles in Rembrandt were not hard
lines; but broken and irregular. I saw the same appearance in Nature, and
strained every nerve to give it. If I could hit off this crumbling appearance,
and insert the reflected light in the furrows of old age in half a morning, I
did not think I had lost a day. Beneath the shrivelled yellow parchment look of
the skin, there was here and there a streak of the blood-colour tinging the
face; this I made a point of conveying, and did not cease to compare what I saw
with what I did (with jealous lynx-eyed watchfulness) till I succeeded to the
best of my ability and judgement. How many revisions were there! How many
attempts to catch an expression which I had seen the day before! How often did
we strive to get the old position, and wait for the return of the same light!
There was a puckering up of the lips, a cautious introversion of the eye under
the shadow of the bonnet, indicative of the feebleness and suspicion of old
age, which at last we managed, after many trials and some quarrels, to a
tolerable nicety. The picture was never finished, and I might have gone on with
it to the present hour. I used to set it on the ground when my day's work was
done, and saw revealed to me with swimming eyes the birth of new hopes, and of
a new world of objects.
The painter thus learns
to look at Nature with different eyes. He before saw her Œas in a glass darkly,
but now face to face.¹ He understands the texture and meaning of the visible
universe, and 'sees into the life of things,''' not by the help of mechanical
instruments, but of the improved exercise of his faculties, and an intimate
sympathy with Nature. The meanest thing is not lost upon him, for he looks at
it with an eye to itself. not merely to his own vanity or interest, or the
opinion of the world. Even where there is neither beauty nor use‹if that ever
were‹still there is truth, and a sufficient source of gratification in the
indulgence of curiosity and activity of mind. The humblest painter is a true
scholar; and the best of scholars‹the scholar of Nature. For myself, and for
the real comfort and satisfaction of the thing, I had rather have been Jan Steen
or Gerard Dow than the greatest casuist or philologer that ever lived. The
painter does not view things in clouds or Œmist, the common gloss of
theologians,¹ but applies the same standard of truth and disinterested spirit
of inquiry, that influence his daily practice, to other subjects. He perceives
form; he distinguishes character. He reads men and books with an intuitive
glance. He is a critic as well as a connoisseur. The conclusions he draws are
clear and convincing, because they are taken from actual experience. He is not
a fanatic, a dupe, or a slave; for the habit of seeing for himself also
disposes him to judge for himself. The most sensible men I know (taken as a
class) are painters; that is, they are the most lively observers of what passes
in the world about them, and the closest observers of what passes in their own
minds. From their profession they in general mix more with the world than
authors; and if they have not the same fund of acquired knowledge, are obliged
to rely more on individual sagacity. I might mention the names of Opie, Fuseli,
Northcote, as persons distinguished for striking description and acquaintance
with the subtle traits of character. Painters in ordinary society, or in
obscure situations where their value is not known, and they are treated with
neglect and indifference, have sometimes a forward self-sufficiency of manner:
but this is not so much their fault as that of others. Perhaps their want of
regular education may also be in fault in such cases. Richardson, who is very
tenacious of the respect in which the profession ought to be held, tells a
story of Michael Angelo, that after a quarrel between him and Pope Julius II,
Œupon account of a slight the artist conceived the pontiff had put upon him,
Michael Angelo was introduced by a bishop, who, thinking to serve the artist by
it, made it an argument that the Pope should be reconciled to him, because men
of his profession were commonly ignorant, and of no consequence otherwise: his
holiness, enraged at the bishop, struck him with his staff, and told him, it
was he that was the blockhead, and affronted the man himself would not offend;
the prelate was driven out of the chamber, and Michael Angelo had the Pope¹s
benediction accompanied with presents. This bishop had fallen into the vulgar
error, and was rebuked accordingly.¹
Besides the employment of
the mind, painting exercises the body. It is a mechanical as well as a liberal
art. To do anything, to dig a hole in the ground, to plant a cabbage, to hit a
mark, to move a shuttle, to work a pattern, in a word, to attempt to produce
any effect, and to succeed, has something in it that gratifies the love of
power, and carries off the restless activity of the mind of man. Indolence is a
delightful but distressing state: we must be doing something to be happy.
Action is no less necessary than thought to the instinctive tendencies of the
human frame: and painting combines them both incessantly. The hand furnishes a
practical test of the correctness of the eye; and the eye, thus admonished,
imposes fresh tasks of skill and industry upon the hand. Every stroke tells, as
the verifying of a new truth; and every new observation, the instant it is
made, passes into an act and emanation of the will. Every step is nearer what
we wish, and yet there is always more to do. In spite of the facility, the
fluttering grace, the evanescent hues, that play round the pencil of Rubens and
Vandyke, however I may admire, I do not envy them this power so much as I do
the slow, patient, labourious execution of Correggio, Leonardo da Vinci, and
Andrea del Sarto, where every touch appears conscious of its charge, emulous of
truth, and where the painful artist has so distinctly wrought,
ŒThat you might almost say his picture thought!¹
In the one case, the colours
seem breathed on the canvas as by magic, the work and the wonder of a moment:
in the other, they seem inlaid in the body of the work, and as if it took the
artist years of unremitting labour, and of delightful never-ending progress to
perfection. Who would wish ever to come to the close of such works, ‹not to
dwell on them, to return to them, to be wedded to them to the last? Rubens,
with his florid, rapid style, complained that when he had just learned his art,
he should be forced to die, Leonardo, in the slow advances of his, had lived
long enough!
Painting is not, like
writing, what is properly understood by a sedentary employment. It requires not
indeed a strong, but a continued and sleady exertion of muscular power. The
precision and delicacy of the manual operation makes up for the want of
vehemence, ‹as to balance himself for any time in the same position the
ropedancer must strain every nerve. Painting for a whole morning gives one as
excellent an appetile for one's dinner, as old Abraham Tucker acquired for his
by riding over Banstead Downs. It is related of Sir Joshua Reynolds, that Œhe
took no other exercise than what he used in his painting-room,¹‹the writer
means, in walking backwards and forwards to look at his picture; but the act of
painting itself, of laying on the colours in the proper place and proper
quantity, was a much harder exercise than this alternate receding from and
returning to the picture. The last would be rather a relaxation and relief than
an effort. It is not to be wondered at, that an artist like Sir Joshua, who
delighted so much in the sensual and practical part of his art, should have
found himself at a considerable loss when the decay of his sight precluded him,
for the last year or two of his life, from the following up of his
profession,‹Œthe source,¹
according to his own remark, Œof thirty years¹ uninterrupted enjoyment and
prosperity to him.¹ It is only those who never think at all, or else who have
accustomed themselves to brood invariably on abstract ideas, that never feel ennui.
To give one instance
more, and then I will have done with this rambling discourse. One of my first
attempts was a picture of my father, who was then in a green old age with
strong-marked features, and scarred with the small-pox. I drew it with a broad
light crossing the face, looking down, with spectacles on, reading. The book
was Shaftesbury¹s Characteristics, in a fine old binding, with Gribelin¹s
etchings. My father would as lieve it had been any other book: but for him to
read was to be content, was Œriches fineless.¹ The sketch promised well; and I
set to work to finish it, determined to spare no time nor pains. My father was
willing to sit as long as I pleased; for there is a natural desire in the mind
of man to sit for one¹s picture, to be the object of continued attention, to
have one's likeness multiplied; and besides his satisfaction in the picture, he
had some pride in the artist, though he would rather I should have written a
sermon than painted like Rembrandt or like Raphael. Those winter days, with the
gleams of sunshine coming through the chapel-windows, and cheered by the notes
of the robin-redbreast in our garden (that Œever in the haunch of winter
sings¹)‹as my afternoon¹s work drew to a close,‹were among the happiest of my life. When I gave the effect I
intended to any part of the picture for which I had prepared my colours, when I
imitated the roughness of the skin by a lucky stroke of the pencil, when I hit
the clear pearly tone of a vein, when I gave the ruddy complexion of health,
the blood circulating under the broad shadows of one side of the face, I
thought my fortune made; or rather it was already more than made, in my
fancying that I might one day be able to say with Correggio, ŒI also am a
painter!¹ It was an idle thought, a boy¹s conceit; but it did not make me less
happy at the time. I used regularly to set my work in the chair to look at it
through the long evenings; and many a time did I return to take leave of it,
before I could go to bed at night. I remember sending it with a throbbing heart
to the Exhibition, and seeing it hung up there by the side of one of the
Honourable Mr. Skeffington (now Sir George). There was nothing in common
between them, but that they were the portraits of two very good-natured men. I
think, but am not sure, that I finished this portrait (or another afterwards)
on the same day that the new's of the battle of Austerlitz came; I walked out
in the afternoon, and, as I returned, saw the evening star set over a poor
man's cottage with other thoughts and feelings than I shall ever have again. Oh
for the revolution of the great Platonic year, that those times might come over
again! I could sleep out the three hundred and sixty-five thousand intervening
years very contentedly! The picture is left: the table, the chair, the window
where I learned to construe Livy, the chapel where my father preached, remain
where they were; but he himself is gone to rest, full of years, of faith, of
hope, and charity!