To finish the Gissing quote posted earlier: After saying, > "Principles always become a matter of vehement discussion when practice > is > at ebb." > Gissing says:
> "Not by taking thought does one become an artist, or grow even an > inch in that direction--which is not at all the same as saying that he who > is an artist cannot profit by conscious effort." > Many artists seem to have a great fondness for headily aromatic descriptions of or comments on aspects of their work. But often they are aromas far more savory than the meal itself. And sometimes the words are like early perfumes and spices -- verbal veils to disguise the assault on the senses by the unwashed or putrifying. Consider Gissing's phrase, starchy as a cleric's collar: "taking thought". What was he thinking with 'taking thought'? Were the early painters who bought and dissected cadavers to learn bone, muscle, ligament and tendon structure "taking thought"? What about perspective? Proportions? All the things one learns going to art school? Are young poets studying a millenium's verse not growing an inch in the direction of their own art possibilities? Don't we think both Mozart and Beethoven "learned" from Haydn? And many more examples from every genre. My guess is Gissing was making a basic error in logic: He noticed many would-be artists studied to no avail. From which he dim-wittedly inferred all artists study to no avail. Gissing is in favor of effort, as long as it's not effort at thought. Again: beware of the eloquent, for they shall lead you into the ditch.
