Art and the Renaissance

In his essay "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time," Matthew Arnold claims that constructive criticism of a work of art can be a useful device to employ the finer influences that aesthetic pleasures create in the receptively trained mind of a good critic.

Criticism should be a tool that serves to elaborate on and point out the artistic value of a work of art to the public, or creating awareness and appreciation without being dogmatic about it. Arnold argues that the business of criticism is "simply to know the best that is known and thought in the world, and by in its turn making this known." In a learned and educated manner, the critic should elaborate on his own original theories of art that are inevitably influenced by time and setting. To know the background enables the critic to subjectively dwell on a work's importance and objectively ponder about its external influences.

Walter Pater in his preface to "The Renaissance" certainly stresses his compliance with some of Arnold's ideas. He agrees with Arnold's phrase (by directly quoting it) that it is most important for a true critic "to see the object as in itself it really is." For Pater, it is essential that the true critic realize that his own sentiments about a work of art are equally important to the message he wants to convey to the public. Only by asking himself "what effect it really produces" on him can the critic fully comprehend the artistic significance a certain work possesses (or not) since all minds operate on a different scale.

Arnold believes that a critic has to be able to show complete "disinterestedness." This means that the critic has to separate himself from "the practical view of things," and instead "exercise a free play of the mind" on the subject. The critic's objective is therefore to make the public aware of a great work of art and the absolute beauty of it in itself, with absolutely no attachments to vulgar influences, such as politics, religion or business.

Pater, on the other hand, argues that all time periods are equal in the sense that the true genius "is always above its age" (quote from William Blake). He is trying to say that beauty is not necessarily in the eye of the beholder, but in the universal consciousness of the whole of humanity. Pater believes that art only has to be of itself, being its own creation, and never the carrier of influence.

Not being of an age (actively endorsing its futile and trivial pursuits) does not deter one from being part of an age (obviously an impossibility in itself). Pater even suggests that the 15th century cannot be praised highly enough because of its "general spirit and character, for the ethical qualities of which it is a consummate type." This statement implies that not all ages are created equal, but the common thread of the Renaissance seems to be exempt from that rule since it exemplifies its superiority throughout shining moments of many ages.

While Arnold also believes that art should always detach itself from ordinary influences, he also points out the necessity of a stimulating environment in the creative process. For example, the multi-facetted talent Goethe lived in an atmosphere of "many-sided learning" and was highly influenced by the "long and widely combined critical effort of Germany." This, of course, only means that Arnold is in favor of the influence that a positive and intellectually stimulating mood in society creates in the artist's conceptual traits. Real genius can only be spawned in a home that fosters such temperaments as can be seen to fit the mold of artistic perfection.

Arnold states that the critical power "tends to establish an order of ideas to make the best ideas prevail." This is essentially an endorsement of delivering artistic visions to the general public who is usually unaware of the flux of great ideas in its midst. If the public is to gain a greater appreciation of true works of art, only the true critic will be able to deliver the meaning behind the value of a masterpiece of art. He has to be able to accentuate its universal importance to illuminate the glory or pain of humanity. The ideas that prevail are the ones that have been brewing in the minds of whole generations.

Pater ultimately believes in the same principle, but he will not readily admit to it. For example, he argues that Wordsworth's poetry draws "strength and colour and character from local influences," but at the same time he claims that this a defect since he directly urges the critic to disengage "that active principle." In other words, an artist that is overly concerned with external stimuli is participating in an ornamental overload; the only concern of his should be the true essence of things considered in an impersonal manner. The only thing that counts for Pater is the genius, not the age that spawns and inevitably influences it.

Both Pater and Arnold have theories that do not necessarily reflect identical views on similar topics, but they certainly complement each other. As Pater puts it himself (in his infamous conclusion to "The Renaissance"), "we are all under a sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve." This is a definite statement with an almost infinite variety of possibilities to rejoice or lament the fate that is bestowed upon the unsuspecting mortal. He has a chance to view ethereal eternity in the details of a masterpiece, such as the solemnly gazing eyes of the Mona Lisa, with no fixed object to identify buried sensations.

Arnold agrees half-heartedly, "the practical man is not apt for fine distinctions." But the practical man is the same as the unsuspecting mortal, the one who has to be led unwittingly to the goods of an inspiring culture, by the critic who subjectively content looks out like the Gioconda looks in.