CRITICISE AND BEAUTY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 901, 22 August 1910, Page 4

CRITICISE AND BEAUTY.

»—• LECTURE; BY MR. BALFOUR. ; THE ADMIRABLE AND THE LOVABLE. In a review nf "Criticism and Beauty," the Romanes Lecture for 1009.by Mr..A.-. J. Balfour, Mr. R. A. Scott-James writes as follows in the "Daily News":— 'Long before it was even suspected that Mr. Balfour would'one-day b'! tho leader of his political party lie was looked upon, with respect as a talented litterateur and a dexterous philosopher. Ho has an acquaintance with literature and philosophical speculation such as is unusual, in a modern politician—though' we must not forget that the present. Government' includes Lord Morley, Mr. Haldaiie,.Mr.. Birrell, and Mr. Masterman. /But.now, ' that we think of him ' primarily. as anactive politician it is of double interest* to turn to his reflections on the. subject', of fine art—for it cannot but.bo that such reflections should show a man in a mora personal,- more intimate, more completely disinterested light than. any other- conventional political pronouncement. Mr." Balfour from within—Mr. 1 Balfour seeking contentment' in aesthetic pleasures—that is one thing wo look for in such.an essay us this. The Paradox of Art. "The themu uf this' pnnc'r is Beauty aridthe criticism of Beauty; aesthetic excellence and its analysis." Mr. Balfour is examining this validity of-art criticism, tho authority of our judgments about litera-' ture, the claim that there is an absolute standard of good and bad,' right and wrong, in that which' is admittedly » "matter of taste." "Wo all instinctively lean to the opinion that beauty : has!' 'objective-] worth, and that its expression, whether in nature or in art, ■•' possesses,' as of right, significance for tho world, at large." But in the .last resort is it possible for the critic tp.\ givo, any ground for his preference .beyond' - his preferences? Mr. Balfour ' makes this admission: that in'that part of artwhich is concerned > with, technical dei-, tcrity, skill, lor instance, in versifica-. lion, or m brush-work, it is possible to frame absolute rules of right and wrong' just as there is a right, and'a wrong way. of playing cricket—tor is not "Fine Art the distant cousin of sport".? But in'reference to all those qualities which "wo call 'sublime,'.' 'beautiful,'.' : 'pathetic,' ■ 'humorous/ 'melodious/ and so forth; our position is quite different. What kind of existence are they known to possess apart'from feeling? :H6w are they to bo measured except by the emotions they produce? Are they indeed anything but'-" those very emotions illegitimately 'objectified/ and assumed to be permanent attributes of tho works of art which; happen in this case or that to excite them?"'.' Mr. Balfour's conclusion is a negative • one. Ho points to tho fact that there i 3 no consensus of opinion even among men' of "trained sensibility"; that at different times and among different nations may be found wholly different estimates < of beauty, the Greeks, for instance, holding the simplicity of. melody to be, moro beautiful than the intricate harmonica, which to-day are held to bo the finest result of musical'art. - He even suggests that the schoolboy, "absorbed in somo tale of impossible adventure, incurious about its author, indifferent as to its style, interested only in. the breathless succession of heroic endeavours and peril-. ous escapes, is happy in the enjoyment.' of what is Art, and nothing but Art". ■' Mr. Balfour, indeed, denies that the. artist is "more than the maker .of beautiful things"; he will.not allow that tho artist is "a seer, a moralist, a prophet" (terms, by .tho way, which aro very far from being synonyms). '"I can find-no justification in experience," he says, "for associating great art with penetrating'in-< sight, or goo'd art with' good morals." Having brought us. to a'difficulty, having denied standard and authority in art, ha ; refuses to press on. to the; conclusion, which his question almost inevitably, implied—a metaphysical conclusion. He prefers. to. conclude wi.tlr. "a mitigation'; of a.yiew which seems so degrading..to. emotions and "activities- which-/we... rate, (truly, I'think)'among the highest ;; ofwhich we 'arc capable." ' Aesthetic'. emo-' tions, he tells us, have this. common characteristic, "that they do not) lead to'. action," ."• ' ' '""■'" '■' ' ' ' ■ "It is their peculiarity arid their glorythat they .have nothing to do with busi-. ness, with the adaptation of means to. ends, with the. bustle and the dust of life. ' They are" unpractical and purposeless. They serve no interest, and further no cause. ' They aro self-sufficing, and neither point to any good beyond themselves, nor overflow except by accident into - any' practical activities. -• . His closing pages present an interesting but inconclusive comparison of the admirable and the lovable." "That is for every man most lovable which'he most dearly loves. <That is. for every man most beautiful which ho: most deeply admires." Xuch'isMr. .Balfour's last, word. "Let us, then, be content, since \ra can. do no, better, that,pur .admirations our loves. ■" ."' |; J ""■•. •'.'l'-.-' . ~. ■ Mr. Balfour's Neoative. We-cannot-feel thatj Mr. Balfour ■ had: faced the problem iu a satisfactory way. His'argument, so far as it goes, is 8 model of lucidity and- conciseness. His style is graceful..' His-language, is exact.. His treatment js.,comprehensive- yet-to.-the point. But Ido uot feel.that .lie. has sufficiently'realised., the antinomy which this question . cannot fail- -to present. The/excellence 'of literature; irrelative and personal; the excellence of literaturo is absolute and universal. JJe, all agree with Mr. -Balfour that; the' excellence of literature-, consist, m- itspower of appealing to. those who. read;,, but as a matter of fact we do all eonaliy,. a'Tee that there is a/higher and-a owor in art, that which we ought' to admire even if we do not admire it.' \Ve assert equally that. Beauty has a aw or its own, and on the .other, hand that;. the. perception of Beauty .is an .experience., which depends splely on ourselves. . . Mr. Balfour unintentionally 'reduces his one-sided .argument, his argument of the relativity of Beauty, to a reductlo ad absurdum by his instance of the, toys delight in some . breathless tale ,of horror., Such a delight is not aesthetic, m tho. proper sense of the term. It is an ex-. citement.jilst as the delight m seeing.a man hanged is an excitement,' but as a rule it has no connection with' art reeling, or feeling for the beautiful; If. you; • are "oing- to inquire into the validity of ihc sense of Beauty you cannot dispense with metaphysical speculation.- »e .require of a Beautiful mbject this .quality, its the greatest of aesthetic philosophers, from Coleridge and Goethe .onwards, have agreed, that its beauty should transcend its sensible appearance; that it should lead us beyond itself. It is true that even.men of i'traiiied sensibility" differ in their appreciation; thatis because siich men too have their limitations; thev only understand, as it were, some of'the language of beauty;'they,aro not so constituted that they can perceive through everv beautiful,form the > beauty that lies behind it. Art- liasr.a message. It is not a "moral" message;-:, it is a message of the beautiful which expresses itself in direct perception. - Wo are hound to hold that there is- in- artsomething to perceive, a beautiful: m-, meaning transcending, the beauty ot iorm; and that this meaning justifies the. idea of'an excellent and a not excellent .in, art which, pace Mr. Balfour, is .a prm--ciplo which fxe are all compelled to recognise. Ho himself takes up , his stand quite frankly as a sceptic, or an agnostic, in the region of aesthetics. He denies that' "Bcautv is truth,. truth He denies that the artist is a seer. Great art has for him nothing to do with insight. It is just a form, of words, agrouping of lines and colours, an arrange- • ment of sounds, which to you, and to me, mnv seem admirable, because by some wild idiosyncracy in ourselves yon and I happen to like it. There is no : thing there that is really, admirable, 1 no high object which the artist should set: himself to . accomplish. Why indeed should the artist take pains to' achieve. • the sublime, if the sublimo is no more, reliable than the tossing of a coin,, if-it-has no validity in unchangeable, truth, • in the absolute nature of the beautiful which is in men's souls ami to which they nro capable of responding when it is transmitted in the messago of the artist?