The New York herald., 1921-09-04
Twenty years of Roger Fry

I we get IN the imaginative llfe
different set Of values and a different
kind Of perception
| Following up the subject he writes.
Art, then, Is an expression and a
stimulus of this imaginative life which
is separated from actual life by the
absence of responsive action. Now,
this responsive action implies in actual
| life moral responsibility. In art we
have no such moral esponsibility-it
presents life freed from the binding
necessities OF our actual existence.
| What, then, is the justification for
| this life of the IMAGINATION which all
human beings live more or less fully?
| To the pure moralist, who accepts
nothing but ethical values, in order to
be justified, 1t must be shown not
only not to hinder. but actually TO
forward right action; otherwise 1t is
not only useless, but. since 1t absorbs
our energies, positively harmful. To
such one two views are possible.
one the 'Puritanical view at its mar
rowest, which regards the life of the
imagination as no better OF worse
than a life of sensual pleasure and
therefore entirely reprehensible. The
other view is to argue that the imagi-
native life does subserve morality. And
this is inevitably the view taken by
moralists like Ruskin, to whom the
imaginative life is yet an absolute
necessity"
And again:
Before leaving this question of the
justification of art let me put 1t an
other way. The imaginative life Of a
people has very different levels at diff
ferent times, and these levels do not
always correspond with the general
level of the morality Of actual life.
Thus, in the thirteenth century. we
read of barbarity and cruelty which
would shock even us: we may, think.
admit that our moral level, our gen
eral humanity, is decidedly higher to-
day, but the level of our imaginative
| life is incomparably lower; we are
| satisfied there with a grossness, a
sheer barbarity and squalor which
would have shocked the thirteenth
century profoundly. Let us admit the
moral gain gladly. but do we not also
| feel loss: do we not feel that the
| average business man would be In
| every way a more admirable more re-
spectacle, being If his imaginative life
were not so squalid and incoherent?
| And IL we admit any loss then, there
is some function in human nature
other than a purely ethical one, which
is worthy of exercise
Have YOU ever been for walk with
friend and had him say, just as the
scenery began to be most interesting:
'It's time we we're going back now. /
really don't think there is anything
more to see"? Roger Fry has taken
us on such a walk. and just as way
appeared which 1t seemed would lead
us to the complete justification OF art
he has said: I'VE really cannot Justify
art beyond saying that the average
| business man would be more admi-
rable II he would only care for 1t. II
| ia not worth our while to go further"
Roger Fry is wrong In assuming
that actual life and the imaginative
life are quite separate. Imaginative
life Is concerned with morals quite as
much as actual life is. In actual life
there must be an immediate active re-
action as problems unexpectedly come
up requiring instant solution. In
the imaginative life there is a
passive reaction more sluggish but
hardly less definite. Both reactions
are moral reactions. The relation
ships between the active and the
imaginative lives have not, so far as
/ know, been carefully studied, but
that the relationship is close there can
be little doubt A sound. wholesome
imaginative life buttressed with sound,
wholesome literature and art would
have an enormous and most beneficial
influence upon the active life. Such
an art would need no justification, and
its usefulnss would not be questioned
except by the puritans, who demand
in all things direct propaganda--a
thing which Is quite fatal to art.
Working through the imaginative
life art is not less a moral force than
IL II concerned itself directly with the
active life. In the active life conscious
direct propaganda is vicious. II is
not less so in the imaginative life. AS
moralist Tolstoy was less persuasive
after he had begun to lead a propa-
ganda. AS an artist he lost his tx-
quisite sense OF balance. The weaken
| ing of his hold upon the imaginative
| his power in the active.
Whenever the imaginative life is
full, rich, noble you may be sure that
| the foundations are being laid for no.
bility In active life.
Roger Fry brought us almost in
sight of the justification of art and
then he turned away and spoke further
of the nature of art. We have been
exploring A bypath which he ignored.
but we must go back to his main Is
sue, which was the nature Of art, not
its justification.
Fry has pointed out that art is not
TO be judged by its reaction on life He
urges us to consider II "as an express
sion of emotions regarded as ends In
themselves" Granted but the express
sion of emotions has a profound in
| fluence upon our active life as well as
| the imaginative and upon morals. The
right minded man quite unconsciously
creates art expressing emotions. the