^{page 242 note 1} See above, p. 228.

^{page 242 note 2} The Art of Appreciation (1970) p. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 3} Languages of Art (1968) p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 4} Language of Vision (1961) p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 5} Cf. Rawson, P., Drawing (1969) pp. 246 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 1} Cf. Rogers, L. R., Sculpture (1969) p. 231.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 2} Above, p. 229.

^{page 244 note 1} A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) pt. II § iv.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 2} Cf. Harrison, Andrew, in The Business of Reason, ed. Macintosh and Coval (1969) pp. 127 f.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 3} Languages of Art, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 4} The Voices of Silence (Eng. tr. 1954) p. 616.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 5} I do not mean to imply that Malraux denies art can set forth a view of the world. He acknowledges this, but eloquently emphasises the other side, the distinctive, autonomous values of painting.

^{page 245 note 1} The Life of Forms in Art (1934) 2nd Eng. ed. (1948) p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 2} Transformations (1926) p. 196.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 3} Discourses on Art, Discourse 11.

^{page 246 note 1} See Plate 5, Study of a Garden at Tintern. Compare also Cecil, Lord David, Visionary and Dreamer (1969) pp. 75 f.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 2} See Plate 6.

^{page 247 note 1} Rawson, P., ‘The Methods of Zen Painting’, British Journal of Aesthetics, 1967, p. 335.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} The Philosophy of Fine Art, Introduction.

^{page 247 note 3} Zibaldone, ed. Flora, vol. II, pp. 1230Google Scholar f. Cf. Singh, G., Leopardi and the Theory of Poetry, pp. 112 f.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 1} On Chinese landscape, cf. Osborne, H., The Art of Appreciation, pp. 158Google Scholar f. For Tchelitchew, see Plate 7.

^{page 248 note 2} Body, Soul, Spirit (1966) p. 165.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 1} Tte Meaning of Beauty (1959) (Penguin Books, 1962) p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 1} See Plate 8.

^{page 250 note 2} Landscape: Portrait: Still-Life (1949) pp. 73 f.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 1} Above, p. 240.

^{page 251 note 2} Above, p. 340.

^{page 252 note 1} Drawing, p. 298.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 1} Dewey, John, Art as Experience, pp. 36Google Scholar ff. Zimmerman, R. L., ‘Can Anything be an Aesthetic Object?’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art-Criticism, 1966–1967, p. 184.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 2} Landscape: Portrait: Still-Life, p. 87, my italics.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 1} ‘The Decay of Lying’, in Intention and the Soul of Man (1891)Google Scholar. The whole context is a locus classicus on nature seen in the light of art: e.g., ‘Things are because we see them, and what we see, and how we see it, depends on the Arts that have influenced us.’

^{page 255 note 1} Cf. Goodman, , Languages of Art, pp. 6, 40 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 2} Art as Experience, p. 235.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 3} Review of Metaphysics (1960) pp. 48–56.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 4} Being and Having (Fontana) p. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} The Life of Forms in Art, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 2} Above, p. 234.

^{page 257 note 1} Above, p. 238. I have profited here from a conversation with Mr M. J. Hutchings.

^{page 257 note 2} Above, p. 238.