« AnteriorContinuar »
more than would be deemed proper in a garden ; and certainly a house is as useful as a carpet. The classification proceeds upon no intrinsic distinction or difference of objects. All the arts are useful, and ornament is not essential to any of them. For convenience in determining the bearing of my own remarks, I shall venture to arrange them in two great classes, according to the leading object contemplated by each. In the first, I would dispose all such as have for their object the improvement or comfort of man's material being, as agriculture, spinning, weaving, medicine, surgery, etc. ; in the second, all those whose chief end is the cultivation of the human spirit, as painting, sculpture, music. The former are founded upon the principles of natural philosophy; the latter upon the laws of human feeling. In like manner the artist is he who designs, the mechanic he who executes according to directions. Thus the designs of the Gobelin tapestry are the works of an artist, but the hand that executes them in the loom is generally that of a mechanic. The mere exercise of acquired habits of manipulation, as well as the materiality of the ends contemplated, are mechanic, while every design, to augment the treasures of beauty, and every manual effort for the single purpose of embodying that design is Æsthetic. Those arts, therefore, in which material ends are chiefly contemplated, may with propriety be designated mechanic; while the term Æsthetic would mark all which address the mental taste. In the latter, an effect upon the feelings is the single and immediate object, whereas in the former, an emotional effect is regarded, if at all, as only an incidental and non-essential thing. Objects of the one class may attain their end without being beantiful, the other only by means of beauty; and any art, no matter what its origin, when it attains such excellence as to regard beauty as a main object, becomes thereby of the Æsthetic class. Consequently, literature, which has been so often excluded, has an eminent claim to a place there; for, while wielding a profound influence over the material well-being of man, it makes its address directly to the spirit, and all its effects upon the body are produced through the medium of the mind.
In the prosecution of this subject, it is proposed to treat in the first place of radical principles; of the mental faculties addressed by art exercised in criticism and in production; and thirdly, of the objects and specific character of the more eminent Æsthetic Arts. -Ruskin, Modern Painters.
SECTION 11.--FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF ART, Inquiry into the nature and sources of Beauty is the most important, as well as the most difficult part of Æsthetic study: the most important, as being concerned with the fundamental law of Art, and the most difficult, because forming a department of mental science in which the opinions of philosophers have been as diverse as their respective points of view. Among Greeks, the beautiful was subject of frequent discussion; yet they have left more proofs of skill in embodying than in analyzing it. The Romans made little advance in its elucidation, and men of the Mddle Ages left it to slumber with the arts to which it had given birth. Within the last hundred and fifty years, attention has been recalled to this pleasing branch of philosophy, and many essays have been written upon it, especially in the French, English and German languages. Though differing from each other more or less, they all necessarily belong to two classes, of which one considers Beauty as a quality of objects, and the other, belonging entirely to human emotions. Again: of the latter class, some represent it as due to a separate mental power; others resolve it into some other faculty; while a third believe that it springs from an aggregate of emotions. Hutcheson, who wrote in the earlier part of last century, held that Beauty is the result of uniformity amid variety; nor is it difficult to present plausible grounds for such a belief. Hogarth assumed it to be something external, and by a variety of examples endeavored to prove that it consists chiefly in a waving line approaching to the likeness of the letter S. An analogous line, the spiral, he designates the line of grace. The features of animal and vegetable bodies, and the varieties of the natural landscape, furnish most of his proofs and illustrations. His theory
affects to some extent his own works, and in regard to
also be referred the theories of Winkelman and Sir Joshua Reynolds. Burke concludes that Beauty is, for the greater part, some quality of bodies acting mechanically upon the mind by the intervention of the senses, and then specifies some of those qualities: such as smallness, smoothness, gradual variation, and delicacy. Augustine resolved the pleasures of Taste into that which springs from the recognition of order and design; Hume, into the sense of ability; and Diderot attributed them to the perception of relation. Reid conceived that Beauty originally dwells in the moral and intellectual perfections of the mind, and that hence the notice of it in other things is derived. According to Alison, whatever excites the imagination to pursue a train of recollections of previously experienced moral pleasure is beautiful, and Beauty is nothing but that delightful reminiscence. This theory is more comprehensive than any of the preceding, and is advocated with eminent elegance of style and manner. He has been followed by Knight and Jeffrey: the former varying from his master by advocating the intrinsic beauty of certain colors, and the latter by rejecting the necessity of a train of suggestions, but neither contributing any improvement to the theory; and the one immediate cause which must be the antecedent of the one effect, is left undefined by all of them. Jeffrey's essay sets out with great clearness, precision, and assurance, but at the most important stage becomes an utter jumble of reiterated contradictions, confounding beauty with pleasure, and emotion with sensation, advocating that beauty is only reflected emotion, that there is no unity in it, that is, of the same kind as the original emotion, and consequently, that what we call beauty is nothing but an exercise of memory. He grants that some sensations are pleasant, and then denies that any are pleasant; says expressly that one taste is as good as another; and having failed to establish any general law, is obliged to confess that a Dutch lust haus, painted all over with every color of the rainbow, is as truly beautiful as the finest work of art. Were it not that his work has demonstrated the weakness of the theory, we could have wished that he had saved himself trouble by saying at once, there is no beauty; that the word is only another name for the recollection of anything pleasant, and that there is