The vocabulary of the art-critic seems to consist of two groups of words, those that refer to the formal or surface properties of the work of art, and those which refer to properties we can at first loosely term imaginative. The first group consists of words and phrases like “unity” , “coherence”, “consistency”, “compactness”, “elegance”, and so on. The way such words are cashed will consist in an analysis of the determinate formal qualities of the work of art as evidence (...) of the skill of the artist as a craftsman. (shrink)

The title of course is a question-beggar. But the postulate on which the argument of this article is based is that criticism is sufficiently rational a procedure to merit the claim that it has a logic underlying it. This ‘logic’ however has not the rigour and necessity which we demand in strict deductive logical connexions. From this however it does not follow that the title is a misnomer or should be misleading. It is concerned to examine the relationships that exist (...) within that complex of activities we call criticism and to establish that these relationships have norms which entitle them in however diluted a sense to be called ‘logical’. (shrink)