Art For Art's Sake.

ART FOR ART'S SAKE .

IN a very thoughtful paper , under the title of " Character , and what Comes of It , " in Scribner ' s Magazine for January , 1881 , appear some remarks and arguments which deserve serious notice and careful consideration . We do not say that we altogether agree with the writer , but still both his theory and therapeutics ( from our moral atmosphere ) cannot be overlooked or ignored . In the first placethe writer ropounds the opinion that there is no

mean-, p ing in the common saying , " Art' for art ' s sake ; " ancl in the second , he asserts that all art creations depend on the moral character of the artist for their value , and even their reality . As this proposition will be keenl y debated—warmly supported b y some , vigorousl y denied by others , we who in the Freemason act as " amici curia ? , " think it right to p lace the whole argument before our readers , with such

comments of our own , as may tend , without dogmatism or high " falutin , " to a thorough elucidation ancl appreciation of the great and grave question , both for art and morals , involved in such distinct and unqualified declarations . The writer starts with the following clear proposition , however it may be cavilled at by some :

Above all other things m the world , character has supreme value . A man can never be more than what his character—intellectual , moral , spiritual—makes him . A man can never do more , or better , than deliver , or embody , that which is characteristic of himself . All masquerading and make-believe produce little impression , and , in their products and results , die early . Nothing valuable can come out of a man that is not in him , embodied in his character . Nothing can be more unphilosophical than the idea that a man who stands upon a low moral and spiritual plane" can produce , in literature or art , anything valuable . He may do that which dazzles or excites wonder or admiration , but he can produce nothing that has genuine value , for , after all , value must be measured by the power to enrich , exalt , and purify life .

And then the writer goes on to say : If art were an end in itself—if there were any meaning in the phrase "Art for art ' s sake "—then what we say about character would not , or need not , be true ; but art is not an end in itself any more than milk , or flannel , or tilth , or harvest . The further art is removed from ministry , the more it is divorced from it , the more illegitimate does it become .

To strengthen these two positions—serious ancl startling in themselves—the writer goes on to illustrate by speaking examples what he means and wishes to say : It is claimed by a certain class of critics that we have nothing to do with the character of an artist or a writer . They forget that a knowledge of a man ' s character is a short cut to a correct judgment of his work . It is only necessary to know of Edgar A . Poe that he was a man of weak will , without the mastery of himself , —a dissipated man—a man of

morbid feeling—a self-loving man , without the wish or purpose to serve his fellows , —to know that he could never write a poem that would help anybody , or write a poem that possessed any intrinsic value whatever . His character was without value , and , for that reason , he was without the power of ministry . His character was without value , and nothing of value could come out of it . His poems are one continued , selfish wail over lost life and lost love . The form of his art was striking , but the material was wretchedly poor in everything of value to human life . No human soul . ever quotes his words for comfort or for inspiration . Byron is a more conspicuous example of the effect of poor or bad character upon art than Poe . He was immensely greater than Poe in genius , stronger in fibre , broader in culture , and bolder in his vices . He embodies his character in his verse , with great subtlety , and great ingenuity . Fifty years ago he . was read more than any other poet .