painters, and all great artists of
primitive periods, being attracted only by the silhouette, became very
subtle to observe nature's outlines in their most intelligible
character, and to this capacity is due their "beauty of line," and not
to any preconceived notion of an abstract line of perfect beauty, and
nowhere will "beauty of line" be found on Greek vases, or elsewhere,
that is not informed by, and does not express, a fine conception of
nature's contours. So too in later three-dimensional drawing there is no
beauty of line which does not intelligibly express not only the
directions and angles of the main contour, but the inner modelling, i.e.
the relief of the figure. It is only a superficial judgment that would
prefer one drawing to another, even if both may be equally good, because
the line of one is neat and the other "tormented." Contour being _in
nature_ an ideal line between one form and another, it is illogical to
treat it or criticize it in a _drawing_ as an actual and specific thing,
apart from the forms that make it and are made by it. If an artist drew
a dragon with deliberate disregard for animal construction, his drawing
would be silly, and only by a profound knowledge of the forms of nature
could it be made to have beautiful lines. Truth to nature is always
originality, and it is the only originality worth the name.

Again, some people judge one drawing as better than another in that it
shows more "individuality" or "temperament." Now a man's individuality
is, presumably, a vague feeling in our minds produced by the net result
of the ways in which he sees, hears, loves, thinks and so on, so that we
could not tell a man's individuality from any single one of his
manifestations. With his entire work as an artist before us, i.e. his
manner of seeing, we could do no more than infer, with the help of
outside data, from the subjects he chooses, and the neatness or boldness
of his line, something about his general character, and that with small
degree of certainty. To regard a man's works of art, or indeed any of
his manifestations, from this point of view, is, after all, nothing but
a kind of inquisitive cheiromancy. Those who pretend to like the
drawings of Watteau or Michelangelo "because they show more
individuality" than the incompetent work of a beginner or poor artist
cannot be skilled in their own business, because the lady who tells your
character by your handwriting finds as much individuality in