554 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



day is not art at all, since it is de- 

 signed merely for the amusement of 

 a few, and is altogether beyond the 

 comprehension of the many. More- 

 over, if the many could compre- 

 hend it it would do them as little 

 good as it does to the exclusive cir- 

 cles for whose special gratification it 

 is produced. 



Whatever may be said of this 

 definition of art, there is little doubt 

 in ouj* mind that it furnishes a basis 

 for a fruitful consideration of the 

 whole subject. We incline, indeed, 

 strongly to the opinion that for the 

 average man the most profitable 

 point of view is that which the au- 

 thor has indicated. Let it be granted 

 that the purpose of art is to convey 

 emotion from one mind to another 

 and we have at once a criterion that 

 can be usefully applied both to al- 

 leged works of art and to alleged 

 artists. V/e can ask the latter : 

 What emotion personal to yourself 

 have you that you wish to convey ? 

 If you have none, then, whatever 

 your technical ability, you are not 

 an artist. If the emotion is one the 

 propagation of which will do harm, 

 then you are using your art to do 

 injury to your fellow-men, simply to 

 earn from the unthinking or the 

 vicious the praise of having done a 

 bad thing well. If the emotion is 

 one which all men will be the better 

 for sharing, then in proportion to 

 the strength with which you experi- 

 ence it and the power you possess of 

 communicating it to others, you are 

 an artist and a benefactor of man- 

 kind. Or we can deal directly with 

 works tendered for our admiration as 

 artistic. What emotion do they con- 

 vey ? To what sentiments do they 

 appeal ? Does the message which 

 they bring come direct from the 

 heart of the author, or is it the repe- 

 tition of another man's inessage — 

 an echo of tones and a mimicry of 

 methods elsewhei'e found successful ? 



If these works give pleasure, what is 

 the nature of the pleasure they give ? 

 Is it such as accompanies an enlarge- 

 ment of our sympathies and the 

 raising of our hopes for the future 

 of mankind ? Or is it the pleasure 

 of gratified vanity or cynicism ? Is 

 it a pleasure which makes our hands 

 "swifter unto good," or one that 

 makes us more self- centered, more 

 self-suflicient, more self-enthralled ? 



It is much to be desired that men 

 in general would criticise works of 

 art from this point of view. They 

 might occasional!}' err in doing so; 

 but their errors would be rare in di- 

 rect proportion to their own sincerity, 

 and the effect in strengthening their 

 powers of judgment would be very 

 marked. 



Our author furnishes in the fol- 

 lowing passage a familiar example 

 of what we are frequently called 

 upon to admire as "art '' : 



" A musician of renown seats 

 himself befoi'e you at the piano, and 

 plays for you what he says is a new 

 composition of his own or of some 

 present-day musician. You hear 

 him produce strange and noisy 

 sound.s, you admire the gymnastic 

 exercises accomplished by his fin- 

 gers, and you also see clearly that 

 his intention is to make you believe 

 that the sounds which he produces 

 express different poetical moods of 

 the soul. His intention, I say, is 

 clear ; but the only feeling he com- 

 municates to you is one of mortal 

 weariness. The performance lasts a 

 long time, or at least seems to you 

 to last a long time, owing to your 

 utter failure to receive any distinct 

 impression; and the idea comes to 

 you that perhaps the whole busiiaess 

 is a mystification— that the artist is 

 trying an experiment on you, and is 

 just flinging his hands at random 

 over the keys in the hope that you 

 will be taken in, and that he will 

 have a good laugh afterward at your 



