446 .ESTHETICS 



ever, are they inclined to the study of poetry. They are even begin- 

 ning to make use, for poetics, of the studies in the modern psychology 

 of language, since it is acknowledged that language is the essential 

 element, and thus more than the mere form of expression, of the 

 poetic art. Th. A. Meyer has thrown an apple of discord into the 

 question whether the poet's words must, in order to arouse pleasure, 

 also awake an image. As a matter of fact, the aesthetic value does not 

 depend on the chance-aroused sense-images, but on the language 

 itself and the images which belong to it alone; for the most part the 

 understanding of the words alone is enough to give the reader pleas- 

 ure in the poetic treatment. In the general theory of the visu- 

 ally representative arts there are two opposed doctrines. The one 

 emphasizes the common element, and believes to have found it in 

 the so-called Fernbild, or distant image; the other seeks salvation 

 in complete separations as, for instance, of the so-called Griff el- 

 kunst. or graphic art, from painting. Only the future can decide 

 between them. 



The existence of the total field of art as an essential factor of hu- 

 man endeavors involves difficulties which must be removed partly 

 in the philosophical consideration, partly in law and governmental 

 practice. The last factor must also be taken account of in theory; 

 for so long as we do not live in an ideal world, the state will claim 

 regulation of all activities expressing themselves in it, and so also 

 of art. In first line it is concerned for art's relation to morality. 

 Secondly, the social problems arise: does art bind men together, 

 or part them? does it reconcile or intensify oppositions? is it demo- 

 cratic or aristocratic? is it a necessity or a luxury? does it further or 

 reject patriotic, ethical, pedagogical ends? The artistic education of 

 youth and the race has become a burning question. Ruskin and 

 Morris have developed from art-critics to critics of the social order, 

 and Tolstoi has contracted the democratic point of view to the 

 most extreme degree. With the desire to transform art from the 

 privilege of the few to the possession of all is, finally, bound up the 

 wish that art shall emerge from another seclusion that it shall not 

 be throned in museums and libraries, in theatres and concert-halls, 

 but shall mingle with our daily domestic life, and direct and color 

 every act of the scholar as of the peasant. 



A satisfactory decision can be reached only by him who keeps in 

 view that art presents something extremely complex, and by no 

 means mere aesthetic form; that, on the other hand, the aesthetic 

 life is not banished to the sacred circle of the independent arts. 

 With this conclusion we return to the first words of our reflec- 

 tions herein presented. 



