Oscar Wilde quote

[lightning_kite]

Hello all,

I'm having difficulty understanding part of the preface of Oscar Wilde's Picture of Dorian Gray:

The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type.

I'm having trouble even re-wording this. Is he saying that from the point of view of Form, music is the 'champion'? And likewise, from feeling, acting is the 'champion'?

Thank you,

Dan

[Vota]

From my point of view, this is poor writing. I'm not saying Oscar Wilde writes poorly, but in this instance his writing is difficult to understand.

My "best guess" is that he is saying that music represents the basic structure of all arts because it utilizes organized thought which is translated into musical language to create the art, and the music or "art" itself appeals to varying degrees of vice and virtue. Then when he talks about the actor's craft, he is saying that since music best represents the underlying structure or hidden "form" that is found in most art up to his point in time, then acting represents the emotional range of all art, but not the underlying organization or structure that goes into crafting the art.

Honestly though, I have no idea. I'll give Wilde credit though, that made me put in some real mental effort.

[stlukesguild]

Wilde is using the word "type" with this definition in mind: An example or a model having the ideal features of a group or class. Thus... when he writes, "From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician;" he is suggesting that the ideal Art form... speaking purely in terms of form or structure... is that of music. In this he is reiterating Walter Pater's assertion:

"Each art... having its own peculiar and incommunicable sensuous charm, has its own special mode of reaching the imagination...
All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music. For while in other works of art it is possible to distinguish the matter from the form, and the understanding can always make this distinction, yet it is the constant effort of art to obliterate it."

-Walter Pater, "The School of Giorgione", The Renaissance; Studies in Art and Poetry

Pater and Wilde both are suggesting that where the subject or content of literature and visual art (before abstraction) can be seen separate from the abstract form... the composition and the handling... in the wholly abstract language of music, form and content are one and the same. Thus, when it comes to the question of form, the ideal toward which all artists strive (according to both Wilde and Pater) is that of the "art of the musician."

Wilde continues: "From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type." Here, he clearly is suggesting that it is acting/theater that best conveys emotion. Considering the impact and dominance of film, one is tempted to concur with Wilde here as well.

From my point of view, this is poor writing. I'm not saying Oscar Wilde writes poorly, but in this instance his writing is difficult to understand.

Because something becomes difficult to read does not inherently make it "poor writing". James Joyce, John Donne, T.S. Eliot are all challenging. Older literature is challenging/difficult to many readers having limited experience with archaic vocabulary, older uses of syntax, poetic and prose form, etc...

[Vota]

So basically my interpretation was spot on without knowing Wilde's terminology. Pats back.

[Vota]

I should add that I deleted some additional notes before posting my initial post because I thought it might become too convoluted. My initial and posted thoughts and interpretation nearly matched yours, hence the pat back.

Indeed, knowing how Wilde is using the word "type", makes that statement quite easy to understand and quite intelligible, even with it's slightly dated syntax. Thanks.

In this case it was not archaic vocabulary or syntax that was the barrier to understanding, but the author's specific use of a single term. I hate it when that happens.