Finding themselves forced to speak of other things than "The Purpose of Art," "The Standard of Beauty," and "The Canons of Art"--simply because nobody now knows anything about these matters, or dares to assert anything concerning them,--the better-class art-critics, feeling that they must do something more than state merely their opinions concerning the work under notice--in fact, that they must give their reasons for their praise or blame--have lately been compelled to have recourse to the only field that is open to them, and that is _technique_. Now, while Mr. Clutton Brock seems perfectly justified in deprecating these tactics on the part of some of his brother critics, and while Mr. Rutter seems quite wrong in upholding them, the question which naturally arises out of the controversy is: what is there left to the critic to talk about? If he is no longer able to judge of the general tendency and teaching of a play, and if he is no longer able to regard it æsthetically, what can he do but analyse the playwright's grammar, and seek out the latter's split infinitives, his insufficient use of the subjunctive mood, his Cockney idioms and Cockney solecisms? We agree with Mr. Clutton Brock that ... "the public has no concern with the process of production but only with the product"; and that "if Art _were in a healthy state_[53] the public would know this and would not ask for technical criticism." We also agree that "the critic's proper business is with the product, not with the process of production; to explain their own understanding and enjoyment of the meaning and beauty of works of art, and not the technical means by which they have been made."[54] But, while we agree with all this, we cannot help sympathizing with the late R. A. M. Stevenson and his admirer Mr. Frank Rutter; for their dilemma is unique. When Monsieur Domergue of the French Academy assured his friend Beauzée confidentially that he had discovered that Voltaire didn't know grammar, Beauzée very rightly replied with some irony: "I am much obliged to you for telling me; now I know that it is possible to do without it."[55] And this is the only reply that ought to be made to any criticism which analyses the technique of a real work of Art; since it is obvious, that if technical questions are uppermost, the work is by implication unworthy of consideration in all other respects.[56] [50] _Principles in Art_, p. 4. [51] _H. A. H_., Vol. II, Aph. 164. [52] _The Academy_, August 24th, 1907. Article, "The Pursuit of Taste." [53] The italics are mine. [54] _The Academy_, Oct. 26th, 1907. Article, "The Hypochondria of Art." [55] Monsieur de Saint Ange's Reception Speech, 1810.