THAT SCULPTURE IS LESS INTELLECTUAL THAN PAINTING, AND LACKS MANY
CHARACTERISTICS OF NATURE.

I myself, having exercised myself no less in sculpture than in
painting and doing both one and the other in the same degree, it
seems to me that I can, without invidiousness, pronounce an opinion
as to which of the two is of the greatest merit and difficulty and
perfection. In the first place sculpture requires a certain light,
that is from above, a picture carries everywhere with it its own
light and shade. Thus sculpture owes its importance to light and
shade, and the sculptor is aided in this by the nature, of the
relief which is inherent in it, while the painter whose art
expresses the accidental aspects of nature, places his effects in
the spots where nature must necessarily produce them. The sculptor
cannot diversify his work by the various natural colours of objects;
painting is not defective in any particular. The sculptor when he
uses perspective cannot make it in any way appear true; that of the
painter can appear like a hundred miles beyond the picture itself.
Their works have no aerial perspective whatever, they cannot
represent transparent bodies, they cannot represent luminous bodies,
nor reflected lights, nor lustrous bodies--as mirrors and the like
polished surfaces, nor mists, nor dark skies, nor an infinite number
of things which need not be told for fear of tedium. As regards the
power of resisting time, though they have this resistance [Footnote
19: From what is here said as to painting on copper it is very
evident that Leonardo was not acquainted with the method of painting
in oil on thin copper plates, introduced by the Flemish painters of
the XVIIth century. J. LERMOLIEFF has already pointed out that in
the various collections containing pictures by the great masters of
the Italian Renaissance, those painted on copper (for instance the
famous reading Magdalen in the Dresden Gallery) are the works of a
much later date (see _Zeitschrift fur bildende Kunst_. Vol. X pg.
333, and: _Werke italienischer Master in den Galerien von Munchen,
Dresden und Berlin_. Leipzig 1880, pg. 158 and 159.)--Compare No.
654, 29.], a picture painted on thick copper covered with white
enamel on which it is painted with enamel colours and then put into
the fire again and baked, far exceeds sculpture in permanence. It
may be said that if a mistake is made it is not easy to remedy it;
it is but a poor argument to try to prove that a work be the nobler
because oversights are irremediable; I should rather say that it
will be more difficult to improve the mind of the master who makes
such mistakes than to repair the work he has spoilt.