Preface

Read the first five paragraphs of the Preface, and, keeping in mind that Pater is here discussing AESTHETIC criticism, compare what he says of the critic's purpose and methodology to what Arnold says of these in The Function of Criticism at the Present Time. (Also, keep this in mind when reading Wilde.)

Pater insists that before you know how to criticize art, you need to understand how it makes you feel. “What is this song or picture, this engaging personality presented in life or in a book, to me?” You can’t criticize something without knowing your own opinion of said art, be it book, painting, or what have you. Pater felt that what you felt about the art was just as important as any lighting or moral feedback you might receive. The critic isn’t someone that must know exactly what beauty is, but he should be someone who understands it takes many forms and can take pleasure from such a thing. I feel that Arnold and Pater basically agree on the role of the critic. They both feel that a critic needs to find the good of a work and not just sit there tearing down the bad. Pater says of Wordsworth, “The heat of his genius, entering into the substance of his work, has crystallized a part, but only a part, of it; and in that great mass verse there is much which might be forgotten.” Criticism is meant to help “crystallize” the good, while the bad or even the mediocre will be left by the wayside.