THE TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORY OF PAINTING That this point of view of art and its aesthetic quality falls in well with our own deductions on the nature of the art work as a transformation of the actual by the ideal, so that the two become identical, is a matter of interest rather than a vindication or substantiation of Pater, whose doctrine has met criticism from several quarters. We must go elsewhere for a test of the theory, and we can do no better than resort to the testimony of history. That the history of the progress of art, in at least one of its manifold aspects, is a recurring battle between the individuality of genius and some arbitrary authoritarianism, is attested to more or less by all the arts, but particularly so by painting. The creative mind in art, as well as in science, has always been hampered or interfered with in its work by some self-appointed guardians of alleged public welfare, who arrogate to themselves some divinely appointed power over their fellow-beings. The scientist has been persecuted as a blasphemer, while the artist has been ordered and dictated to until quite recent days as to the choice of his subject-matter and its handling. The free and spontaneous development of art has been hampered not only by its servitude to priest, prince, magistrate, general, and even the schoolmaster, but also by art academies and "schools" of art. Rembrandt The effect upon art of the first kind of interference was that it became subservient to religious, moralistic, and political objectives, which not only placed a limit upon what material the artist was to deal with, but also how he was to deal with it. He was ordered what to do and how to do it. He had to choose his subject from a field that appealed to those he was dependent upon for his living, and he had to present it in a manner within the comprehension of his patron. The power of the academies and schools, with their political and traditional authority, added to the woes of the artist by their insistence upon craftsmanship and manual dexterity, the products of which were readily marketable. The creative artist whose work deviated from the accepted standard was hounded and persecuted. If the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries produced art works it was because genius will have its way in spite of obstructions of poverty, insult, denunciation, and even persecution. Music happened to be most free of this hampering influence due to the nature of its subjectmatter. The priest and the prince could use music, could even order a requiem or an oratorio, but could do nothing more, and the composer was left free to do as his genius dictated. With painting it was quite a different story. The painter begins his work with actual objects or situations and readily attracts the attention of the public censor or of the mob whenever his work falls out of line with traditional morality or existing art standards. It is only within comparatively recent years that artists, other than composers, have begun to enjoy a degree of freedom, with the result that so-called modernistic art shows an increasing tendency to purge itself of nonartistic accretions and impositions. And as it becomes purer art, pure perception, as Pater calls it, it approximates more and more to the condition of music.		Home The Nature and Objective of Aesthetics Art and the Artist The Art Work The Art Work in the Making The Creative Mind Art and the Artist Art and the Layman The Experience of Beauty Beauty in Music Painting The Testimony of the History of Painting The Aesthetic Element in Painting The Aesthetic Experience in Painting Poor Art and Rich Art Poetry