THE RELATIONS OF .ESTHETICS 425 



even find his aesthetic sense aroused by what the common man calls 

 ugly; although it is for himself really beautiful. And he comes thus 

 quite improperly to think of the highest art as in a measure inde- 

 pendent of what he calls "mere beauty." What he has a right to 

 say, however, is merely this, that the highest art deals with sources 

 of beauty which are not appreciated by even the generally well- 

 cultivated man. 



I have dwelt, perhaps, too long on the psychological problems 

 presented when the psychologist attempts to describe to the sesthet- 

 ician the nature of the experience of one who appreciates beauty; 

 and have left perhaps too little time for the consideration of the 

 problems presented when he is asked to consider the nature of the 

 experience of the artist who creates. 



The man who finds strongly developed within him the creative 

 tendency, is wont, when he turns to theory, to lay emphasis upon 

 expression as of the essence of beauty. 



It is, of course, to be granted that the process of Einfiihlung, - 

 of introjection, above referred to, leads us to find a source of 

 beauty in the vague imagination of ourselves as doing what others 

 have done; and we may take great aesthetic delight in reading, 

 through his work, the mind of the man who has created the object 

 of beauty for us. But evidently, when we lay stress upon this intro- 

 jection, we are dealing with the appreciation of beauty, and not with 

 the force which leads to its production. 



Just as clearly is it impossible to hold that expression is of the 

 essence of the making of beauty. For expressiveness is involved in 

 all of man's creative activity, much of which has no relation what- 

 ever to the aesthetic. The expression of the character of the genius 

 of the inventor of a cotton loom, or of the successful leader of an 

 army in a bloody battle, excites our interest and wonder; but the 

 expression of his character as read in the result accomplished does 

 not constitute it a work of beauty. 



I speak of this point at this length because in my opinion views 

 of the nature of that here objected to could not have been upheld 

 by such men as Bosanquet and V4ron had they kept clear the dis- 

 tinction referred to above between the experience of one who ap- 

 preciates beauty, and the experience of the creative artist; and 

 especially because the teaching of the doctrine thus combated is 

 wont to lead the artist whose cry is " Art for Art's sake " to excessive 

 self-satisfaction, and to lack of restraint which leads to failure. 1 



1 In order to avoid misunderstanding, I may say here that notwithstanding 

 these remarks I am in full sympathy with the artist who thus expresses himself, 

 as will presently appear clear. 



