Thus it appears that all these works of the ancients _might_
rationally have been denominated works of 'High Art;' and here we
remark the difference between the hypothetical or rational, and the
historical account of facts; for though here is _reason_ enough why
ancient art _might_ have been denominated 'High Art,' that it _was_
so denominated on this account, is a position not capable of proof:
whereas, in all probability, the true account of the matter runs
thus--The works of antiquity awe us by their time-hallowed presence;
the mind is sent into a serious contemplation of things; and, the
subject itself in nowise contravening, we attribute all this potent
effect to the agency of the subject before us, and 'High Art,' it
becomes _then_ and _for ever_, with all such as "follow its cut." But
then as this was so named, not from the abstract cause, but from a
result and effect; when a _new_ work is produced in a similar spirit,
but clothed in a dissimilar matter, and the critics have to settle to
what class of art it belongs,--then is the new work dragged up to
fight with the old one, like the poor beggar Irus in front of
Ulysses; then are they turned over and applied, each to each, like
the two triangles in Euclid; and then, if they square, fit and tally
in every quarter--with the nude to the draped in the one, as the nude
to the draped in the other--with the standing to the sitting in the
one, as the standing to the sitting in the other--with the fat to the
lean in the one, as the fat to the lean in the other--with the young
to the old in the one, as the young to the old in the other--with
head to body, as head to body; and nose to knee, as nose to knee, &c.
Pages:
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82