New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-08
PROFESSOR RAyMoygy NEW GooK.
THE CRITICS MIscoNcEFTIoN OF PARTS oFt"ART
JN THEORY"

IN THEORY
To the Editor o. The Tribune.
Sir VIII you have the courtesy 10 allow me IN
xour columns 10 exercise the right. which should be
permitted every man. of making a correction IN
case in which your paper has mlsrepresente1 me
In a review OF pubiica lions published III inc
Tribune OF yesterday find. quoted from my doom
entitled Art In Theory" the following neht'oh Oh
beauty but with the omission OF certain "o'us'
ut is characteristic Of any complex form OF varied
elements producing apprehenslhie unity g. e. mar
mony or keness) OF effects upon me motive orsan'
of sensation in the or eye. or upon the ehouNe
sources OF imagination in the mind' or upon ooI'
the one and the other" Starting out Win NmS
definition rendered pontess by the omission ol ue
phrase .n the ear or eye" together with The con-
trasting phrase I'm the mind" and rendered ln'oiA
plete by the omission of the final cause or upon upon
both the one ana the other, your reviewer hOv 81
10 show what assuredly In the form III Vii
ne presents does not need TO be PIovtu, nhiieS
that the statement IS 'lneNact 10 ILL.,
sarily complex? does not Imply the apprehe nSlon o.
beauty as matter OF course etc' Slc..l 80
ZION 10 which in Itself / certainly 90 not opJTc.'
but do object to having mR1iJ n aisc also 10
the accompanying homily upon my whole work es s
larged' from this attributed to me- PVt a. e
dee ssd N orcr to- be thus made serviceabe TO
apprehend unity" OF which the reviewer SPEAKS; !,
that Of Which spoke in my definition Is meth 1Y
very different; and il must be whoiy aeiH'xV ,or,n
producing Tapprehensible unity OF effects; IN ~
sense of harmony likeness OF enectS upolI ,t ~,
ear or eye" or in lieu OF this. or N cVnleS .
with IT, upon the emotve sources OF ,Ae lhn,s4"a
ton" conjurng before 1t forms from inc Ien,n C
memory association suggestion your iS tn,
question In brackets, too t'why nccess"iiiS az
piex g) Is misleading L. can scarcely mean 70 III
ply that ne IS unacquaintea with the extent 70 w9
writers upon beauty have Insisted upon its
complexity To suppose this Is TO cast reIieC'ii
upon his general Intelligence and conptelc!. ~
probably means imply only that ne, - una ~
ouointed with any discussion OF colnpieNltH !" ny
hook art In Theory" which he IL reVieNlnS. ~
the two chapters preceding the one from %hicn ne
took that definition are devoted 70 TINS suoJfSt az
most exclusively. II he had mercy READ the ne"u-
Ing OF Chapter XII he would have touhd III II !ne
following: '"Compexity Of effects essentla! 70 'ne
beauty OF single sounds, lines and colOrs' anu "a
the heading OF Chapter XIII he might nav 5e1 ~,
s'Complexity of effect. n FORM conJui'Ia ~
Imagination cOincdent with every form appearing "
the senses" An author whose mode OF presc.h.a
fion Is not so but that nine OUT OF yen ia
agreed In substance. in the statement hnaue tha' -
is characterized by "an amplitude ana eNaclHeSs VI
illustration that make Ms work dehniteY ana cl'.l
ly explicit" may be excused. nope Tor eXpresSi;is
a regret that the only comment or a )Ourral Hkc
The Tribune with reference to oae OF ms ehuedNvIS
10 be OF use should he series OF mlsreprese..,td
tons clearly based upon supf rncial EXAMINATION
into what he has done well as superllCldI con-
ception of the value of words OF their bearings
upon the particular subject that Is being 1scuss-u,
and of the facts with reference to new pubicauoiS
with which the reading puoic have fignL 70 DC
made ACQUAINTED. GEORGE J.. RAYMOND
Princeton, y. j., April &c, 1894.