DSC 301. I.A.Richards. Chap 1

Chapter 1: The Chaos of Critical TheoriesCritique of Past Criticism: Richards argues that traditional literary criticism by philosophers, moralists, and past scholars lacks scientific rigor and substantive consistency.The Need for Science: He asserts that criticism must adopt systematic, empirical methods—grounded in psychology—to understand human responses to art rather than relying on empty praise or vague flattery.

Chapter 1 titled "The Chaos of Critical Theories," exposes the disorganized, unscientific, and impressionistic state of traditional literary criticism.Key Concepts are The Chaos of Opinions: Richards argues that critical theory is filled with isolated observations, dogma, metaphors, and oratory rather than systematic truth.

Failure of Past Critics: He critiques major historical figures—including Aristotle, Coleridge, and Wordsworth—stating their declarations often reduce to brilliant guesses or personal whimsies instead of verifiable principles.

Need for a Scientific Approach: Richards asserts that criticism must adopt a scientific, psychological foundation to study how human minds actually respond to art and literature.

The Central Question of Value: He frames the core problem of aesthetics: why we value art, how different experiences of art can be compared, and what makes one aesthetic response superior to another.

Summary Principles of Literary Criticism directly points out to the activity of deriving value from the arts, especially the art of poetry. In many ways, the basis of all Richards’ statements on criticism, this argument sets into action, the fundamental critical and artistic theories in search of value of art. He begins this complex study by indicating several impediments, which often preclude valid criticism. The first is, “experimental aesthetics” in the arts, where futile attempts are made with human tastes and actions to suit laboratory examination. Second, criticism tends to concentrate on secondary aspects of the arts and thereby ignores the subject of value. Third, the language of criticism causes misunderstanding because of its vague, often deceiving vocabulary. A suitable instance would be the critics who speak of objects of art as if the objects themselves possess qualities, whereas what they should say is that the objects evoke effect