ys combined with the details, or what our
theoretical reasoner would designate as _littleness_ in nature: and so
it ought to be in art, as far as art can follow nature with prudence and
profit. What is the fault of Denner's style?--It is, that he does _not_
give this combination of properties: that he gives only one view of
nature; that he abstracts the details, the finishing, the curiosities of
natural appearances from the general result, truth, and character of the
whole, and in finishing every part with elaborate care, totally loses
sight of the more important and striking appearance of the object as it
presents itself to us in nature. He gives every part of a face; but the
shape, the expression, the light and shade of the whole is wrong, and
as far as can be from what is natural. He gives an infinite variety
of tints of the human face, nor are they subjected to any principle of
light and shade. He is different from Rembrandt or Titian. The English
schools, formed on Sir Joshua's theory, give neither the finishing of
the parts nor the effect of the whole, but an inexplicable dumb mass
without distinction or meaning. They do not do as Denner did, and think
that not to do as he did is to do as Titian and Rembrandt did; I do
not know whether they would take it as a compliment to be supposed
to imitate nature. Some few artists, it must be said, have 'of
late reformed this indifferently among us! Oh! let them reform it
altogether!' I have no doubt they would if they could; but I have
some doubts whether they can or not.--Before I proceed to consider the
question of beauty and grandeur as it relates to the selection of form,
I will quote a few passages from Sir Joshua with reference to what has
been said on the imitation of particular objects. In the Third Discourse
he observes: 'I will now add that nature herself is not to be too
closely copied.... A mere copier of nature _can never produce anything
great; can never raise and enlarge the conceptions, or warm the heart of
the spectator._ The wish of the genuine painter must be more extensive:
instead of endeavouring to amuse mankind with the minute neatness of
his imitations, he must endeavour to improve them by the grandeur of his
ideas; instead of seeking praise by deceiving the superficial sense of
the spectator, he must strive for fame by captivating the imagination.'

From this passage it would surely seem that there was nothing in nature
but minute neatness and superf