DEVELOPMENT OF THE HISTORY OF ART 587 



good, and though many of its hypotheses will pass away, its discover- 

 ies and its learning will be the bases of a truer development here- 

 after. The theory of descent, which was so widely accepted twenty- 

 five years ago, is now almost discarded, but evolution as a principle 

 still exists, and it would be a strange mind that could not see wonder- 

 ful development in the sciences as the direct result of that theory. 

 Suppose we admit the hypothesis to be false, the immense inform- 

 ation gained in its pursuit is by no means without its compensation. 

 The art-criticism of the past fifteen years, though it may unsettle 

 rather than convince, has nevertheless been wonderfully informing. 

 The patient research, the collection of materials, the comparison of 

 works, the publication of reproductions have gone far to establish 

 a criticism that is scientifically based. The old guesswork, the hiding 

 of ignorance by a burst of emotional enthusiasm, the trusting to 

 impressions, the reliance upon tradition only, have rather passed into 

 the background. We are certainly upon safer ground with a surer 

 foundation under foot. 



And what is perhaps of more moment to the people at large, we are 

 nearer to a true understanding and appreciation of art. All this criti- 

 cism that is being written, scientific or otherwise, is of no avail unless 

 it touches and informs and influences the public. Art is meant for 

 the public. Praxiteles carved and Giotto built and Paolo Veronese 

 painted, not for any little group of artists, but for the mob in the 

 street. The orator, the novelist, the critic, the historian, what use 

 for them to talk unless they have an audience? The painter and 

 sculptor, why should they labor if no one sees or cares? Let us have 

 no nonsense about art being exclusively for the artist or criticism 

 for the critic. If the arrow fly no further than that, it might better 

 not be shot at all. 



Art is for the public, but the public not being too intelligent has 

 always needed some guidance from its better-informed members, 

 and still needs to be told what is good and what is bad. what is to 

 be admired, and what is to be shunned. That gives about the only 

 reason for the existence of art -criticism. Such being the case, it is 

 gratifying to note that present-day criticism deals with the art- 

 product in the light of the producer's intention. Art may not be for 

 the artists exclusively, but the artist knows his aim in his work, and 

 it is that aim rather than his interpreter's imagination that is to lie 

 explained to the public. The day of reading literary and romantic 

 meanings into pictures and marbles is past. \Ve are too firmly based 

 in materials and know the technique of all the arts far too well for that . 

 In its place 1 we are to-day appreciating the beauties of tilings purely 

 decorative as we'll as expressive, and reali/ing with the artists that 

 ideas are good or bad as they reveal or are re-vealexl by the particular 

 medium in which they are cast. The public is being taught to look 



