PREFACE
THE Arts and the Art of Criticism epitomizes the scope and orientation of the present volume. It is a study of the work of art as an object of delight, a vehicle of communication, and, at least potentially, a record of significant insight. But it is also concerned with those aspects of the art of criticism which lend themselves to philosophical analysis. In dealing with the arts I have attempted to discover their essential nature; in analyzing man's critical response to art I have tried to formulate as precisely as possible the basic principles and norms to which the artistically sensitive layman and critic both appeal, however unconsciously, in all artistic appraisal. The volume thus deals with certain broad issues which have been discussed for centuries by critics and philosophers. But it considers them with greater philosophical rigor than is usual in critical essays, and with far greater attention to primary artistic data than is common in philosophical treatises. For it has been written by a philosopher in close collaboration with experts in the several arts under review, and is, in sum, the record of our cooperative explorations over a period of years. These distinguishing features of the book invite a word of explanation.

The empirical material has been deliberately limited to the "pure" major arts, in order to simplify the problem and to facilitate the formulation of certain basic categories of artistic analysis. Music and the dance, architecture, sculpture, painting, and the art of literature were found to be sufficiently rich and various to permit illuminating comparison and to provide a basis for sound inductive generalization. Had all the arts been examined seriatim, the minor as well as the major, and the "mixed" arts along with those which rely primarily upon a single medium, our investigation would either have had to be indefinitely extended or else condemned to superficiality. And had attention not been focused upon certain arts in all their specificity, my desire to eschew mere abstract theorizing would have been frustrated from the outset. I have tried to steer a middle course between the Scylla of theory divorced from fact and the Charybdis of isolated fact unilluminated by interpretative generalization. My procedure has been to explore, with copious illustration, each of the six arts in turn, with special reference to their respective media, their several types of formal organization, and their expressive potentialities and limitations. This analysis has set in sharp relief the distinctive characteristics of each art, but it has also revealed analogical relationships between them, and has made possible the formulation of certain basic categories which are applicable to all art as such. It has also prepared the way for a systematic analysis of critical principles and a formulation of artistic norms at once more general and more empirically oriented than would have otherwise been possible.

The region thus explored has proved to be a no-man's land which most philosophers have shunned as too empirical for philosophical inquiry, and which most critics have avoided as too abstract for their aesthetic tastes and aptitudes. The further my collaborators and I pushed our investigations, the more acutely did we come to realize that critics and philosophers of art need one another's help. The critic cannot avoid appealing to general concepts and universal criteria, but he is frequently unable, particularly in this age of specialization, to forge the conceptual tools requisite to precise critical analysis and evaluation. The philosophical aesthetician as frequently exhibits the opposite deficiency. Lacking sufficient orientation in the several arts, he is too often content with tenuous generalizations concerning Beauty, Art, and Genius. Both critics and philosophers have tended to forget their mutual dependence, and both alike have suffered from unhealthy isolation.

A modern Aristotle or Hegel might perhaps be able to master the several arts in all their historical complexity, develop the capacity for competent philosophical analysis and interpretation, and thus achieve the desired historico-philosophical synthesis singlehanded. But failing the advent of such a genius, the only practical solution would seem to be a resolute attempt at cooperation among specialists. This book, at all events, is to a very unusual degree the product of such association. I willingly assume full responsibility for the entire volume, since it was I who have expressed our findings in their present form. But my indebtedness to my friends and colleagues in Princeton University is so extensive that, for better or worse, they must be regarded as collaborators in the truest sense.

Thus, the classification of the artistic categories was initiated by conversations with A. E. Hinds, of the Department of English, and the specific application of many of these categories to literature was made under his expert guidance. A. M. Friend, Jr., of the Department of Art and Archaeology, contributed much of the critical analysis of the plastic arts, suggested nearly all of the illustrations here reproduced, and gave me his invaluable assistance in preparing the plates for publication R. D. Welch, of the Department of Music, corrected and enriched the sections dealing with music, provided a large part of the empirical documentation, and, in addition, wrote the supplementary essay on the expressed content of music, which so markedly enhances the value of the book. D. F. Bowers, of the Department of Philosophy, read and re-read the manuscript and contributed greatly to the articulation of the more philosophical sections. Had these colleagues of mine not promised me their assistance, this project would never have been undertaken, and had they not fulfilled their promise with unparalleled generosity of time and effort, it could never have been developed to its present state...