Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1856-12-13
Qbe 1Dolpuesian.
The Old Mnsfera.

a recent number of ' Household Words" has al
article, part of which, we subon, containing SOM
manly and sensible views regarding the "Ol
Masters" about which so much stuff and non
sense gets currency.1
| If anything L can say here will help, in th
smallest degree, towards encouraging intelligen
people of any rank to turn a deaf ear to every
thing that critics, connoisseurs, lecturers, ant
compllers of guide-books can say to them, t
trust entirely to their own common sense wheI
they are looking at pictures, and to expires
their opinions boldly, without the slightest refer
ence to any precedents whatever, shall have ex
acty achieved the object with which now apply
myself to the writing of this paper.
We have not yet fairly got at the main obstacle
which hinders the public from Judging of picture
for themselves and which, by a natural conse
quence, limits the influence of Art on the natior
generally. For my own part, | have long though
and shall always continue to believe, that th
same obstacle is nothing more or less than thu
Cant of Criticism, which has got obstructively be
tween Art and the people,-which has kept then
asunder, and will keep them asunder, until i
! is fairly pulled out of the way, and set aside a
once and for ever in its proper background place
! This is a bold thing to say; but think cal
! advance some proofs that my assertion is not al
together so wild as it may appear at first sight
BY the Cant of Criticism, desire to express, il
one word, the conventional laws and formulas
the authoritative rules and regulations which indi
vIdual men set up, to guide the tastes and inhu
euce the opinions of their fellow creatures
When Criticism does not speak in too arbitrary
a language, and when the laws it makes are rat
ned by the consent and appreciation of the ntelli
gent public in general, have as much respect fo
it as any one. But, when Criticism sits altogcthl
er apart, speaks opinions that find no answering
echo in the general heart, and measures the great
ness Of intellectual work by anything rather thar
by Its power of appealing to all capacities for ad
miration and enjoyment, from the very highest tC
the very hunblest-then, as it seems to me, Crit
lciSm becomes Cant and forfeits all claim to con-
sideraton and respect 1t then becomes the kind
of criticism which call Obstructive, and which
has, thiRk, set itself up fatally between the Art
of Painting and the honest and general apprecia-
ton of that Art by the People.
Let me try TO make this still clearer by an ex-
ample. A great deal of obstructive criticism un-
doubtedly continues to hang as closely as it can
about Poetry and Music. But there are, neverthe-
less, stateable instances in relation to these two
Arts, of the voice of the critic and the voice of
the people being on the same side. The tragedy
of Hamlet for example, is critically considered to
be the masterpiece of dramatic poetry and the
tragedy of Hamlet is aIso according to the tes-
timony of every sort of manager, the play, of all
others, which can be invariably depended OIL to
fill theatre with the greatest certainty, act it
when and how you will Again, in music, the
Don Giovanni of Mozlrt, which is the admiration
even of the direst pedant producble from the
ranks of musical cOnnoisseurs, is also the irrcsist
ibe popular attraction which is always sure to
fill the pit and gallery at the opera. Here, at
any rate, are two instances in which two great
achievements of the past in poetry and music are
alike viewed with admiration by the man who ap-
preciates by instinct and the man who appreciates
by reason and rule.
If we apply the same test to the achievements
of the past in Painting, where shall we find SINH
lar instance of genuine concurrence between the
few who are appointed to teach, and the many
who are expected to learn? | put myself in the
position of a man of fair capacity and average
education, who labors under the fatal deIusion
that he will be helped to sincere appreciation of
the works of the Old Masters by asking critics
and connoiSseurs to form his opinions for him.
am sent to Italy matter of course. A gener-
al chorus of learned authorities tells me that
Michael Angelo and Raphael are the two great
est painters that ever lived and that the two re-
cognised masterpieces of the High Art are the
Last Judgment, in the Sistine Chapel, and the
in the Vatican. II is not only
Lanz and Vasari, and hosts of later sages running
smoothly after those two along the same critical
grooves, who give me this information Even the
greatest of English portrait painters, the true and
gentleman, Sir Joshua Reynolds,
sings steadily with the critical chorus note for
note When experience has made HE wiser, |
am able to detect clearly enough in the main prin-
cples which Reynolds has adopted in his Lectures
on Art, the reason of his notorious want of sue
cess whenever he tried to rise above portraits to
the regions of historical painting. But at the
period of my innocence, am simply puzzled and
when | come to such passage as the
following in Sir Joshua's famous Fifth Lecture,
where he sums up the comparative merits of
Michael Angelo and Raphael:
IF we put these great artists in line of COM
parison with each other, lectures Sir joshua
Ra phael mad more taste and fancy, Michael Ange-
10 more genius and Imagination. The one excel
led in beauty, the other in energy. Michael An
geo had more of the poetical inspiration; his
IDEAS are vast and sublime; his people are a supe-
Nor order of beings there is nothing about them,
nothing in the air of their actions or their atti
tudes or the style and cast of their limbs or fea
lures, that reminds US of their belonging to our
own species"
Here | get plainly enough at what Sir Joshua
considers 10 be the crownlug excellence OF high
art. 1t is one great proof of the poetry and sub
Unity of Michael Angeles pictures, that the peo-
pie represented in them, never remind us OF our
own species: which seems equivalent to saying
hat the representation of a man made in the
mage of Michael Angelo is a grander sight than
he representation of a man made IN the image OF
God am little staggered by these principles
IF criticism but as all the learned authorities that
can get atseem to have adopted them, do my
pest to follow the example of my teachers, and set
,ff reverently for Rome to see the two works of
lrt which my critical masters tell me are the sub
imest pictures that the world has yet beheld.
go first to the Sistine Chapel; and, on great
,lue-colored wall at one end of it, see painted
confusion of naked ,knotty figures, ,sprawling
lp or tumbling down below single figure, posted
loft in the middle, and apparently threatening the
est with his hand. If | ask Lanzi, or Vasari, or
Sir Joshua Reynolds, or the gentleman who has
compiled Murray's Hand Book for Central Italy |
IT any other competent authorities, what this gro