Fancies Versus FadsChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Fancies Versus Fads
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
English essays -- 20th century
My first impulse to write, and almost my first impulse to think, was a
revolt of disgust with the Decadents and the æsthetic pessimism of the
’nineties. It is now almost impossible to bring home to anybody, even to
myself, how final that _fin de siècle_ seemed to be; not the end of the
century but the end of the world. To a boy his first hatred is almost as
immortal as his first love. He does not realize that the objects of
either can alter; and I did not know that the twilight of the gods was
only a mood. I thought that all the wit and wisdom in the world was
banded together to slander and depress the world, and in becoming an
optimist I had the feelings of an outlaw. Like Prince Florizel of
Bohemia, I felt myself to be alone in a luxurious Suicide Club. But even
the death seemed to be a living or rather everlasting death. To-day the
whole thing is merely dead; it was not sufficiently immortal to be
damned. But then the image of Dorian Gray was really an idol, with
something of the endless youth of a god. To-day the picture of Dorian
Gray has really grown old. Dodo then was not merely an amusing female;
she was the eternal feminine. To-day the Dodo is extinct. Then, above
all, everyone claiming intelligence insisted on what was called “Art for
art’s sake.” To-day even the biographer of Oscar Wilde proposes to
abandon “art for art’s sake,” and to substitute “art for life’s sake.”
But at the time I was more inclined to substitute “no art, for God’s
sake.” I would rather have had no art at all than one which occupies
itself in matching shades of peacock and turquoise for a decorative
scheme of blue devils. I started to think it out, and the more I thought
of it the more certain I grew that the whole thing was a fallacy; that
art could not exist apart from, still less in opposition to, life;
especially the life of the soul, which is salvation; and that great art
never had been so much detached as that from conscience and common
sense, or from what my critic would call moral earnestness.
Unfortunately, by the time I had exposed it as a fallacy, it had
entirely evaporated as a fashion. Since then I have taken universal
annihilations more lightly. But I can still be stirred, as man always
can be by memories of their first excitements or ambitions, by anything
that shows the cloven hoof of that particular blue devil. I am still
ready to knock him about, though I no longer think he has a cloven hoof
or even a lame leg to stand on. But for all that there is one real
argument which I still recognize on his side; and that argument is in a
single word. There is still one word which the æsthete can whisper; and
the whisper will bring back all my childish fears that the æsthete may
be right after all. There is one name that does seem to me a strong
argument for the decadent doctrine that “art is unmoral.” When that name
is uttered, the world of Wilde and Whistler comes back with all its cold
levity and cynical connoisseurship.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account