ur right and left eye each see a portion of the
surface not seen by the other, but for that very reason the portion seen
perfectly with both eyes is _less_ than with one. Thus [_see_ diagram on
next page] we only see from A to A with both our eyes, the two side
portions Ab Ab being seen with but one eye, and therefore (when we are
using both eyes) being seen obscurely. But if we look at a flat object,
whether square or oblique to the line of vision, we see it of exactly
the same size with two eyes as with one because the one eye can see no
part of it that the other does not see also. But in painting I believe
that this difference of proportion, where it does exist, is far too
small to be _given_ by any artist and also too small to affect the
picture if given.

[Illustration]

Again, I entirely deny that by _any means_ the exact effect of a
landscape with objects at various distances from the eye can be given on
a fiat surface; and moreover that the monocular clear outlined view is
quite as true and good on the whole as the binocular hazy outlined view,
and for this reason: we cannot and do not see clearly or look at two
objects at once, if at different distances from us. In a real view our
eyes are directed successively at every object, which we then see
clearly and with distinct outlines, everything else--nearer and
farther--being indistinct; but being able to change the focal angle of
our two eyes and their angle of direction with great rapidity, we are
enabled to glance rapidly at each object in succession and thus obtain a
general and detailed view of the whole. A house, a tree, a spire, the
leaves of a shrub in the foreground, are each seen (while we direct our
eyes to them) with perfect definition and sharpness of outline. Now a
monocular photo gives the clearness of outline and accuracy of
definition, and thus represents every individual part of a landscape
just as we see it when looking at that part. Now I maintain that this is
_right_, because no painting can represent an object both distinct and
indistinct. The only question is, Shall a painting show us objects as we
see them when looking at them, or as we see them when looking at
_something else_ near them? The only approach painters can make to this
varying effect of binocular vision, and what they often do, is to give
the most important and main feature of their painting _distinct_ as we
should see it when looking at it in nature, while all around has a
s