New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-12
LECTURES.


ESQ M Goodwin commenced his lecture with
graceful apology for attempting to address an aQ'
diepce of practical artists, when he claimed no
skill in any specific Art, aud had never seen those
wonders Of geniss which are the glory Of the Oid
World There wss grouRd, however, sAid ni.
g.. on which the inexperienced student Oh At'
may tread as securely as the practiSed ADEPT ii'
meant the general Philosophy of Art winch every
man who thinks at all has some though" ei'ne' W
cherish or express
Tha lecturer then proceeded TO illustrate the
,.,er,l ,e,ro E,.,hetics, which is now generally
n.ed 70 denote the subject now under discussion.
Th;. term was frat introduced by Baumgarten,
one of the earlier German philosophers belonging
to the school OF Wolf, which considered Art sole
y in respect to the impression made on the senses
Bat this ia a narrow view, and he should use the
term Esthetiss TO express the whole science of
Art-both in it's origin in the creative energies Of
man, and in its actual productions, works of Art
After showing that Art is legitimate subject
of scientific treatment. MIR. q. proceeded TO elucl
date the methods in which it should be treated IN
order TO attain the most complete and satisfactory
results. Two methods have prevailed: First, the
Historical, which studies Art in its productions In
n broad view of their peculiarities and relations
in reference to their authors, the times 10 which
they were produced and their bearings on social
interests. Second, the Psychological method,
which is the reverse of the former, not treating Of
special works Of art but Of the faculties of the soul
in which they originate, and the feelings to which
they are addressed. The true method, according
70 MIR. g., is one which combines the psychological
Il.
power from its secret springs in the soul to its
outmost outfowing in the realized effect, and then
again to their influence all the interests OF soci
ETY. and life. 1t involves an inquiry into the sub
iectivity OF the artist the producing cause and
the obectivity Of his action the result produced.
The historical method gives us the bone and mus
ces of Art its limbs and members, in their indi
vidusl forms and without conscious life; the
psychological method, the Ineffective, ethereal
phantoms of the SOUL destitute Of any capacity for
flesh and blood but the true aesthetic method
like the vital process, beginning in the Utmost
laboratory OF the spirit follows it in all it's infinite
manifestations from tissue to tissue, till it has
built up for itself q compact and rounded and
beautiful living body.
An admirable specimen Of this method is seen in
the Esthetic writings of that most acute and pro-
found Germany philosopher, Hegel Mr.. q thengave
abref analysis of his principal treatise on the sub
ject quoting some striking passages. He would
not however, be understood to adopt all of Hegels
views of Esthetics. He regarded him as in one
respect hingularly unfaithful to his own method.
He has failed to universalize Art Comparing il
to the stereotyped forms of Architecture, Soup.
ture, Painting Music, and Poetry he has departed
from his own principles no less than from the re-
Quirements OF truth. For Art in its genuine
character, is any mode Of human activity by which
we give outward and sensible form to an idea
purely for It's own sake. But though product OF
human activity, Art is not In any sense mechan.
ical product. IL cannot be taught by rule. Ii il
has no absolute ground in the soul, it will never
be impaired by any amount OF labor. 1t may be
dormant for while, as in the case of Claude, who
was pastry cook before he was painter. Art is
born and not made. An excellent lady on being
asked what she was going to do with her son, re-
piled, that she had not quite made up her mind,
but had some idea of making him an Historical
Painter" No doubt the good woman thought that
TRANSFORMATIONS and Msdonnas were woven like
carpets, or turned OFT like chips
Many have been devoted TO Art in this spirit.
They are mechanics and nothing more. They
have talent quckness of perception. facility of
execution, and fine initiative powers, sometimes
producing exquisite copies. In this way they
often win lasting reputation. But after all,
their productions are admired as specimens OF
adrotness, or as pretty decorations, and not as
artistic masterpieces. They have no blood in
their VEINS, no speculation IN their eyes no cleo
tricity or soul. IL is easy to comprehend the
whole process Of their construction. As soon as
their secret is exposed like the tricks OF uggler,
they are within the ability of child. They can
be mechanically explained like Chinese puzzle,
and the manner of producing them may be learned,
as boy learns to write or young lady to play
the piano. But Art is unteachable 1t is aperpet-
ual wonder to its possessor, no less than to the
world, and 10 makes use of handicratt, knowledge
talent, as an imperial monarch uses his satraps
and satellites. They and It's slaves are obedent
ministers, bat not its equals, much less Its own
august and sacred parsonage.
Art, however, is not merely an unconscious IN
spiration. In peculiar sense it is the artists
own-the soul Of his soul-an energy, not Infused
or breathed into him from time 10 time, for special
purposes, but an inmost, sovereign and ineradioa
bic property. In a word it is genius,-that intui
tive, penetrating and creative faculty, which sees
into the heart of things and then shapes them into
what form 1t pleases,-receiving all the manifold
aspects of life in its own melting heart and then
pouring them out in new and more splendid com
binstions of beauty.
But while the subject matter of Art is always
m Idea, the theater and ground oft representa-
tons is the natural world. Hence, it does not
deal with mere logical ideas, with the pure Affirm
atoms of universal reason but with those thoughts
which are in immediate relation to the soal, and
are capable of direct translation into outward
form.
TLis view was illustrated at length by Mr. g.
who then proceeded to the queston-What isthe
end of Art itselfl Not the imitation of nature,
reproduction by man of fac-similes of the works
of God If this were the end, Art would be SUI
perfluous, for why have two forms of the same
thing 1t would also be inadequate, because no
man has ever precisely initiated nature come
within thousand furlongs of it. Beside, the
closer any imitation of Nature is. the more me-
cbsnical il becomes and the less pleasure we take
In il as q work OF Art. French toys are more like
life than Guldo's Aurora, but no man or woman
prefers them to the Aurora. And if Jenny Lind
could sing so much like nightingale as to deceive
its own mate, she would in one week impoverish
Barnum What, too, should we do with Archi-
lecture, Music and Poesy, il Art be an imitation
Of Nature What on Gods earth bat tselfis St.
Peters hke-whst the Midsummer Night Dream
what the Symphonic Heroicsl No. Art is the