the critic as artist-第7章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　graved　the　gem。

It　is　sometimes　said　by　those　who　understand　neither　the　nature　of　the　highest　Criticism　nor　the　charm　of　the　highest　Art；　that　the　pictures　that　the　critic　loves　most　to　write　about　are　those　that　belong　to　the　anecdotage　of　painting；　and　that　deal　with　scenes　taken　out　of　literature　or　history。　　But　this　is　not　so。　　Indeed；　pictures　of　this　kind　are　far　too　intelligible。　　As　a　class；　they　rank　with　illustrations；　and；　even　considered　from　this　point　of　view　are　failures；　as　they　do　not　stir　the　imagination；　but　set　definite　bounds　to　it。　　For　the　domain　of　the　painter　is；　as　I　suggested　before；　widely　different　from　that　of　the　poet。　　To　the　latter　belongs　life　in　its　full　and　absolute　entirety；　not　merely　the　beauty　that　men　look　at；　but　the　beauty　that　men　listen　to　also；　not　merely　the　momentary　grace　of　form　or　the　transient　gladness　of　colour；　but　the　whole　sphere　of　feeling；　the　perfect　cycle　of　thought。　　The　painter　is　so　far　limited　that　it　is　only　through　the　mask　of　the　body　that　he　can　show　us　the　mystery　of　the　soul；　only　through　conventional　images　that　he　can　handle　ideas；　only　through　its　physical　equivalents　that　he　can　deal　with　psychology。　　And　how　inadequately　does　he　do　it　then；　asking　us　to　accept　the　torn　turban　of　the　Moor　for　the　noble　rage　of　Othello；　or　a　dotard　in　a　storm　for　the　wild　madness　of　Lear！　　Yet　it　seems　as　if　nothing　could　stop　him。　　Most　of　our　elderly　English　painters　spend　their　wicked　and　wasted　lives　in　poaching　upon　the　domain　of　the　poets；　marring　their　motives　by　clumsy　treatment；　and　striving　to　render；　by　visible　form　or　colour；　the　marvel　of　what　is　invisible；　the　splendour　of　what　is　not　seen。　　Their　pictures　are；　as　a　natural　consequence；　insufferably　tedious。　　They　have　degraded　the　invisible　arts　into　the　obvious　arts；　and　the　one　thing　not　worth　looking　at　is　the　obvious。　　I　do　not　say　that　poet　and　painter　may　not　treat　of　the　same　subject。　　They　have　always　done　so　and　will　always　do　so。　　But　while　the　poet　can　be　pictorial　or　not；　as　he　chooses；　the　painter　must　be　pictorial　always。　　For　a　painter　is　limited；　not　to　what　he　sees　in　nature；　but　to　what　upon　canvas　may　be　seen。

And　so；　my　dear　Ernest；　pictures　of　this　kind　will　not　really　fascinate　the　critic。　　He　will　turn　from　them　to　such　works　as　make　him　brood　and　dream　and　fancy；　to　works　that　possess　the　subtle　quality　of　suggestion；　and　seem　to　tell　one　that　even　from　them　there　is　an　escape　into　a　wider　world。　　It　is　sometimes　said　that　the　tragedy　of　an　artist's　life　is　that　he　cannot　realise　his　ideal。　　But　the　true　tragedy　that　dogs　the　steps　of　most　artists　is　that　they　realise　their　ideal　too　absolutely。　　For；　when　the　ideal　is　realised；　it　is　robbed　of　its　wonder　and　its　mystery；　and　becomes　simply　a　new　starting…point　for　an　ideal　that　is　other　than　itself。　　This　is　the　reason　why　music　is　the　perfect　type　of　art。　Music　can　never　reveal　its　ultimate　secret。　　This；　also；　is　the　explanation　of　the　value　of　limitations　in　art。　　The　sculptor　gladly　surrenders　imitative　colour；　and　the　painter　the　actual　dimensions　of　form；　because　by　such　renunciations　they　are　able　to　avoid　too　definite　a　presentation　of　the　Real；　which　would　be　mere　imitation；　and　too　definite　a　realisation　of　the　Ideal；　which　would　be　too　purely　intellectual。　　It　is　through　its　very　incompleteness　that　art　becomes　complete　in　beauty；　and　so　addresses　itself；　not　to　the　faculty　of　recognition　nor　to　the　faculty　of　reason；　but　to　the　aesthetic　sense　alone；　which；　while　accepting　both　reason　and　recognition　as　stages　of　apprehension；　subordinates　them　both　to　a　pure　synthetic　impression　of　the　work　of　art　as　a　whole；　and；　taking　whatever　alien　emotional　elements　the　work　may　possess；　uses　their　very　complexity　as　a　means　by　which　a　richer　unity　may　be　added　to　the　ultimate　impression　itself。　　You　see；　then；　how　it　is　that　the　aesthetic　critic　rejects　these　obvious　modes　of　art　that　have　but　one　message　to　deliver；　and　having　delivered　it　become　dumb　and　sterile；　and　seeks　rather　for　such　modes　as　suggest　reverie　and　mood；　and　by　their　imaginative　beauty　make　all　interpretations　true；　and　no　interpretation　final。　　Some　resemblance；　no　doubt；　the　creative　work　of　the　critic　will　have　to　the　work　that　has　stirred　him　to　creation；　but　it　will　be　such　resemblance　as　exists；　not　between　Nature　and　the　mirror　that　the　painter　of　landscape　or　figure　may　be　supposed　to　hold　up　to　her；　but　between　Nature　and　the　work　of　the　decorative　artist。　　Just　as　on　the　flowerless　carpets　of　Persia；　tulip　and　rose　blossom　indeed　and　are　lovely　to　look　on；　though　they　are　not　reproduced　in　visible　shape　or　line；　just　as　the　pearl　and　purple　of　the　sea…　shell　is　echoed　in　the　church　of　St。　Mark　at　Venice；　just　as　the　vaulted　ceiling　of　the　wondrous　chapel　at　Ravenna　is　made　gorgeous　by　the　gold　and　green　and　sapphire　of　the　peacock's　tail；　though　the　birds　of　Juno　fly　not　across　it；　so　the　critic　reproduces　the　work　that　he　criticises　in　a　mode　that　is　never　imitative；　and　part　of　whose　charm　may　really　consist　in　the　rejection　of　resemblance；　and　shows　us　in　this　way　not　merely　the　meaning　but　also　the　mystery　of　Beauty；　and；　by　transforming　each　art　into　literature；　solves　once　for　all　the　problem　of　Art's　unity。

But　I　see　it　is　time　for　supper。　　After　we　have　discussed　some　Chambertin　and　a　few　ortolans；　we　will　pass　on　to　the　question　of　the　critic　considered　in　the　light　of　the　interpreter。

ERNEST。　　Ah！　you　admit；　then；　that　the　critic　may　occasionally　be　allowed　to　see　the　object　as　in　itself　it　really　is。

GILBERT。　　I　am　not　quite　sure。　　Perhaps　I　may　admit　it　after　supper。　　There　is　a　subtle　influence　in　supper。



THE　CRITIC　AS　ARTIST　…　WITH　SOME　REMARKS　UPON　THE　IMPORTANCE　OF　DISCUSSING　EVERYTHING



A　DIALOGUE：　　Part　II。　　Persons：　　the　same。　　Scene：　　the　same。

ERNEST。　　The　ortolans　were　delightful；　and　the　Chambertin　perfect；　and　now　let　us　return　to　the　point　at　issue。

GILBERT。　　Ah！　don't　let　us　do　that。　　Conversation　should　touch　everything；　but　should　concentrate　itself　on　nothing。　　Let　us　talk　about　MORAL　INDIGNATION；　ITS　CAUSE　AND　CURE；　a　subject　on　which　I　think　of　writing：　　or　about　THE　SURVIVAL　OF　THERSITES；　as　shown　by　the　English　comic　papers；　or　about　any　topic　that　may　turn　up。

ERNEST。　　No；　I　want　to　discuss　the　critic　and　criticism。　　You　have　told　me　that　the　highest　criticism　deals　with　art；　not　as　expressive；　but　as　impressive　purely；　and　is　consequently　both　creative　and　independent；　is　in　fact　an　art　by　itself；　occupying　the　same　relation　to　creative　work　that　creative　work　does　to　the　visible　world　of　form　and　colour；　or　the　unseen　world　of　passion　and　of　thought。　　Well；　now；　tell　me；　will　not　the　critic　be　sometimes　a　real　interpreter？

GILBERT。　　Yes；　the　critic　will　be　an　interpreter；　if　he　chooses。　He　can　pass　from　his　synthetic　impression　of　the　work　of　art　as　a　whole；　to　an　analysis　or　exposition　of　the　work　itself；　and　in　this　lower　sphere；　as　I　hold　it　to　be；　there　are　many　delightful　things　to　be　said　and　done。　　Yet　his　object　will　not　always　be　to　explain　the　work　of　art。　　He　may　seek　rather　to　deepen　its　mystery；　to　raise　round　it；　and　round　its　maker；　that　mist　of　wonder　which　is　dear　to　both　gods　and　worshippers　alike。　　Ordinary　people　are　'terribly　at　ease　in　Zion。'　　They　propose　to　walk　arm　in　arm　with　the　poets；　and　have　a　glib　ignorant　way　of　saying；　'Why　should　we　read　what　is　written　about　Shakespeare　and　Milton？　　We　can　read　the　plays　and　the　poems。　　That　is　enough。'　　But　an　appreciation　of　Milton　is；　as　the　late　Rector　of　Lincoln　remarked　once；　the　reward　of　consummate　scholarship。　　And　he　who　desires　to　understand　Shakespeare　truly　must　understand　the　relations　in　which　Shakespeare　stood　to　the　Renaissance　and　the　Reformation；　to　the　age　of　Elizabeth　and　the　age　of　James；　he　must　be　familiar　with　the　history　of　the　struggle　for　supremacy　between　the　old　classical　forms　and　the　new　spirit　of　romance；　between　the　school　of　Sidney；　and　Daniel；　and　Johnson；　and　the　school　of　Marlowe　and　Marlowe's　greater　son；　he　must　know　the　materials　that　were　at　Shakespeare's　disposal；　and　the　method　in　which　he　used　them；　and　the　conditions　of　theatric　presentation　in　the　sixteenth　and　seventeenth　century；　their　limitations　and　their　opportunities　for　freedom；　and　the　literary　criticism　of　Shakespeare's　day；　its　aims　and　modes　and　canons；　he　must　study　the　English　language　in　its　progress；　and　blank　or　rhymed　verse　in　its　various　developments；　he　must　study　the　Greek　drama；　and　the　connection　between　the　art　of　the　creator　of　the　Agamemnon　and　the　art　of　the　creator　of　Macbeth；　in　a　word；　he　must　be　able　to　bind　Elizabethan　London　to　the　Athens　of　Pericles；　and　to　learn　Shakespeare's　true　position　in　the　history　of　European　drama　and　the　drama　of　the　world。　　The　critic　will　certainly　be　an　interpreter；　but　he　will　not　treat　Art　as　a　riddling　Sphinx；　whose　shallow　secret　may　be　guessed　and　revealed　by　one　whose　feet　are　wounded　and　who　knows　not　his　name。　　Rather；　he　will　look　upon　Art　as　a　goddess　whose　mystery　it　is　his　province　to　intensify；　and　whose　majesty　his　privilege　to　make　more　marvellous　in　the　eyes　of　men。

And　here；　Ernest；　this　strange　thing　happens。　　The　critic　will　indeed　be　an　interpreter；　but　he　will　not　be　an　interpreter　in　the　sense　of　one　who　simply　repeats　in　another　form　a　message　that　has　been　put　into　his　lips　to　say。　　For；　　just　as　it　is　only　by　contact　with　the　art　of　foreign　nations　that　the　art　of　a　country　gains　that　individual　and　separate　life　that　we　call　nationality；　so；　by　curious　inversion；　it　is　only　by　intensifying　his　own　personality　that　the　critic　can　interpret　the　personality　and　work　of　others；　and　the　more　strongly　this　personality　enters　into　the　interpretation　the　more　real　the　interpretation　becomes；　the　more　satisfying；　the　more　convincing；　and　the　more　true。

ERNEST。　　I　would　have　said　that　personality　would　have　been　a　disturbing　element。

GILBERT。　　No；　it　is　an　element　of　revelation。　　If　you　wish　to　understand　others　you　must　intensify　your　own　individualism。

ERNEST。　　What；　then；　is　the　result？

GILBERT。　　I　will　tell　you；　and　perhaps　I　can　tell　you　best　by　definite　example。　　It　seems　to　me　that；　while　the　literary　critic　stands　of　course　first；　as　having　the　wider　range；　and　larger　vision；　and　nobler　material；　each　of　the　arts　has　a　critic；　as　it　were；　assigned　to　it。　　The　actor　is　a　critic　of　the　drama。　　He　shows　the　poet's　work　under　new　conditions；　and　by　a　method　special　to　himself。　　He　takes　the　written　word；　and　action；　gesture　and　voice　become　the　media　of　revelation。　　The　singer　or　the　player　on　lute　and　viol　is　the　critic　of　music。　　The　etcher　of　a　picture　robs　the　painting　of　its　fair　colours；　but　shows　us　by　the　use　of　a　new　material　its　true　colour…quality；　its　tones　and　values；　and　the　relations　of　its　masses；　and　so　is；　in　his　way；　a　critic　of　it；　for　the　critic　is　he　who　exhibits　to　us　a　work　of　art　in　a　form　different　from　that　of　the　work　itself；　and　the　employment　of　a　new　material　is　a　critical　as　well　as　a　creative　element。　　Sculpture；　too；　has　its　critic；　who　may　be　either　the　carver　of　a　gem；　as　he　was　in　Greek　days；　or　some　painter　like　Mantegna；　who　sought　to　reproduce　on　canvas　the　beauty　of　plastic　line　and　the　symph