Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11) by Herbert Spencer (best mobile ebook reader TXT) 📖

The   True Position Of    Aesthetics, And Holding That While

The Cultivation Of    Them Should Form A Part Of    Education From Its

Commencement, Such Cultivation Should Be Subsidiary; We Have Now To

Inquire What Knowledge Is Of    Most Use To This End--What Knowledge Best

Fits For This Remaining Sphere Of    Activity? To This Question The   Answer

Is Still The   Same As Heretofore. Unexpected Though The   Assertion May Be,

It Is Nevertheless True, That The   Highest Art Of    Every Kind Is Based On

Science--That Without Science There Can Be Neither Perfect Production

Nor Full Appreciation. Science, In That Limited Acceptation Current In

Society, May Not Have Been Possessed By Various Artists Of    High Repute;

But Acute Observers As Such Artists Have Been, They Have Always

Possessed A Stock Of    Those Empirical Generalisations Which Constitute

Science In Its Lowest Phase; And They Have Habitually Fallen Far Below

Perfection, Partly Because Their Generalisations Were Comparatively Few

And Inaccurate. That Science Necessarily Underlies The   Fine Arts,

Becomes Manifest, _À Priori_, When We Remember That Art-Products Are All

More Or Less Representative Of    Objective Or Subjective Phenomena; That

They Can Be Good Only In Proportion As They Conform To The   Laws Of    These

Phenomena; And That Before They Can Thus Conform, The   Artist Must Know

What These Laws Are. That This _À Priori_ Conclusion Tallies With

Experience, We Shall Soon See.

 

 

 

Youths Preparing For The   Practice Of    Sculpture Have To Acquaint

Themselves With The   Bones And Muscles Of    The   Human Frame In Their

Distribution, Attachments, And Movements. This Is A Portion Of    Science;

And It Has Been Found Needful To Impart It For The   Prevention Of    Those

Many Errors Which Sculptors Who Do Not Possess It Commit. A Knowledge Of

Mechanical Principles Is Also Requisite; And Such Knowledge Not Being

Usually Possessed, Grave Mechanical Mistakes Are Frequently Made. Take

An Instance. For The   Stability Of    A Figure It Is Needful That The

Perpendicular From The   Centre Of    Gravity--"The Line Of    Direction," As It

Is Called--Should Fall Within The   Base Of    Support; And Hence It Happens,

That When A Man Assumes The   Attitude Known As "Standing At Ease," In

Which One Leg Is Straightened And The   Other Relaxed, The   Line Of

Direction Falls Within The   Foot Of    The   Straightened Leg. But Sculptors

Unfamiliar With The   Theory Of    Equilibrium, Not Uncommonly So Represent

This Attitude, That The   Line Of    Direction Falls Midway Between The   Feet.

Ignorance Of    The   Law Of    Momentum Leads To Analogous Blunders: As Witness

The Admired Discobolus, Which, As It Is Posed, Must Inevitably Fall

Forward The   Moment The   Quoit Is Delivered.

 

 

 

In Painting, The   Necessity For Scientific Information, Empirical If Not

Rational, Is Still More Conspicuous. What Gives The   Grotesqueness Of

Chinese Pictures, Unless Their Utter Disregard Of    The   Laws Of

Appearances--Their Absurd Linear Perspective, And Their Want Of    Aerial

Perspective? In What Are The   Drawings Of    A Child So Faulty, If Not In A

Similar Absence Of    Truth--An Absence Arising, In Great Part, From

Ignorance Of    The   Way In Which The   Aspects Of    Things Vary With The

Conditions? Do But Remember The   Books And Lectures By Which Students Are

Instructed; Or Consider The   Criticisms Of    Ruskin; Or Look At The   Doings

Of The   Pre-Raffaelites; And You Will See That Progress In Painting

Implies Increasing Knowledge Of    How Effects In Nature Are Produced. The

Most Diligent Observation, If Unaided By Science, Fails To Preserve From

Error. Every Painter Will Endorse The   Assertion That Unless It Is Known

What Appearances Must Exist Under Given Circumstances, They Often Will

Not Be Perceived; And To Know What Appearances Must Exist, Is, In So

Far, To Understand The   Science Of    Appearances. From Want Of    Science Mr.

J. Lewis, Careful Painter As He Is, Casts The   Shadow Of    A Lattice-Window

In Sharply-Defined Lines Upon An Opposite Wall; Which He Would Not Have

Done, Had He Been Familiar With The   Phenomena Of    Penumbræ. From Want Of

Science, Mr. Rosetti, Catching Sight Of    A Peculiar Iridescence Displayed

By Certain Hairy Surfaces Under Particular Lights (An Iridescence Caused

By The   Diffraction Of    Light In Passing The   Hairs), Commits The   Error Of

Showing This Iridescence On Surfaces And In Positions Where It Could Not

Occur.

 

 

 

To Say That Music, Too, Has Need Of    Scientific Aid Will Cause Still More

Surprise. Yet It May Be Shown That Music Is But An Idealisation Of    The

Natural Language Of    Emotion; And That Consequently, Music Must Be Good

Or Bad According As It Conforms To The   Laws Of    This Natural Language.

The Various Inflections Of    Voice Which Accompany Feelings Of    Different

Kinds And Intensities, Are The   Germs Out Of    Which Music Is Developed. It

Is Demonstrable That These Inflections And Cadences Are Not Accidental

Or Arbitrary; But That They Are Determined By Certain General Principles

Of Vital Action; And That Their Expressiveness Depends On This. Whence

Part 1 Chapter 1 (What Knowledge Is Of Most Worth?) Pg 18

It Follows That Musical Phrases And The   Melodies Built Of    Them, Can Be

Effective Only When They Are In Harmony With These General Principles.

It Is Difficult Here Properly To Illustrate This Position. But Perhaps

It Will Suffice To Instance The   Swarms Of    Worthless Ballads That Infest

Drawing-Rooms, As Compositions Which Science Would Forbid. They Sin

Against Science By Setting To Music Ideas That Are Not Emotional Enough

To Prompt Musical Expression; And They Also Sin Against Science By Using

Musical Phrases That Have No Natural Relations To The   Ideas Expressed:

Even Where These Are Emotional. They Are Bad Because They Are Untrue.

And To Say They Are Untrue, Is To Say They Are Unscientific.

 

 

 

Even In Poetry The   Same Thing Holds. Like Music, Poetry Has Its Root In

Those Natural Modes Of    Expression Which Accompany Deep Feeling. Its

Rhythm, Its Strong And Numerous Metaphors, Its Hyperboles, Its Violent

Inversions, Are Simply Exaggerations Of    The   Traits Of    Excited Speech. To

Be Good, Therefore, Poetry Must Pay Attention To Those Laws Of    Nervous

Action Which Excited Speech Obeys. In Intensifying And Combining The

Traits Of    Excited Speech, It Must Have Due Regard To Proportion--Must

Not Use Its Appliances Without Restriction; But, Where The   Ideas Are

Least Emotional, Must Use The   Forms Of    Poetical Expression Sparingly;

Must Use Them More Freely As The   Emotion Rises; And Must Carry Them To

Their Greatest Extent, Only Where The   Emotion Reaches A Climax. The

Entire Contravention Of    These Principles Results In Bombast Or Doggerel.

The Insufficient Respect For Them Is Seen In Didactic Poetry. And It Is

Because They Are Rarely Fully Obeyed, That So Much Poetry Is Inartistic.

 

 

 

Not Only Is It That The   Artist, Of    Whatever Kind, Cannot Produce A

Truthful Work Without He Understands The   Laws Of    The   Phenomena He

Represents; But It Is That He Must Also Understand How The   Minds Of

Spectators Or Listeners Will Be Affected By The   Several Peculiarities Of

His Work--A Question In Psychology. What Impression Any Art-Product

Generates, Manifestly Depends Upon The   Mental Natures Of    Those To Whom

It Is Presented; And As All Mental Natures Have Certain Characteristics

In Common, There Must Result Certain Corresponding General Principles On

Which Alone Art-Products Can Be Successfully Framed. These General

Principles Cannot Be Fully Understood And Applied, Unless The   Artist

Sees How They Follow From The   Laws Of    Mind. To Ask Whether The

Composition Of    A Picture Is Good Is Really To Ask How The   Perceptions

And Feelings Of    Observers Will Be Affected By It. To Ask Whether A Drama

Is Well Constructed, Is To Ask Whether Its Situations Are So Arranged As

Duly To Consult The   Power Of    Attention Of    An Audience, And Duly To Avoid

Overtaxing Any One Class Of    Feelings. Equally In Arranging The   Leading

Divisions Of    A Poem Or Fiction, And In Combining The   Words Of    A Single

Sentence, The   Goodness Of    The   Effect Depends Upon The   Skill With Which

The Mental Energies And Susceptibilities Of    The   Reader Are Economised.

Every Artist, In The   Course Of    His Education And After-Life, Accumulates

A Stock Of    Maxims By Which His Practice Is Regulated. Trace Such Maxims

To Their Roots, And They Inevitably Lead You Down To Psychological

Principles. And Only When The   Artist Understands These Psychological

Principles And Their Various Corollaries Can He Work In Harmony With

Them.

 

 

 

We Do Not For A Moment Believe That Science Will Make An Artist. While

We Contend That The   Leading Laws Both Of    Objective And Subjective

Phenomena Must Be Understood By Him, We By No Means Contend That

Knowledge Of    Such Laws Will Serve In Place Of    Natural Perception. Not

The Poet Only, But The   Artist Of    Every Type, Is Born, Not Made. What We

Assert Is, That Innate Faculty Cannot Dispense With The   Aid Of    Organised

Knowledge. Intuition Will Do Much, But It Will Not Do All. Only When

Genius Is Married To Science Can The   Highest Results Be Produced.

 

 

 

As We Have Above Asserted, Science Is Necessary Not Only For The   Most

Successful Production, But Also For The   Full Appreciation, Of    The   Fine

Arts. In What Consists The   Greater Ability Of    A Man Than Of    A Child To

Perceive The   Beauties Of    A Picture; Unless It Is In His More Extended

Knowledge Of    Those Truths In Nature Or Life Which The   Picture Renders?

How Happens The   Cultivated Gentleman To Enjoy A Fine Poem So Much More

Than A Boor Does; If It Is Not Because His Wider Acquaintance With

Objects And Actions Enables Him To See In The   Poem Much That The   Boor

Cannot See? And If, As Is Here So Obvious, There Must Be Some

Familiarity With The   Things Represented, Before The   Representation Can

Be Appreciated, Then, The   Representation Can Be Completely Appreciated

Only When The   Things Represented Are Completely Understood. The   Fact Is,

That Every Additional Truth Which A Word Of    Art Expresses, Gives An

Additional Pleasure To The   Percipient Mind--A Pleasure That Is Missed By

Those Ignorant Of    This Truth. The   More Realities An Artist Indicates In

Any Given Amount Of    Work, The   More Faculties Does He Appeal To; The   More

Numerous Ideas Does He Suggest; The   More Gratification Does He Afford.

But To Receive This Gratification The   Spectator, Listener, Or Reader,

Must Know The   Realities Which The   Artist Has Indicated; And To Know

These Realities Is To Have That Much Science.

 

 

 

And Now Let Us Not Overlook The   Further Great Fact, That Not Only Does

Science Underlie Sculpture, Painting, Music, Poetry, But That Science Is

Itself Poetic. The   Current Opinion That Science And Poetry Are Opposed,

Is A Delusion. It Is Doubtless True That As States Of    Consciousness,

Cognition And Emotion Tend To Exclude Each Other. And It Is Doubtless

Also True That An Extreme Activity Of    The   Reflective Powers Tends To

Deaden The   Feelings; While An Extreme Activity Of    The   Feelings Tends To

Deaden The   Reflective Powers: In Which Sense, Indeed, All Orders Of

Activity Are Antagonistic To Each Other. But It Is Not True That The

Facts Of    Science Are Unpoetical; Or That The   Cultivation Of    Science Is

Necessarily Unfriendly To The   Exercise Of    Imagination And The   Love Of

The Beautiful. On The   Contrary, Science Opens Up Realms Of    Poetry Where

To The   Unscientific All Is A Blank. Those Engaged In Scientific

Researches Constantly Show Us That They Realise Not Less Vividly, But

More Vividly, Than Others, The   Poetry Of    Their Subjects. Whoso Will Dip

Into Hugh Miller's Works Of    Geology, Or Read Mr. Lewes's _Sea-Side

Studies_, Will Perceive That Science Excites Poetry Rather Than

Extinguishes It. And He Who Contemplates The   Life Of    Goethe, Must See

That The   Poet And The   Man Of    Science Can Co-Exist In Equal Activity. Is

It Not, Indeed, An Absurd And Almost A Sacrilegious Belief, That The

More A Man Studies Nature The   Less He Reveres It? Think You That A Drop

Of Water, Which To The   Vulgar Eye Is But A Drop Of    Water, Loses Anything

In The   Eye Of    The   Physicist Who Knows That Its Elements Are Held

Together By A Force Which, If Suddenly Liberated, Would Produce A Flash

Of Lightning? Think You That What Is Carelessly Looked Upon By The

Uninitiated As A Mere Snow-Flake, Does Not Suggest Higher Associations

To One Who Had Seen Through A Microscope The   Wondrously-Varied And

Elegant Forms Of    Snow-Crystals? Think You That The   Rounded Rock Marked

With Parallel Scratches, Calls Up As Much Poetry In An Ignorant Mind As

In The   Mind Of    A Geologist, Who Knows That