IX

We cannot close even a brief essay without some reference to the

effect of some other mechanical devices, such as the gramophone, the

piano-player, and wireless, and a note on that all important subject,

commercial art.

The appreciation of no art shows such great possibilities of expansion

in the near future as music. During the last few years it has been

released from its most irksome bonds and is now just beginning to

stretch its limbs. For technique has been the curse of music, and now

it is becoming possible to gain enjoyment without exercising one’s

executive and interpretive powers.

Musicians are of two classes--executive and appreciative--those who

perform and those who listen. True enjoyment of music belongs to

the latter, just as true enjoyment of books, of pictures, of plays

is the reward of the reader and the spectator--not of the writer,

the painter, the actor, or the composer. _Their_ joy is of another

order--it is the joy of creation.

Without the assistance of modern mechanical aids the music-lover had

either to listen to the music-making of his friends or of players at a

concert, or he had to attempt to interpret for himself. The first was

inconvenient and unsatisfactory. The selection of music was not his

own but that of others; the time and place were not of his choosing.

The alternative was even worse, since his appreciation was limited

by his interpretive powers and marred by his deficiencies. The owner

of a modern player-piano has the whole world of piano-music and a

wealth of arrangements at his command. Even the lover of orchestral,

instrumental, or vocal music has access, through the gramophone and the

wireless, to a passable substitute for the real thing.

What effect will this have upon pianoforte music? In the first place,

we shall gradually rid ourselves of misplaced pride in the amateur’s

very limited technical powers. We shall no longer praise So and So

for being able to play Chopin’s _Studies_ after a fashion, but shall

consider him either a fool for wasting his time trying when he could

much more easily enjoy Cortot’s performance of them, or sympathize with

the poverty that prevents his purchasing this mechanical aid. Secondly,

we shall not waste time and kill natural love of music by the dreary

routine of “teaching the piano.” Instead, we shall teach appreciation.

If all the energy spent in acquiring a very inadequate technique were

diverted to the real business of appreciation, we should be a more

musical nation. Thirdly, we shall cease to tolerate the incompetent

player now so often foisted upon us or even sought for want of any

better, and the ostentatious “virtuoso” executant.

Before very long the piano-player will cost no more than an ordinary

piano; in fact the ordinary instrument will no longer be manufactured.

In our schools “piano-playing” will be erased from the curriculum and

classes in appreciation substituted.

But what about non-pianoforte music? There is a big difference. While

the piano-player produces exactly the same kind of musical tone as

the hand-played instrument, the gramophone, or the wireless, does

not reproduce at all exactly the timbre, quality or volume of the

instruments recorded. It provides not the real thing but a substitute,

which, though excellent, can never be entirely satisfactory. We do

not care to assert dogmatically what science will or will not make

possible in the future; at least, however, it is extremely doubtful

that a mechanical violin as adequate as the mechanical piano will ever

be invented. Wind instruments depend less upon human manipulation--the

organ, for instance, is nothing but an imperfect essay in this

direction. This is but idle speculation, however. As a practical

proposition we may say that the perfect mechanical reproduction of

music will be confined to the pianoforte.

So we are left with these problems. Shall we be tempted to seek the

shadow and lose the substance--listen in often, but never attend

an orchestral or chamber concert or a violin or vocal recital? The

chances are that we shall, unless opportunities to enjoy the latter

are greater than at present. Considerable loss would result. The ears

of the next generation would become attuned to a diminished variety

of tonal experiences, for one thing. For another, the psychological,

even physical effects of large gradations in the volume of tone, such

as can be experienced only in the concert-room, should not willingly

be relinquished. And, again, it is not by any means the same thing to

listen to music in the company of others, in the atmosphere of the

concert-room, as it is to enjoy music in solitude. We may sometimes

prefer the latter, but that fact does not remove the difference.

The second problem is that, though there is little physical or moral

good to be found in solo instrumental playing, such good _does_ result

from singing and partaking in concerted music. There is no good reason

why we should play the piano--rather than listen to it; but there

are many reasons why we should sing or play in chamber or orchestral

music. By all means let us listen to more music of all kinds; increased

facilities for listening should not, however, decrease our desire to

perform when performance can benefit us.

Taking all these considerations together we may assume:

(1) that pianoforte _playing_ will decline though much more pianoforte

music will be enjoyed.

(2) that much of the practical energy now devoted to the pianoforte

will be directed to the study of other instruments.

(3) that, unless our musical life is to increase in volume but diminish

in quality, more and not less concert-going and concerted instrumental

playing and choral singing must be provided.

Books, music, pictures, sculpture, however, minister to only a

small part of the artistic needs of the community. By far the most

widespread, though not necessarily the most valuable, art-products are

those which we may describe as commercial, or industrial, or, better,

“applied” art. Only a minority, even in this age, concern themselves

with the first-named, but we all wear clothes, use furniture, live,

work, play, and worship in buildings, eat and drink out of vessels, and

so on, through every one of our daily occupations. Into each of these

art can, does, and must enter. We may wear clothes to keep us warm,

but they must be either ugly or otherwise--their existence implies

artistic properties, negative or positive. If they are ugly, we cannot

avoid their ugliness, though it may dull our appreciative faculties.

Of course this is true of all things. Every object, every occurrence

almost, has its artistic aspect. With every manufactured article, every

human production, however, this artistic quality is within our control.

When we make a cup, a hat, or a church, we can make it as beautiful or

as ugly as we like, subject to certain limitations, some of them real,

some imaginary. But we must be sufficiently interested in its artistic

value. It will seldom exist spontaneously, without conscious effort.

That is, of course, the first and most powerful limitation. _Often

we don’t care._ And so long as we don’t care we shall receive

only according to our deserts. For the second limitation is that

manufactured goods are intended primarily for utility, and the

incentive for their production is profit. So long as we are content to

take the ugly but useful, so long as our artistic discrimination does

not give added commercial value to the beautiful, we can have no right

to expect the manufacturer to bother. He is not an apostle of art, but

a business-man. If we show him, as a business-man, that we desire a

well-proportioned jug and will refuse to buy a clumsy one, he will,

acting on business principles, supply the saleable article. So far

the remedy is in our own hands. Thirdly, many manufacturers have an

unjustifiably low opinion of public taste, and honestly believe that

the majority like tawdry things when, in truth, they accept them for

want of anything better or because they are cheaper.

Fourthly, however, _when_ there is sufficient desire for the beautiful

it need not cost any more, but _until_ there is, it _will_, since, it

will be produced in response to a minority demand. This is a much more

serious limitation than it should be, for several reasons.

(1) Popular taste has, since the initiation of the industrial era,

steadily improved, but the artistic standard of manufacturers is at

least a stage behind. There are at least two causes for this: (_a_) the

manufacturer can judge popular taste only by experiment, and this is,

on the average, bound to involve expense, and (_b_) when the machinery

and processes of manufacture are well established and smoothly running,

changes must entail extra costs and reorganization, ranging from the

installation of fresh plant to the employment of new designs. For this

reason alone the more artistic article must cost more, excepting in

those industries (such as the manufacture of dress-material) where

change and fashion are normal conditions. In other industries where

the product is less subject to variation (e.g. pottery--a firm could

produce and sell exactly the same cups and saucers for an unlimited

period), the extra cost is necessarily more to be expected.

(2) The manufacturer may, and alas too often does, appreciate the

commercial value of beauty and _trades_ upon it. That is to say, he

manufactures ugly wall-paper and pleasant wall-paper, at practically

the same cost. He _could_ be content to make the normal profit from

both, but he realizes that many people don’t want to disfigure their

walls and will pay more for a pleasing design. He makes them do so,

since this behaviour is profitable to him. In this he cannot be

censured--rather should we praise him for not doing it more often.

Nevertheless, such action will be a drag upon artistic progress, and if

it can be prevented at all even the manufacturer in the long run will

benefit. Let all who can afford the more beautiful production purchase

it, but let them pay the extra price under protest. The manufacturer

must be made to realize that it is anti-social to make a profit out of

beauty, when by so doing he condemns the less fortunate man to suffer

the ugly. As the business-man is at heart as much interested as any

other person in the welfare of his fellow-men, this might have some

influence. And an independent inquiry (conducted by, say, a group of

art-students or a University) might achieve a little. They would try

to show us--if they could--why a fabric which is disfigured by a vile

design can be cheaper than a plain unprinted cloth, why there is truth

in the saying we all hear frequently, “Oh, yes, you all admire the

plain, simple costume or frock, but it’s so much more expensive, you

know,” and the like.

Fifthly, industrial designers have not received due recognition and are

not well organized in relation to the industries. The designer is not

always as well acquainted with the special qualities and limitations

of the material to which his designs are to be applied as he might be;

the manufacturer does not often enough realize the importance of the

designer; and the young artist is apt to despise design--naturally,

because personal public recognition is never awarded to the

designer--and the best men prefer more pretentious if more precarious

fields. These shortcomings would, however, be removed as a matter of

course were the other limitations to be removed.

Great improvements in industrial art cannot, however, be expected

until the general education and artistic appreciation of the public

has developed. Applied art will always move more slowly than fine art,

since the utility-factor will ever bring about a conflict of expediency

versus ideals.

Architecture presents special difficulties, because it is at once

aggressive and unavoidable, and because it depends upon environment.

In other words, though we may, if we can afford, eschew the ugly pot,

tawdry furniture, and (so far at least as our indoor life is concerned)

garish clothing, we cannot avoid buildings. They form a large part of

our environment and influence our mental and bodily health. Those who

live in dirty, flat-fronted, unbroken streets have to resist actively

their environment if they would avoid dirty, drab, monotonous lives.

Those who daily traverse roads consisting of disorderly jumbles of

architectural misfits lose the sense of serenity, order, and fitness

they might gain in happier surroundings. The second of the points

mentioned before is that no building can be judged apart from its

surroundings. An essential of every work of art is that its parts shall

form a well-balanced whole, each detail being subordinated to the

general effect, which must convey a sense of completeness. Now, until

recently we have (with occasional exceptions) failed to realize that

the unit of architecture, so far as outward appearance is concerned, is

not the individual building but the whole street, everything, in fact,

which is in view from any one point. No one would suggest that the

wall of a picture-gallery was artistic because the individual pictures

were good, and yet, although much more care and artistry is devoted

to hanging pictures than is spent in arranging the contiguity of

buildings, we seem to be quite satisfied with haphazard town-planning.

Yet all who sorrow at the wilful waste and destruction of the

beautiful must lament when they see, as they must often do, noble and

beautiful edifices or the simple but refined works of architects, who

as a rule devote more love and receive less incentive than any other

art workers, ruined by their surroundings.

But how, one may ask, can this be avoided? Adjoining plots of land

may belong to different owners, contiguous buildings are built for

different purposes, by those with much or little to spend, designed

by different architects--how can one expect them to conform to one

artistic scheme? Perhaps that is too much to expect. Can we even

ask that they should not be violently opposed to one another, not

mutually destructive? Yes. But this can be secured in only one way.

Local authorities must be given, or must take upon themselves, the

duty of controlling building operations in all public places. They

would not, and could not, be arbitrary: they would need to consider

many difficulties, and they could not rightly impose any restrictions

which would make the construction of suitable premises impossible

within the reasonable means of those for whom they were being built.

All they could undertake would be to co-ordinate proposed work, to

advise, and to prohibit flagrant affronts to public good taste. Let a

local committee composed of the best architects and the hardest-headed

business-men in the town, with a disinterested man of taste--a parson,

a farmer, a writer--as chairman, be formed. Much good could be done in

this way.

In domestic architecture we cannot expect much attention to be

given to artistic matters in these days when it is difficult to

obtain a sufficiency of houses of any kind. Nevertheless, there

is one suggestion with great practical possibilities. It is that

of the novelist Mr. J. J. Connington, who proposes that instead

of standardization of design small parts capable of being erected

in a large number of ways should be standardized. The readers who

are interested are referred to _Nordenholt’s Million_ for further

particulars of this most interesting idea.

X

The most significant tendency of art and the greatest danger,

which operates in all fields, is, therefore, that commercialism,

mass-production, standardization, and the heeding of large volumes

of demand will lead to an increase in the quantity of art-production

but a decrease in the average of its quality, unless the evils of the

system are counteracted by certain developments, the chief of which are

education, co-operation, and the birth of a new attitude with regard to

art-ideals.

Our attitude towards the arts must lead us to relate them more closely

to our other interests and, as a corollary, the different kinds and

different values of artistic enjoyment must be synthesized. We desire

neither to set art upon a pedestal of superiority nor to despise it as

a recreative frivolity. We need to realize on the one hand that all

human activities possess of a necessity positive or negative artistic

significance which we cannot avoid; even though we consciously ignore

art, we are subconsciously and indirectly influenced. Further, we

cannot disregard the close economic relationship between the artistic

and the merely utilitarian.

We have seen something, but only one aspect, of this when discussing

applied art; the relation is wider than this, since, for example, the

amount of time, energy, money, and material available for artistic

purposes is closely connected with material economic conditions. And,

still further, there is the psychological or spiritual element, art

satisfying human needs which are unsatisfied by other activities,

supplementing, filling the gaps in our personal development. We cannot

put art into a watertight compartment. The extent to which art appeals

to an individual, and the particular way in which and the special

medium through which artistic impulses find expression, will depend

very largely upon biological and social factors, upon the materially

ordered associations of the individual, his work, his health,

everything that impinges upon his life. Further research will expose

the fundamental reasons for this, but even now we realize that a love

of dancing, of the theatre, of poetry, of sculpture is not a mere gift

or genius or taste or predilection but also something which is fostered

and directed by material environment. Confronted with this realization,

we must regard art as an inseparable organic element in life, not as a

superimposed culture which may or may not exist in any individual or

take any form.

And the corollary of this, as said before, is that, since artistic

potentialities exist in all men according to their being and

environment, the realm of art will present as large a variety of

values, types, and manifestations as does our life itself. Yet all

these manifestations are part of one. Good, bad, or indifferent, they

represent the best, most suitable art that different men at any time

are capable of appreciating or desirous of cultivating. This is the

excuse for our plea for broadmindedness.

_Each, pott 8vo, 2/6 net_ _Occasionally illustrated_

TO-DAY AND

TO-MORROW

This series of books, by some of the most distinguished English

thinkers, scientists, philosophers, doctors, critics, and artists, was

recognized on publication as a noteworthy event. Written from various

points of view, one book frequently opposing the argument of another,

they provide the reader with a stimulating survey of the most modern

thought in many departments of life. Several volumes are devoted to

the future trend of Civilization, conceived as a whole; while others

deal with particular provinces, and cover the future of Woman, War,

Population, Clothes, Wireless, Morals, Drama, Poetry, Art, Sex, Law,

etc.

It is interesting to see in these neat little volumes, issued at a low

price, the revival of a form of literature, the Pamphlet, which has

been in disuse for 200 years.

_Published by_

KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.

Broadway House: 68-74 Carter Lane, London, E.C.4

_VOLUMES READY_

=Daedalus=, or Science and the Future. By J. B. S. HALDANE, Reader in

Biochemistry, University of Cambridge. _Sixth impression._

“A fascinating and daring little book.”--_Westminster Gazette._

“The essay is brilliant, sparkling with wit and bristling with

challenges.”--_British Medical Journal._ “Predicts the most

startling changes.”--_Morning Post._

=Callinicus=, a Defence of Chemical Warfare. By J. B. S. HALDANE.

_Second impression._

“Mr. Haldane’s brilliant study.”--_Times Leading Article._ “A book

to be read by every intelligent adult.”--_Spectator._ “This

brilliant little monograph.”--_Daily News._

=Icarus=, or the Future of Science. By BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S.

_Third impression._

“Utter pessimism.”--_Observer._ “Mr. Russell refuses to believe that

the progress of Science must be a boon to mankind.”--_Morning Post._

“A stimulating book, that leaves one not at all

discouraged.”--_Daily Herald._

=What I Believe.= By BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S. _Second impression._

“One of the most brilliant and thought-stimulating little books I

have read--a better book even than _Icarus_.”--_Nation._ “Simply and

brilliantly written.”--_Nature._ “In stabbing sentences he punctures

the bubble of cruelty, envy, narrowness, and ill-will which those in

authority call their morals.”--_New Leader._

=Tantalus=, or the Future of Man. By F. C. S. SCHILLER, Fellow of

Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

“They are all (_Daedalus_, _Icarus_, and _Tantalus_) brilliantly

clever, and they supplement or correct one another.”--_Dean Inge_,

in _Morning Post_. “Immensely valuable and infinitely

readable.”--_Daily News._ “The book of the week.”--_Spectator._

=Quo Vadimus?= Glimpses of the Future. By E. E. FOURNIER D’ALBE,

D.Sc., author of “Selenium, the Moon Element,” etc.

“A wonderful vision of the future. A book that will be talked

about.”--_Daily Graphic._ “A remarkable contribution to a remarkable

series.”--_Manchester Dispatch._ “Interesting and singularly

plausible.”--_Daily Telegraph._

=Lysistrata=, or Woman’s Future and Future Woman. By ANTHONY M.

LUDOVICI, author of “A Defence of Aristocracy”, etc.

“A stimulating book. Volumes would be needed to deal, in the

fullness his work provokes, with all the problems raised.”--_Sunday

Times._ “Pro-feminine, but anti-feministic.”--_Scotsman._ “Full of

brilliant common-sense.”--_Observer._

=Hypatia=, or Woman and Knowledge. By MRS. BERTRAND RUSSELL. With a

frontispiece. _Second impression._

An answer to _Lysistrata_. “A passionate vindication of the rights

of women.”--_Manchester Guardian._ “Says a number of things

that sensible women have been wanting publicly said for a long

time.”--_Daily Herald._ “Everyone who cares at all about these

things should read it.”--_Weekly Westminster._

=The Mongol in our Midst=: a Study of Man and his Three Faces. By

F. G. CROOKSHANK, M.D., F.R.C.P. With 28 Plates. _Second edition,

revised._

“A brilliant piece of speculative induction.”--_Saturday Review._

“An extremely interesting and suggestive book, which will reward

careful reading.”--_Sunday Times._ “The pictures carry fearful

conviction.”--_Daily Herald._

=The Conquest of Cancer.= By H. W. S. WRIGHT, M.S., F.R.C.S.

Introduction by F. G. CROOKSHANK, M.D.

“Eminently suitable for general reading. The problem is fairly

and lucidly presented. One merit of Mr. Wright’s plan is that he

tells people what, in his judgment, they can best do, _here and

now_.”--From the _Introduction_.

=The Passing of the Phantoms=: a Study of Evolutionary Psychology and

Morals. By C. J. PATTEN, Professor of Anatomy, Sheffield University.

With 4 Plates.

“Readers of _Daedalus_, _Icarus_ and _Tantalus_, will be grateful

for an excellent presentation of yet another point of

view.”--_Yorkshire Post._ “This bright and bracing little

book.”--_Literary Guide._ “Interesting and original.”--_Medical

Times._

=Perseus=: of Dragons. By H. F. SCOTT STOKES. With 2 illustrations.

“A diverting little book, chock-full of ideas. Mr. Stokes’

dragon-lore is both quaint and various.”--_Morning Post._ “Very

amusingly written, and a mine of curious knowledge for which the

discerning reader will find many uses.”--_Glasgow Herald._

=Wireless Possibilities.= By Professor A. M. LOW. With 4 diagrams.

“As might be expected from an inventor who is always so fresh, he

has many interesting things to say.”--_Evening Standard._ “The

mantle of Blake has fallen upon the physicists. To them we look for

visions, and we find them in this book.”--_New Statesman._

=Narcissus=: an Anatomy of Clothes. By GERALD HEARD. With 19

illustrations.

“A most suggestive book.”--_Nation._ “Irresistible. Reading it

is like a switchback journey. Starting from prehistoric times we

rocket down the ages.”--_Daily News._ “Interesting, provocative, and

entertaining.”--_Queen._

=Thamyris=, or Is there a Future for Poetry. By R. C. TREVELYAN.

“Of high authority.”--_Saturday Review._ “Very suggestive.”--_J.

C. Squire_, in _Observer_. “A very charming piece of work. I agree

with all, or at any rate, almost all its conclusions.”--_J. St. Loe

Strachey_, in _Spectator_.

=Proteus=, or the Future of Intelligence. By VERNON LEE, author of

“Satan the Waster,” etc.

“We should like to follow the author’s suggestions as to the

effect of intelligence on the future of Ethics, Aesthetics,

and Manners. Her book is profoundly stimulating and should be

read by everyone.”--_Outlook._ “A concise, suggestive piece of

work.”--_Saturday Review._

=Paris=, or the Future of War. By Captain B. H. LIDDELL HART.

“A gem of close thinking and deduction.”--_Observer._ “A noteworthy

contribution to a problem of concern to every citizen in this

country.”--_Daily Chronicle._ “There is some lively thinking about

the future of war in _Paris_, just added to the set of live-wire

pamphlets on big subjects, called collectively ‘To-Day and

To-Morrow.’”--_Manchester Guardian._

=Hephaestus=, the Soul of the Machine. By E. E. FOURNIER D’ALBE, D.Sc.

Hephaestus is the god of fire, the incarnation of the machine age of

to-day. He is now master of the world. How this came about, what

will be the results of this increasing domination of our planet, is

the theme of the book.

=Thrasymachus=, the Future of Morals. By C. E. M. JOAD, author of

“Common-Sense Ethics,” etc.

A penetrating study of the herd, or conventional, morality of the

day, prophesying a Puritan revival in morals, with intolerance and

heresy-hunting. This will lead to the Americanization of England and

a great increase in irregular sexual relationships. In the end a new

religious revival is foreseen.

=Lycurgus=, or the Future of Law. By E. S. P. HAYNES, author of

“Concerning Solicitors,” etc.

An analysis of the present condition of Law in England, dealing with

legislation, the law-courts, criminal law, family law, land-laws,

costs, international law, individual liberty, and such subjects.

=Prometheus=, or Biology and the Advancement of Man. By H. S.

JENNINGS, Professor of Zoology, Johns Hopkins University.

A lucid summary of the recent striking advances in biological

knowledge, genetics, and the theory of evolution, with numerous

concrete illustrations. The conclusions are applied to the problem

of improvement in the human race.

=Timotheus=, the Future of the Theatre. By BONAMY DOBRÉE, author of

“Restoration Drama,” etc.

Traces the possible developments of the theatre, not only along

mechanical lines, but upon those which playwrights, actors, and

psychologists might achieve, were their idiosyncracies given scope.

The whole forms a comment on the theatre of to-day.

=Pygmalion=, or the Doctor of the Future. By R. MCNAIR WILSON, M.D.

The author foresees an evolution in the personality of the doctor,

who will become less of a scientist, more of a humanist, and use

every spiritual agency, as well as every practical measure, to

restore the human body and soul to health.

_READY SHORTLY_

=Cassandra=, or the Future of the British Empire. By F. C. S.

SCHILLER, D.Sc.

A penetrating analysis of the disruptive influences of work in the

Empire.

=Gallio=, or the Tyranny of Science. By J. W. N. SULLIVAN, author of

“A History of Mathematics.”

=Euterpe=, or the Future of Art. By LIONEL R. MCCOLVIN, author of

“The Theory of Book-Selection.”

Shows how economic factors influence artistic production and affect

artistic methods.

=Artifex=, or the Future of Craftsmanship. By JOHN GLOAG, author of

“Time, Taste, and Furniture.”

Indicates how the machine may be used to extend the glory of

craftsmanship.

=Pegasus=, or Problems of Transport. By Colonel J. F. C. FULLER,

author of “The Reformation of War,” etc.

An account of “cross-country” vehicles, which will achieve a

revolution as great as that caused by the railway.

=Atlantis=, or the United States and the Future. By Colonel J. F. C.

FULLER.

A witty and penetrating analysis of the American spirit.

=Midas=, or the Future of the United States. By C. H. BRETHERTON,

author of “The Real Ireland,” etc.

A companion volume to _Atlantis_, written from a different

viewpoint.

=Nuncius=, the Future of Advertising. By GILBERT RUSSELL.

=The Future of the English Language.= By BASIL DE SELINCOURT.