454 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



of ornament and styles of architecture to retain their historic names, 

 and though their beauty has departed like the glory of some ancient 

 family, he renders homage to their silly and meaningless descendants 

 because of their name and position. The world has been filled with 

 these ugly forms made in the name of art, but they only bear witness 

 that science has subdued the earth and now holds undisputed sway. 



Not only has it driven art into the background, but it has misrep- 

 resented its character.* 



Science has led man to expect art to set forth phenomena, to illus- 

 trate events, to communicate knowledge with absolute exactness. It 

 has taught us to believe a work of art worthless unless it give precise 

 information which can be verified by an appeal to facts. But man 

 turns to art for the fulfilment of these expectations only to be sadly 

 disappointed. Weary and cast down, crowds leave the museums with 

 curiosity unsatisfied, with small addition to their learning, but denounc- 

 ing art for failing to keep the promises of science. As well condemn 

 the law of gravitation for the death caused by a falling rock. 



Accustomed, as we are, to the precise and unequivocal terms of 

 science, we expect the language of art to be equally explicit, and just 

 at this point we are led astray by supposing that the artist like the 

 scientist has something definite to communicate. Like the pioneer, 

 the artist does not know what is ahead of him, but, driven by his creative 

 impulse, beset by all sorts of perplexities, he struggles on over unknown 

 regions until he reaches a point which satisfies him. What he pro- 

 duces is the outcome of his creative power, which picks and chooses its 

 material from nature, breaks up and recombines again, and this process 

 is continued until an effect is produced which his esthetic judgment 

 pronounces good. The very terms which the artist uses are vague and 

 indefinite, each one having an infinite number of meanings, determined 

 not by any inherent quality, but by its relation to other terms in the 

 same work of art. For example, a straight line has little esthetic value 

 in itself; nevertheless, it is of great importance in one picture and 

 almost indispensable in another. In like manner, the meaning of every 

 bit of color varies with each change in its combination with other 

 colors ; or a musical tone may be a commonplace noise in itself, but as 

 a part of Lohengrin's Wedding March it thrills one with delight. 

 For this reason, a dictionary of artistic language is impossible. Not a 

 line, a form, a color nor a rhythm stands for a definite idea, the mean- 

 ing of each one depending not only upon its relative position as 

 expressed by the artist, but also as appreciated by the spectator or 

 listener. 



* The reader must keep in mind that we are not contesting the great value 

 of science and its methods, but that we object to these methods being applied 

 to art. 



