command to alter this or that, to lengthen here or to shorten there, but it is rather an inquiry as to the reason for these differences, followed by a further examination of the subject, until the student grasps the full meaning of what he sees and thereafter draws it rightly. If the subject be a group of articles of common use there will be first an inquiry into the intention of the maker and his reasons for so making them. The limitations of the material will be considered, and after these the particular aspect of each article due to its position. Finally comes the relation of all the articles to each other and to the mass formed by them all as a group. Analysis first and then synthesis, with the emphasis upon the latter.

Passing to the more advanced work, drawing from Life is being taught on newer and far better lines than formerly. For many years there was but one recognized way of approach to the Life-class, and that was by prolonged study of the Antique. This method tended to produce painstaking students but not artists. Drawing from the Antique was a matter of incessant measurement and of intensely careful copying of surface forms, but not a question of movement and balance and of structure treated as a means to an end. The student fresh from the Antique school found the living figure perplexing, elusive, and very unlike all that he had become used to. Often, too, he realized that he had lost his old freshness and that nothing could recall it.

The remedy is found in a return to a more natural manner. If a boy says, "I want to draw people," the reply is, "Then, draw them." Starting with such knowledge as he has, the boy draws figures, living people doing this and that, with spirit and energy. Becoming

conscious of mistakes and of gaps in his knowledge, he is set to look for the truth and to fill the gaps. From the first he seeks for natural action, he learns to balance his figures truly, and instead of becoming jaded he grows keener, more critical, but with ever-increasing command of his subject, his materials, and himself. Instead of confining Life-drawing to the copy of a model in a rigid pose there is now a movement in favour of drawing from the moving figure. The difference is enormous, for the student realizes what movement actually looks like and how it can be suggested, while the teacher realizes the utter fallacy of a fixed pose purporting to represent action.

The teaching of Design also has changed utterly. The old idea of basing everything on the fitting of a plant into a set space has given place to an intelligent understanding of what decoration really means. Better still, the student is taught to derive his rules from experiment instead of accepting them ready-made. The decorator learns where and when to use effects that are restful or stimulating, neither shackled by timidity nor betrayed by ignorant rashness. The weaver learns to produce sobriety or brilliance, richness or delicacy, and to make a few colours do the work of many. The calico-printer is taught how to plan his patterns to suit the different races who will use them, and so to master the use of colour that he can vary his patterns in a dozen different ways without loss of harmony and without waste. The wood-carver is helped to discover how best to add beauty to his wood and to bring a fresh charm into both building and furniture. In like manner the metal-worker, the printer, the lithographer, the embroideress, and the dress-designer, learn not only the methods of their

craft but the true object of their work. In every case the possibilities of the material are first considered, then the end in view and the best way to reach it.

Instead of praising wasteful elaboration the new teaching exalts sound workmanship with simplicity. Just so much decoration as shows the joy of the workman in his work, and makes the best of the materials, and brings brightness into dull places-that is the new ideal, not yet sought by all, but pursued eagerly by those to whom Art is a precious part of our national life, not to be sacrificed without irreparable loss.

Whether it be in the Elementary, the Secondary, or the Art School, the new teaching is based on the close relation between the physical and the spiritual sides of life. Since we see with our eyes let us also understand with our hearts, so that we may delight in beauty rather than in ugliness; for if the bodily eye learns to delight in things that are pure and simple and true the eyes of the spirit will be opened to see them

too.

CHAPTER XI

HANDWORK

BY GEORGE F. JOHNSON, M.A.

BEFORE proceeding to animadvert on the teaching of handwork in the future it will be well to consider first a general brief review of its tendencies in the past. The employment of practical means by the use of various material had been advocated from the time of the very early philosophers down to those more specifically drawn towards education, like Pestalozzi, Comenius, Froebel, and others. It was practised, in an insidious manner, in this country by men who believed in "learning by doing" until it became more generally known, when it was styled "technical" education, and received some amount of public recognition from the Education Department of twenty or thirty years ago. From this humble beginning as technical instruction it developed more generally, and was styled manual instruction or manual training; by these appellations it remained known and recognized, until a few years ago the Board of Education rechristened it "Handicraft." It may not appear obvious to all, but there is a significance in each of these titles to the work comparable to the attitude of mind at the time, and expressing a development of thought embodied in the work as carried on under each of its separate names. To begin with, technical

instruction—its earliest name-was a mere groping for something better; it was not technical instruction in that it was not preparing a boy for a technical pursuit, but it was at that time thought to be useful for a boy of twelve years to know how to handle tools, and in so far it was technical in its teaching. But that was not the idea, because it aimed at something more than teaching a boy the use of tools in conjunction with wood; it meant to train a boy's hands so that he might be a better builder, or engineer, and so it developed into manual training or manual instruction. This was subsequently found to be deficient in expressing the real idea of the work, for its purpose had attained a higher significance than a mere training of hand, and perhaps eye as well, though that was not included in the title. However, "handicraft" appeared in the "code," and manual instruction disappeared. Certainly this new term was less specific, but it did no more than the previous title to express the ideas held by those chiefly responsible for the progress of this aspect of educational work. So we arrive at the generic term "educational handwork," embracing all activities with materials in our schools from kindergarten onwards. At the same time, throughout this developmental process in regard to handwork (or handicraft) for older boys-that is, from twelve to fourteen years in the Elementary School -various attempts were made to introduce handwork for younger children such as "Varied Occupations," cardboard modelling, paper folding, and the like. These had but fleeting popularity due largely to the narrow conception held by those who attempted to teach them; it was hand and eye training, and little more was attempted, largely because nothing more than this