The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1858-06-16
For the Register.
Relation of Taste to Art.

ny PROP. N. Mc'ADK.
From our last article, we are naturally
led to infer that art is not simply the ma
ture result of u long process Of tilling In
the human soul, but is the same in the
germ as in the ripened fruit. Hence art
IL either subjective or objective, Indicative
or complete, moderative or ensrgstic. DOR
mant or active, according to the different
phases Of the taste by which it is cognizsd.
We see moreover, the folly Of ascribingto
beauty all individual character as II its
multiform phenomena were absolute, and
its existence self-created. Art is relative
and not only relative to the mind in which
it originated, but relative to itself, a. dis
tinguished in its different stages. To dis
cover just what this relation is, should be
the study Of all who feel anything like an
intense desire to attain to q ged-liks char
acter. For we must remember that art u
prophetic. In all its branches, its impsr.
feet productions point to an unattsinsd
and consumate ideal. Its apparently dis
cordant and scattered parts are animated
by common soul, speaking common
language and moving towards commsa
goal. To mind attuned to their angelic
harmony, these everywhere give forth svi
dences of the vital unity frsm which they
spring.
This being the case, it is easy to sss
that art in its most universal application
must be considered as the principal. if not
the only instrument in the hands Of destiny
for resu.citating the moral and psych0lOs
ical energies of the human soul. Or, If
this seem. to strong statement, that, with
taste as the subsidiary representative Of
itself, it decomposes the scattered rays Of
national volitions by an orderly and repro
ductivs graduation.
So much for the physical relation Of
taste to art In its metaphysical aspect.
We must distinguish between their tectn'c-
a., and their essential relation. The fer
mer is distinguished by idsality; the lat
ter, by imagination. The soul Of the one
is inspiration of the other, philosophy.
In their operations, the one is subjsctivs;
the other, objective. In their tendencies,
the one is convergent the other Is expan-
sive. In their elimination, the one .
melodious the other is superrogatory.
1t is the neglect of this all important
distinction that gives rise to SO much CON-
fusion and contradiction in mems attempts
to criticize the productions Of art. Whsn
this is lost right of, different persons must
inevitably lsok at these things from di8sr-
ent stand-points. The vision Of the soul
will be obscured by notes of prcjudi0s, ,anA
beams of selishnsss, both Of which must
ultimately result either in dissipation or
abstraction.
But if this distinction is observed, The
whole subject is flooded with millsnniAi
light Art is invested with the robes Of
its own identity, and taste is distinguished
as the external prototype in which We may
see displayed the g0rgeousnsas ard quist-
tessence Of annihilated aggregation.
So much for the general relation Of taste
TO art. In our next article the subject
will be discussed in reference to some sf
its more specific applicstions.
-" Now, them" exclaimed an snrassd
creditor, when are We going TO have sat
tlement, Sirf'
ave have had settlement" coolly TO
i