When Oscar Wilde
wrote his piece, The Critic as an Artist,
in the early 1890s, his idea of a ‘critic’ and of an ‘artist’ was different from
the meaning of one today, where there are not any Monets, Manets, Degas and Renoirs sprouting
up. In order to properly
understand a work of art, it is important to notice the time it was made. For example, Wilde reasons that “it is the critical faculty that invents
fresh forms” but whose ‘critical faculty’ was he considering (900)?
Wilde means that
critical thinking is the seed of remarkable and legendary art. Not all artists are critics, some
artists regurgitate popular culture, but all remarkable and legendary artists,
like that of Da Vinci’s Monna Lisa or even Walter Pater’s words that describe
the painting, “hers is the head upon which all ‘the ends of the world are
come,’ and the eyelids are a little weary,” are works of art (906).
Wilde argues
that all “beautiful” art, whether it is paintings on canvas or words on paper,
is derived from critical thinking.
He explains, “Without the critical faculty, there is no artistic
creation at all worthy of the name.
That spirit of choice, that subtle tact of omission, is really the
critical faculty” (900). For a
piece of art to be different and exquisite, no matter the medium, the artist
has to have a critical eye and a spirit different from the rest.
Following this
thought, Wilde describes, “the mere creative instinct does not innovate, but
reproduces” (902). Wilde
acknowledges that not all artists, or critics, are brilliant thinkers—the “mere
creative instinct”—and do not have the ability to reflect deeply or develop a
profound feeling. He states the “highest
Criticism deals with art not as expressive, but as impressive” meaning that
only art that is “impressive” is paired with “impressive” criticism (905).
He recognizes
that not all artists are critics and not all critics are artists. Only those artists who are exceptional
are critics, and likewise, those critics who are exceptional are artists.
No comments:
Post a Comment