按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
machinery will supply the useful things； and that the beautiful
things will be made by the individual。 This is not merely
necessary； but it is the only possible way by which we can get
either the one or the other。 An individual who has to make things
for the use of others； and with reference to their wants and their
wishes； does not work with interest； and consequently cannot put
into his work what is best in him。 Upon the other hand； whenever a
community or a powerful section of a community； or a government of
any kind； attempts to dictate to the artist what he is to do； Art
either entirely vanishes； or becomes stereotyped； or degenerates
into a low and ignoble form of craft。 A work of art is the unique
result of a unique temperament。 Its beauty comes from the fact
that the author is what he is。 It has nothing to do with the fact
that other people want what they want。 Indeed； the moment that an
artist takes notice of what other people want； and tries to supply
the demand； he ceases to be an artist； and becomes a dull or an
amusing craftsman； an honest or a dishonest tradesman。 He has no
further claim to be considered as an artist。 Art is the most
intense mode of Individualism that the world has known。 I am
inclined to say that it is the only real mode of Individualism that
the world has known。 Crime； which； under certain conditions； may
seem to have created Individualism； must take cognisance of other
people and interfere with them。 It belongs to the sphere of
action。 But alone； without any reference to his neighbours；
without any interference； the artist can fashion a beautiful thing；
and if he does not do it solely for his own pleasure； he is not an
artist at all。
And it is to be noted that it is the fact that Art is this intense
form of Individualism that makes the public try to exercise over it
in an authority that is as immoral as it is ridiculous； and as
corrupting as it is contemptible。 It is not quite their fault。
The public has always； and in every age； been badly brought up。
They are continually asking Art to be popular； to please their want
of taste； to flatter their absurd vanity； to tell them what they
have been told before； to show them what they ought to be tired of
seeing； to amuse them when they feel heavy after eating too much；
and to distract their thoughts when they are wearied of their own
stupidity。 Now Art should never try to be popular。 The public
should try to make itself artistic。 There is a very wide
difference。 If a man of science were told that the results of his
experiments； and the conclusions that he arrived at； should be of
such a character that they would not upset the received popular
notions on the subject； or disturb popular prejudice； or hurt the
sensibilities of people who knew nothing about science； if a
philosopher were told that he had a perfect right to speculate in
the highest spheres of thought； provided that he arrived at the
same conclusions as were held by those who had never thought in any
sphere at all … well； nowadays the man of science and the
philosopher would be considerably amused。 Yet it is really a very
few years since both philosophy and science were subjected to
brutal popular control； to authority … in fact the authority of
either the general ignorance of the community； or the terror and
greed for power of an ecclesiastical or governmental class。 Of
course； we have to a very great extent got rid of any attempt on
the part of the community； or the Church； or the Government； to
interfere with the individualism of speculative thought； but the
attempt to interfere with the individualism of imaginative art
still lingers。 In fact； it does more than linger； it is
aggressive； offensive； and brutalising。
In England； the arts that have escaped best are the arts in which
the public take no interest。 Poetry is an instance of what I mean。
We have been able to have fine poetry in England because the public
do not read it； and consequently do not influence it。 The public
like to insult poets because they are individual； but once they
have insulted them； they leave them alone。 In the case of the
novel and the drama； arts in which the public do take an interest；
the result of the exercise of popular authority has been absolutely
ridiculous。 No country produces such badly…written fiction； such
tedious； common work in the novel form； such silly； vulgar plays as
England。 It must necessarily be so。 The popular standard is of
such a character that no artist can get to it。 It is at once too
easy and too difficult to be a popular novelist。 It is too easy；
because the requirements of the public as far as plot； style；
psychology； treatment of life； and treatment of literature are
concerned are within the reach of the very meanest capacity and the
most uncultivated mind。 It is too difficult； because to meet such
requirements the artist would have to do violence to his
temperament； would have to write not for the artistic joy of
writing； but for the amusement of half…educated people； and so
would have to suppress his individualism； forget his culture；
annihilate his style； and surrender everything that is valuable in
him。 In the case of the drama； things are a little better： the
theatre…going public like the obvious； it is true； but they do not
like the tedious； and burlesque and farcical comedy； the two most
popular forms； are distinct forms of art。 Delightful work may be
produced under burlesque and farcical conditions； and in work of
this kind the artist in England is allowed very great freedom。 It
is when one comes to the higher forms of the drama that the result
of popular control is seen。 The one thing that the public dislike
is novelty。 Any attempt to extend the subject…matter of art is
extremely distasteful to the public； and yet the vitality and
progress of art depend in a large measure on the continual
extension of subject…matter。 The public dislike novelty because
they are afraid of it。 It represents to them a mode of
Individualism； an assertion on the part of the artist that he
selects his own subject； and treats it as he chooses。 The public
are quite right in their attitude。 Art is Individualism； and
Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force。 Therein
lies its immense value。 For what it seeks to disturb is monotony
of type； slavery of custom； tyranny of habit； and the reduction of
man to the level of a machine。 In Art； the public accept what has
been； because they cannot alter it； not because they appreciate it。
They swallow their classics whole； and never taste them。 They
endure them as the inevitable； and as they cannot mar them； they
mouth about them。 Strangely enough； or not strangely； according to
one's own views； this acceptance of the classics does a great deal
of harm。 The uncritical admiration of the Bible and Shakespeare in
England is an instance of what I mean。 With regard to the Bible；
considerations of ecclesiastical authority enter into the matter；
so that I need not dwell upon the point。 But in the case of
Shakespeare it is quite obvious that the public really see neither
the beauties nor the defects of his plays。 If they saw the
beauties； they would not object to the development of the drama；
and if they saw the defects； they would not object to the
development of the drama either。 The fact is； the public make use
of the classics of a country as a means of checking the progress of
Art。 They degrade the classics into authorities。 They use them as
bludgeons for preventing the free expression of Beauty in new
forms。 They are always asking a writer why he does not write like
somebody else； or a painter why he does not paint like somebody
else； quite oblivious of the fact that if either of them did
anything of the kind he would cease to be an artist。 A fresh mode
of Beauty is absolutely distasteful to them； and whenever it
appears they get so angry； and bewildered that they always use two
stupid expressions … one is that the work of art is grossly
unintelligible； the other； that the work of art is grossly immoral。
What they mean by these words seems to me to be this。 When they
say a work is grossly unintelligible； they mean that the artist has
said or made a beautiful thing that is new； when they describe a
work as grossly immoral； they mean that the artist has said or made
a beautiful thing that is true。 The former expression has
reference to style； the latter to subject…matter。 But they
probably use the words very vaguely； as an ordinary mob will use
ready…made paving…stones。 There is not a single real poet or
prose…writer of this century； for instance； on whom the British
public have not solemnly conferred diplomas of immorality； and
these diplomas practically take the place； with us； of what in
France； is the formal recognition of an Academy of Letters； and
fortunately make the establishment of