Oscar Wilde's "The Critic As Artist"

Oscar Wilde presents an argument that I have never before considered in his essay "The Critic as Artist." He basically argues that the critic is the ultimate artist, and that literature isn't really creative at all. Another point that he has that I find particularly interesting is when he says that the purpose of the critic isn't at all about the person/thing that is being reviewed, it's about the critics ability to create something new from that. One of Wilde's comments, from the voice of Gilbert, really struck me. "I am always amused by the silly vanity of those writers and artists of our day who seem to imagine that the primary function of the critic is to chatter about their second-rate work." The thing is, what he describes here is how we, as a society, view the critic, and honestly, if there was nothing to criticize, the critic would not have a job.

I honestly like his form. I think that the voice of Ernest is really important to the piece, because he presents the potential skepticisms and arguments that critics - of this essay - could have. It's an interesting dialogue, and I think that it is a creative method, in itself, of being a critic. It might be a stretch, but I feel like he's trying to create an example of his argument through the piece itself. And if I'm wrong, and he's not, then he at least presents his argument in a format that's more appealing than just the general essay.

I don't think that I agree with the extreme to which he makes his claims. Do I agree that a critic is not only a reviewer, but also an artist? Yes. But the character of Gilbert continues to argue that literature has nothing new to add to society, that it's second-rate, boring, etc., and I don't agree with this. I don't think that the critic is the only one who has the potential to make new statements - authors and painters (and other types of artists) do as well. The critic's job may not only be about the work they are reviewing, it may also be about creatively contributing to society, but it is also about the artists, and what the artists themselves are contributing to society. I think that Wilde's argument is interesting and that it makes one think, but I can't agree with it in its entirety.