The Gate of Appreciation: Studies in the Relation of Art to Life — Reading Companion

The Layman's Case and Noyes's Diction of Openness

Noyes repeatedly uses spatial and architectural metaphors to describe the layman's relationship to art. He speaks of being 'on the outside,' of a 'shelter' he has built, and of welcoming others to find 'solace' within it. This diction frames appreciation not as mastery but as hospitality. The preface insists that the layman 'remains frankly and happily on the outside,' yet Noyes argues that this position has its own validity. He does not claim to offer expert judgment; instead, he offers 'methods of approach' and a 'way of appreciation.' The word 'gate' in the title reinforces this idea of an entrance rather than a destination. Noyes's choice of the first-person plural—'our own experience,' 'the way we see'—creates a collaborative tone, inviting the reader into a shared inquiry rather than a lecture.

The Critic as Mediator: Temperament and Scholarship

In Chapter VI, 'The Service of Criticism,' Noyes defines the ideal critic as one who 'must understand the artist and he must feel with the appreciator.' He contrasts this with two flawed models: Ruskin, who 'bully[s] the reader into a terrified acceptance,' and Matthew Arnold, who applies a 'touchstone' formula to determine absolute value. Noyes's own language is notably less dogmatic; he prefers phrases like 'it is not enough to dogmatize' and 'really serviceable criticism is that which notes the special and distinguishing quality of beauty.' He insists that criticism should 'interpret and not transpose,' a distinction that emphasizes fidelity to the work over personal impression. The critic, in Noyes's view, is 'the artist translated into simpler terms and the appreciator raised to a higher power of perception.' This balanced definition avoids both condescension and mystification.

The Artist's Creative Impulse vs. Reflective Analysis

Noyes draws on examples from Ibsen and Wagner to illustrate the artist's limited self-awareness. He quotes Bernard Shaw's remark that Ibsen's 'Brand' and 'Peer Gynt' created a 'great puzzle for his intellect,' and notes that Wagner 'has expressly described how the intellectual activity which he brought to the analysis of his music dramas was in abeyance during their creation.' This evidence supports Noyes's claim that the artist is 'creative rather than reflective, synthetic and not analytic.' The artist's view of life is 'limited by the trend of his own dominant and creative personality,' gaining intensity at the cost of breadth. Noyes does not present this as a flaw but as a necessary condition of artistic production. The critic, by contrast, must be 'catholic and tolerant,' able to discover beauty 'in whatever form.'

The Structure of the Argument: From Impulse to Personal Estimate

The table of contents reveals a deliberate progression. The first chapter, 'The Impulse to Expression,' grounds art in a generative emotion that moves 'directly to the fashioning of expressive forms.' Subsequent chapters move outward: 'The Attitude of Response' (the appreciator's role), 'Technique and the Layman' (what the non-expert needs to know), 'The Value of the Medium' (material constraints), 'The Background of Art' (cultural context), and finally 'The Personal Estimate' (individual judgment). This arc moves from creation to reception, from the artist's inner drive to the viewer's subjective response. Noyes's chapter titles are declarative and concrete—'Beauty and Common Life,' 'The Arts of Form'—avoiding abstract nouns like 'aesthetics' or 'theory.' The structure itself embodies his argument: appreciation is a journey, not a formula.

Noyes's book is best read as a series of linked essays rather than a systematic treatise. His reliance on personal anecdote and his avoidance of technical jargon make the text accessible, but readers should note that his examples are drawn almost entirely from late nineteenth-century European art and literature. The excerpts provided do not include his discussions of specific works, so his practical criticism cannot be evaluated here. Those interested in the history of aesthetic education or in early twentieth-century American thought will find this a revealing document of its era.