Scan 23
Musical Courier 1895-06-26: Vol 30 Iss 799, 1895
76 lines. Read by computer on 26 September 2026, twice; the two readings disagreed in places. Printed page 24. See the scan on archive.org.
1though incapable as we are of expounding the inner mystery of art, yet concerns the vital principles of art. Art, as a thing felt, may be mysterious; but art, in its practical workings, shows clearly that there are certain invariable necessary conditions which it is our business, as artists, to understand and respect if we would have our work perfectly embody the creative germ; or if, on the other hand, as listeners or students, we would perfectly apprehend the work and appreciate the proper mental conditions under which alone we can be thoroughly en rapport with the artist. Our contention, also, in the matter of the variability of subjective impression, is that those impressions which have any real necessity are not variable. What are variable are those superchargings—that " Hineingedachtes" or "Hineingefühltes" which do not belong to the ranges of aesthetic impression proper. We cannot, in short, hope to hold the beautiful under our analytical knife; but we may, and must, acquire a knowledge of those conditions under which alone the beautiful can perfectly display itself, or be received. With Véron let us speak then rather of a philosophy of art than of a science of the beautiful.
3As we have intimated, the impressions are of a dual character. Broadly considered, we may take it that they are built upon sensuous impressions, and mental activity in its most widely varying forms. This union can never be absolved. If the work is too "abstract" and "intellectual," there is no aesthetic enjoyment, primarily and properly; if, in the other extreme, it becomes too sensuous, or "pathological," the dignity, character and distinction of art are lost; and we are affected in no wise differently by a musical composition than by a warm bath, a thunderstorm, a cigar, a sumptuous repast or a physician's bulletin—to use Dr. Hanslick's similes. We shall return to this point, and to the writer just named, later on.
5In a broad sense all artistic work may be said to display the beautiful, indifferently whether the subject treated (if one), or the constituent elements of the work, be in themselves pleasing or the reverse. A masterly representation in art of an "ugly" subject in nature is yet "a thing of beauty!" The notion that only objectively beautiful subjects are fit for artistic treatment again makes one of those common errors springing from a confusion of the conditions of art with those of things extraart. The terms "ugly" and "beautiful" relate here to the subject under diverse conditions. As already explained, we do not intend to study the "beautiful" in its abstract or universal nature. It would be unavailing now to attempt to restrict the application of the term to those specific qualities in objects or to that limited range of pure sense operations with which it had primitively to do, seeing that it has so widened from its original meaning as to embrace even pure mental operations, only associated remotely with that aesthetic stimulation proper, as we have briefly explained it; thus, for example, when we speak of "a beautiful chain of reasoning." No other language has so much corrupted its adjective as the English has done. This is the more to be regretted, seeing that our art vocabulary is of the very scantiest. one of two readings
6In a broad sense all artistic work may be said to display the beautiful, indifferently whether the subject treated (if one), or the constituent elements of the work, be in themselves pleasing or the reverse. A masterly representation in art of an "ugly" subject in nature is yet "a thing of beauty!" The notion that only objectively beautiful subjects are fit for artistic treatment again makes one of those common errors springing from a confusion of the conditions of art with those of things extraart. The terms "ugly" and "beautiful" relate here to the subject under diverse conditions. As already explained, we do not intend to study the "beautiful" in its abstract or universal nature. It would be unavailing now to attempt to restrict the application of the term to those specific qualities in objects or to that limited range of pure sense operations with which it had primatively to do, seeing that it has so widened from its original meaning as to embrace even pure mental operations, only associated remotely with that aesthetic stimulation proper, as we have briefly explained it; thus, for example, when we speak of "a beautiful chain of reasoning." No other language has so much corrupted its adjective as the English has done. This is the more to be regretted, seeing that our art vocabulary is of the very scantiest. one of two readings
8Nor can we stay here to examine the Platonic theory of the beautiful; the complete opposite to the modern materialistic theory, so to call it, wherein the beautiful is seen to develop itself gradually out of certain simple operations of one particular sense—sight, namely. This we must pass by for the present, notwithstanding the fact that the Platonic theory in its association of the "beautiful" with the "good" and the "true"—or in other words of the aesthetic with the ethical—has undoubtedly much influenced the modern conception of art; so much indeed as to cause to be overlooked at times the essential claims of the sensory and material elements. In these instances the beautiful has been made to reside in thoughts, ideas, sentiments or feelings, to the ignoring of the outward object or of purely sense gratification. The "beautiful" thus merging itself into the "good"—or aesthetics becoming confused with ethics—and that fundamental factor, sense, becoming slighted as the prepossession has grown, that sensuous delight is diametrically opposed to purity and goodness—it will be seen how enormously increased must become the difficulties in the way of a precise limitation of the field of aesthetics.
10As the writer of the article "Philosophie der Kunst," in Mendel's "Lexicon," remarks, "The beautiful is not so much object of representation in art as essential condition of the art work. There is a vital distinction between that view which takes art to 'represent' the beautiful, and that wherein the latter is only a necessary property of the work." Likewise, aesthetics—to repeat again—must not any longer be regarded as that study occupied solely with the investigation of the beautiful; its proper occupation is with those conditions under which the artistic work both is formed and is received. As the above authority further remarks: "It ought to form the code book both for the artist as well as the amateur. The former it should enlighten upon the aim and purpose of his art in general, and of its various classes and genres in particular. The latter should similarly be instructed; and moreover, specially be taught to guard against the fatally easy error of contemplating as the beautiful the operations within himself. It must necessarily inform him as to the rightful co-operation of the sentiments in art; but it may not be expected to prescribe or explain more in this direction than can well be supported.—Eustace J. Breakspeare, in Musical Opinion and Music Trade Review.
12The Ventricular Charles Lunn, of London.
14BEFORE attempting comic argument—the only style possible—let me say a serious word to Mr. Charles Lunn, of London, anent his use of our somewhat mutual tongue.
16If a work on chemistry, electricity, painting, architecture or any other science or art is being perused, a certain elegance and strictness of diction pass almost unnoticed. Tolerable skill in the use of the commoner forms of language is taken for granted; it is a pre-requisite; its absence stamps the whole treatise or review with doubt. The writer does not often bandy words with those who violently offend this unwritten law, and if he honors the ungrammatical and inelegant Mr. Charles Lunn with a reply, he will beg him to be more careful in future.
18For instance, he writes: "If Mr. Howard can, and will, sing a sustained note, and some one, unknown to himself, will give him a punch in the back * * *." What is the matter with a friend, Mr. Lunn? We are not often treated to punches, mint juleps or gin snickers by any person "unknown to himself."
20But no; the first reading was careless. You write, "some one unknown to himself." Well, Mr. Howard knows of no one—friend, stranger or enemy—"unknown to himself." Such a person must be happy in his lack of self-knowledge. Probably Mr. Lunn meant to write: "If Mr. Howard * * * and some one 'unbeknownst' to him." But, as the sentence stands, we are forced to conclude that our syllogistic friend does not know an adjective from an adverb, or, as later will be proved, a syllogism from a sardine.
22A little further on is read: "In his attack on Mr. B., he sneers." Is this an algebraic problem, Mr. Lunn? Must word be sent the wrong way across the water, that such abbreviations are not only inelegant, but even discourteous? You call Mr. Howard "a literary buffoon." Mr. Howard would not apply the adjective "literary" to you (literary is an adjective, Mr. Lunn) in any connection. You "sneer" at him for writing in three languages. As a matter of fact it was necessary for him to read his subject in five. Get somebody to translate a bit, Mr. Lunn, for your monolingualistic and ungrammatical self. It may improve your diction, for it does not strictly follow that, just because you know no foreign tongue, you are wiser in your indigenous one. A little comparative grammar would teach you instinctively to avoid such crowded blunders. one of two readings
23A little further on is read: "In his attack on Mr. B., he sneers." Is this an algebraic problem, Mr. Lunn? Must word be sent the wrong way across the water, that such abbreviations are not only inelegant, but even discourteous? You call Mr. Howard "a literary buffoon." Mr. Howard would not apply the adjective "literary" to you (literary is an adjective, Mr. Lunn) in any connection. You "sneer" at him for writing in three languages. As a matter of fact it was necessary for him to read his subject in five. Get somebody to translate a bit, Mr. Lunn, for your monolingistic and ungrammatical self. It may improve your diction, for it does not strictly follow that, just because you know no foreign tongue, you are wiser in your indigenous one. A little comparative grammar would teach you instinctively to avoid such crowded blunders. one of two readings
25And then your syllogisms! I called this a comic argument, and will ask my readers how it is possible to be serious in the grinning face of such hilarious syllogisms as the following, directly and fairly deduced from our author's sentences:
27"There is no such thing as a break in the voice."
28"It (the break) is an intellectual invention."
29Therefore there is no such a thing as intellectual invention in voice production. And this is what is being complained of up to the present time—that there is no intellectual invention in voice production.
31Again (and this is too good!):
32"A break is a violation of natural law."
33"It is an attempt of beneficent nature to recover its laws * * *."
35Therefore beneficent nature's attempt to recover its laws is a violation of natural law! (Can that be excelled?)
37Once more:
38"Things that are hollow can resonate;
39"The spine is not hollow;
40"Therefore it cannot resonate."
41Let that be matched by one more familiar:
42Gold glitters.
43Brass is not gold.
44Therefore it cannot glitter.
46These are precisely parallel syllogisms. For surfaces, such as the sounding board of a piano, or the almost equally hard front surface of the spine, can resonate as well as hollows—just as brass may glitter, although it is not gold. My comparison, "as a tuning fork derives added resonance from wood, glass or metal," is strictly correct, as any reader may prove; yet no one of these materials need be hollow.
48Are more of such illogical syllogisms needed? They abound; or rather, the material for them abounds. Here is another:
49A body of air and its vibrations are identical.
50The trachea contains a body of air.
51Therefore, whatever a body of air does its vibrations must do.
53The whole question which lay between Mr. Belari and myself related to the vibration of the body of air in the trachea. Mr. Lunn with eminent fairness implies the last false syllogism, gets some discourteous person, unknown even to himself to punch me in the back, and laughs with childish glee. With the same cathedral solemnity with which he informed me that "the spine is not hollow," will I inform him that his major premise is undoubtedly hollow; that a body of air and its vibrations are not identical, and that a writer who distorts a subject so visibly is hardly worthy of the admiration he accords himself. Mr. Lunn's implied syllogisms should be tagged "Made for Repairs." (Say, Mr. Editor, this is great fun!)
55Let me here express my conviction that Mr. Lunn does not represent the spirit of his countrymen. Behnke and I had some arguments, but we agreed to differ and allow no discordant element to enter our discussion. I hear that the interest in physiological voice training is far greater in England than here, and I intend to visit our ancestral isle next May.
57I should be sorry to find the Lunnish spirit the prevailing one. To steal a metaphor from the unapproachable Scriptures, it is the snarling spirit of the dog in the manger, which can't assimilate the food itself and won't allow the honest ox his natural provender. It is the meanest, the most destructive and vicious instincts, the most universal, the spirit of jealousy, that spirit which ruins more lives than all the wars and pestilences of Christendom!
59The Pedal Practice Clavier.
61"JUST WHAT EVERY ORGANIST NEEDS."
63A COMPLETE ORGAN Pedal Keyboard; 30 keys, standard scale, with organ bench. May be used separately or in connection with a 7 1/2 octave PRACTICE CLAVIER The PEDAL CLAVIER is provided with the clicks, on the same principle as the Virgil Practice Clavier and furnishes a perfect substitute for the Pedal Piano, which is extensively used by organists.
65The PEDAL CLAVIER forever removes the principal obstacles to the pursuit of organ study, viz.:
66The Blower, or some other treacherous source of wind supply;
67The Inaccessibility of the Church and its often dangerously low temperature;
68The Expense, which for a Blower or rent of a Pedal Piano amounts to from five to ten dollars a month;
69and The Exciting and Stimulating Tone of the Organ, which, more than in the case of the piano, continually distracts the attention and dissipates the energy of the player from the main purpose of practice, which is intellectual and not emotional.
71SEND FOR CIRCULAR.
73THE VIRGIL PRACTICE CLAVIER, A Toneless Piano for Teaching and Practice. Highly indorsed by leading professionals. Illustrated Catalogue sent on application.
75VIRGIL PRACTICAL CLAVIER CO., 26 West 15th Street, New York.
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.