We have covered an introduction that places a focus on the communicative aspect.

And tangles us into the area of psychology, which is the science of behavior and of the mind. And I.A.Richards theory was discussed by john Crowe Ransom. But I like to draw your attention that there are many of what Ransom has raised in his discussion that had been considered misconceptions of Richards psychology. When he says, that Richards approaches poetry as psychologist, and he goes on to say, a psychologist is a thinker who invade our discussions. Ransom here thinks that a psychologist is actually a person who tells or explores the serious details in the mind, or in an unsettled mind. And such a definition is not an accurate one about a psychologist actually; it is a wrong definition, and it led Ransom to, again, to indefinite conclusions. There should be the proper definition of psychology, and proper sources for Richards approach to psychology; otherwise, a reader or a critic had fail or be misled, like Ransom, to see the esthetics, to understanding the real esthetics or literary criticism suggested in Richards theory properly. Richards has definitely admitted that he was influence by behaviorism. And he stated that he was interested in psychology "the old fashioned psychology" as he called it. A prebehavioristic one. As he goes on to explain "although I knew or came to know a lot and a good deal about behaviorism, and I did a lot to join both pre behaviorism and behaviorism." And he also admitted that there should be a proper definition of psychology ," the old definition and the new, out of even at least lets say out of articles in the encyclopedia Predemicia , to define what I understand , and what I mean by psychology." So his interests were definitely built on definitions, which other critics amongst them Ransom misinterpreted and did not actually define accurately, therefore, they diverted from Richards real intentions. To him the three contemporary or modern schools of modern psychology which he touches upon, and which he mentions in the essay were Behaviorism, Gestalt, and Psychoanalysis. And he has mentioned them in his essay. the behavior of the artist, gestalt, and psychoanalysis in one way or another. Going back to the essay he start saying "That the artist is not as a rule consciously concerned with communication, " The NOT point we discussed was out, would the artist agree on being described as communicator? How far will he agree? And we said that if you asked the author and if you actually approach saying that you are a communicator he would not admit or he will deny that he is 100% aware of the existents of a reader. "That the artist is not as a rule consciously concerned with communication, but with getting the work, the poem or play or statue or painting or whatever it is, right, apparently regardless of its communicative efficacy, is easily explained." Now we said that the artist refuses to be called a communicator. Then what is the aim of art??The aim is getting the work done, Getting it done RIGHT. Now the artist therefore, will not admit that he is aware of the existence of an audience, but he will agree that what his aim is, and what he has in mind is to produce the work; and when he mentions different types of art he is generalizing to show that when he speaks about an artist he is not speaking about a writer only. He is speaking about a writer of

literature "poetry, novel ever kind of art it is."

what ever genre"; and an artist" a painter, a musician or what

So what is his real focus? And what is his real troubled mind working on? IS TO GET THE WORK RIGHT.
"To make the work embody, accord with, and represent the precise experience upon which its value depends is his major preoccupation, in difficult cases an overmastering preoccupation, and the dissipation of attention which would be involved if he considered the communicative side as a separate issue would be fatal in most serious work." Again he went back to his main focus around which the whole essay is rotating here, of course up till now. An author is not consciously bared in mind all the while that he is addressing a receiver; because if he really actually places this as a target , that I am writing for someone to read , listen or watch my work .well this will damage his serious work of art and will ruin it .

"He cannot stop to consider how the public or even how especially well qualified sections of the public may like it or respond to it. He is wise, therefore, to keep all such considerations out of mind altogether."
The public is definitely divided. we have the wise and the highly educated, and we have the ordinary and common; we have what ever qualities and qualifications in public audience, but if he is even addressing the qualified section of the public who are actually able to appreciate a work of art and to judge it, and whether they would like the work and will value it and point out its real worth and effect, this will also distract him from doing this work right. So he tries to set aside all these considerations; even if they are there echoing in the back of the producers mind, but he tries not to focus on them. Richards goes to the extend, of say that the artist keeps it out of mind altogether. "Those artists and poets who can be suspected of close separate attention to the communicative aspect tend (there are exceptions to this, of which Shakespeare might be one) to fall into a subordinate rank. " Now we have a high rank and a subordinate rank of writers. We have two ranks of writers, two standers according to Richards. The higher rank "first rate" are those artist who disregard the communication aspect or at least try to a great extends to avoid thinking of the receiver or the public audience; because as he explains if the a poet or any artist is suspected while reading his work that he has paid close attention , that is he has focused on the idea that the text is going to be read ;if you suspect this or feel it or get surface hints in his work, that he is writing to please the public, or to satisfy their needs, or to address a certain issue in such a manner because the people like this language or like this idea or that they will enjoy it more if his work is written in such a context. If we suspect this then immediately this author or this producer of art is placed as a second rate, a subordinate rank, a subordinate stander, a second class writer. (A higher rank and a lower rank, a first rate and a second rate.) So by explaining this, he says we dont generalize to be cautious enough; he has to say this -between brackets as you have seen- he stated that there are exceptions. Which again he thinks that those exceptions are rare. And he points out William Shakespeare, because its known and no body can deny the fact that William Shakespeare's plays had been actually shaped in a manner that addresses the audience of his time .that is he does introduce a universal theme, he speaks about human action, but the setting and along with the accessories-if we call them accessories according to Mathew Arnold- used in his plays are there, even if they are stylistic accessories and usage of certain words , and certain terms , and certain images; it is there in the text , because he wanted to satisfy the public and the theater goers or the watchers in a theater. So there are artist who can mange to combine both. But again as Arnold has stated Shakespeare was a genius so dont get misled by him. Shakespeare could do it, because he is a genius; but how many of these writers could we describe as genius; very few. Again

Richards is saying this between brackets to say to say this is a rarity that we have an example like Shakespeare ,to say to other critics and other writers do not imitate, because you cannot . This is considered as an exception, he does not have to explain, by now people should know why he is considered an exception.

"But this conscious neglect of communication does not in the least diminish the importance of the communicative aspect."
Now we have to be very careful when we write down our statements. And this is what Richards is teaching you. Do not generalize, do not come to conclusions or reach quick decisions ; be very careful and precise in your statements ; these are details Richards as a critic is teaching other critics to follow and apply . Under this cautious net and precision and the accuracy of the statements that he is calling for, he goes back to the idea of a "conscious neglect of communication" the awareness that the author actually experience in trying not to address the reader directly or to satisfy his orders. But does this mean that the communicative aspect is of a lesser importance? that is when you are judging a work of art when you are reading a poem for example, does it communicate to you , the ideas, the intentions , can you easily re surf it and understand it, find relations, does it communicate or not ??. A work of art has to translate to you a message or a theme or an idea or what ever. This kind of translation is not in but a communication between you and the text itself. If it does not communicate, it fails. The communicative aspect in any work of art is highly important and relevant; otherwise, the work is a failure. Any work of art, any thing you look at communicates and interacts with you; you read it, understand the words, get the message or the idea, and if you do not there is something wrong with that work that cannot make you understand the idea. If you read an article in a newspaper and when you read it and there is ambiguity then you will judge it as a failure. It has to communicate with you. One of the standers of evaluating a work of art is how far does it communicate with you "the reader." This is the first point you should bear in mind. The communicative aspect is important it is highly necessary. The second step is, is the writer conscious or unconscious. This is what he is arguing, the question discussed up till now is not that is the communication important or no? Because the communication in a work of art is highly important with out it in the work of art it will become a failure. The question is, is he conscious or not of that element? The artist at the begging says that he is not conscious, I am doing the work right; and this is the conclusion that he will reach here. That if the writer is doing his work right, it will be communicated, with you with out being conscious of you the reader. Doing the work right means I have communicated it to you, you are able to interact with it, and to get it. "The very process of getting the work right has itself, so far as the artist is normal, immense communicative consequences." This quote should answer the question that is raised whether the producer is conscious or not? If he gets the work right, it has therefore, an immense communicative consequences. It will immensely, largely and highly communicate to the reader. "Apart from certain special cases, to be discussed later, it will, when right, have much greater communicative power than it would have had if wrong." How does he use the words "right" and "wrong"? if the producer of the work produces the work of art in a right manner it will communicate with the receiver and it will immensely communicate in a very powerful manner, but if he did it wrong it will fail to communicate or it may communicate but in a very poor degree . This will lead us to the other question which is the degree; the degree of this right and wrong, the degree of power of the affect. "The degree to which it accords with the relevant experience of the artist is a measure of the degree to which it will arouse similar experiences in others." The producer of a work of art is producing an experience. He is transforming or translating into words his own experience. the sincerity, secretary , strength and the degree in which the

author himself is aware , is highly in controlled of that experience, the more aware the more in control the more powerful he is of his knowledge and of his experience , THE MORE IT IS COMMUNICATIVE. That means the degree of communication depends on the amount and degree of the experience of the writer him self, and his power in controlling of that experience. If he is in control of his knowledge, and sure of his material ,if he is aware of all of the details of such an experience and he is reproducing it on paper definitely the power with which it is produced on paper and reproduced through the words and the new structure and ..And... And, it will be highly influential on the receiver. In other words, it will be very powerfully communicative. " But more narrowly the reluctance of the artist to consider communication as one of his main aims, and his denial that he is at all influenced in his work by a desire to affect other people, is no evidence that communication is not actually his principal object. " Now we go back to the aim and intentions of the artist. He denies it, verbally and orally when asked he does not admit that he has a desire to influence others. But this is not enough evidence. That this is not his real motive? This is another question raised by Richards. He is still discussing the producer of the work. Can we take it for granted that has no intentions at all to affect or influence the receiver , no. we can still have our doubts that he had in mind some influence , some moral principles to pass down, some criticism to make people hear. So he definitely wants to attract the others. "On a simple view of psychology, which overlooked unconscious motives, it would be, but not on any view of human behaviour which is in the least adequate ." The view of psychology and the focus is on unconscious motives. He is going to shift to the conscious and unconscious the two areas of the mind, the two divisions of the mind... there where psychology comes in. the artist says that he is unconscious of the audience , but may be he is doing it unconsciously. In the subconscious of the mind of the writer he knows that this work will be eventually introduced to audience. So there is, whether conscious or un conscious this is another element or another detail Richards is trying to highlight in his essay. "When we find the artist constantly struggling towards impersonality," Here he is discussing the impersonal theory that was suggested by Eliot. And he partly agrees that an author is trying to a great extend not to be subjective. When he creates a persona that this is not me the author that represents a different attitude, that when you ask the writer he will say that this persona or character is not me. By doing that he is impersonalizing.

"towards a structure for his work which excludes his private, eccentric, momentary idiosyncrasies, and using always as its basis those elements which are most uniform in their effects upon impulses;" Here includes the impulses of the artist. His motivations and he is showing that the form in which he is writing harmonies and gives uniformity to the eccentric ideas or eccentric idiosyncrasies as he calls them the unusually or unexpected behavior-. "when we find private works of art, works which satisfy the artist, but are incomprehensible to everybody else, so rare, and the publicity of the work so constantly and so intimately bound up with its appeal to the artist himself, it is difficult to believe that efficacy for communication is not a main part of the rightness which the artist may suppose to be something quite different. " The artist are not the ordinary common people. Therefore, they are eccentric in their behavior, attitudes, manners and judges. Or it could be vise versed, because he is eccentric he becomes a good artists he can create the unexpected and unfamiliar.
So then a writer uses a particularly form to shape or to frame his ideas, because he does that he to create a kind of uniformity; and the ideas become more effective through this kind of shaping through this kind of doing it in the right manner, We find that he succeed in his communication . The result must be inflectional.

"How far desire actually to communicate, as distinguished from desire to produce something with communicative efficacy (however disguised), is an unconscious motive in the artist is a question to which we need not hazard an answer." Again Richards is controlling the discussion by trying to balance the argument, and show that he is not reaching quick decisions "not hazard an answer". To answer whether the communication is conscious or not. Still there are more details to be added to that statement. "Doubtless individual artists vary enormously." A very wise approach in his critical theory is not to generalize. He is teaching others not to pass judgments in all writers to be very careful and precise. The artists differ; we cannot say that all artist are the same. He is going to show to us how the artist differ "To some the lure of immortality of enduring fame, of a permanent place in the influences which govern the human mind, appears to be very strong. To others it is often negligible." 1. We have a group of authors or producers who are fascinated and at tracked to the idea of immortality. How the works of art are going to live for ever. The immortality of their own names as famous writers and experience will live forever through these works. And that they have a terminate place in literature. Their worries are about their standers and their reputation. This is their main concern. 2. The other group of authors negligible. "The degree to which such notions are avowed certainly varies with current social and intellectual fashions." The degrees of these interests changes according to certain circumstances or social influence details or the fashion of the time or what ever, Such as the common themes of that time. So it differs not only from one write to another, but is also differs from one era to another. So it is personal and it is general. "At present the appeal to posterity, the nurslings of immortality attitude to works of art appears to be much out of favour." At the early centuries the 16th and the 17th the idea of immorality was the fashion, but at the present time it is no more a fashion. "How do we know what posterity will be like? They may be awful people! a contemporary is likely to remark, thus confusing the issue. For the appeal is not to posterity merely as living at a certain date, but as especially qualified to judge, a qualification most posterities have lacked." The writers say that how are we going to guaranty that our works will really appeal to writers at the 21th century? So we are not going to worry about what will please others. Now Richards is correcting the understanding and the attitude of the writers. the producers are arguing that we are not going to write to the coming generations or to bear in mind the mortality those generations, are they really going to be fascinated by our works. Because maybe they are in them selves of a lesser degree of intelligence, not highly qualified generations so they may confuse or misunderstand or don't appreciate our work so we are not going to write to please them. The writers don't care of the new generation. This is a miscalculated, and Richards is readjusting the statement and re correcting it. He says it is not a matter of appealing to the desire, but the appealing to the rightness. You are writing a work that will be judged by the coming generations. And they are going to evaluate. So your focus is doing it right. Then the reader in the coming generations will be able to judge and get the message and evaluate the work of art, because this is the quality of judging. They are qualified to judge you. They will be able to read and say yes that writer at that time has done so and so. If it is done right then they are able to judge you. A judgment is not a simple appreciation or likeness or to please or what ever. "What concerns criticism is not the avowed or unavowed motives of the artist?"

So again as a critic and he himself is one is not directed with the declared or undeclared motives of the artist. Whether the artist says he is aware or not aware this is not my concern as a critic. That it is to say all of this was an introduction to explain the attitude of the artist. This is not Richards concern .his concern lies on the text. "However interesting these may be to psychology, but the fact that his procedure does" The procedure in writing and producing, this is then the focus of the new critic. Neocriticism as a school focuses on the work done by the producer. His job as a writer, his production, NOT the writer himself. He is interested in the procedure he is doing, how does he compose and create the work.

"In the majority of instances, make the communicative efficacy of his work correspond with his own satisfaction and sense of its rightness." So the procedure make the communicative efficacy of his work correspond with his own satisfaction and sense of its rightness. "This may be due merely to his normality, or it may be due to unavowed motives." The normal -he is using terms that are related to neurosis psychology- he is judging the behavior of the author. Whether it is normal or up normal. The normality here is exploring the mind, the behavior. Richards is rotating around the element of the mind of the author. The psychological dimension is interfering every now and then. When using the word normal touches on the structure of the producer's mind. "The first suggestion is the more plausible. In any case it is certain that no mere careful study of communicative possibilities, together with any desire to communicate, however intense, is ever sufficient without close natural correspondence between the poets impulses and possible impulses in his reader. All supremely successful communication involves this correspondence, and no planning can take its place. Nor is the deliberate conscious attempt directed to communication so successful as the unconscious indirect method." The first suggestion which is that of normality is more closely. The work of art that is done successfully and rightly is constructing a correspondence between the desires of the producer and the desires of the receiver. There has to be a correspondence. Any writer he is using a language and shaping his text as part of that society. That author is part of that society. And he is aware of others. A writer or an artist is a social being, he is not isolated, this author and his work of art are shaped by the society, by the time, by the nature and the culture of that nation .he is already aware of the desire of others .he is aware of what they like and dislike. He is writing and there is actually in mind unconsciously or consciously. That is he is shaping his text and he is shaping his work in agreement with the circumstance, and the authors and the writers and the receiver. He is aware. A work of art cross all binderies by addressing human been, and human action. They know through reading and through the knowledge he gains, he is aware of how humans been will interact. There must be a dimension of humanity in large. Whether the artist admits it or not, because he is already aware of their interests, and readings. He is aware of them through his own way of communication with works of art what ever the source of knowledge is. There is a correspondence and it's a natural one. It becomes automatically, my mind is already formed in that way. It's a mind that addresses others. It's a social mind. You can not say that this correspondence is planed for. The work of art the more successful it is the more unconscious it will appeal.