sight was what he meant to represent, he had un-
consciously preferred a beauty or an interest of
things different from what his neighbour liked.

"The colour of each painting was different --
the vivacity of colour and tone, the distinctness of
each part in relation to the whole; and each pic-
ture would have been recognized anywhere as a
specimen of work by each one of us, characteristic
of our names. And we spent on the whole affair
perhaps twenty minutes.

"I wish you to understand, again, that we each
thought and felt as if we had been photographing
the matter before us. We had not the first desire
of expressing ourselves, and I think would have
been very much worried had we not felt that each
one was true to nature. . . . And we were each one
true to nature. . . . If you ever know how to paint
somewhat well, and pass beyond the position of
the student who has not yet learned to use his
hands as an expression of the memories of his
brain, you will always give to nature, that is to
say, what is outside of you, the character of the
lens through which you see it -- which is yourself."

Such bits of testimony from painters help
us to understand the brief sayings of the
critics, like Taine's well-known "Art is na-
ture seen through a temperament," G. L.
Raymond's "Art is nature made human,"
and Croce's "Art is the expression of im-
pressions." These painters and critics agree,
evidently, that the mind of the artist is an

-33-