Rules of the Harmony

        Colors and Volumes

               (With a comparative outline on some modern artists)

Today, the visual arts are practised by a crowd of people who speak with much insurance, but do not have any therefore the quite clear concepts of that of which they make profession. No matter who, taking a brush and a pallet furnished with colors says artist, and asserts the rights of them. Moreover, the judgement on the artists is arbitrarily monopolized by literary men in general slightly informed on a question which they treat nevertheless in an extremely peremptory way. This state of affairs turns with such abuse, as well at those which practise arts as at those which claim to judge them, that it calls a reconsideration of the rules.

   The rules are not all. They do not create the talent, but they allow those which have some to take aisement conscience of it, and the whole of the men to avoid the largest mistakes, and on the men and the works.

   Admittedly, the best of the reason consists in knowing by the way to return to the instinct. But it is also in what the instinct has of better than it knows itself failing on many occasion, and than it then requests the contest of the reason by seeking the rules: in a word, the reason is not the enemy of the instinct as it vulgarly is believed since it is precisely the instinct which, in a reflex of defense, fact call with the reason.

   It is thus legitimate, necessary, and sometimes urgent, to stick to the research of the rules concerning an occupation which we follow, or in which we have interests.

   In this profession which is ours, one often says: such is a great painter, or: such is not a great painter, but one never says: what a great painter? One even appears to flee this question, that it would however be essential to pose initially.

   If it is admitted in theory that the art of the drawing and painting is a visual art, it should be also admitted that the law of painting is the light. However, just as the decomposition of the light produces the colors, the recombining of the colors produces the light. It follows that what is called the large colourists being distinguished in what they is painters more luminous than the others, a great painter is fatally an erudite man in science to create light by grouping colors.

But the light would not have a direction in our eye of human without volumes: volumes, indeed, whose aspect is created by the light, represent all our visible universe. The light which lights us emanating from a lighting sphere of other spheres which are the planets, and finally considered by our eye which is itself a volume, one cannot visually more conceive light without volume that of volume without light. Our eye does not know anything dish rigorously, or rather the flat objects are themselves only objects low thickness. It should be concluded from it obligatorily that a great painter has the same concern and the same science of volumes as of the light.

   Seeking the code of practice and painting, we have thus to treat the two essential elements of this art, namely: colors and volumes.

   What does one understand by "the harmony of the colors" to indicate the end which a painter using the grouping of the colors works towards?

   We know on the one hand that the decomposition of the light produces the colors, while the recombining of the colors produces the light, and, on the other hand, that a great painter being defined as a luminous painter, it is characterized by his science to group the colors to draw some from the light. However, a great painter being indifferently defined as a Master in art to create light by grouping colors or as a Master in art to harmonize the colors, it appears obvious that what is called the harmony of the colors is not other than the light produced by an erudite juxtaposition of the colors.

   It is thus important, to know the rules of the harmony of the colors, of knowing how, according to which laws, the great painter groups the colors.

The law of painting being the light, there are two kinds of crippling opposite defects that a painting should not have: if it is painted of a sad and opaque color, it is never beautiful, whatever, in addition, its merits. It cannot be beautiful either if it contains yelling colors, i.e. which, instead of amalgamating the ones with the others, tend to separate from the whole, and "to come ahead". But apart from is an instinctive appreciation which, according to the quality of the judge, can be the truth or the arbitrary one, and in the name of which any assembly of colors can be declared good or bad, possible to support a criticism by a valid and verifiable rule? In is a word, there a definable rule of the harmony of the colors?

   Yes, this rule exists.

   The origin and the end of the color being the light, no color can find its end in itself, and exists only compared to all the others. It follows that a color, being intended to take its place in the concert of the colors where it acts jointly of the others to produce the light, should never dominate.

   So that no color dominates, it is conceived easily that it is necessary that each one has the same colouring capacity. However, if the harmony of the colors proceeds of the same phenomenon as the production of the light by the grouping of the colors, we found the formula of the harmony of the colors.

   But when we say "the colors", that we with the Juste indicate? Rigorously speaking there are only three colors: blue, yellow and red, other colors (purple, green, orange) being only colors made up of two of the three preceding ones. What comes down to saying that none of the three basic colors: blue, yellow, red, should not dominate one over the other, under penalty of destroying the harmony.

  The definition of the harmony of the colors can thus be stated as follows: whatever the coloured combination, equivalence of capacity colouring of the three primary colours: blue, yellow, red.

   One could also say that the harmony of the colors is in last fires which the colors throw before being based the ones in the others to form the perfect gray: it is what Van Gogh, in her brilliant instinct of colourist, naively called "what makes beautiful".

   By contrary definition, what is called discordance of color occurs when a color is so violently isolated that the eye must, to try to restore balance, to make a painful effort: it is what one indicates by yelling color, which makes badly with the eyes, which always comes from an error of the men, and not of the nature which never makes any.

   This law of equivalence in content of dye was always, consciously or not, that of the great Masters. The equality of the three basic colors, indeed, is found constantly in the Masters, for example at Rubens, under the aspect of three spots frank, blue, yellow, red, around whose the composition is organized and on which it rests, and finally, in the Wedding at Cana, Véronèse, one checks the perfect distribution of the three primary colours. Nature, of course, is the first, in its various aspects, to illustrate this law: never it supports, as a whole, any color at the expense of the others, and extremely also distributes them. This law is still that of our eye, which wants, for example, that when one has just read a red posting, one sees all in green, or vice versa, which states sufficiently that the three primary colours are a function one of the other and do nothing but offer one aspect different from the same substance.

   The objects of tone neutral, black, gray or white are harmonized by their shades, their lights and their reflections, and the complementary colors are established themselves by the only play of the light which lights them, examples: a sea-blue will have shades charged with orange; a white will have, in its shades and its lights, all the colors of the spectrum.

   I believe about to have said all of main part on the harmony of the colors: I add that the precepts are only used to check a painting: if there is not at the same time an eye more sensitive than a test-tube and a faithful hand maidservant of this eye, the rule will never replace the gift of nature.

   In addition, I do not want to either forget to underline small treasons of the instinct which, if they never occurred, would make obviously any rule useless. Painters of great talent, sometimes of the Masters, did not conform, in such or such work, with the rule which them instinct generally dictated to them: it results from it that these works, full with merits by various sides, are however imperfect. An extremely known example of painting or the equivalence of the three basic colors is not respected, is a small pastel of Manet entitled the blue Settee, on which settee a young woman out of white dress is wide. All in this small table is delicious, except the blue settee, whose arbitrary blue, which does not support anything and is supported per nothing, is yelling. In my youth, I saw this painting for the first time: I found it very pretty, but in addition it caused me a strange faintness, because I did not know why: today, I know it. One could continue to quote examples of errors of harmony among excellent harmonists by the gift -- Manet is without question one of best -- who would show once more than as capital as it is the instinct is however not absolutely infallible.

   As we saw, if the light is the law of visual arts, the inescapable consequences of this law in these same visual arts are the harmony of the colors and volumes. I spoke about the harmony of the colors; it remains me to speak about volumes.

  Certain modern "schools" issued that the concern of translating volumes in the drawing and painting was only one puerile desire of horn-the eye unworthy of art. In addition to such an ostracism against the relief is not justified in any way, and that consequently the axiom which results from it is posed a priori, it is observed that the followers of this opinion, sincere or not, do not draw aside from it less only one blow one of the largest difficulties of painting. It is still observed that, this drawn aside difficulty, painting becomes immediately accessible with all those which are unable to express a volume, i.e. to thousands and thousands of people. Once again, in front of the embarrassment to defend oneself against the despotism of the free assertions and the presumption, for lack of clear definition of the question, it is necessary to send a S.O.S to the rules.

  If one admits, as I mentioned above, than our eye cannot design volume without light nor of light without volume, it follows obligatorily that, the light being the law of visual arts, it cannot y have visual art without volume. It should be concluded from it that a plastic, sincere work or not, which draws aside a priori the problem of volume, must be pitilessly rejected like a heresy.

  Lastly, if volume is a capital element of visual arts, it is obvious that it is desirable, to reach the top of art, that volume is not only volume, but still that it is beautiful. But what does one have to understand by beautiful volume?

  He is obviousness even as all the volumes created by nature are most beautiful that we know. We observe that these volumes at the same time as beautiful are true. What is this with saying? I.e. they express the specific quality with the nature of the objects which they represent: resistance, hardness, transparency, flexibility, elasticity, flexibility, brittleness, inertia, movement, etc. It follows that generally a volume is beautiful insofar as it expresses the specific quality with the nature of the object which he represents. For example, a human body has a thickness, but it is also made bone, muscles, of blood and flesh, and finally it is animated life, movement and voice: this human body, expressed in visual art, must thus offer more than one volume, and must still evoke all the specific qualities with the nature of this body indicated above.

  Thus, armed with a first certainty, namely that visual arts, having for law the light, pose two essential problems: the harmony of the colors and volumes, then provided with the definition of these two problems, we are capable to examine in respect of the rules works of some known modern artists, i.e. to appreciate up to what point they posed the two problems and up to what point they solved them.

   Vlaminck, in respect of the harmony of the colors, is heavy and blackish in its little coloured paintings, but generally yelling when it poses a spot of color. It has the happy ones but rare exceptions. For volumes, in spite of the airs "husky" of a thick paste, it them badly translated: its richness of form  are approximations whose broad blow of peremptory and affirmative brush offers a surface resemblance to the control.

   Segonzac which apparently aims to the distinction of the harmonies, and, like one says, to the "behaviour, makes a great use of mono-chromisme or" broken "colors: it is not there to pose the problem of the harmony of the colors, but to elude it. That does not prevent besides its heavy, cold and opaque greyness from being, and its monochromic compositions to contain tone yelling when they are a little sharp. Like Vlaminck, and him in spite of strong pastings and great blows of trowel, its richness of form are hollow and volumes miss.

   Rouault, generally, is at the same time heavy and yelling in its assemblies of colors. A species of tendency to dirty the tone, attenuates a little what its colors would naturally have of vintage, and its practice all to encircle of large and despotic line black seeks to distract sadness and falseness from its tone neutrals and its gray. As for volumes, it is obvious that it did not propose to treat them: we cannot thus logically reproach him for having failed in a task which it did not undertake. On the other hand, it is allowed to us to reproach him for having deliberately drawn aside one of the fundamental problems of painting, and him to say that one never has the right, when one is a painter, to remove volumes.

   Picasso, which dodges heaviness while falling into the monochromic insipidity, is always yelling when it allows the sharp color. It is belong to impotents of the volume: after having tried to translate it beyond truth by its goldbeater's skins, it took the haughty party to be unaware of it.

   Direct avoids showing its heaviness by adopting the matt matters, and its crudeness as long as it is restricted with the tone beiges and brown. At his place, it is never question of volume.

   During its current time, all the tone of Matisse are frankly yelling: that makes a species of permanence in the yelling one which one should never confuse with the intense one, because it does not reach this point right of harmony - last word - which makes that there are song and not cry. Is it necessary to speak about volumes of Matisse?

  Bonnard can be held for a harmonist of a certain quality, although it does not have a true knowledge of the laws of the harmony, and that its instinct compensates for it only imperfectly: it rather often sometimes happens to him to be somewhat yelling under pretext of " festival of colors " (between brackets, this defect is very widespread today: many painters believe to express " the joy of the color ", by splashing their paintings with any color provided that it is noisy). The problem of volumes, at Bonnard, is deplorably neglected: in its best paintings, it believed sufficient to express them by vague allusions provided that they were pleasant. Visual arts do not consist of signs which it is necessary to translate or of the outlines that the spectator must complete in his spirit. To require of the spectator whom it makes a part of the work which falls to the artist is a sign of weakness at this last: thus the majority of last works of Bonnard are afflicted with this inconsistency by which the forms do not exist so to speak any more.

   Derain is certainly endowed with a very fine direction of the relations of tones. Nevertheless, several of its tables indicate the ignorance of the rules of the harmony of the colors, because its about general distance for the tone sharp can be not regarded a science to be useful of the colors, but as a refusal to make use of it. It did not give up volumes, it has them some times translated nicely, but always the respect does not show them which is owe them.

   Utrillo, in its beautiful time, is admirable: intense and fine. I think that he does not know the rules of the harmony of the colors, but that its instinct compensates for it. Weak in volumes of the human figure, it is remarkably powerful in those of the landscape, particularly the grounds, the skies, the buildings, the walls.

   I excuse myself this dry too short nomenclature to be moderated, but I indicated rules, and rules without examples had been incomplete.