It seemed, two or three years ago, that the limit of mystification had been reached—­that this comedy of errors could not be carried further; but human ingenuity is inexhaustible, and we now have whole schools, Cubists, Futurists, and the like, who joyously vie with each other in the creation of incredible pictures and of irreconcilable and incomprehensible theories.  The public is inclined to lump them all together and, so far as their work is concerned, the public is not far wrong; yet in theory Cubism and Futurism are diametrically opposed to each other.  It is not easy to get any clear conception of the doctrines of these schools, but, so far as I am able to understand them—­and I have taken some pains to do so—­they are something like this: 

Cubism is static; Futurism is kinetic.  Cubism deals with bulk; Futurism deals with motion.  The Cubist, by a kind of extension of Mr. Berenson’s doctrine of “tactile values,” assumes that the only character of objects which is of importance to the artist is their bulk and solidity—­what he calls their “volumes.”  Now the form in which volume is most easily apprehended is the cube; do we not measure by it and speak of the cubic contents of anything?  The inference is easy:  reduce all objects to forms which can be bounded by planes and defined by straight lines and angles; make their cubic contents measurable to the eye; transform drawing into a burlesque of solid geometry; and you have, at once, attained to the highest art.  The Futurist, on the other hand, maintains that we know nothing but that things are in flux.  Form, solidity, weight are illusions.  Nothing exists but motion.  Everything is changing every moment, and if anything were still we ourselves are changing.  It is, therefore, absurd to give fixed boundaries to anything or to admit of any fixed relations in space.  If you are trying to record your impression of a face it is certain that by the time you have done one eye the other eye will no longer be where it was—­it may be at the other side of the room.  You must cut nature into small bits and shuffle them about wildly if you are to reproduce what we really see.

Whatever its extravagance, Cubism remains a form of graphic art.  However pedantic and ridiculous its transformation of drawing, it yet recognizes the existence of drawing.  Therefore, to the Futurist, Cubism is reactionary.  What difference does it make, he asks, whether you draw a head round or square?  Why draw a head at all?  The Futurist denies the fundamental postulates of the art of painting.  Painting has always, and by definition, represented upon a surface objects supposed to lie beyond it and to be seen through it.  Futurism pretends to place the spectator inside the picture and to represent things around him or behind him as well as those in front of him.  Painting has always assumed the single moment of vision, and, though it has sometimes placed more than one picture on the same canvas, it