WHO DOES OUR THINKING?

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 185, 13 October 1876, Page 15

WHO DOES OUR THINKING?

It frequently happens that if one individual expresses, boldly and with much assurance, bis views upon a subject, that hundreds who in reality never before gave the subject— whatever it be— a moment's thought, profess to be oi the same way of thinking. Due deference to the views of those who have carefully investigated a subject, is- ever commendable, and whether we bring our minds to think as they do or not, it is well dispassionately to weigh, their thoughts and reasons; for no person with brains can have any patience either with ignorance or narrow mindedness which, arrogates to itself the ability to judge. But in these; days of highpressure idiosyncrasies, sham, f ussiness, and pretence, it is necessary to " have a mind of your own," and not to rely implicitly upon others for opinions — to have a reasonable opinion of your own, and not to be obliged to let some one else do your thinking. It is sometimes refreshing to see a person tearing right and left at some theory or style of art that does not please his peculiar fancy or long fostered notions. It is pleasant, we say, if the demolishei 1 has strength, wit and ingenuity. But every one who "undertakes to tear down should bear in mind the fact, that vituperation is not argument, and that it is much easier to tear to pieces than to build up, poisonous niiasina may wither the sweetest flower, and a ruthless hand tear up the plant which has been carefully fostered. J There is nothing, probably, so hard to argue down as opinions with regard to works of art. A person beholds a paintin» and admires it; to him it |is very beautiful, and if he |has dabbled a little among the brushes and daubed the canvas himself, be thinks he can tell why the picture has peculiar excellencies. In rain another individual tells him it is a rough specimen ; that the artist was an amalgam of oddity, impudence and conceit. He may rightly inform the connoisseur that he is not criticising the artist, but the work, and he is bringing his own optics to bear upon that •work. Another person, possessing some musical culture, may admire the composition of some composer, or the style of playing of some virtuoso, and it would be extremely difficult to convince such a person that the compositionsfwere not melodious, or that the performances were not brilliant. — ' Church's Musical Visitor/