The true sense of this saying, it seems to us, can be no
other than this--that in all things in Nature, the living idea shows
itself only blindly active; were it so also in the artist, he would be
in nothing distinct from Nature. But, should he attempt consciously to
subordinate himself altogether to the Actual, and render with servile
fidelity the already existing, he would produce _larvae_, but no works
of Art. He must therefore withdraw himself from the product, from the
creature, but only in order to raise himself to the creative energy,
spiritually seizing the same. Thus he ascends into the realm of
pure ideas; he forsakes the creature, to regain it with thousandfold
interest, and in this sense certainly to return to Nature. This spirit
of Nature working at the core of things, and speaking through form
and shape as by symbols only, the artist must certainly follow with
emulation; and only so far as he seizes this with genial imitation
has he himself produced anything genuine. For works produced by
aggregation, even of forms beautiful in themselves, would still be
destitute of all beauty, since that, through which the work on the
whole is truly beautiful, cannot be mere form. It is above form--it
is Essence, the Universal, the look and expression of the indwelling
spirit of Nature.
Now it can scarcely be doubtful what is to be thought of the so-called
idealizing of Nature in Art, so universally demanded.
Pages:
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168