that the imitation, the repetition, is comparatively easy. He who would bring out Gothic art (and but little of it has hitherto been brought out) must himself be a poet, and what a mine of wealth there is open to him! Would that genuine art fever would attack our artists and that some of the treasures that lie hid in the granite quarries of the Norse mythology might speedily be exhumed!
In his work, entitled Science of Beauty, Dr. John Bascom has taken decided grounds against nude figures in art. We would recommend the eighth chapter of that work to the careful consideration of the reader. We are not able for want of space to give his opinion in full, but make the following brief extract:
There is one direction in which art has indulged itself in a
most marked violation of propriety, and that too on the side of
vice. I refer to the frequent nudity of its figures. This is a
point upon which artists have been pretty unanimous, and disposed
to treat the opinions of others with hauteur and disdain,
as arising at best from a virtue more itching and sensitive than
wise, from instincts more physical than æsthetical. This practice
has been more abused in painting than in sculpture, both as less
needed, and hence less justifiable, and as ever tending to become
more loose and lustful in the double symbols of color and form,
than when confined to the pure, stern use of the latter in stone
or metal. Despite alleged necessities,—despite the high-toned
claims and undisguised contempt of artists,—our convictions are
strongly against the practice, as alike injurious to taste and
morals. Indeed, if injurious to morals, it cannot be otherwise
than injurious to taste, since art has no more dangerous enemy
than a lascivious perverted fancy.
Nay, in the radiant dawn of our Gothic history
our poets and artists may, if they would but look for
them, find chaste themes to which they may consecrate
the whole ardor of their souls for the æsthetical elevation
and ennoblement of our race. As a people we are
