Walter Pater So the work of art is something which the artist has combined, something which developed within

him and something which develops expression. So art is expression and the artist writes just to express himself. He has no reader in mind. If someone has any relationship in his mind, it is only other poets and artist not the common man. There people disagreed with Wordsworth that poet is a man among men, writing for men in the language of men. They said that poet was not a man among men and he did not write for masses. They looked down common man other than artist and didnt think that the artist or poets were man among men writing for men. So this was the second principle. The poet has to create a body which will embody the vision. So the only concern of these poets was with forms. They were not concerned with the quality of vision. (C) The third principle of his school is that art has got nothing to do with morality. Morality is absolutely irrelevant in the world of art. They completely divorced literature from morality. This relationship of art and morality is a controversial question. There was a school an old age which had said that the artist is a teacher. His aim is to import moral instruction. He must give moral instruction, advice and councils and inspire people to practice morality. Horace, Plato and Sidney held this view. They expected the poet to give moral instruction. This was also the view of the 17th century critics. Dr. Johnson had criticized Shakespeare for sacrificing virtue to convenience. Shakespeare did not moralize and according to Dr. Johnson, this was his flaw. So all the writers of the 17 and 18 century believed in the didactic art and after a short period of romanticism this was again revived. The second view was that art must have a morally elevating influence but the artist must not moralize. The function of art is not imparting moral instructions. He must not consciously write to make people morally better, yet if it is great literature, it will have morally better influence. It is something like that was in the mind of Aristotle who said that the function of art is to give pleasure. He said all imitation is a source of delight. But when he talks about the function of tragedy, according to him, it obviously has moral implication. He says that the function of tragedy is to bring about the catharsis of the emotions. He says that catharsis does not mean of pleasurable outlet but also means the transmition of the feelings. These feelings which we bring from life are purged. The lesser aspect is transform into higher aspect and so pity and fear are not exactly the same is pity and fear in real life. The selfish elements and pity and fear have been removed. Everything has been raised from the particular level to the universal level. Art makes us sympathize with the condition of mankind. It is not a tragedy of this or that man, but the destiny and place of mankind in this earth. This

earth and this obviously is a moral function. This is Aristotelian view despites the fact he talks about the function of art and pleasure. Then we have Longinus who says that the end of art is to transport, to cost a spell on the reader, to fill the reader with ecstasy and yet when he talks about the sublimity he says, sublimity is the eco of the great soul. By great soul he means that soul which is morally great, and without a great soul there can be no art. So great art is the result of a noble soul. So the eco of a moral soul is bound to have a moral influence on reader, though his aim is not to preach. This school is different from both of the above schools. The critics and writers of this schools neither expect the art to moralize nor expect him to please. They say that the end of art is neither to give pleasure nor to moralize. Art has got nothing to do with morality. Morality is irrelevant in the world of art.

Style: In his essay on style; Pater talks about the principle of good art. The title is style. There are two aspects of any work of art, matter and manner. There is what the author has to say (matter), and the way he says it (manner). Style refers to manner and by giving this title style to his essay he seems to be inclined to us that, the sole problem of art is with style and this would be supported by most of what he has written on style, right up to the end. Only in one page he brings into his consideration the greatness of manner otherwise he does not say a word on the quality of artistic vision, on the significant of artistic vision. It is sufficient that a poet has an artistic vision. This is the impression we get right up to the end when suddenly makes a distinction between good and bad. He points out that art cannot be great unless the matter is also great. Pater begins by saying that all literature may be divided into two categories. 1) Literature of facts. 2) Literature of the imaginative sense of fact. This division is very similar to De Quincys division of books -Thomas De Quincey
(17851859), English essayist and critic-.

All that is literature seeks to communicate power; all that

is not literature, to communicate knowledge.

He divided books into books of power and books of knowledge. The first category the books of fact, can further be sub-divided into three classes. First, books based on observations and research about what is or has been.

The second books in which the author propounds or expounds a philosophy or gives a theory, the theory of relativity, about the nature of the universe or about God. The first includes all book of science and the second includes philosophy and literature. There fall in the second sub-division. Then we have books in which the author is trying to persuade the reader to believe on something or do something and vice versa. The books of propaganda, politics and religion. This is the third sub-division of the first kinds of books. In the second category we have the works of literary artists, people who have a sense of fact which other dont have. This class is a class of elite. They are born with this faculty. It cannot be produced by labour. A person who has this faculty i.e. sense of fact, he does not talk about a different world but he sees this world differently. If he has this sense then he is a fine artist whatever he writes with sense of fact is fine art. It would be good art says Pater, if there is truth in it. Truth is the-- most untruthful word. It is a meaningless word (Samad) Pater is using it in a very unusual sense. The art will be good art for all; fine art is not good art, only if it is true. He uses this word in the accuracy of transition--. He is not talking about the truth of vision or thought or what he is to say. He talks about the truth in his manner. Art is only finest of truth; this means that the sole concern of art is with the expression not a vision. If in artist succeeds in expressing the vision fully then there is truth in it. It is fine art if it is the product of the sense of fact and it becomes good art if there is truth in it. The accuracy of transaction is not an easy matter. The artist has to find so truth is truth of expression and not the truth of vision an exact dress for the body of thought. Book all beauty is nothing but the removal of surplusage. Surplusages are book writing, using world loosely. Surplusages are that which is not absolutely necessary. The skin for the body of thought should be skin-tight. Every part of the dress includes the body and so such kind of dress the artist has to used. To use another simile the artist has to find a body which completely and fully embodies the spirit or soul. It would be better to compare the thoughts, the thought to the soul and thus literary form created out of which the body. The body must exactly correspond to the soul. This is the -Hindu- view. According to this view the soul creates its own body and ultimately it is determined by the actions of the man concerned Karma. What we do in life gives shape to our soul, said Hindus. When after we are reborn the body in which the soul comes will exactly correspond to the body. Why one person is beautiful or intellectual and vice versa. Hindus say that God does not create the body but it is action that is responsible. Soul chooses its own body and the soul that chooses the body corresponds to the soul. So if we are ugly it is because of our actions. All these are due to our deeds. The responsibility is not of God, but our own. So Pater wants the soul to create its own body. Soul means vision and body means form. So the body must be such in which the soul fits. No part of the body in

which the soul is not there. So the body that is the manner must correspond to the shape of the soul. Body is visible which is created through the agency of words.

Principles of good art: a) Pater talks about the three principles of good art. The first principle, he says, is scholarly conscience. The artist, the poet, the writer is a scholar, write for scholars. A deliberate challenge to Wordsworth who said that poet is a man among men who writes for men. He said every men possesses every faculty but the difference is of degree. Some have it in a lesser degree which other in higher degree. He wanted every man to read him and understand him because everyone has this faculty. Why does Pater call an artist a scholar? Because he says that the sole problem of the artist is accuracy of transcription. The problem of art is to find the right word in each case. When a poet sits to write a poem, a number of words come to his mind. We, the new artist think that they are the same. This is not the case with the artist. For him no two words are exactly the same. Every word for him has a different flavor, weight, colour and above all it has different associations. It recalls into the mind different visions. Even the most advanced dictionary will not give him different connotations, fragrance and different association of the word. The word acquires these associations from the way they are used. So a good artist is not only the master of a good dictionary but also the master of literature. He know how to use different words, has each word has acquired different associations over the years. So naturally he must be a scholar. The best artist has to stop at each word. There will be just one word out of many and he has to find that one. If a sentence has ten words then he has to find out among 50 words, in each case only one word will convey that vision. If this is the sole problem of art then of course, he must be a scholar. This is a view with which many have not agreed. Some say that if a person is a scholar, he will not be a writer. Being a scholar is disadvantage. It takes away spontaneity from the writing. I, being a student of literature, have every right to ask, was Shakespeare a scholar? Was Duchies a scholar? Was Keats a scholar? If they were scholar, how they create good works? The fact is that no great writer was a scholar. This was all about the first principle. b) The second principle is the mind in art. By this he means the design and the structure. Pater thinks that a work of art is like a work of architecture. Architecture is also a work of art. But there is one difference between architect and other artists. The architect conceives a glorious idea of a building. But he cannot build it. It is constructed by others. It is not the work of pure art. It is the product of art and science. The architect will not know till the end that whether the building is according to his vision or not. He will not know exactly till the completion of the building.

The poet combines the two functions. He is once an artist and scientist too. He not only has the vision but also chooses the material for constructing the work of architecture. He uses words as a builder with words he has got to give form and shape to the -danger- in his mind. So that in the end he has what he had in the mind in the beginning he builds the building of his vision of images and metaphors. A poem has architectonic quality which means each and every part one another. The removal of one part will damage the whole building. In architecture every brick as necessary but in its right place. Every part supports the other. They together support the final effect. The poem must be constructed in the same manner, having nothing superfluous---------. Each phrase support other, the removal of even a single phrase will destroy the whole poem. So the poet is like an architect. The mind of the artist sees the end in beginning and which keeps the beginning always in mind during the process of construction. The poet does not build in a second but by building he never loses the vision. So this is the mind in art. But it would not be good art at all if it is not unique. So he also talks about the third principle. c) The third principle is the soul in style. Pater is not a religious man, but is using religious terms. For Pater there is no entity called mind or soul. Mind and soul are merely functions of body. The functioning of the brain conjures up ideas and thought. Mind is a function and entity. The same goes for soul. When the body is not there, the function is not there and so there is no soul and mind. But it is necessary to use these terms while discussing metaphorical matters, while keeping in mind that these terms are not meant in theological sense. Mind is a convenient term to use for imagination and every man is unique and personality is what is unique in man. So it is convenient to use the word soul for uniqueness in man, in the work of the artist. Every artist should write unique and challenge the whole world to compete him. Keats challenges all to write an ode like him. What gives uniqueness? It is the personality of the writer which gives uniqueness to his writing. Ultimately every person is unique and it is move in the case of artist. What he writes is the reflection of his personality. So his work can have the same uniqueness, style is the man. This is what Pater calls the soul in style, the presence in the artists personality in his work which makes it unique. The mind gives the unity of atmosphere. If all this is found in the work of artist then what he produced is good art.