93 



ARTIST AND CRITIC. 1 



ARTISTS whether they be painters, actors, writers, musicians, 

 or what not are usually dissatisfied with their critics ; and we 

 will not deny that they have reasons for their discontent. Good 

 criticism is at least as rare as good art of any other kind. But 

 the artist when grumbling at his critics often asserts what we 

 hold to be untrue namely, that criticism to be valuable must 

 proceed from a man who is himself skilled in the art of which he 

 speaks. He says that the judgment of the ignorant should be 

 disregarded, and he counts all men ignorant who cannot execute 

 a masterpiece at least equal to his own best work. The artist, 

 in fact, claims to be judged by his peers. The claim seems so 

 reasonable that, if we dare to challenge it, we must do so with 

 many reservations. In the mechanical arts, such as the forging 

 of horseshoes or in arts of mere skill, such as cricket, the judg- 

 ment of the laity, as we may call the unskilled public, is really 

 worthless. To be a judge in these matters a man must have 

 forged iron or played cricket, and in respect of the finer arts also 

 we take it that as regards mere skill of workmanship, deftness 

 of execution, the artist has such great advantages over the lay- 

 man, that his verdict in respect of skill must be received without 

 appeal. We here grant the artist a clear supremacy, and admit 

 that a very bad sculptor will be a better judge of the skill shown 

 in carving marble than the most learned connoisseur. He will 

 recognise distinctions of touch, style, and method which are 

 invisible to the multitude, and seen but dimly by unskilled 

 lovers of the art. In painting, in music, in writing, in all fine 

 arts, the same answer holds good. The skilful are the sole 

 judges of skill ; but in the fine arts skill is not all in all. The 



1 From the Saturday Review, October 11, 1884. 



