re never
intended to suggest colour, nor do they. Yet, in spite of the failure to
succeed, and contrary to logical argument and the practice of great
draughtsmen, the student of most of the schools of Europe and America
still persists in doing the hair dark, and, by attempting to give colour
values to the clothes, breaks up the consistency of the whole. For the
same reason that the sculptor uses uniformly coloured material in order
that the natural light and shade may have full opportunity of making his
forms manifest to the spectator, the draughtsman confines himself to
giving light and shade only. If a monochrome has "colour tones," the
effect is similar to that produced by a draped statue made out of
variously coloured marbles--an inartistic jumble.

As the immediate purpose and content of drawing there remains the
representation of form only. Drawing is, therefore, essentially the same
activity as sculpture, and has no additional scope. "Pupils," says
Donatello, "I give you the whole art of sculpture when I tell you to
draw" (cited by Holroyd, _Michel Angelo_, p. 2 95), and the only
practical teaching of drawing might be summed up by the inversion of the
above.

Now if everything in nature--men, mountains or clouds--were as flat
targets, i.e. two-dimensional, drawing could be legitimately reduced to
a mechanical process,--to trace their contours upon a glass screen or
even photograph them would be all that would be required. Indeed,
provided the size of the drawing, the local colour and the texture be
the same as those of the original, a complete illusion would be the
result, in fact the proper end of one's labours. But the presence of the
third dimension in all objects causes light and shade, which in their
turn bring about radical changes of the local colour, even in uniformly
coloured objects. Now since drawing cannot suggest colour, local or
atmospherical, any attempt to effect an illusion by a monochrome is at
once defeated. If the end of drawing were to approach imitation or
illusion as nearly as possible, how is it that a mere "sketch" by a
master draughtsman can be for itself as valuable as his highly finished
drawing? And surely a masterly outline drawing of a figure or landscape
does not pretend to be an illusion. If then the draughtsman does not,
and cannot hope to imitate nature, he is compelled to state only his
ideas of it, ideas of three-dimensional form. For this reason only
drawing must be treated