If it is impressed on our minds in infancy, that a certain arbitrary symbol indicates an existing fact; if this same association of emblem and reality is reiterated at the preparatory school, insisted upon at college, and pronounced correct at the university; symbol and fact–or supposed fact–become so intimately blended that it is extremely difficult to disassociate them, even when reason and personal observation teaches us they have no true relationship.
So it is with the conventional galloping horse; we have become so accustomed to see it in art that it has imperceptibly dominated our understanding, and we think the representation to be unimpeachable, until we throw all our preconceived impressions on one side, and see the truth by independent observation from Nature herself. During the past few years the artist has become convinced that this definition of the horse’s gallop does not harmonize with his own unbiased impression, and he is making rapid progress in his efforts to sweep away prejudice, and effect the complete reform that is gradually but surely coming.
The great painter Meissonier … came to our laboratory concerned with the gaits of the horse which he was trying to represent exactly. When he saw the first photographic analyses that we presented to him, he gave a cry of astonishment and accused our camera of seeing falsely. When you give me a horse galloping like this one–and he showed one of his sketches–then I shall be satisfied with your invention. But photography has proved the painters wrong and they have had to modify the gaits of their horses and like the others, Meissonier obeyed the photograph in the end.
It’s darkness that enables us to see light, and too much light blinds us. A big fan of darkness and its color–BLACK.