SHOULD REVIEWERS BE CENSORS ? [To the Editor of THE
SPECTATOR.]
Sia,—" Art," says Mr. Scott-James in your last number, " has one way of approaching reality, ethics another. They are not in the least opposed, but they are different in method."
Surely difference can become, after a certain point, very like opposition. Surely the ethical approach to reality depends upon considerations to which the pure artist is utterly indifferent. The fact that the pure artist does not exist, but is always a citizen, a- son (or daughter) of parents, a pupil of teachers, and many other conflicting and simul- taneous personalities besides, may blind us to his essential nature. It must not be assumed to have destroyed it.
This is perhaps platitudinous. Yet—so little is the truism digested—sonie admirers of a writer like Lawrence will actually argue that his ethical " impurities " are proof of artistic " purity." Those who reason in this fashion are no less a public nuisance than those reviewers who "are constantly preoccupied with the search for good or bad moral influences in a book."—I am, Sir, &c., ARNOLD PALMER.
17 Abbey Lodge, N. W. 8.
Previous page
