with the idea. The problem with Ruskin's work and his ability to evaluate art around him are of two kinds. The first being he seems to be in limbo as to what is more important in the creation of art. The quality of the replication of the world around, or the visual representative of the human spirit and imagination. In his book "The Two Paths" he talks of how nature without the touch of humans, although beautiful, is lacking somewhat, "...aware how much of its charm depended on the little gracefulnesses and tendernesses of human work" (Ruskin, 1884, 02), this quote referring to the mountain scenery around him. Yet in a lot of his work he argues almost the opposite, being that the visual truth is the principle factor of artistic excellence. These two underlying ideas form much of the books arguments, and the conversation is nearly always lead back to what is more important, visual representation or spiritual representation. However he does manage to 'agree' with himself some of the time, where he decides that the 'greatness of art' is found when an artist is able to create a manifestation of both the wonders of nature and the compositional elements of the human mind, "First, the earnest and intense seizing of natural facts: then the ordering of those facts by the strength of human intellect, so as to make them, for all who look upon them, to the utmost serviceable, memorable, and beautiful" (Ruskin, 1884, 40). Later however he goes on to contradict himself by stating that art can contain beauty without the symbolic use of nature, " You have often to obtain beauty and display invention without direct representation of nature" (Ruskin, 1884, 41). I believe it to be wrong to make such a generalisation
             ...