Architecture & Building.

Progress, Volume XI, Issue 12, 1 August 1916, Page 693

Architecture & Building.

By S. HURST SEAGEH, F.H.1.8.A.

“ What is Art, and who arc Artists ? ”

In the following series of articles, it will be my pleasing task to endeavour to answer the questions I long since put to my self, “What is Art, and who are

Artists?” Ido not intend to add another definition to those already written, for these convey as clearly as the art of literature can, the object and scope of Art, and the qualifications which must he held by those laying claim to the honourable title of artist. It is only necessary therefore, that I should lay these before you, and point out the difference in them. To find their true value we will consider the relations existing between Nature and Art on the one hand, and Art and Science on the other. We shall then have a clear idea of what is meant by the term Art. And, after showing how the fine arts are distinguished

[Note—The Articles appearing on pages 693 to 700 are supplied to us by the Editors of the "Journal" of the N.Z. Institute of Architects — Messrs. W. Gray Young, F.N.Z.I.A. and Will Lawson.]

from the mechanical, we can pass on to the study of the principals which govern all art productions. Muller has said, “Art is a representation that is, an activity by means of which something internal or spiritual is revealed to sense. Its only object is to represent, and it is distinguished by its being satisfied therewith from all practical activities, which are directed to some particular purpose of external life.”

And Ruskin tells us that he has sought for a definition of art wide enough to include all its aims. “I do not say, therefore,” he continues, “that the art is greatest which gives most pleasure, because, perhaps, there is some art whose end is to teach and not to please. Ido not say that art is the greatest which teaches us the most, because, perhaps, there is some art whose end is to please and not to teach. Ido not say that art is the greatest which imitates best, because, perhaps, there is some art whose end is to create and not to imitate. But, I say that the art is the greatest which conveys to the mind of the spectator, by any

means whatsoever, the greatest number of the greatest ideas; and I call an idea great in proportion as it is received by a higher faculty of the mind, and as it more fully occupies, and in occupying, exercises and exalts the faculty by which it is received." And from this, the definition of the greatest artist naturally follows, that it is he who has embodied, in the sum of his works, the greatest number of the greatest ideas. Again, it has been written: Art is the outcome and the evidence of man's higher being, the creation of his mind and the language of his soul in form. These definitions narrow the term of art, so that it, includes only the fine, or according to the Germans, beautiful arts of Paintings, Sculpture, Architecture, Music and Poetry; they leave undefined the whole range of useful or mechanical arts, which should be considered in the generic term —Art. Dr. Johnson's definition is more comprehensive, but still incomplete:"Art is the power of doing something that is not taught by Nature or Instinct." This emphasises the distinction which is to be drawn between Nature and Art, but limits art to the power of doing something; but the abstract word art whether we use it for one branch or for them all collectively, is a name not only for the power of effecting, but for the exercise of that power, for the rides which regulate it, and for the result. Thus, when we speak of the art of Sculpture the idea includes, as well as the power to carve, the art of carving, the laws which must rule the artist in performing the art rightly, and for the material consequent of the art or the thing carved. There are some philosophers who fail to distinguish between Nature and Art, thinking that all Art is but a part of Nature, and that art workers are but nature's means of effecting her ends. You remember that scene between Perdita and Polixenes in the 'Winter's Tale,' where Perdita tells Polixenes that she cares not to have carnations and streaked gillyflowers in her garden, because she has heard it said: — There is an art, which in their piedness, shares With great creating Nature. And Polixenes replies: Say there be; Yet Nature is made better by no mean, But Nature makes that mean; so o 'er that, art, Which, you say adds to nature, is an art That Nature makes .... This is an art Which does mend Naturechange it rather: but The art itself is Nature. John Stewart Mill also views Art in this light, for he defines Nature as all the powers existing in either the inner or the outer world, and everything which exists by means of those powers. Thus, he would have us consider Art as included under Nature, for in his essay on Nature he defines the mode of regarding the relations of Nature and Art, by saying "even the volition which designs, the intelligence which contrives, and the muscular force which executes these movements, are themselves powers of Nature. Granted that this is so, then how are we to distinguish between the productions of animals and insects and those of man? A honeycomb would be as much a work of art as a piece of Indian carving: a spider's web as the finest piece of Brussels lace; and a coral reef as the most delicate and intricate piece of pottery

that could be produced. Fontenelle answers, “that most animals, as for instance, bees, spiders, and beavers, have a kind of art peculiar to themselves, but each race of animals has no more than one art, and this one has had no first inventor among the race. Man, on the other hand, has an infinity ..of different arts, which were not born with his race, and of which the glory is his own.”

There is a wide expense of debateable ground here, which to traverse would lead me too far from the path I wish to follow; for, is it not a fact that primitive races in all parts of the world practice their arts instinctively Quite unconscious of their power, they produce work of high merit, those of each race being of one form of art, and that, quite apart and distinct from the productions of every other race; their expression in form came as naturally to them, and can be as readily distinguished, as their modes of speech, or expressions in sounds. The works of the early civilized races were influenced in some measure by the inspirations, or spiritual element with which some members of the : community were endowed, but those also were natural expressions peculiar to the people who produced them. In the high state of civilization to-day, there is, it is true, an infinity of arts or modes of producing which were not born with the race, but of which there has been a first inventor or discoverer to whom succeeding generations are indebted. It is necessary that we should clearly distinguish between those things which are produced without man’s aid, and those which he is instrumental in producing. I am, therefore, at one with the writer who has said, “It is' ; enough that when we apply the term art to any action, it is because we are thinking of properties in the action from which we infer, whether justly or not, that the agent voluntarily and designedly puts forth skill for known ends, and by regular and uniform methods;” and the definition which results from this view allows for every accepted usage of the word art— is: “Every regulated operation or dexterity by which organised beings pursue ends which they know before-hand, together with the rules and the result of every such oneration. ’ ’ This embraces the whole range of arts both fine and mechanical, and makes that distinction which is to be noted between activities which are natural to the person displaying them, and those which are the result of cultivation. The first come under the head of Nature, the second under Art. Thus, though the pleasure to be derived from a flow in pure diction and perfect intonation proceeding from one who is quite untutored in the art, is as great and akin to that derived from listening to the same thing when it is the result of study and forethought, and is put forth for known ends, yet it cannot be classed among the pleasures derived from art. Eloquence, graceful and charming manners, and also the manifestation of any passion, are artistic only when they are exhibited for the studied purpose of giving pleasure to others, quite apart from the feeling of those in whom they are seen. Thus it is with the actor. The most powerful representations are those, in which he has his own nature under control, when every movement, every look, every intonation is the result of study and thought. We might perhaps be roused to enthusiasm by a display of

his own feelings, hut if so, the pleasure derived from such display would lead us to think of the artist, and not of his art, the artistic conception of the part which he is enacting would be drowned in the flood of feelings and elnotions by which he is carried away. In addition to the line which is to be drawn between Nature and Art, there is one much broader to be drawn between Art and Science. Science is knowledge; Art is power or skill in the use of knowledge. There is no art which does not depend upon science, and only in proportion as it conforms to its laws whether knowiiigly or not, can the work convey the pleasure it is intended to give. But the acquisition of knowledge is quite distinct from the power to make use of it, and thus it is that so very many youths who have run a brilliant college course, or who have taken a foremost place in their training-schools or academies, fail to maintain' their high position when fighting the battle of life, and this even when their studies have borne directly upon the path they . wish to follow. They find then, that there are many who. knowing less can do far ‘'more, because they have learned to make the best use of the knowledge they possess, to advance in some way or other either the beautiful or useful activities of life which are indispensable to the welfare of the community, or the comfort and pleasure of its individual members.

Is it not Dr. Johnson who said, in reference to the conversational powers of many very learned men, “that they are like persons with an enormous amount in the Bank, but who carry no small change. Their riches can only be drawn upon by cheques, which are never ready for the occasion,” This is also applicable in thinking of the relations of Science and Art, for though it is absolutely imperative that artists should be very wealthy in the knowledge of the principles of science, still this, for the purpose of Art, is of no value unless the person possessing it has studied hard to learn how it may be applied. The work; then, of the man of Science as such, — the man who strives to know — quite distinct from the work of the artist, or the man who strives to do. Oftentimes the man of science departs from the philosophical research into the Secrets of Nature to apply in some one of the mechanical arts a principle he has discovered; and with those of the community who cannot enter into the spirit of his labours, his fame will date from that time. But it is not in proportion to the use which the patient investigator of Nature’s laws makes of the knowledge he acquires, that his laurels should be awarded. The whole aim and object of his life is to discover facts of nature which have not been observed before, and to deduce therefrom the principles upon which they are based; and it behoves every worker in any art, however humble, to learn from him every principle which will in any help him to attain greater perfection in the work he has to do. Without such knowledge all workers must labour on in a purely mechanical way, repeating over and over again, they know not why, the methods their forefathers used to attain their given ends. If any new problem is presented to them, they are at a loss to solve it, because they know nothing of the materials with which they work, nor of those forces of Science upon which it should be carried into the region of Art. This region of Art is, according to

art, every handicraft, and every industry to which man can apply his intelligence and skill. In common language the word art is not used to denote so wide a field; that it was so used in past ages is to he gathered our definition, wide indeed; for within it stands every from the fact that all workers in any craft that required trained hands and intelligence were then known as artisans or artificers Writers on political economy of to-day, as well as Parlimentary orators, speak of the “artisan classes;” hut the word has long since fallen into disuse to denote any individual member of those classes; they are always spoken of as workmen or tradesmen, and any one who excels is not considered to have raised himself into a higher class, he simply remains a good workman or a good tradesman.

And is there not, unfortunately, a good reason for this? Was it not felt that, when the mechanical or lesser arts were no longer practised by those who would give individual expression to their work ; when the product of their hands had to be conceived and carefully delineated by others more gifted than themselves, that it was inconsistent to longer speak of them as artizans— skilled in an art —when they merely dealt or traded in the muscular force which is necessary to give effect to the creations of those whose directions they had to follow. It has given me pleasure to meet workmen who by their skill and intelligence were in every way worthy of the disused title; but the average British, workman is not noted for the study he gives to his work; he fails to make the best use of the power with which he has been endowed; and so long as this is the case, so long as he is content to labour without a full knowledge of the materials he uses, and of the principles which govern their use, will the term artizan be denied him. But when, to skill in manipulation, he adds an intelligent appreciation of the laws which regulate his productions, of the rules and precepts by which he should be guided; and of the reasons for all his actions; when to these he adds the skill in inventing and designing such as is to be seen in the productions of the workers in the art epochs of past times, then and then only, can the term be rightly applied and the numerous handicrafts and industries, be gathered with general accord under the canopy of Art.