In this paper, I have examined, through the criticism of Roger Fry, the analogy between painting and logic, including “colour” and “texture” which we cannot perceive by way of description. This type of speculation has not been explored completely by previous works, such as Ayer or Danto. Russell thought logical components contain not only a mathematical formula and language but even that of matter and space. His ideas enable us to deal with art-works as equivalents for logical proposition.

The reason why Russell’s unoccupied perspective is useful to analyze art-works that appeared in modern art in the early 20^th century is difficult to comprehend by the traditional way of thinking. Regarding the works of those such as Matisse and Cezanne, made without one-point perspective which represents an artist’s own perspectives, refuses any narrative interpretation: With how much accuracy does it represent the original object?; Who should we focus on in the picture plane? These paintings require the objective attitude that is necessary to deal with abstract shapes the same as representative figures. When we encounter the new pictorial space which does not resemble the real world, when we discuss the plastic relation of works, Russell’s theory of perspective is considered of value. However, it is necessary to employ Fry’s “aesthetic vision” and “sensual logic” in order to realize the subtleties of the colour and texture of art-works.