Notes and Correspondence 



195 



depends upon the cumulative effect in combination of innumerable 

 details which may appear individually to have but little significance, 

 and the fact that where an alteration is proposed in certain details of 

 such an object of beauty, it is much easier to perceive and to set forth 

 clearly and convincingly the utilitarian advantages or disadvantages of 

 the change, than it is to perceive and set forth clearly the artistic ad- 

 vantages or disadvantages. Not only that, but whereas each one of 

 ten possible changes might produce a utilitarian gain (or loss) of $100, 

 and their total utilitarian gain (or loss) be $1000,. the cumulative effect 

 of the ten changes upon the beauty of the object is apt to be enormously 

 more than ten times the effect of any one of them. 



In most of the objects with which we are concerned beauty is, and 

 ought to be, an absolutely incidental factor. We want only that sort 

 and degree of beauty which is compatible with a high degree of utili- 

 tarian efficiency. Some things, however, are of value wholly or primarily 

 for their beauty, and if they have any direct utilitarian value it is utterly 

 secondary and incidental. The extraordinary difficulty of balancing 

 artistic gain and loss against utilitarian gain and loss in detail, and the 

 manifest weighting of the scales in favor of the utilitarian side when- 

 ever this process is followed, make it important to segregate sharply 

 from the vast majority the things of this latter class. The first question 

 in regard to any one of these things, valuable primarily for their non- 

 utilitarian beauty, is — can we afford it ? If not, we give it up ; sell it to 

 someone who can afford it, or else transfer it to the class of things in 

 which the beauty-value is secondary to the use-value. If we can afford 

 it, we direct our efforts toward conserving and making available its 

 primary value, its beauty, just as far as we can afford to do so, never 

 subordinating it to considerations which we have decided to be sec- 

 ondary in this particular case. 



THE BURDEN OF PROOF 



Beauty of scenery is ordinarily and properly an incident, a by-product 

 m man's use of the earth, but certain kinds of valuably refreshing 

 scenery are so incompatible with the ordinary economic uses of land in 

 and about large cities that, if they are to be made available for the use 

 of the citizens at all, certain tracts must be given over specifically to 

 that purpose, even at a considerable cost. It may be a question in any 

 given case whether the game is worth the candle, and of course the 

 incidental use of the same land for other non-conflicting purposes will 

 always help to lighten the burden, but until it is deliberately concluded 

 that the value of the landscape beauty is no longer the prime justifica- 

 tion for the maintenance of the park, the only safe rule is to permit no 

 other avoidable use of its land which in any degree impairs the value 

 of the park for that purpose. The argument that to place a pumping 

 station in a city park will injure its scenery only a little, and will save 

 buying a site outside, spells ultimate ruin for the quality of the park 

 scenery, through cumulative injuries, each supported hy the same argu- 

 ment. 



