SCIENCE VERSUS ART-APPRECIATION. 455 



I think we all agree that for each learner, science consists essentially 

 of definite, objective facts which must be acquired in much the same 

 way that one gets possession of other external objects. Upon demand, 

 the student must show the amount of stock on hand, and this is taken 

 as the index of his success. When the teacher wants to mark progress, 

 he requires each one to open his mental storehouse and exhibit the sum 

 of its contents.* It naturally follows as a corollary that the chief 

 aim of science-teaching is to stimulate the pupil to gain possession of 

 scientific realities, and thus add to his stock of knowledge. Each fact 

 acquired is an addition to his mental possessions. Therefore, he must 

 dispassionately learn what actually exists, never forgetting that he is 

 nature's witness and that his testimony is valuable only in so far as he 

 tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 



On the other hand, art can not be analyzed into equal units, nor its 

 composition expressed by a formula. Neither can its character be 

 determined by the application of rules and measurements, for each 

 work of art is a new thing in the world, and is, in fact, a law unto 

 itself. To attempt to measure art by these quantitative and objective 

 standards is like taking a sieve to fetch water. Art being a degree 

 of harmony, an expression of feeling, a way of doing, it can be estimated 

 only by one who has sufficient capacity of feeling. There is no yard- 

 stick which can indicate to every person the exact amount of art in any 

 given production. The only way to estimate it is by a direct appeal to 

 one's own internal measure, called appreciation. As Plotinus long ago 

 said, ' The kingdom of Art is within us. ' We are misled into thinking 

 that there exists a common objective standard, because we so often find 

 many competent judges agreeing as to the merits of a work of art. 

 Undoubtedly, there may be a great similarity in personal standards 

 due to a common artistic environment and a similar social heritage, 

 which have formed our conceptions of art as of all other objects depend- 

 ing on personal valuation. The main object of art-teaching therefore 

 should be to build up within each pupil the highest possible standard 

 of esthetic appreciation. He must be incited to make esthetic judg- 

 ments as to the quality of objects, and in this way he develops his 

 capacity to appreciate. Each decision made is a distinct mental growth. 



However, to meet the demands of our examination system for a 

 definite quantity of knowledge, we teach only a body of collateral facts 

 so closely related to art as to deceive us into thinking that it is art. We 

 are satisfied to obtain results which can be measured by a definite, 



* As the pupil finds that courses of study, systems of examinations, methods 

 of promotions, and in fact, the phenomena of science itself, are all based on 

 the quantitative and external standard of measurement, it is but natural that 

 the one idea that takes possession of and dominates his intellectual life is 

 that quantity is the sole criterion of success. 



