CHAPTER XIII 



CRITIQ^UE OF AESTHETIC JUDGMENT 



Two Stages of Abstraction in Art 



STRIKING though the parallels may be, however, there are 

 important differences also, between the objects of scientific 

 and of aesthetic analysis, of which Taine was insufficiently 

 aware. These differences all spring from a central paradox, 

 which makes a work of art seem, now more complex, now more 

 simple, than a work of nature. The individual King Oedipus (of 

 Sophocles' tragedy), like the subject of the psychologist's study 

 and experimentation, is inexhaustible, but in different ways. For 

 all the 'infinite' complexity of a single biological cell, many such 

 cells exhibit relatively stubborn structures, or at least the scientist 

 is persuaded that they do. Works of art, however, involve such 

 complex variables as media, language, traditions of style, sym- 

 bolism, personalities of artists, and so forth, each of which is 

 capable of endless study, the result being a kind of multiplication 

 of 'infinities'. 



From another point of view, however, the problem of universals 

 may seem simpler here, since the artist has a greater freedom 

 than the scientist (who is constrained by the 'facts') to shape raw 

 materials and indulge in fantasy — in a sense, creating those worlds 

 which are works of art. The sciences which come closest to the 

 freedom of the arts, in this respect, are the various branches of 

 mathematics,! or, in Taine's language, the sciences of 'construc- 

 tion'. In art (considered as imitation of nature) there are two 

 stages of abstraction, in contrast to the single process charac- 

 teristic of science: first, that which the artist performed when he 

 created the work of art; and second, that which the critic performs 

 when he experiences and analyzes it. This provides some justifica- 

 tion for treating works of art, not so much as if they were subject 

 S.A.J.— 12 177 



