DOI issue:
Nr. 231 (May 1916)
DOI article:Art and the man: critics and other meddlers
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43461#0232
A rt and the Man
Art and the man—critics and
OTHER MEDDLERS
BY RAYMOND WYER
The world to-day is suffering more
from an inability to discriminate between false
and true critics than anything else. Making
profit out of this condition is a flourishing busi-
ness for commercial, retrospective, superficial, and
sometimes eccentric persons. This is as true in
art as in other departments of life. The differ-
ence is that the general apathy toward art makes
it easier for them to carry on their activities.
I recently suggested that the chief reason for
public bewilderment in matters of art is the diver-
sity of opinion among those who are considered
authorities. These authorities may be mediocre
or commercial painters or those whose sole art
experience has been a visit to the Louvre, the
Luxembourg, and other European galleries, or any
of the trifling experiences upon which people base
their right to pass judgment on art matters.
When it is an artist who is the disturbing fac-
tor, it is usually the result of a disgruntled state
of mind because the local art society has not sup-
ported his work as much as he feels it deserves.
In retaliation he is contemptuous of all activities
of, and works of art bought or exhibited by, the
offending organization. In many ways his re-
sentment is not an unnatural condition. The
support he gives is regulated by the support he
receives, regardless, of course, whether or not
his work merits recognition. It may be short-
sighted, but it has an economic cause and is an
attitude often associated with men of larger vision
than is possessed by the average local artist.
This perplexity concerning art and the applica-
tion of art is not confined to small communities,
or to the less informed part of the public, but
extends to those who are keenly active in art
matters in all cities. Their condition is not due
to the teaching of the unqualified art critic but
to the want of unanimity among those who are
considered the best authorities. There are, I
must explain, two types of leading art critics.
By leading art critics I refer to those who con-
tribute to the principal magazines, and whose
criticisms are accepted as the best by artists,
connoisseurs, and other students of art. One of
these types is constructive. He studies the past
and interprets the present to penetrate into the
future. With him the past is the key to the
future. His attitude is satisfying to one school
of thought, for they see in it criticism which stim-
ulates creativeness and the human intellect, and
sustains evolution.
Another type is retrospective in mind. He
bases his criticism and his thought on the estab-
lished qualities of the past. He hallmarks them
with as much complacency as the shopkeeper sells
his wares on a similar guarantee. It is evidence
of respectability, and a stereotyped respectability
is the chief asset of many critics, and many
artists who endeavour to standardize art, and
bring it into line with other honorable callings
like the law, astronomy, and archaeology. With
some exceptions the extreme retrospective atti-
tude in art criticism has died out, and even some
of these exceptions stimulate themselves at times
with the adventure of an original idea. Yet I
am far from being convinced that they do no
good, for they have a quality of thought which
is still a comfort to many artists, as it is also to
many people in other walks of life who make a
demonstration of a mawkish morality for want of
courage or originality to be anything else.
There is another kind of art critic. This one
is unique, for he cheerfully declares he knows
nothing about art, yet still makes sweeping
statements concerning it, or uses any power he
may have to interrupt the work of others. He
is quite consistent, because he not only says he
knows nothing about art but admits that he has
no ability to find out. We always admire frank-
ness and, if it were not that irreparable harm is
often the result of this attitude, we could also be
amused at any one placing himself in so ludi-
crous a position.
In speaking of a permanent collection in which
there were a number of fine portraits a gentle-
man recently said: “I think it is a great mistake
to put portraits in a public museum.” Comment
is unnecessary. Of course, the museum at once
disposed of its Van Dyck, Velasquez, Rem-
brandt, Hals, Stuart, Holbein, Sargent, etc., etc.,
and exchanged a portrait by Gainsborough for
one of his landscapes!
Whether these trivial conceptions are caused
by commercial instincts, conceit, or want of im-
agination, the fact remains they are respon-
sible for much of that indifference and cynicism
of the public toward art with which those who are
earnestly working to create better conditions
have to contend.
LXXXVI
Art and the man—critics and
OTHER MEDDLERS
BY RAYMOND WYER
The world to-day is suffering more
from an inability to discriminate between false
and true critics than anything else. Making
profit out of this condition is a flourishing busi-
ness for commercial, retrospective, superficial, and
sometimes eccentric persons. This is as true in
art as in other departments of life. The differ-
ence is that the general apathy toward art makes
it easier for them to carry on their activities.
I recently suggested that the chief reason for
public bewilderment in matters of art is the diver-
sity of opinion among those who are considered
authorities. These authorities may be mediocre
or commercial painters or those whose sole art
experience has been a visit to the Louvre, the
Luxembourg, and other European galleries, or any
of the trifling experiences upon which people base
their right to pass judgment on art matters.
When it is an artist who is the disturbing fac-
tor, it is usually the result of a disgruntled state
of mind because the local art society has not sup-
ported his work as much as he feels it deserves.
In retaliation he is contemptuous of all activities
of, and works of art bought or exhibited by, the
offending organization. In many ways his re-
sentment is not an unnatural condition. The
support he gives is regulated by the support he
receives, regardless, of course, whether or not
his work merits recognition. It may be short-
sighted, but it has an economic cause and is an
attitude often associated with men of larger vision
than is possessed by the average local artist.
This perplexity concerning art and the applica-
tion of art is not confined to small communities,
or to the less informed part of the public, but
extends to those who are keenly active in art
matters in all cities. Their condition is not due
to the teaching of the unqualified art critic but
to the want of unanimity among those who are
considered the best authorities. There are, I
must explain, two types of leading art critics.
By leading art critics I refer to those who con-
tribute to the principal magazines, and whose
criticisms are accepted as the best by artists,
connoisseurs, and other students of art. One of
these types is constructive. He studies the past
and interprets the present to penetrate into the
future. With him the past is the key to the
future. His attitude is satisfying to one school
of thought, for they see in it criticism which stim-
ulates creativeness and the human intellect, and
sustains evolution.
Another type is retrospective in mind. He
bases his criticism and his thought on the estab-
lished qualities of the past. He hallmarks them
with as much complacency as the shopkeeper sells
his wares on a similar guarantee. It is evidence
of respectability, and a stereotyped respectability
is the chief asset of many critics, and many
artists who endeavour to standardize art, and
bring it into line with other honorable callings
like the law, astronomy, and archaeology. With
some exceptions the extreme retrospective atti-
tude in art criticism has died out, and even some
of these exceptions stimulate themselves at times
with the adventure of an original idea. Yet I
am far from being convinced that they do no
good, for they have a quality of thought which
is still a comfort to many artists, as it is also to
many people in other walks of life who make a
demonstration of a mawkish morality for want of
courage or originality to be anything else.
There is another kind of art critic. This one
is unique, for he cheerfully declares he knows
nothing about art, yet still makes sweeping
statements concerning it, or uses any power he
may have to interrupt the work of others. He
is quite consistent, because he not only says he
knows nothing about art but admits that he has
no ability to find out. We always admire frank-
ness and, if it were not that irreparable harm is
often the result of this attitude, we could also be
amused at any one placing himself in so ludi-
crous a position.
In speaking of a permanent collection in which
there were a number of fine portraits a gentle-
man recently said: “I think it is a great mistake
to put portraits in a public museum.” Comment
is unnecessary. Of course, the museum at once
disposed of its Van Dyck, Velasquez, Rem-
brandt, Hals, Stuart, Holbein, Sargent, etc., etc.,
and exchanged a portrait by Gainsborough for
one of his landscapes!
Whether these trivial conceptions are caused
by commercial instincts, conceit, or want of im-
agination, the fact remains they are respon-
sible for much of that indifference and cynicism
of the public toward art with which those who are
earnestly working to create better conditions
have to contend.
LXXXVI