Professor Charles H. Moore has an article in the October number of the "Atlantic Monthly" on "John Ruskin as an Art Critic." The article is mainly an analysis of Ruskin's theories as expressed in "Modern Painters," justifying Ruskin's general criticism.

The middle of the nineteenth century was marked in the world of art as a time of very conventional notions. These notions had been a gradual growth of the teachings of the decadent period in Italian art, with additions from the "pseudo-classicism of Winckelmann and the pedantic antiquarianism of the school of David." The ideals and impulses of the Renaissance by the seventeenth century had lost hold on the artistic imagination in its creative faculty. English landscape painting was involved in mannerisms derived from the landscape backgrounds of the conventional historic figure painting. The Dutch landscape art, while free from these peculiarities and laboriously exact in portrayal of detail, was entirely unimaginative in its inattention to that most worthy of expression. During the early part of the nineteenth century, however, a new tendency appeared toward a more feeling expression of the various moods and aspects of nature. The men first in this movement were unfortunately limited in technical power and it was not until the time of Turner that the new art found its full expression. The art of Turner was stamped with the creative spirit and governed by an insight that bodies forth with the finest expressive characters, an ideal conception. Dealing with new materials and new motives, his art was unconventional. To the other artists of the day it was entirely incomprehensible and accordingly it was condemned at once.

It was at this time that Ruskin came forward with his first volume "in defence of the new landscape art in general, and of the art of Turner in particular." Ruskin saw that "what Turner sought was the ideal truth of nature, that he portrayed Nature in her 'supreme moments,' in her finest forms and in her vital energy,-Nature as she was revealed to a discriminating eye, and to the poetic imagination." With this feeling he began his essay on 'Modern Painters' that grew to five volumes.

The affirmation is untrue that according to Ruskin, perfection of art consists in exact imitation of nature. In the opening of "Modern Painters" he defines great art as that which conveys to the mind the greatest number of the greatest ideas, and he distinctly asserts later that there is a distinction to be drawn between representative art and art as such, in itself. In "Modern Painters," how- ever, Ruskin deals primarily with landscape painting, and landscape art, being a representative art, therefore needs to be truthful. Recognizing this, Ruskin attempts to vindicate Turner on the score of truth, although he nowhere maintains that this truth constitutes the essential character of Turner's art, or any other art. But there are he maintains different orders of truths with which the artist may be concerned. There are the more obvious, unessential and trivial truths of nature, and those which are more recondite, fundamental and characteristic. It is the latter and not the former, to which, as he teaches, Turner's art gives expression. These higher orders of visual truths are, however, not those which are commonly perceived. "People commonly," he tells us, "recognize objects by their least important attributes. To lay hold of the non fundamental and expressive truths, in the manner of Turner, requires a higher order of artistic gift, and to appreciate them requires ocular training, as well as natural aptitude."

An essential feature of Ruskin's philosophy of art is the affirmation of the influence upon art of moral conditions and the reaction of art itself on moral character. That moral conditions influence the arts is a proposition little doubted now. That the duty of the fine arts is to perfect the morality or ethical state of men is a proposition, however, that has laid Ruskin open to much criticism. History shows that Ruskin was probably mistaken in this respect. Ruskin's philosophy of art in "Modern Painters," will in the main, however, be found entirely sound though overstatements, and even errors are not wanting. "It has not always been correctly represented. It has in fact not seldom been inexcusably represented. This work is in the main sound and illuminating. It is on the highest plane of thought and feeling; and no criticism can rob it of its enduring value. It is full of inspiration which lifts the mind continually into the realm of the ideal.