Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) placed great importance on art, beauty, intuition and the imagination. A number of his key ideas are put forth in this short work – The Essence of Aesthetic, with four main headings: 1) What Is Art? 2) Prejudices Relating to Art 3) The Place of Art in the Spirit and in Human Society 4) Criticism and the History of Art. I will focus on Part 4, Criticism and the History of Art, since this section touches on what we are engaged with on this site: reading books and writing reviews. Below are five quotes from Croce’s The Essence of Aesthetic coupled with my brief comments.

"Artists do not know what criticism is, expecting from it favors which it is not in a position to grant, and injuries which it is not in a position to inflict: since it is clear that no critic can make an artist of one who is not an artist, so no critic can ever undo, overthrow, or even slightly injure an artist who is really an artist." --------- Although it is true a critic cannot make an artist out of a non-artist and vice versa, a critic can most definitely, via a glowing review, provide the artist with a wider audience. Stephen King wrote such a glowing review of The Goldfinch in the New York Times. I am quite certain his review boosted Donna Tartt’s readership. My sense is artists/writers are concerned with what reviewers will say for exactly this reason.

"Self-styled critics, who do actually present themselves as pedagogues, as oracles, as guides of art, as legislators, seers, and prophets; they command artists to do this or that, they assign themes to them and declare that certain subjects are poetical and certain others not; they are discontented with the art at present produced, and would prefer one similar to that prevailing at this or that epoch of the past, or at another of which they declare they catch a glimpse in the near or remote future; they will reprove Tasso for not being Ariosto." --------- This is poison for a reviewer: judging a work by some preconceived yardstick or preconceived idea of how the play (for example) should be performed (perhaps another production they enjoyed) and will use that previous production/interpretation as the gold standard for the play they are viewing.

I don’t see this happening so much on book reviews but I’ve seen it happen frequently in theater reviews. For example, a reviewer has a preconceived notion of how The Merchant of Venice or Comedy of Errors should be performed and when a director/acting troupe treats the material with an unconventional, creative twist, the reviewer pans them. I recall John Cage noting how after listening to an orchestra play a Brahms symphony, the little girl sitting the seat in front of him turned to her father and said, “That’s not the way it goes.” Much wiser to keep it fresh – view a book or performance or painting on its own terms.

"Those capricious critics are not so much critics as artists: artists who have failed and who aspire to a certain form of art, which they are unable to attain, either because their aspiration was contradictory, or because their power was not sufficient and failed them; and thus, preserving in their soul the bitterness of the unrealized ideal, they can speak of nothing else, lamenting everywhere its absence, and everywhere invoking its presence." ---------- Croce does not care for critics who are critics because they are failed artists. Such failed artists, he notes, tend to be bitter and hypercritical of other artists and artworks. Perhaps this is true, however, there are many critics and reviewers who prefer to review rather than paint or write novels. Criticism and reviewing, in each of the arts – visual arts, performing arts, music, literature – has its own rich tradition and is an art-form and creative expression in its own right. Think of art critic Robert Hughes or literary critic Burton Rascoe - incredibly imaginative, perceptive, talented people whose prime mode of expression was reviewing.

"Is there really need of criticism in order to distinguish the beautiful from the ugly? The production itself of art is never anything but this distinguishing, because the artist arrives at purity of expression precisely by eliminating the ugly which threatens to invade it." ---------- Actually, there is a place for criticism and reviewing in judging what is worth the reader’s time; matter of fact, such judging is a prime reason for writing and reading reviews in the first place.

"There is criticism as interpretation or comment, which makes itself small before works of art and limits itself to the duty of dusting, placing in a good light, furnishing information as to the period at which a picture was painted and what it represents, explaining linguistic forms, historical allusions, the presumptions of fact and of idea in a poem; and in both cases, its duty performed, permits the art to act spontaneously within the soul of the onlooker and of the reader." ---------- This is one strength a reviewer or critic can bring to the review – to appraise the work from a particular, creative point of view, for example, philosophical, historical, psychological or comparative. If I may be so bold, by way of example, in my review of Poe's The Cask of Amontillado I used Schopenhauer's essay on revenge as the framework for analyzing this classic tale.

This twenty-eight page essay can be read by following this link: https://www.google.com/#q=the essence of aesthetic pdf

Literature and its influence on various dimensions of modern life is a subject very much alive and kicking. Evgeny Morozov delivering a lecture on literature and technology.
( )

Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) placed great importance on art, beauty, intuition and the imagination. A number of his key ideas are put forth in this short work – The Essence of Aesthetic, with four main headings: 1) What Is Art? 2) Prejudices Relating to Art 3) The Place of Art in the Spirit and in Human Society 4) Criticism and the History of Art. I will focus on Part 4, Criticism and the History of Art, since this section touches on what we are engaged with on this site: reading books and writing reviews. Below are five quotes from Croce’s The Essence of Aesthetic coupled with my brief comments.

"Artists do not know what criticism is, expecting from it favors which it is not in a position to grant, and injuries which it is not in a position to inflict: since it is clear that no critic can make an artist of one who is not an artist, so no critic can ever undo, overthrow, or even slightly injure an artist who is really an artist." --------- Although it is true a critic cannot make an artist out of a non-artist and vice versa, a critic can most definitely, via a glowing review, provide the artist with a wider audience. Stephen King wrote such a glowing review of The Goldfinch in the New York Times. I am quite certain his review boosted Donna Tartt’s readership. My sense is artists/writers are concerned with what reviewers will say for exactly this reason.

"Self-styled critics, who do actually present themselves as pedagogues, as oracles, as guides of art, as legislators, seers, and prophets; they command artists to do this or that, they assign themes to them and declare that certain subjects are poetical and certain others not; they are discontented with the art at present produced, and would prefer one similar to that prevailing at this or that epoch of the past, or at another of which they declare they catch a glimpse in the near or remote future; they will reprove Tasso for not being Ariosto." --------- This is poison for a reviewer: judging a work by some preconceived yardstick or preconceived idea of how the play (for example) should be performed (perhaps another production they enjoyed) and will use that previous production/interpretation as the gold standard for the play they are viewing. I don’t see this happening so much on book reviews but I’ve seen it happen frequently in theater reviews. For example, a reviewer has a preconceived notion of how The Merchant of Venice or Comedy of Errors should be performed and when a director/acting troupe treats the material with an unconventional, creative twist, the reviewer pans them. I recall John Cage noting how after listening to an orchestra play a Brahms symphony, the little girl sitting the seat in front of him turned to her father and said, “That’s not the way it goes.” Much wiser to keep it fresh – view a book or performance or painting on its own terms.

"Those capricious critics are not so much critics as artists: artists who have failed and who aspire to a certain form of art, which they are unable to attain, either because their aspiration was contradictory, or because their power was not sufficient and failed them; and thus, preserving in their soul the bitterness of the unrealized ideal, they can speak of nothing else, lamenting everywhere its absence, and everywhere invoking its presence." ---------- Croce does not care for critics who are critics because they are failed artists. Such failed artists, he notes, tend to be bitter and hypercritical of other artists and artworks. Perhaps this is true, however, there are many critics and reviewers who prefer to review rather than paint or write novels. Criticism and reviewing, in each of the arts – visual arts, performing arts, music, literature – has its own rich tradition and is an art-form and creative expression in its own right. Think of art critic Robert Hughes or literary critic Burton Rascoe - incredibly imaginative, perceptive, talented people whose prime mode of expression was reviewing.

"Is there really need of criticism in order to distinguish the beautiful from the ugly? The production itself of art is never anything but this distinguishing, because the artist arrives at purity of expression precisely by eliminating the ugly which threatens to invade it." ---------- Actually, there is a place for criticism and reviewing in judging what is worth the reader’s time; matter of fact, such judging is a prime reason for writing and reading reviews in the first place.

"There is criticism as interpretation or comment, which makes itself small before works of art and limits itself to the duty of dusting, placing in a good light, furnishing information as to the period at which a picture was painted and what it represents, explaining linguistic forms, historical allusions, the presumptions of fact and of idea in a poem; and in both cases, its duty performed, permits the art to act spontaneously within the soul of the onlooker and of the reader." ---------- This is one strength a reviewer or critic can bring to the review – to appraise the work from a particular, creative point of view, for example, philosophical, historical, psychological or comparative. If I may be so bold, by way of example, in my review of Poe's The Cask of Amontillado I used Schopenhauer's essay on revenge as the framework for analyzing this classic tale.

This twenty-eight page essay can be read by following this link: https://www.google.com/#q=the essence of aesthetic pdf

Literature and its influence on various dimensions of modern life is a subject very much alive and kicking. Evgeny Morozov delivering a lecture on literature and technology.
( )