Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-12-27
ESTHETICISM.

|
EsFHETIcIsM
The departure from England of Osca
Wilde, on lecturing tour to the United
States, has been made the occasion of
serious discussion of the claims of tina
esthetic cult of which he is the Higl
Priest. And perhaps it was time that al
attempt should be made to gauge move
ment which, despite the ridicule to which
it has been subjected, has unquestionablJ
exercised widespread influence of some
kind upon modern society in English
speaking countries. To the majority O
people the word Estheticism no doubt con
veys very vague and indefinite idea. To
a smaller number it probably suggests lit.
tie more than the satire of Du Mauriel
in Punch, and Gilbert in "Pasience. II
recalls the Postlethwaite and Cimebue
Brown school, aud is consequently
connected with the idea of extrava
CANT and fantastic affectation, and g
pretense of art culture and enthusiasm fal
too esoteric to be appreciated or under.
stood by the commonalty. And it is
doubtless the case that a very absurd
school of this kind has constituted the
most prominent and conspicuous expires.
sion of modern Estheticism. Precisely
what the cult means, as interpreted by the
Postlethwaites and Browns, has never yet
been made clear. Indeed it would seem
that obscurity and sort of art mysticism
were inseparable from the most pronounced
developments of the movement. The Es-
thetics themselves think that they are the
true and only opponents of Culture, as
contradistinguished from Philistinism It
is certainly true that they are as different
as possible in their ideas from the average
Philistine of the old school but it is by no
means so certain that ultra. Els theticism
is not Philistinism under new aspect.
Its origin may fairly be assumed to be
due to discomfort with the sordid and in.
artistic standards of society generally. 1t
was an attempt to popularize art, and to
discard the material and gross surround.
ings of the period. It was to be a move
ment instinct with subtle intellectual
meanings. It was to rebuke Shoddyism
and Plutocracy. It was to revive simple.
ity and true culture together. It was to
lift men and women out of the old stolid
habits, and to teach them hew and higher
line of thought and action. Unfortunately
for the Esthetic school it made shipwreck
upon the Interpretation Of Art. 1t was so
determined to have nothing to do with the
old theories that it resolved to invent prin.
ciples and standards for itself. It was
deeply tinged with the fieshly mysticism
of the Swinburne school, and it sought its
ideals consequently in the wrong direction.
Instead, therefore, of bringing its disciples
up to the worship of true Beauty, it per.
verted their minds, and made them fasten
their affections upon ideals possessing no
characteristic more meritorious than ex-
travagance and oddity. The Esthetics thus
developed completely and increasingly
unnatural theory of life. 1t was to be
Earnest, but without any Of the purposes to
which earnestness may be fifty applied. 1t
was to be Grave, but without any of the
reasons which render gravity respectable.
1t was to be Enthusiastic, but only in re-
gard to things which the world has Justly
branded as fantastic. It was to be full of
Symbolism, but the symbols must be of
things alike unintelligible and void of I'M.
portanee.
In short, the new school lent itself natu.
rally and unavoidably to extrava gance and
caricature, for it had not that foundation
of solid Truth which can alone give seri-
BUSINESS to any movement. An English
journal says of it that "when its extrava-
"gance and affectation are swept away, it
So will be found to have affected much the
beauty of Art, and that its apostles and
''votaries will deserve thanks" We can
not agree with this opinion. We do not
think that Estheticism has really done
much to extend the realm of true Art.
We think, on the contrary, that it has done
much to inculcate wholly false and vicious
and maudlin and foolish views of Art.
Nothing can be more hideous than the art
conceptions it has produced. Nothing can
be more contrary to that profound maxim
that Beauty and Utility should go together,
than its schemes of decoration and
costume. It has become responsible for
an infinite quantity of unmitigated ugli-
ness. 1t has inflicted Eastlakism upon
suffering world. It has thrust the
incongruities of Japanese art into intoler-
able juxtaposition with the outcome of
Anglo-Saxon civilization. It has revived
the tasAless tawdriness of Qleen
Anne's reign. It has outraged every
true artistic feeling by adopting the
most vulgar and faring flowers in Ma.
ture for its symbols. 1t has burrowed
into barbarism for the most preposterous
elements of Anglo-Norman costume. 1t
has vulgarized the popular notions of Art
by canonizing Peacock Feathers, Sun
flowers, Tiger Lilies, Japanese Storks, and
other similar absurdities.
t. b,s f,-fbar ,x,e,-..J ..-o-x- r