His
very judgment is valued not on a matter of art at all, but on a matter
of business. No one wants to know whether a certain picture is good or
bad. The question is, Was it painted by Romney? It might well have been
and yet be a very bad picture; but that is not the point. Experts are
called to say that it is by Romney; and they are proved to be wrong.
Thereupon Sir Thomas Jackson writes to the _Times_ and says that if
people learned to think for themselves the profession of art critic
would be at an end. The art critic, for him, is one who tells people
what to think. And then he proceeds--
It is only for the public he writes; he is of no use to
artists. I doubt whether any man in any branch of art could be
found who would honestly say he had ever learned anything from
the art critic, who, after all, is only an amateur. The
criticism we value, and that which really helps, is that of our
brother artists, often sharp and unsparing, but always salutary
and useful. And if useless to the artist, art criticism is
harmful to the public, who take their opinion from it at second
hand. Were all art criticism made penal for ten years lovers of
art would learn to think for themselves, and a truer
appreciation of art than the commercial one would result, with
the greatest benefit both to art and to artists. It is the
artist and not the professional critic who should be the real
instructor of the public taste.
Pages:
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53