The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-05

are asking: "Of what earthly use Is
a critic? If we take delight in mas
terpiece of English, he comes with a
syntactical, rhetorical or logical for
nula. which he uses as literary crow
bar to probe under and overturn the
structure in order that he may show
us how, under the general effect which
so delighted us, there existed par
ticular defect about which we care
nothing; if we have enjoyed music
that as a whole impressed us like the
melody of nature in June, the critic
hobs up to tell us-nay, to drill it into
us-that something was awry with the
middle register-until that which was
but the faintest shadow over the tone
picture deepens so as almost to shut
off the vision 1t would be truly un-
bearable did we not know that the
ugly darkness would disappear as soon
as the critic takes his inky fingers from
before our eyes. But how much dis
comfort he causes! How much more
he suffers! He is a friend neither Of
the artist nor of the people, but the
gad-fly of both. Yet, stop a moment!
Need it be-ought it to be thus? Why
has the word critic been made to
signify such a wretched business?
Surely there is no other reason than
that those who have occupied the posi-
ton have themselves placed that con-
struction upon it; have been fault-fnd-
ers rather than critics or judges; have
undertaken to dictate method to the
artist and emotions to the audience,
when 1t was their business to do
neither Ralph Waldo Emerson was
friend of the artists and beIoyed of the
people, and yet we have no more truly
educative criticisms than his. He was
a Just and able judge-or critic in its
original sense, for he kept so closely
in touch with nature human and physi-
cal, that he approached a work of art
as a man untrammeled by the rules
and technicalities Of construction, and
passed judgment upon the effect with
pure and simple spirit. He made
but one requirement, namely, that the
work of art "domesticate him. that it
make him feel at home, and in that
one demand he proved himself a true
critic, for he expressed all mems de-
sire to be put at ease before a work
Of art-to find it expressing something
inotheiFo own natures. When it fails
to do this it ceases to be a work of
art to them.
In connection with true criticism
.G9nese. in naturally, the subject of art
creation or art Originality. Who is the
truly creative or original artist? Is 1t
he who can paint, chisel or write some
thing never before conceived? Then
Shakespeare and Milton must give way
to the man whose tongue and hands
q. move to every stimulus applied to his
uncontrolled senses; the woman who is
a crystallized bundle of eccentricities is
better than George Eliot, and the luna
tic asylum is better than the lecture
room. All artists too, are but curios-
lty makers, whose works are unintelli-
gible not only to others, but to them
selves. Thank heaven, 1t is not SOL The
best literature, painting, sculpture and
music prove that originality is the eX-
pression-not of the individual, but of
the UNIVERSAL; not of whimsicalities,
but of human thought and action.
When Shakespeare took half a dozen
structureless plays and lifeIess ehron-
ieles tore them to pieces, built them
g.. up into the majestic form of human ma
ture and set before the world a Richard
Ill, with his towering ambition; an
OthellO, with his destructive jealousy;
or a Hamlet, with his activities sunk
in the sea of doubt, he proved to all
men and. for ,allstime that the artist is
most original who can give the clearest
and fullest expression to human nature
in all it's natural beauty and acquired
ugliness. Goethe inferred the same
thought when he said the great artist
was he who could sink deepest in
thought and action and bring out the
essence Of their meaning.
With this view of originality, what is
the sphere of the critic? The artist has
come before the people with the result
of his work-not with his tools and
method, but with the effect. The peo-
pie are gathered about to pass judg
mcnt and the true critic is their spokesz
man-not q brainless tool, but one (whO
is in touch with them, having thought
and felt with them and noW/Tendering
a verdict which is his as veil as theirs.
He has no right to denpGnd considera-
ton for his manneriSSns or whims. 1t
is not his to smell the paint, lay the
architraYe, mark the scansion or die
tate the metho[ of tone production. 1t
Is this encrodchment upon the ground
of the artist that has associated the
od1um of a carpers with the word
Az
upon as one who delights to spoil the
enjoyment of an audience and dis
courage the efforts of the artist who
is succeeding in the line in which the
critic, perhaps, has miserably failed.
Away with such critics and haze them
if you like; make room again for the
man who can sink his individuality for
the time into the spirit of his fellow
beings before he undertakes to judge
for them. He alone will pass just judg-
ment upon the Zeus Of Phidias or the
Hermes of Praxiteles, who can first be-
come a Greek and can sympathize with
the religious ferYor of the Greeks dur
ing the Persian wars and understand
the gradual descent from the plain OF
r. sublimity to that Of ease and grace
Such man alone will be able to sacri-
flee himself merge himself into the
thoughts and feelings Of the audience
and then say to the artist, "Your work
pleases us; it pleases US not; we do not
understand you; you bore US with de-
tail. So will the artist be encouraged
so viii he know whether his genius
strikes roots into the hearts of the peo-
pie: so, too, will the people be able tC
express to the artist with eXactness
how his art (not his method-with that
neither they nor the critic have any
thing TO do) pleases them, or instructs
them When, now, the critic attempts
to swell his individuality to an all-im-
portance, and not only demands that
the artist please him particularly, but
turns painter, poet, sculptor or singer
and dictates method telling the painter
how to mix his paint; the sculptor how
to hold his chisel, or the singer how
to open her mouth, then it is time he
was dealt with as a public nuisance
Why should the people care what the
critic thinks so long as he is not in
o.