Sunday, November 14, 2010

“As an artist in prose, he (Ruskin) is one of the most miraculous products of the extremely poetical genius of England.” (G.K. Chesterton) Comment.

For the first two questions, see ‘Introduction—Ruskin’s Style’. For the third question, add the following :

Very often it is said that what Ruskin said is more academic than practical. His views are generally whimsical, in which exaggeration is to be found. For example, the theory he has propounded as to the intimate relation between war and art can scarcely be said to be justified. He tried to get rid of the objection that the Romans, though great soldiers were not art-lovers, by stating that at heart the Roman soldier was a farmer, a lover of his field. But that is also the case with the Maratha soldier. He is not less a soldier on that account—though to be sure neither the Roman nor the Maratha soldier was an art-lover, is it fair to say that he—the Roman or the Maratha—was not a soldier ?
But his matter is not always of uncertain values. Not doubt, in his own time he cried in wilderness. But almost within a decade of his death, several of his schemes were realized and put to practice. His matter may be considered as of uncertain value, but his expression is unequalled.

People who read this post also read :


Post a Comment

Please leave your comments!