Aesthetics and Criticism by Harold Osborne (review)

550 BOOK REVIEWS Aesthetics and Criticism. By HAROLD OsBORNE. New York: Philosophical Library, 1955. Pp. 848 with index. $6.00. " The present enquiry is concerned with the nature and functions of criticisms. Its intention is factual and empirical, not dogmatic. We shall not presume to dictate to the critics what sort of things they should be about, what the task of criticism ought to be; but our study will more modestly be to elucidate the aims which the critics themselves profess and the purpose which are apparent in their works." (p. 7) It is necessary to keep the author's aim in mind in reading his book, for the tendency is to look for more than the book provides. Indeed, the title Aesthetics and Criticism would lead one to expect that as much attention would be given to aesthetics as to criticism; aesthetics, however, enters in only because " criticism of necessity uses overt or tacit assumptions which belong to the field of aesthetics." (p. 7) Within the limits of this aim, the author, in general, is not only highly successful, but extremely readable and stimulating. To provide the full setting for the appearance of this book, it ~hould be remarked that Professor Osborne has written a separate book on aesthetics, Theory of Beauty, upon which he leans and to which he presumes the reader will tum if he wishes to make explicit the position of Mr. Osborne on aesthetics itself. The opening chapter is on " The Craft of Criticism." There seems to be no question in Mr. Osborne's mind-and indeed there should not be-of the legitimacy of the role of the critic and his distinction from the artist, but there is considerable difficulty about defining criticism. Mr. Osborne faces the difficulty fully. The opening chapter summarizes as follows: Presumably criticism can be defined only in terms of function. Is interpretation a main function? Or is the principal function one of facilitating in others the appreciation of literature and the arts? Or is the function both interpretation and appreciation , and other elements as well? The problem is further complicated by the fact that various schools of criticism exist; some maintain that art and therefore criticism is basically sociological or psychological, while others hold that art and therefore criticism is " aesthetic " and hence independent of any other discipline. Mr. Osborne's conclusion reduces to the following: "Unlike the critics themselves, however, it will not be our concern to argue that any one type of writing is alone ' true ' cri~icism or ' deserves the name of criticism ' . . . Our quest will be to uncover some hidden core of agreements , if such there be, and to expose common and tacit assumptions about the nature of criticism which are rarely articulate beneath the clamor of controversy." (p. 14) Nonetheless, the concluding sentence of this first chapter states: " Criticism as such stands or falls by its profitableness as an ancillary to direct appreciation." (p. ~8) BOOK REVIEWS 551 The last chapter of the book is on " Anatomy of Criticism." I shall refer to it now to pursue one point the opening chapter raises. By the end of the book it is clear that for Mr. Osborne the main task of criticism is the assessment and description of works of art in terms of aesthetic principles and values. I think there is no question but that the author is right in this main contention. It might seem a truism to state it. However, in this final chapter, Professor Osborne lists schools of criticism which rest primarily upon non-aesthetic principles. Thus, we have psychological criticism and the approach via psychoanalysis, historical criticism, exegetical criticism, and so on. There is no doubt that such approaches offer interesting observations on art and the artist, but I should like to stress even more than Professor Osborne their extrinsic connection both with the work of art itself and the work of criticism. Both artistic making and artistic criticism have suffered much from psychologists who are neither artists nor critics; the sociologist and the historian have done similar damage. The just remark of Ezra Pound, which Mr. Osborne approvingly quotes, is relevant: "You can spot the bad critic when he...