PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF ART. ") 1 "> which the writers on speculative aesthetic were scarcely aware of. When theories of art and beauty were based on general, >ri, principles, there could not possibly be any doubt as to the point of departure in the several researches. But when we have no assumptions to start from, the very de- marcation of the subject may become a matter of uncertainty. In the philosophy of art, to which department of aesthetic I wish to restrict my observations on the present occasion, this difficulty of formulating the data and queesita constitute! the first, and by no means the least important, problem. If we embark upon a scientific treatment of art without any preconceived definitions, the aim and conditions of sti'-h treatment can only be determined by examining the prevail- ing notions on the subject, as they are expressed in language and in literature. As an objective interpretation, a thrcn-y of art can claim attention only if it conforms to the recognised usage of the principal aesthetic terms. In the various defini- tions of art which are contained in the different aesthetic systems, we must therefore try to find some point of unity, from which to approach our subject. The difficulties of such a task are evident to any one who has gone through the discouraging experience of reading a history of aesthetic. The investigator who seeks an accurate demarcation of the whole area of art, as distinguished from other departments of life, meets with partial definitions which can be applied only to certain fixed forms of art. We heed mention but a few of the most typical instances. Even an ardent admirer of Taine is compelled to admit that his generalisations are too exclusively derived from the study of poetry and the forma- tive arts. In the same way it is only by laborious adjust- ments that the theory of Vischer can be applied to music and lyric poetry. The aphorisms of Euskin cannot seriously claim to apply to any but the formative arts. And Mr. Marshall's ^Esthetic Principles to adduce one of the most recent attempts in general art-theory are too obviously those of an expert in architecture. In none of the modern systems has sufficient room been made for certain forms of art which, from the evolutionist's standpoint, are of the highest importance : such as acting, dancing and decoration. All the one-sided definitions are moreover so inconsistent with each other, that it seems impossible to make up for their individual deficiencies by an eclectic combination. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if some writers on art, confused by the bewildering contradictions of aesthetic theories, have called in question the very existence of an universal art-criterion.
