VII
The fact remains, however, that the percentage of the population which is affected by systematic education is, and is likely to remain, very, very small. The artistic regeneration of the world would be a very slow process if it depended entirely upon the existence of a definite desire for education. Before any one will come into contact with educational institutions he must have attained to a relatively high standard of appreciation and he must be endowed already with considerable enthusiasm for art. The greater problems are clearly: (a) how to increase the interest of those who are almost if not entirely indifferent to the point when theywilldesire systematic instruction; and (b) how to benefit those who will never (maybecannever) reach even that stage, or who will prefer to “educate themselves”.
As a preliminary to this it will be wellto examine some of the causes of low taste. Why is it that millions enjoyWhen it’s Night-time in Italy, but are bored to tears by the SchumannA minor Concerto? Why shouldThe Bathave power to thrill them whenMacbethleaves them cold? Why, in short, do they prefer the least good to the best? I will not say “worst,” because nothing is bad which artistically can give pleasure and morally is not evil.
The obvious reason, which most of us would give glibly, is that these people are intellectually and spiritually incapable of appreciating good art. How far this is true, and how far the other reasons I shall give are responsible, I would not care to suggest. Very probably it is true in the large majority of cases. In a world the majority of whose inhabitants are quite incapable of thinking intelligently or logically about the most important influences in their lives, where politics and religion and the fundamental human relationships are governed by ignorant prejudices and irrational habits, where a large proportion of men are mentally and physically below par, can we expect every man and woman topossess the latent ability to embrace the beautiful? However that may be, this obstacle to artistic education can be removed only by the sociologist, the educationist, the moralist, and the biologist. We who are concerned with the artistic factor can duly presuppose the existence, now or to-morrow, of a germ of artistic impulse, since we can only influence those who are capable.
Secondly, as we noticed before, the greater familiarity and accessibility of the low grade is a potent hindrance to development.
Thirdly, we must remember that the average man seeks recreation when he embraces art. He may have degraded his idea of the recreational and come to think that unless an experience “livens him up” or “takes him out of himself” it is not suitable recreation. The fact remains that as a rule he is unwilling to give the matter any sustained thought (even though exercising his mind might be a great change from the routine of manual labour), and he is satisfied if the day’s leisure is passed pleasantly. The idea of sustained, cumulative recreation, such as is gained by the real lover of anyart, when the pleasure of to-day adds to the recreative value of that of to-morrow, when each experience makes the following keener and more lasting, never occurs to him.
Again, he is conservative and play for safety. Any improvement in taste would involve stepping on to fresh ground, and he is not prepared to do that. Somehow—generally by observing the likes and dislikes of people of similar mentality—he has discovered “what he likes”, and he sees no reason why he should take any risks. That is largely why he goes to see farces, reads detective yarns or tales of the wild and woolly West, and patronizes ballad-concerts and music-halls, but would never dream of venturing into a repertory theatre or a classical concert, or of reading a different type of book. His time, he thinks, and his money, are too precious for excursions into the unknown.
That alone would be sufficient deterrent, but, in addition, it sets up prejudices. He does not want to explore, yet he has (subconsciously, of course) to justify his conservatism. This he does by raising an imaginary barrier between the things heknows he likes and the things he doesn’t know anything at all about andmightnot like. When he is brought face to face with the unknown, rather than confess his ignorance and lack of enterprise, even to himself, rather than admit that his tastes are low, he jumps to the conclusion that he is wise to be wary and that there must be some good reason for his attitude. Thus he sets his mind at rest by retarding its development.
Unfortunately there are outside influences which strengthen these prejudices. For instance, too many of those who appreciate, or pretend to appreciate, the best are apt to set themselves apart and to insist that there is an unbridgeable gulf between their art and that of the common herd. The average man hates this highbrow snobbery and hates, too, everything they are supposed to care for, since it is tarred with the same brush.
Then, again, attempts to “improve” his taste for him generally arouse his ire and invoke further prejudices—mainly because the would-be improvers do not go the right way to work. It is not at all difficult to realize that, since we allregard art as matter for the exercise of taste, which is an individual prerogative—there is no absolute scale of artistic values, though there is a general consensus of educated opinion—the man who will readily accept the judgement of his intellectual superiors will not so readily accept the opinions of the artistically better informed.
Then, it is by no means easy to persuade the artistically uneducated that there is any need for education. He thinks that the enjoyable aspects of art are fairly obvious and that there is no point in looking beyond the obvious unless he is seeking for some extra-artistic element—some intellectual or spiritual value. As he is only seeking enjoyment, why should he waste time looking for anything else? It must, therefore, be made quite clear to him that the chief aim of the educationist is to increase his pleasure in art and that there is no ulterior motive. Unfortunately the methods of many teachers (and here I include all publicists and would-be popularizers) are not such as to give this impression.
Much teaching has been misguided. For example, for some obscure reason criticsand teachers frequently fail to discriminate between the “absolute” and the “historical” value of the classics. They delight in praising work which has little claim to our interest other than its antiquity. They confront the bewildered seeker for enjoyable beauty with volumes of extracts from “The Great Writers”, collections of the Hundred Best Books, etc., than which nothing more ungodly, more dreary, uninspired, unworthy, and unbeautiful could possibly be found. They should know better, these people! Why will they do it? Almost as bad are those who go to the opposite extreme and hail with acclamation the newest, most unintelligible phantasies born of a craving for novelty.
I am not exaggerating, though certainly the position is improving wonderfully. But, of the books written twenty years ago and earlier with the presumable intention of stimulating interest in literature and art, certainly half would have antagonized the ordinary man—had he bothered about them at all, which he didn’t. The critic may say that he is not concerned with improving the taste of the man in the street.Undoubtedly he has other tasks besides those of the popularizer; much of his work can appeal only to the artistically educated and it would be dangerous for him to devote an undue share of his energies to this work. Nevertheless, he should more often cast aside the highbrow attitude and any idea that the needs of the ordinary man are unworthy of his consideration. The example, in the realms of science, of such men as J. A. Thomson, Lankester, and others equally unlikely to devote their energies to any but a good cause, should help to dispel this illusion. We badly need writers who, without being namby-pamby, superior, or academic, can help the man with the germ of interest, writers who can point to the ascending steps in the ladder of taste. Theirs is not an easy task. In the first place, they must bethemselvesinteresting, for only a minority are willing to read books with an ulterior motive. The actual popularizing books must provide recreation and enjoyment as well as stimulation.
In this connection it might be remarked that we are too ready to throw stones at the writer who tries to bring his literary abilities within the range of a wide public.He is accused of playing to the gallery, of prostituting his art, of thinking of his royalties, and so on. Might not a writer capable of attaining heights on which only a minority could join him be rendering a better service to humanity at large by sometimes choosing to give the majority the best they can appreciate? And the competent conscientious workmen who, though they may not hope or desire to rank with the greatest, give the public something which it desires and understands, and which is nevertheless much better than anything else of the same kind that it would read, render a finer service than we are willing to admit.
Secondly, the popularizer must not rob his public of its self-respect or unduly destroy its faith in its own judgment in artistic matters. To do so is to open up another source of prejudice and to raise a fresh obstacle to enjoyment, for he who loses faith in his own opinions, who is told that he should put no trust in his own judgment, endeavours to embrace the artistic standards of others. This he cannot do, but he begins to read books, and so on, from a sense of duty—because he has been told that everybody ought toread so and so—and then to become a liar and a hypocrite, to pretend to others that he enjoys books when he doesn’t, to imagine to himself that he does when he doesn’t, so wasting his opportunities and stunting his latent capabilities. With the right kind of education his tastes and opinions would improve gradually and without his noticing the difference. Although his taste would be improving, all the time he would be following his own judgment, and so he would always enjoy his contact with art.
The popularizer who would approach the subject in the most fruitful way will realize that the lower forms of art are purely recreational—excepting of course that some activities have physical values also. The ethical, spiritual, and intellectual aspects are not developed until we reach a higher level. Therefore, if he is going to lead to better things any one to whom art has been synonymous with pure recreation, he must do so by utilizing the recreative element in the better. For example, the educated reader seeks in Shakespeare the statement of philosophical and moral ideas, beauty of language and aptness of phraseology, the delineation ofcharacter, and the like. But what is the good of pointing out these qualities to a man as a reason why he should go to a Shakespearian performance rather than to a farce or a melodrama, to one who is, as yet, only seeking recreation? Tell him instead thatTwelfth Nightis a good farce andMacbetha good melodrama—as they undoubtedly are; rid his head of the idea that Shakespeare is primarily something else, something much more “brainy” and stodgy; try to instil in him the motive that filled the old Globe with an audience which is the exact counterpart of our own uneducated pleasure-seeking theatre-goers, and Shakespeare would become more popular. Contact with his work would undoubtedly improve taste and the appreciation of Shakespeare’s other qualities. Shakespeare was popular in his own time because he enjoyed the reputation of being a good entertainer. He isn’t popular to-day because the average man has been taught by misguided people to regard him as a great writer. Of course there are other reasons, but that is a most important one.
Yet another cause of low taste is the prevalent lack of the ability to concentrate.Enjoyment of the better types of art involves concentration, not only because it must be cumulative, but also because great art is generally built round an ampler theme than that which is of only temporary appeal. If the artist deals with a big subject, he must have room. If he avoids substance, he economizes, condenses, and concentrates his production. Whichever course he adopts, the reader or spectator must give him greater—either more extended or more intense—attention maybe both.
Education will improve powers of concentration; but, on the other hand, it depends upon this ability. Therefore the psychological factor must be considered by all educationists. They must prepare ladders leading by easy stages from the purely enjoyable and insignificant to the serious and significant, but it is not enough that the steps should involve only gradual intellectual and aesthetic progress. They must require also only a gradual increase in concentration.
The chief aim of education and popularization must be, however, to increase the realization of the function of art—which is (though art may fulfil other purposes) to provide enjoyment, enjoyment in itshighest, most spiritual form maybe, yet nevertheless enjoyment. For the pursuit of art is the pursuit of the beautiful, especially the beautiful which is of man’s creation. If this pursuit cannot give pleasure, the fault must be ours, since the “beautiful” which cannot give pleasure to any is not beautiful. The converse, that anything which gives pleasure is beautiful, is certainlynottrue, but, whatever our philosophical or moral criteria of beauty may be, they must include the pleasure giving property.
We need, nevertheless, to question ourselves whether this factor is not only ignored but sometimes even suppressed by some educationists. There are so many things in this world of imperfectly developed men and women that give pleasure and are most unbeautiful, that we hesitate to class our precious goods in the same category lest they be tarred with the same brush. Yet we must do so. There is much that goes by the name of Love which is but lust, greed, pride of possession, avarice, habit, perversion, and waste, but we are not tempted to pretend that genuine human affection is not love because it is something better than therest. So we must not be tempted to deny that art is essentially a source of pleasure simply because it is the source of the finest, most lasting, pleasure. To do so is to alienate those who are most in need of its influence.