Всего за 170 руб. Купить полную версию
John William Waterhouse,
Ophelia, undated.
Oil on canvas, 102 x 64 cm.
The Pre-Raphaelite Trust.
Arthur Hughes,Ophelia,
1871.
Oil on panel, 33.3 x 21.1 cm.
The Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology,
University of Oxford, Oxford.
This last point reveals the depths of English thought. Art should be didactic, but this is not an end in itself. It is because by using the minute to show us how admirable creation is, it inspires us to praise our Creator. Ruskin, already an old man, wrote on September 16th, 1888, in Chamonix: All that is involved in these passionate utterances of my youth was first expanded and then concentrated into the aphorism given twenty years afterwards in my inaugural Oxford lectures: All great Art is Praise. Watts, criticising Haydon, states that All art that has had real and lasting success has popularised some great principle of mind or matter, some great truth, or some great paragraph in the book of nature. Hunt clarifies this goal by saying: I believe that any enlightened person who goes into a museum and familiarises himself with all the details of creation and their relationships to the most ancient and recent events, will instinctively grow certain of the Creators existence, His greatness, and His power to one day make love and justice reign! Even those who do not assign such a clearly religious purpose to art give it a moral one, believing like Blake that If you want to degrade humanity, the surest way it to first degrade the arts.[39] One of their critics said that they argued ad nauseam when deciding if Burne-Jones figures should be forbidden as immoral because they had a pessimistic expression. All the great English artists seem to agree that the entire population expects a sermon and a moral example from them.
But though this is quite a beautiful purpose, it appears at first glance to be somewhat fanciful. The majority of the people are neither artists nor truly capable of enjoying works of art. But they should be; and this is the most original idea that contemporary England has on art, its creation, and its usefulness. According to them Ruskin, Burne-Jones, William Morris, Walter Crane, Richmond, Holiday, and all the neo-Pre-Raphaelites all the members of a democracy should take part in the infinite moral pleasure provided by aesthetics. Art, according to their principles, should be both very noble and very democratic; it should say the most philosophical things, and say them to everyone. It should elevate the man who produces it, that is to say everyone, because it should be produced by everyone, and it should elevate those who appreciate it, again everyone, because everyone is called to appreciate it. It is shameful for an honest artist, said William Morris, to enjoy that which he has created by himself, just as it would be shameful for a rich man to live and eat copiously in the midst of soldiers dying of starvation in a siege.
Edward Burne-Jones,
The Briar Rose Series - Study for
The Garden Court, 1888-1889.
Bodycolour and chalk on paper laid onto
prepared board, 89 x 59 cm.
Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery, Birmingham.
John Everett Millais,
Ophelia, 1851-1852.
Oil on canvas, 76.2 x 111.8 cm.
Tate Gallery, London.
John Everett Millais,
The Huguenot, c. 1852.
Watercolour and pen and ink on paper,
13.3 x 8.7 cm. Cecil Higgins Art Gallery, Bedford.
But how can a workman, a carpenter, a mason, or a weaver offer himself artistic pleasure? First of all, by creating artworks, respond the English. But to do so, it was not at all necessary that he become a painter or perform music. He must simply introduce an aesthetic element into his craft, the humble work with which he has been entrusted. Morris went on: The development of the lower classes should not be gone about backwards, by giving the workmen museums and concerts, but by giving them back their primitive role, by striving to make homes, clothing, utensils, furniture, and all the tools of daily life both useful and beautiful for everyone. What is an artist, if not a worker who is determined, whatever happens, to produce exceptional work? And what is the decoration of furniture, of any object, if not an expression of the pleasure that the craftsman feels from succeeding in his work?[40] Morris also wanted all working-class people to learn the basics of design, not the art of drawing strictly speaking, but the means towards this end; a general ability in practising the arts. If this is not sufficient for them to begin
producing aesthetic designs, the artists themselves should also participate, unashamed to apply their genius to the curve of a chair-back or the decoration of a pan. This collaboration would profit both of them, for the artist who does not know how to work with his hands ends up completely forgetting the characteristics of the matter that he is supposed to dominate and creates mediocre works, and the workman with no artistic ideal can only produce standardised goods. This is the tradition of the heroic days of art. In the past, the same man provided the mind that conceived and directed, the arms that laboured, and the expert hand that chiselled, modelled or painted. Today, unfortunately, the different sorts of artists are as separate from one another as they are from the various other professions. By this division of labour, said Ruskin, you ruin all the arts at once. The work of the Academician becomes mean and effeminate because he is not used to treat colour on a grand scale and in rough materials; and your manufactures become base, because no well-educated person sets hand to them. And therefore it is necessary to understand, not merely as a logical statement but as a practical necessity, that wherever beautiful colour is to be arranged, you need a Master of Painting; and wherever noble form is to be given, a Master of Sculpture.[41]