DOI Artikel:
Wasilewska, Diana: Krytyka artystyczna Stanisława Lacka
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19071#0148
m its symbolic meanings it helped to understand the sources of contemporary conflicts. to
defme the current situation of the nation, in short, to discover the essence of reality. Such a
role was played by the past in Wyspiański's works. Lack argued that by revealing new se-
mantic relations this artist had invested old times with their proper significance, imparted
a monumental dimension to the past, and proved that the so-called historical art did not
concern by gone matters but those happening always. The artist, by creating his own vision
of history did not change events themselves but their significance, makmg choices deter-
mined by the present, by the vision of history engraved in the nation's consciousness.
Among Lack's writings metacritical considerations constitute an important though
smali part in which he postulates a model of criticism that is no longer an academic dis-
cipline but becomes a truły artistic creation. The method proposed by nim corresponds to
the theory of "empathy" as fomiulated by Lipps: a critic who wants to render the essential
meanings of a work of art as accurately as possible should gain an insight into artistic
emotion, into the artisfs inner impulse inspiring his work, into his soul. The majority of
researchers wrongly called Lack an Impressionist critic. sińce impression in his critical
language was only a synonym of art, whereas his method of reaching what was hidden and
thus most important in a work of art permits his criticism to be defined as emphatic. His
particular attitude towards a work of art was manifested. for instance, in adopting an art-
ist's point of view; this, however, was not tantamount to the critic's submission or absolute
adoration but to partnership, to a particular communion between two creatn e subjects.
A great deal has been written about Lack's dismissive attitude towards the reader; the
critic usually described a work of art as if it were known perfectly well to the reader and
thus not needing to be recalled or briefly introduced to nim. What impedes the compre-
hensibility of his texts is the lack of means of persuasion. not infreąuent interruption of the
thread of thought or abandonment of drawing a conclusion, and - first and foremost - pecu-
liar terminology. Lack is an almost standard example ofYoung Poland's tendency to depart
from generally accepted terms in favour of metaphors and ephemeral terms introduced for
one's own use. He created an individual idiolect present in his writings, as he employed
a smali number of terms with an extremely wide rangę of meanings. In addition, he used
expressions borrowed from a colloąuial language, which had no application to aesthetics
but which he ąuite often invested with his own meanings, usually without informing the
reader about it. Conseąuently, his was one of the most original critical jargons ofYoung
Poland. However, the individuality of his idiom resulted in a total lack of understanding
both among his contemporaries and among present-day researchers. How far he has been
underrated may be evidenced not only by the concurrence of many of his concepts with
the art theories of that time but by the topicality of his writings which also art historians
today may find useful in their studies on Young Poland's artistic output and on the evolu-
tion of the contemporary aesthetic doctrines and issues conceming theory of literaturę.
134
defme the current situation of the nation, in short, to discover the essence of reality. Such a
role was played by the past in Wyspiański's works. Lack argued that by revealing new se-
mantic relations this artist had invested old times with their proper significance, imparted
a monumental dimension to the past, and proved that the so-called historical art did not
concern by gone matters but those happening always. The artist, by creating his own vision
of history did not change events themselves but their significance, makmg choices deter-
mined by the present, by the vision of history engraved in the nation's consciousness.
Among Lack's writings metacritical considerations constitute an important though
smali part in which he postulates a model of criticism that is no longer an academic dis-
cipline but becomes a truły artistic creation. The method proposed by nim corresponds to
the theory of "empathy" as fomiulated by Lipps: a critic who wants to render the essential
meanings of a work of art as accurately as possible should gain an insight into artistic
emotion, into the artisfs inner impulse inspiring his work, into his soul. The majority of
researchers wrongly called Lack an Impressionist critic. sińce impression in his critical
language was only a synonym of art, whereas his method of reaching what was hidden and
thus most important in a work of art permits his criticism to be defined as emphatic. His
particular attitude towards a work of art was manifested. for instance, in adopting an art-
ist's point of view; this, however, was not tantamount to the critic's submission or absolute
adoration but to partnership, to a particular communion between two creatn e subjects.
A great deal has been written about Lack's dismissive attitude towards the reader; the
critic usually described a work of art as if it were known perfectly well to the reader and
thus not needing to be recalled or briefly introduced to nim. What impedes the compre-
hensibility of his texts is the lack of means of persuasion. not infreąuent interruption of the
thread of thought or abandonment of drawing a conclusion, and - first and foremost - pecu-
liar terminology. Lack is an almost standard example ofYoung Poland's tendency to depart
from generally accepted terms in favour of metaphors and ephemeral terms introduced for
one's own use. He created an individual idiolect present in his writings, as he employed
a smali number of terms with an extremely wide rangę of meanings. In addition, he used
expressions borrowed from a colloąuial language, which had no application to aesthetics
but which he ąuite often invested with his own meanings, usually without informing the
reader about it. Conseąuently, his was one of the most original critical jargons ofYoung
Poland. However, the individuality of his idiom resulted in a total lack of understanding
both among his contemporaries and among present-day researchers. How far he has been
underrated may be evidenced not only by the concurrence of many of his concepts with
the art theories of that time but by the topicality of his writings which also art historians
today may find useful in their studies on Young Poland's artistic output and on the evolu-
tion of the contemporary aesthetic doctrines and issues conceming theory of literaturę.
134