Chapter III.—Of Truth of Chiaroscuro.

[§ 1.]We are not at present to examine particular effects of light.[174]
[§ 2.]And therefore the distinctness of shadows is the chief means of expressing vividness of light.[175]
[§ 3.]Total absence of such distinctness in the works of the Italian school.[175]
[§ 4.]And partial absence in the Dutch.[176]
[§ 5.]The perfection of Turner's works in this respect.[177]
[§ 6.]The effect of his shadows upon the light.[178]
[§ 7.]The distinction holds good between almost all the works of the ancient and modern schools.[179]
[§ 8.]Second great principle of chiaroscuro. Both high light and deep shadow are used in equal quantity, and only in points.[180]
[§ 9.]Neglect or contradiction of this principle by writers on art.[180]
[§ 10.]And consequent misguiding of the student.[181]
[§ 11.]The great value of a simple chiaroscuro.[182]
[§ 12.]The sharp separation of nature's lights from her middle tint.[182]
[§ 13.]The truth of Turner.[183]

Chapter IV.—Of Truth of Space:—First, as Dependent on the Focus of the Eye.

[§ 1.]Space is more clearly indicated by the drawing of objects than by their hue.[185]
[§ 2.]It is impossible to see objects at unequal distances distinctly at one moment.[186]
[§ 3.]Especially such as are both comparatively near.[186]
[§ 4.]In painting, therefore, either the foreground or distance must be partially sacrificed.[187]
[§ 5.]Which not being done by the old masters, they could not express space.[187]
[§ 6.]But modern artists have succeeded in fully carrying out this principle.[188]
[§ 7.]Especially of Turner.[189]
[§ 8.]Justification of the want of drawing in Turner's figures.[189]

Chapter V.—Of Truth of Space:—Secondly, as its Appearance is dependent on the Power of the Eye.

[§ 1.]The peculiar indistinctness dependent on the retirement of objects from the eye.[191]
[§ 2.]Causes confusion, but not annihilation of details.[191]
[§ 3.]Instances in various objects.[192]
[§ 4.]Two great resultant truths; that nature is never distinct, and never vacant.[193]
[§ 5.]Complete violation of both these principles by the old masters. They are either distinct or vacant.[193]
[§ 6.]Instances from Nicholas Poussin.[194]
[§ 7.]From Claude.[194]
[§ 8.]And G. Poussin.[195]
[§ 9.]The imperative necessity, in landscape painting, of fulness and finish.[196]
[§ 10.]Breadth is not vacancy.[197]
[§ 11.]The fulness and mystery of Turner's distances.[198]
[§ 12.]Farther illustrations in architectural drawing.[199]
[§ 13.]In near objects as well as distances.[199]
[§ 14.]Vacancy and falsehood of Canaletto.[200]
[§ 15.]Still greater fulness and finish in landscape foregrounds.[200]
[§ 16.]Space and size are destroyed alike by distinctness and by vacancy.[202]
[§ 17.]Swift execution best secures perfection of details.[202]
[§ 18.]Finish is far more necessary in landscape than in historical subjects.[202]
[§ 19.]Recapitulation of the section.[203]