WHAT IS ART ?
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR, I disagree so completely with Mr. Blunt's idea of criticism that I wish to question certain of his unmentioned assumptions. Mr. Blunt thinks that one should understand why a movement or an artist arose, and why at any particular time he or it receives appreciation. That is to say he wishes to feel secure in his generalised judgements. But art is not a matter of generalisations. It is not a matter of admiring post- impressionism and rejecting pre-Raphaelitism, it is not even a matter of admiring Cezanne and disliking Rossetti. It is a matter of choosing between individual paintings by Cezanne and Rossetti, both of whom painted well at times, and not so well at other times. It is convenient to say Rossetti was a middling artist and Uzarme a great one, but it leaves the heart of the matter untouched.
Does Mr. Blunt's intellectual analysis really help him to choose between two works, such as van Gogh's " Chair -" and " Sunflowers " ? To me, " The Chair " is an almost perfect record of imaginative vision, while " The Sunflowers !' gives me little pleasure ; but I know people who would state the case in exact reverse. Which of us is right ?
The verdicts of personal sincerity combined even with critical genius are insecure; but since it is not correctness but personal sincerity combined with artistic genius that makes good art, I do not see why the corresponding virtues should not be sufficient to judge with, despite their insecurity. To put it another way, accuracy, correctness, security, call it what you will, is irrelevant beside the personal reaction of a
living taste.—I am, Sir, yours, &c., DION MURRAY. 6 Airedale Avenue, Chiswick, W.4.
Previous page
