the soul of man- 第5部分

machinery　will　supply　the　useful　things；　and　that　the　beautiful

things　will　be　made　by　the　individual。　　This　is　not　merely

necessary；　but　it　is　the　only　possible　way　by　which　we　can　get

either　the　one　or　the　other。　　An　individual　who　has　to　make　things

for　the　use　of　others；　and　with　reference　to　their　wants　and　their

wishes；　does　not　work　with　interest；　and　consequently　cannot　put

into　his　work　what　is　best　in　him。　　Upon　the　other　hand；　whenever　a

community　or　a　powerful　section　of　a　community；　or　a　government　of

any　kind；　attempts　to　dictate　to　the　artist　what　he　is　to　do；　Art

either　entirely　vanishes；　or　becomes　stereotyped；　or　degenerates

into　a　low　and　ignoble　form　of　craft。　　A　work　of　art　is　the　unique

result　of　a　unique　temperament。　　Its　beauty　comes　from　the　fact

that　the　author　is　what　he　is。　　It　has　nothing　to　do　with　the　fact

that　other　people　want　what　they　want。　　Indeed；　the　moment　that　an

artist　takes　notice　of　what　other　people　want；　and　tries　to　supply

the　demand；　he　ceases　to　be　an　artist；　and　becomes　a　dull　or　an

amusing　craftsman；　an　honest　or　a　dishonest　tradesman。　　He　has　no

further　claim　to　be　considered　as　an　artist。　　Art　is　the　most

intense　mode　of　Individualism　that　the　world　has　known。　　I　am

inclined　to　say　that　it　is　the　only　real　mode　of　Individualism　that

the　world　has　known。　　Crime；　which；　under　certain　conditions；　may

seem　to　have　created　Individualism；　must　take　cognisance　of　other

people　and　interfere　with　them。　　It　belongs　to　the　sphere　of

action。　　But　alone；　without　any　reference　to　his　neighbours；

without　any　interference；　the　artist　can　fashion　a　beautiful　thing；

and　if　he　does　not　do　it　solely　for　his　own　pleasure；　he　is　not　an

artist　at　all。



And　it　is　to　be　noted　that　it　is　the　fact　that　Art　is　this　intense

form　of　Individualism　that　makes　the　public　try　to　exercise　over　it

in　an　authority　that　is　as　immoral　as　it　is　ridiculous；　and　as

corrupting　as　it　is　contemptible。　　It　is　not　quite　their　fault。

The　public　has　always；　and　in　every　age；　been　badly　brought　up。

They　are　continually　asking　Art　to　be　popular；　to　please　their　want

of　taste；　to　flatter　their　absurd　vanity；　to　tell　them　what　they

have　been　told　before；　to　show　them　what　they　ought　to　be　tired　of

seeing；　to　amuse　them　when　they　feel　heavy　after　eating　too　much；

and　to　distract　their　thoughts　when　they　are　wearied　of　their　own

stupidity。　　Now　Art　should　never　try　to　be　popular。　　The　public

should　try　to　make　itself　artistic。　　There　is　a　very　wide

difference。　　If　a　man　of　science　were　told　that　the　results　of　his

experiments；　and　the　conclusions　that　he　arrived　at；　should　be　of

such　a　character　that　they　would　not　upset　the　received　popular

notions　on　the　subject；　or　disturb　popular　prejudice；　or　hurt　the

sensibilities　of　people　who　knew　nothing　about　science；　if　a

philosopher　were　told　that　he　had　a　perfect　right　to　speculate　in

the　highest　spheres　of　thought；　provided　that　he　arrived　at　the

same　conclusions　as　were　held　by　those　who　had　never　thought　in　any

sphere　at　all　…　well；　nowadays　the　man　of　science　and　the

philosopher　would　be　considerably　amused。　　Yet　it　is　really　a　very

few　years　since　both　philosophy　and　science　were　subjected　to

brutal　popular　control；　to　authority　…　in　fact　the　authority　of

either　the　general　ignorance　of　the　community；　or　the　terror　and

greed　for　power　of　an　ecclesiastical　or　governmental　class。　　Of

course；　we　have　to　a　very　great　extent　got　rid　of　any　attempt　on

the　part　of　the　community；　or　the　Church；　or　the　Government；　to

interfere　with　the　individualism　of　speculative　thought；　but　the

attempt　to　interfere　with　the　individualism　of　imaginative　art

still　lingers。　　In　fact；　it　does　more　than　linger；　it　is

aggressive；　offensive；　and　brutalising。



In　England；　the　arts　that　have　escaped　best　are　the　arts　in　which

the　public　take　no　interest。　　Poetry　is　an　instance　of　what　I　mean。

We　have　been　able　to　have　fine　poetry　in　England　because　the　public

do　not　read　it；　and　consequently　do　not　influence　it。　　The　public

like　to　insult　poets　because　they　are　individual；　but　once　they

have　insulted　them；　they　leave　them　alone。　　In　the　case　of　the

novel　and　the　drama；　arts　in　which　the　public　do　take　an　interest；

the　result　of　the　exercise　of　popular　authority　has　been　absolutely

ridiculous。　　No　country　produces　such　badly…written　fiction；　such

tedious；　common　work　in　the　novel　form；　such　silly；　vulgar　plays　as

England。　　It　must　necessarily　be　so。　　The　popular　standard　is　of

such　a　character　that　no　artist　can　get　to　it。　　It　is　at　once　too

easy　and　too　difficult　to　be　a　popular　novelist。　　It　is　too　easy；

because　the　requirements　of　the　public　as　far　as　plot；　style；

psychology；　treatment　of　life；　and　treatment　of　literature　are

concerned　are　within　the　reach　of　the　very　meanest　capacity　and　the

most　uncultivated　mind。　　It　is　too　difficult；　because　to　meet　such

requirements　the　artist　would　have　to　do　violence　to　his

temperament；　would　have　to　write　not　for　the　artistic　joy　of

writing；　but　for　the　amusement　of　half…educated　people；　and　so

would　have　to　suppress　his　individualism；　forget　his　culture；

annihilate　his　style；　and　surrender　everything　that　is　valuable　in

him。　　In　the　case　of　the　drama；　things　are　a　little　better：　　the

theatre…going　public　like　the　obvious；　it　is　true；　but　they　do　not

like　the　tedious；　and　burlesque　and　farcical　comedy；　the　two　most

popular　forms；　are　distinct　forms　of　art。　　Delightful　work　may　be

produced　under　burlesque　and　farcical　conditions；　and　in　work　of

this　kind　the　artist　in　England　is　allowed　very　great　freedom。　　It

is　when　one　comes　to　the　higher　forms　of　the　drama　that　the　result

of　popular　control　is　seen。　　The　one　thing　that　the　public　dislike

is　novelty。　　Any　attempt　to　extend　the　subject…matter　of　art　is

extremely　distasteful　to　the　public；　and　yet　the　vitality　and

progress　of　art　depend　in　a　large　measure　on　the　continual

extension　of　subject…matter。　　The　public　dislike　novelty　because

they　are　afraid　of　it。　　It　represents　to　them　a　mode　of

Individualism；　an　assertion　on　the　part　of　the　artist　that　he

selects　his　own　subject；　and　treats　it　as　he　chooses。　　The　public

are　quite　right　in　their　attitude。　　Art　is　Individualism；　and

Individualism　is　a　disturbing　and　disintegrating　force。　　Therein

lies　its　immense　value。　　For　what　it　seeks　to　disturb　is　monotony

of　type；　slavery　of　custom；　tyranny　of　habit；　and　the　reduction　of

man　to　the　level　of　a　machine。　　In　Art；　the　public　accept　what　has

been；　because　they　cannot　alter　it；　not　because　they　appreciate　it。

They　swallow　their　classics　whole；　and　never　taste　them。　　They

endure　them　as　the　inevitable；　and　as　they　cannot　mar　them；　they

mouth　about　them。　　Strangely　enough；　or　not　strangely；　according　to

one's　own　views；　this　acceptance　of　the　classics　does　a　great　deal

of　harm。　　The　uncritical　admiration　of　the　Bible　and　Shakespeare　in

England　is　an　instance　of　what　I　mean。　　With　regard　to　the　Bible；

considerations　of　ecclesiastical　authority　enter　into　the　matter；

so　that　I　need　not　dwell　upon　the　point。　　But　in　the　case　of

Shakespeare　it　is　quite　obvious　that　the　public　really　see　neither

the　beauties　nor　the　defects　of　his　plays。　　If　they　saw　the

beauties；　they　would　not　object　to　the　development　of　the　drama；

and　if　they　saw　the　defects；　they　would　not　object　to　the

development　of　the　drama　either。　　The　fact　is；　the　public　make　use

of　the　classics　of　a　country　as　a　means　of　checking　the　progress　of

Art。　　They　degrade　the　classics　into　authorities。　　They　use　them　as

bludgeons　for　preventing　the　free　expression　of　Beauty　in　new

forms。　　They　are　always　asking　a　writer　why　he　does　not　write　like

somebody　else；　or　a　painter　why　he　does　not　paint　like　somebody

else；　quite　oblivious　of　the　fact　that　if　either　of　them　did

anything　of　the　kind　he　would　cease　to　be　an　artist。　　A　fresh　mode

of　Beauty　is　absolutely　distasteful　to　them；　and　whenever　it

appears　they　get　so　angry；　and　bewildered　that　they　always　use　two

stupid　expressions　…　one　is　that　the　work　of　art　is　grossly

unintelligible；　the　other；　that　the　work　of　art　is　grossly　immoral。

What　they　mean　by　these　words　seems　to　me　to　be　this。　　When　they

say　a　work　is　grossly　unintelligible；　they　mean　that　the　artist　has

said　or　made　a　beautiful　thing　that　is　new；　when　they　describe　a

work　as　grossly　immoral；　they　mean　that　the　artist　has　said　or　made

a　beautiful　thing　that　is　true。　　The　former　expression　has

reference　to　style；　the　latter　to　subject…matter。　　But　they

probably　use　the　words　very　vaguely；　as　an　ordinary　mob　will　use

ready…made　paving…stones。　　There　is　not　a　single　real　poet　or

prose…writer　of　this　century；　for　instance；　on　whom　the　British

public　have　not　solemnly　conferred　diplomas　of　immorality；　and

these　diplomas　practically　take　the　place；　with　us；　of　what　in

France；　is　the　formal　recognition　of　an　Academy　of　Letters；　and

fortunately　make　the　establishment　of