ReynoldsとHazlitt

Abstract

This paper deals with the difference between Reynolds and Hazlitt. The difference between their thoughts arises from their different standpoints, that Reynolds is a classicist, and Hazlitt is a romanticist. Reynolds lectures his students on how to bocome valuable painters in his Discourses. According to his opinion, a painter's aim is to describe the ideal beauty. The way of describing it is called the sublime style. In order to get it, the students must imitate natural objects, which shows his empirical point of view. But it can not be gotten only by a mere imitation of nature. It exists not in nature but in the soul of a painter, which shows his subjective point of view. Hazlitt also has an empirical and subjective point of view. But he can not agree with Reynolds because Reynolds, a classicist, thinks that the ideal is general and not extreme, while Hazlitt, a romanticist, places much emphasis on particularity and the extreme. Hazlitt thinks that Reynolds's ideal tendency is too strong, and Reynolds should look on nature more carefully. Hazlitt can find harmony in nature, but Reynolds considers nature imperfect because of his poor observation, and tries to find the ideal in the soul of a painter.