From The Critic as Artist by Oscar Wilde

 

Concepts underlying in the essay “from the Critic as Artist” by Oscar Wilde (Part 1)

This work of criticism is the dialogue between two character who are friends. One is Gilbert who is mainly the mouthpiece of Oscar Wilde. He, as flamboyant character, will present his philosophy of Criticism and second Character is Ernest who questions to Gilbert where he feels ambiguity and also summarize the previous argument. Oscar Wilde uses Dialectical method as Plato used in his book Republic.

Worth of Criticism

Their discussion starts from the Ernest as he was reading a book. Ernest claim that the creative faculty is higher than a critical. But the Gilbert renounce by giving an argument, Artist creation is worthy because the work of criticism makes it a worthy. If there is no criticism, nobody knows the beauties and fault in work of art. And the artist work is not worthy at all.

Spirit of Choice  

There is the discussion on the spirit of choice and Gilbert gives name to it “delicate instinct of selection”. He says that artist give their work of art a fleeting perfection through this spirit. But he gives a witty remark that spirit of choice is a critical faculty. If a person did not possess it, he cannot create anything in art.

Work of art is a self-conscious effort

Ernest said to Gilbert that all great work of art is unconsciously done by artist. Gilbert argues that the all fine imaginative works are self-conscious and well planned. Gilbert gives illustration with the example of poet. Poet did not sing because he wanted to sing but he chooses to sing. Here again spirit of choice comes in a way which artist possess. He then criticizes by defying orthodoxy that the greatest poet who introduces Greek gods of nature as the muses and Apollo has merely introduced the artificial century which they fancied it. He says that “self-conscious and critical spirit are one”.

Imaginations of individual

Ernest asks question from the Gilbert that the greatest poems written in earliest times were the work of imaginative individual or race became it a great work. Gilbert answers in favor of individual that art is not possible without style and style come from unity which the individual hold. He gives the example of Shakespeare that he takes a rough material from Greeks work and give it a style. The age in which Shakespeare wrote now called the Shakespearean age due to his individual style. As gilbert says

“it’s not the moment that makes the man but the man who creates the age”

Critical Age

Gilbert introduces about the critical ages because critical ages also the creative ages. He hits the ground of critical age by saying that when no criticism is produced then an age work is very static, immobile, unmoving and formal type. It means that age possess no work of art at all. According to him creative age depends upon the critic and critic doesn’t depends upon on creative art because critic found new forms in work of art.

He appreciated the work of Greek because they were perfect and invented the forms like the epic, the lyric, and even drama. He deliberately extracts the forms which were not produced in the Greeks like sonnet, American Journalism and ballad. He again gave an honor to critical faculty for finding something new in creative artist. Because creative artist also doesn’t know that he creative at all.

Mediocrity in modern Criticism

Ernest asked about the most modern criticism that it is perfectly valueless why? Then Gilbert gave him a witty remark “mediocrity weighing mediocrity in balance”. And he straightforwardly eradicates the reviewer by saying that he is talking about high class critics who writes papers which are being published.

Cultivation of criticism

According to Gilbert, criticism urges more cultivation then creation. Gilbert is really against reviewers that he tagged them misanthropes who didn’t really read a book and if they read it they don’t have a taste of judging them.

For him, only ten minutes are enough for a true critic. Critics have a sense of form of any literary work. Critics are instinctive in judging a work of art.

Words vs Action

Gilbert digresses from the topic and then he moves toward the subject of painting. In Gilbert’s view, painter who objects to criticism but there is no intellectuality in their own work because there is no shift in thought. On this point Ernest interrupts him that it is difficult to do a thing than to talk about it. Gilbert disagrees with him and in inverse told him that talking about something is difficult then doing something. He gives an example of historians who makes history. He told him that how the world came to know about them. It the language who wrote their action in elevated form and add emotions through words.

Rewriters of history

Ernest argued with the Gilbert that critics do nothing but rewrite history. Gilbert agreed at that point gave an ironic comment that rewriting history is not least task because they are giving the way. The ways that man of action chooses. They have never known where their action leads to but critic does. By rewriting the history, critics are actually guiding the humanity. Ernest then called this delusion of action and Gilbert admit it. But in opinion of Gilbert, those who are good or virtuous in their age, afterwards they can become worse or worthless and the ones who are considered evil in their age would become good after many years due to their actions.

Critic is itself an artist    

Ernest in favor of creative artist remarks that creative artist remark that creative artist has higher place than critic because artist introduce to common person with the new worlds. He presents the world more marvelous, more enduring and more true than the gloomy world in which we live is the work of creative artist. So, it creates relationship between Art and Life not between Art and Criticism. Gilbert then give the spry and pointed remark that “Criticism is itself an art” that criticism in highest sense is creative and independent also. Artists are dependent because they need perfection. But critics are independent, they can’t be judged by low standards and don’t even need perfection for their work. A true critic can produce a work that is flawless in beauty. A critic can find his motivation anywhere and anything can serve his purpose. It depends upon critic that how he treats a subject. He is creative artist also because he finds any new forms or elements in any piece of work of art. It’s “creation within creation”

Highest Criticism comes from soul  

In Gilbert opinion, highest criticism is the purest form of personal impression. Outer situation can not restrict them from its true nature. One can point out the work of fiction or fact. But, no one can condemn the work that come from soul and that work is Highest Criticism. So, Highest Criticism is more engrossing than history and philosophy. He says in ingenious manner that “it’s only civilized form of autobiography”. It deals with thoughts of one’s life, spiritual moods and imaginative passion of mind. So Criticism deals with the impressive art not the expressive art.

Criticism is more creative than creation

Last concept, which is not the least, upon which the whole discussion is held is the Criticism is more creative than creation. It is the theory of Gilbert as well as Oscar Wilde. His theory believed in the concept that any beauty gives insights to critics. Critics don’t see beautiful things as aesthetic objects. Thousands thoughts came in mind of critics which the painter of beautiful object himself doesn’t think.

Misconception about Critics

Gilbert points out the misconception that some people says the critics love to write about the anecdotage of paintings. It is not true because anecdotage doesn’t agitate the imagination or fascinate the critic. Critics always looking for something that they can escape into the wider world.