English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Is Art Inferior To Criticism?
In order to give credence to his theory on the viability of the critic, Oscar Wilde first makes clear the intentional nature of the artist's creation. Unlike Emerson, who saw all men capable of tapping into "genius" through the Oversoul, Wilde wishes to give credit where credit is due. He states thus, "All fine imaginative work is self-conscious and deliberate" (Wilde 900). That's a relief, truly. All this time, I thought my genius was common to all. (Only kidding). He also says that individual men create the ages, rather than man being a product of his environment. In other words, "each myth and legend that seem to us to spring out of wonder, or terror, or fancy of tribe and nation, was in its origin the invention of one single mind" (901).
After establishing this fact about the artist of genius, he applies a similar theory to the critic. The critic must also be deliberate in his critique of the artist. A world devoid of criticism is a world of debilitated art or no art whatsoever. In any age where there is criticism, there is also art. He seems to be saying here that creativity and criticism go hand-in-hand.
He then says something that perhaps I have never considered before. He says, "The tendency of creation is to repeat itself," but the tendency of viable criticism is to find a new breeding ground for art (901). Then he says that the only forms of art we use come out of the "critical spirit" of Alexandria before the Common Era. Does he imply that no decent criticism has come since Greek civilization to chart a new course of art? No, he doesn't imply it. He emphatically states it. He even gives the Greeks credit for the sonnet. What?
On another subject, Wilde compares wine tasting to book reviewing. But one sip of wine gives you a taste of the entire cask. On the contrary, I believe it sometimes takes more than ten minutes to realize the form of a novel. How can Wilde make the two skills commensurate?
Moreover, he says that the art of Criticism is both creative and independent. I had hoped to concur with at least one of these assertions, but to no avail. How is a critic creative when he deals with that which is already in creation? In this regard, Ernest raises a point that cannot be easily disputed: "[T]he best that he can give us will be but an echo" of that which is already made by the artist (903). As far as independence goes, doesn't the critic base his judgments upon a set number of criteria? Wilde admits that the standards for criticism have been established by Greece. How then can the critic (in the role of critic) create? And how can he (in the same role) critique a work outside the boundaries of the standards?
I cannot buy Gilbert's (Wilde's) answer that criticism is "a creation within a creation" (904). He says that the "highest criticism" is "the purest form of personal impression" (904-5). Since when is impression more worthy than expression?