Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
26
AnnaAntonowicz
facultyorsemi-education,whoaremoreorlessincapableofseeing,much
lessofthinking.”38Whatismore,hebelievedthatsuchapositivistsystemof
designwasacounter-blasttocreativityandconventionalpedagogy,becauseit
proposedtogivetheartordesignstudent“suchaccuratecommandofmath-
ematicalformsasmayafterwardsenablehimtodesignrapidlyandcheaplyfor
manufactures.”39TheattackontheSouthKensingtonSystem,onitspositivist,
conventionalanti-naturalism,continuesallthroughRuskin’swork.Itfollowed
fromhisvisionsofthedehistoricisedanddeculturedworldofpositivismand
thepatternofconfidentindustrialculturesecretingtranscendentalabstraction
resultinginasavageworldshornofhumaneassociations.40
Ruskinwashighlycriticalofthegeometricapproachtodesignalsobe-
causeheconsideredittobetoo“perfect.”By“perfection”hemeantamath-
ematicalandmechanicalperfectionwhichdesignersandlabourerswereex-
pectedtoachieveintheirwork,throughtheprogressofindustrialisation.
Ruskin’soppositiontoperfectioninartormanufactureisbaseduponthree
grounds:thereligious,theaestheticandthehumanitarian.41Firstly,Ruskin
assertedthatirregularityiswovenintothefabricofGod’screationasalmost
thebeautifulhallmarkofHisdivinework.Themanyirregularitiesfoundin
theexternalworld“areliterallybetter,lovelier,andmorebelovedfortheim-
perfections,whichhavebeendivinelyappointed.”42Hence,Ruskinconcluded
thatallthingsmadebymanmustbemadeimperfectlyifmandesiresthem
tobebeautiful.Moreover,RuskinagreedwithancientChristianteachingthat
imperfectioninman’shandiworkisafrankconfessionofhisfallennature.
Therefore,onlycrudeandirregularthingsexpresstheconditionofman,
andso“neitherarchitecturenoranyothernobleworkofmancanbegood
unlessitbeimperfect.”43Whileperfectionmeantstagnation,imperfectionin
apieceofworkshowedthewillingnessofmantoseeimperfectioninhimself:
itwasnatural,andaltogetherasignofbeinghumanandunconstrained,to
expressthatwhichmaybecalled“humannature.”Inhisaesthetics,Ruskin’s
regardfortheimperfect,fortheirregularinman’swork,assumedconsider-
ableproportion.Heexaltedtheroughfinishofhandicraft,theasymmetrical
building,theirregularstreet;indeedRuskinstrivedtoincreaseouradmiration
fortheimperfectinallhumanendeavours.
38JohnRuskin,Proserpina.StudiesofWaysideFlowers(London:SunnysideandOr-
pington,1879),chap.3,para.6.
39JohnRuskin,ElementsofDrawing,vol.9ofTheWorksofJohnRuskin,p.36.
40Brett,“InterpretationofOrnament,”pp.108–109.
41RobertSimpsonMcLean,“AltruisticIdealsversusLeisureClassvalues:AnIrre-
concilableConflictinJohnRuskin,”TheJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,vol.31,
no.3(1973),pp.347–356.
42Ruskin,TheStonesofVenice,vol.10ofTheWorksofJohnRuskin,pp.203–204.
43Ruskin,StonesofVenice,p.204.
