The Conundrum of the Workshops

The Aesthetic Movement, which Kipling implicitly criticizes in “The Conundrum of the Workshops,” has its roots in 19th-century French artistic debates, especially in the works of the writer Théophile Gautier (1811-1872), who promoted the concept of l’art pour l’art or “art for art’s sake.” That phrase was introduced into English literature by the influential art historian Walter Pater (1839-1894), Oscar Wilde’s professor at Oxford University. Pater defined his aesthetic views in the “Preface” and the “Conclusion” to his book Studies in the History of the Renaissance (1873). In essence, Pater advocated aesthetic relativism and subjectivism. He distrusted universal artistic formulas and argued that artistic beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In his view, to know an artistic object is to know one’s own impression of it. This marks a shift in aesthetics (philosophy of art) from the focus on the artistic object (What within this object, which formal characteristics of it, make it beautiful?) to the focus on an individual’s perception (Why is this object beautiful to me? Why does it give me such pleasure?).

In addition to endorsing an impressionistic approach to art, Pater used the phrase “art for art’s sake” to signal that aesthetic experience is a value in its own right. For much of the 19th century in Britain, especially after the 1830s, the mainstream assumption was that art had a social role to play (sometimes called the utilitarian view of art). Its purpose might be to teach us a moral lesson (the so-called didactic view), to express shared community values and goals, or simply to inform us about a way of life different from ours. In any case, it was supposed to contribute to social cohesion and development. Pater and his followers, however, saw the purpose of art as nothing else but to give us moments of heightened sensation and pleasure, thus enriching our lives. It was not any kind of benefit of experiencing art that mattered, but the experience itself.

While Pater was an academic whose scholarly book had limited readership, his student Oscar Wilde made it his goal to promote these ideas while promoting his own career in the process. His “Preface” to The Picture of Dorian Gray restates Pater’s claims in a punchier and more audacious manner, seeking controversy. One example: “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all” (Wilde, Oscar. “Preface.” The Picture of Dorian Gray. British Literature Wiki, https://sites.udel.edu/britlitwiki/preface-to-the-picture-of-dorian-gray/. Accessed 14 Sept 2021.). Behind the provocative wording was a thoughtful critique of didactic (moralistic) literature, which Wilde elaborated in works like “The Decay of Lying” (1889) and “The Critic as Artist” (1891). In the earlier essay, he belittled unimaginative realism, which in his opinion merely strives to replicate reality in favor of visionary works that have a powerful impact on how people perceive reality. But Wilde had a taste for eye-catching, sometimes paradoxical, statements, so he summed up his serious aesthetic point by saying that lying is the proper aim of art (true art is a product of imagination rather than imitation).

Kipling read “The Decay of Lying” during his journey from India to England in 1889. He visited several East Asian countries on the way, including Japan. He must have been struck by Wilde’s assertion that Japan and the Japanese people are not real but a product of artist fancy. This was an example of the power of imaginative vision: the way certain artists have depicted Japan has such a strong impact on the public that people “saw” Japan as it was depicted in their art rather than as it was in reality. Kipling understood the point and in a Wilden tongue-in-cheek manner wrote in an article that “Mr Oscar Wilde […] is a long-toothed liar,” using the concept of lying ambiguously, just like Wilde did (Ricketts, Harry. “A Short Walk on the Wilde Side: Kipling’s First Impression of Japan,” New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2 (2003), pp. 26-32. The author argues that Kipling’s descriptions of Japanese scenes confirm Wilde’s claim that visitors were more likely to “see” Japan as an artistic construct rather than unmediated reality).

This example suggests that Kipling and Wilde had more in common than “The Conundrum of the Workshops” and the authors’ public statements might suggest. Both Kipling and the Aesthetes strove to introduce new experiences and language into English poetry and were interested in exploring the darker aspects of human life. As a matter of fact, Wilde might not have disagreed with the main point of “The Conundrum,” which is that one should be confident in one’s creative vision rather than be vulnerable to external critique. It is almost an “art for art’s sake” moment when “the first rude sketch” is “joy to [Adam’s] mighty heart” (Line 3), not for any utilitarian reasons but because of the experience itself. Nevertheless, irreconcilable differences in manner and lifestyle made mutual admiration or artistic alliance impossible. Wilde cultivated a public figure of a refined, highly articulated, and superbly dressed Aesthete, with implications of effeminacy and sexual deviance. Considering Kipling’s worship of traditional masculinity and loyalty to conservative values, it is not surprising that he could not or would not acknowledge some shared artistic views behind the more obvious disagreements.