mechanical invention, mechanical knowledge, and even a mechanical theory of the universe, have so influenced the average modern mind, that it has been thought necessary in the foregoing pages to speak out strongly against the idea of a mechanical standard of accuracy in artistic drawing. if there were such a standard, the photographic camera would serve our purpose well enough. and, considering how largely this idea is held, one need not be surprised that some painters use the camera; indeed, the wonder is that they do not use it more, as it gives in some perfection the mechanical accuracy which is all they seem to aim at in their work. there may be times when the camera can be of use to artists, but only to those who are thoroughly competent to do without it—to those who can look, as it were, through the photograph and draw from it with the same freedom and spontaneity with which they would draw from nature, thus avoiding its dead mechanical accuracy, which is a very difficult thing to do. but the camera is a convenience to be avoided by the student.

now, although it has been necessary to insist strongly on the difference between phenomena mechanically recorded and the records of a living individual consciousness, i should be very sorry if 287anything said should lead students to assume that a loose and careless manner of study was in any way advocated. the training of his eye and hand to the most painstaking accuracy of observation and record must be the student's aim for many years. the variations on mechanical accuracy in the work of a fine draughtsman need not be, and seldom are, conscious variations. mechanical accuracy is a much easier thing to accomplish than accuracy to the subtle perceptions of the artist. and he who cannot draw with great precision the ordinary cold aspect of things cannot hope to catch the fleeting aspect of his finer vision.

those artists who can only draw in some weird fashion remote from nature may produce work of some interest; but they are too much at the mercy of a natural trick of hand to hope to be more than interesting curiosities in art.

the object of your training in drawing should be to develop to the uttermost the observation of form and all that it signifies, and your powers of accurately portraying this on paper.

unflinching honesty must be observed in all your studies. it is only then that the "you" in you will eventually find expression in your work. and it is this personal quality, this recording of the impressions of life as felt by a conscious individual that is the very essence of distinction in art.

the "seeking after originality" so much advocated would be better put "seeking for sincerity." seeking for originality usually resolves itself into running after any peculiarity in manner that the changing fashions of a restless age may throw up. one of the most original men who ever lived did not trouble to invent the plots of more than three 288or four of his plays, but was content to take the hackneyed work of his time as the vehicle through which to pour the rich treasures of his vision of life. and wrote:

"what custom wills in all things do you do it."

individual style will come to you naturally as you become more conscious of what it is you wish to express. there are two kinds of insincerity in style, the employment of a ready-made conventional manner that is not understood and that does not fit the matter; and the running after and laboriously seeking an original manner when no original matter exists. good style depends on a clear idea of what it is you wish to do; it is the shortest means to the end aimed at, the most apt manner of conveying that personal "something" that is in all good work. "the style is the man," as flaubert says. the splendour and value of your style will depend on the splendour and value of the mental vision inspired in you, that you seek to convey; on the quality of the man, in other words. and this is not a matter where direct teaching can help you, but rests between your own consciousness and those higher powers that move it.