6. Impressionistic Criticism. Criticism is usually re-
garded as a distinct branch of literature, and from that
point of view one can speak of critical impressionism
as a kind of literary style. In accordance with the
mentality of the critic and his aims at the time of
writing, criticism verges toward prose narrative or
philosophic exposition, science or lyrical verse. The
kind of criticism now classed as impressionistic is ex-
emplified by Anatole France and Walter Pater. The
former discussed what he called “the unsubstantiality
of aesthetics” in the Preface to his Life and Letters.
“The good critic,” says France, “is he who relates the
adventures of his soul among masterpieces.” (But surely
the good critic is not limited to studying masterpieces.)
Pater defended hedonism in his “Conclusion” to
Studies in the History of the Renaissance. His skeptical
hedonism places him close to the French naturalists,
but in other respects he differs, being more subjective
than they and less interested in the scientific observa-
tion of nature. Anatole France's genial skepticism ex-
tends to aesthetics and criticism as well as to theology
and metaphysics. From his point of view there are no
firm grounds for objectively evaluating works of art.
All the critic can justifiably do is to give his impressions
of each work of art that he encounters, together with
his emotional responses to it. He can describe the work
as it appears to him and say whether he likes it or
not, but he cannot prove how others should feel about
it. However, his own impressions may help others to
enjoy it or to make up their minds about it.
Like pictorial impressionism, the critical type em-
phasizes the direct, immediate experience of particular
phenomena, whether of nature or of art. Its approach
is unsystematic in that it follows no preconceived plan
or general theory. As in early impressionist painting,
this approach tends to avoid the conventional ways
of unifying criticism, and may produce only miscel-
laneous anecdotes. In the works of discerning and
discriminating writers like France and Pater, who
know how to communicate their experiences, some
unity is imparted by the consistent expression of a
definite personality and point of view. A particular
work of art may impress the critic very differently on
different occasions, or even while he is observing it.
The tendency of modern thought, says Pater in the
“Conclusion,” is to regard all things and principles as
inconstant fashions. Each object is detached into a
group of impressions—color, odor, texture—in the
mind of the observer. What is real in life reduces itself
to a series of momentary, sharp impressions. What we
have to do is to be forever curiously testing new opin-
ions and courting new impressions. Art professes to
give “nothing but the highest quality to your moments
as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake.” In
spite of his antipathy toward theories, Pater is here
advancing an ethical and aesthetic theory of his own,
based on Epicurean naturalism, and applicable to the
criticism of painting as well as other arts.
