we speak of: Art! And he knows also that there is something far higher involved in art than the mere intellectual admiration we feel before any display of mere technical skill in the process of Producing a work of art. And it is that Something Else, which must be made the basis of our Definition of art.

The question is: What does the public think of— when we use the word: Art? It instinctively thinks of Finished Products-complete Works of Art, such as: Poems, Statues, Palaces, Oratorios, Parks, and Paintings. Therefore, to select the Process of doing art and then defining that Process as art, instead of defining art as a Product-complete works of art -is nonsense, and perhaps the most prolific cause of the present execrable confusion in the world of art.

Let us not waste any time on refuting the mass of faulty definitions of art: most of them made to justify, or condone, the peculiar art of some selfish "Individualist" bent on defending his technical process in art-in order to help him unload his novel art products on the, naturally easily gullible, public. Let us attack the problem with common-sense and try to define art: as a Product.

. . ·

I

Poe said, in the foreword to his "Eureka": "To the few who love me and whom I love present this composition as an Art Product alone: let us say as a Romance; or, if it be not urging too lofty a claim, as a Poem." Let us do likewise, above all since the greatest thinkers since Aristotle have always regarded art as: a Product. And let us go to the foundation of things:

That mankind is traveling from a low, animal state toward a more and more spiritual state, evolution proves. And, without going too deep into Psychology, we may say: We are, practically, made up of a Body, a Mind, a Soul, and an Ego.

These may be likened, so to speak, to a Throneroom, the seat of the Ego in which the Ego sits in eternal expectancy, surrounded by three other rooms, in which are ever busy three Ministers, called: Physical, Intellectual and Spiritual.

When we are asleep we merely Exist. We begin to Live only when we awake into a state of consciousness, and we Live only as long as succeeding states of consciousness occur.

As soon as we awake we have the first Surprise of the day, the first Emotion, i. e., the recognition that we are, that we exist. When we open our eyes we have the next Surprise, or emotion: caused by the nature of the impact upon our body, mind, or soul by our environment.

Every impact of nature on the body, mind or soul of man is a surprise, and creates an Agitation, weak or powerful. James, in his "Psychology" says: "The entire organism may be called a soundingboard, which every change in consciousness, however slight, may make reverberate.”

Now, the agitations of the body we call Sensations, those of the mind we call Thoughts, and the agitations of the soul we call Emotions.

If our environment is the one we are used to, our surprises will not appear to us as surprises any longer, because they have become commonplace surprises, through repetition, day by day. But they are surprises, nevertheless. But, when repeated often enough, these surprises fail to Agitate us, to startle or emotion us. Hence, the daily mechanical routine of tending, let us say a spinning-machine

in a cotton factory, is about as drab and deadening— because Emotionless-an existence as one can imagine. But, when a surprise is Unusual, then we are agitated, stirred, out of our lethargy and drab state of consciousness into an Emotional State; and the agitation in us is great in ratio of the unusualness and immensity of our surprise. Then we call it a surprise or astonishment. But, I repeat, every Change in our state of consciousness is a—surprise, and also every surprise is followed by an emotion, of some kind, or degree.

Now, from the moment we open our eyes on awakening, the Ego or the "Will," or whatever we choose to call the "I" or the "Me" in us, sits enthroned, I repeat, in a state of Expectancy, ready to receive Trains of Sensations from the Minister called Physical, or trains of Thought from the Minister called Intellectual or trains of Emotions from the Minister called Spiritual. These Ministers may enter singly, doubly, or all three at once. When Minister Physical brings in simple sensations, we have a simple state of consciousness, unaccompanied by thoughts or high emotions; when Minister Physical and Minister Intellectual and Minister Spiritual bring in sensations, thoughts and emotions: in quick succession, we have a Complex State of conscious

ness.

Now, these may be pleasant or unpleasant: depending on the nature of our environment, and on the proportion of the dominance and force in us of either Minister Physical, or Intellectual or Spiritual. But, in all cases, it is the Ego which: Passes Judgment on the desirability or undesirability of the states of consciousness, as they are offered by the three Ministers aforesaid and accepts or rejects them and acts accordingly.

Of course, we do not know where the body begins and ends, or where the mind and soul begin and end. They are so interrelated, interwoven, that, now and then, they seem as one, or two, or three, when, in reality, they are three-dominated by a fourth: the Ego. Hence, also, our sensations, thoughts and emotions overlap, so that some states of consciousness are made up of physical, intellectual and spiritual elements-fused into one whole; but our Life, apart from mere Existence, is carried on mainly in these three fields of experience-physical, intellectual and spiritual Emotions.

Our Emotions are of two kinds: Negative and Positive.

The negative emotions are such as are neither agreeable nor disagreeable. The positive emotions are such as are distinctly agreeable or disagreeable. And, since stagnation is near unto death, and movement means life, it follows that: the more emotions we experience and live through, the more varied and pleasurable they are, the richer and happier our life on this earth will be. By pleasure I do not mean merely sensuous pleasure, but also intellectual and spiritual pleasure.

Thus, we see, that the Experiencing of Emotion, is at the very base of our Life. It remains to be shown that the Expression of Emotion is at the very base of all Art.

Nature has so organized us that, as soon as we experience an emotion, we feel a sudden impulse to Express it. And this impulse is powerful—in ratio of the Intensity of the emotion. "No impression without expression," says James. Because

every surprise and every motion also exert a pressure: strong in ratio of the native impressionability and emotionability of a man, which, unless relieved, becomes a Burden. That is why so few people can keep a secret. The hearing of a secret causes a surprise, an emotion, and the first impulse, in the vast majority of normal people, is to Unload this secret on some one else, to pass it on. If we are bound by a promise not to reveal a secret, it becomes a burden which only the strongest can support, the average person being devoid of enough self-control to hold back the Pressure the secret exerts. When we give away the secret we feel a real relief-Oof! of a burden! This is what Aristotle called the "katharsis of the emotions"-an explosive expression of our emotion.

Now, this act: of the mere expression of an emotion-if it ends in some kind of Form, in a definite PRODUCT, in the shape of a finished Poem, or Statue, or Picture, or Building, or Garden, or a Story or even a Dog Collar, or a Joke, is already a Work of Art.

It makes no difference how trivial or sublime, how beautiful or ugly, how moral or immoral: every Expression of human Emotion, in whatever Form it may be made is a Work of Art; and it makes no difference whether it stirs the emotions of one man, or of all mankind.

Because, in your effort to express your own emotions you must use some sort of vehicle, or Form, or shape, which has no other use on earth, primarily, than to express your emotions.

Now, if anything that you create is made only for a Use other than to serve as a Vehicle for the expression of your emotions, it is not a work of art, but merely an article of Use. Material Usefulness is the factor which places one human object, or work, into the category of: Industry; Spiritual Usefulness is the factor which places any human production into the category of: Art.

Moreover, if an article of mere use: is used as a vehicle for the expression of your emotions, by applying to it expressive ornaments: for the sake of Beautifying it, or for the expression of an idea, or of a mere emotion of delight, or of sadness, it is by that act taken out of the category of merely useful articles and, at once, becomes a work of art: rudimentary art, perhaps, but still-a work of art! Therefore, every man is a rudimentary artist: as soon as he merely Attempts to Express his Emotion, even in rudimentary form.

Moreover, the strongest hunger of the soul is for self-expression. Our whole life, from waking to going to sleep, is but one process of self-expression. Hence, there is no greater punishment than enforced, perpetual silence.

In fact, every animal, insect, tree, flower and rock, also answers to the Cosmic Urge and craves to express itself in some Form-and nearly always in some form of Beauty.

This deep truth found again an adequate expression in Emerson's profound remark: "ALL NATURE IS BENT UPON EXPRESSION." Because self-expression is the greatest relief and greatest joy vouchsafed by the universe, and reflection will convince the reader that this must be so.

Therefore, Tolstoi is correct when he says: "The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his senses of hearing and sight

another man's expression of feeling (emotion), is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it." So that we may define art-in the abstract-as follows: ART IS AN EXPRESSION OF HUMAN EMOTION. But that is not sufficient.

There are all sorts of normal and abnormal men. There are men so self-centered that they do not care to express their emotions, even to their most intimate acquaintances. These are the silent men. These never become artists,-because they never have anything to communicate.

Then there are other men whose greatest joy consists in expressing their emotions, but who are so utterly indifferent to the happiness of others that, to relieve themselves of their own emotional pressure, they will sing, or rhyme, or dance a jig, draw or paint: only to please themselves-just to relieve their own emotions.

Some go further; and, full of contempt for mankind, they express their emotions and throw the product on the junk-pile, and they are usually not worth much more than that. These are all more or less abnormal men.

But, then, there is the Normal Majority of men, whose greatest joy consists, not in merely expressing their emotions, glad or sad, but in Communicating them to others: in order to Share them.

Others go still further; and, not content with merely sharing their emotions, yearn to Stir the emotions of their fellows, and mankind: to stimulate them to action. These are the highly developed, emotional men who usually become professional Artists -in one of the eight arts.

These Artists very rarely choose a subject for an art-work that is disagreeable; because, for stirring the emotions of mankind profoundly, a work of art must not be disagreeable or ugly. To be, for a long time, worth while, it must be as Agreeable and Beautiful as possible, and express, not a low, but a high state of emotion.

To the highly developed man an emotional state is high and agreeable, or low and disagreeable, in ratio of the distance to which it Lifts him: above merely animal existence, away from the muck and misery of the commonplace things of the earth, earthy.

There are three Categories of these lifting, pleasurable emotions: the various kinds of MIRTH, DELIGHT and AWE. These we experience in various degrees of intensity. And however much an acquired wisdom may, for the sake of variety in life, dictate an occasional passing through a disciplinary unpleasant state of emotional experience, the Ego usually prefers to experience and express-Pleasant emotions. As that great Artist, Emerson, said:

"We mount to Paradise

On the stairway of Surprise!"

What he meant is that we mount on the stairway of pleasant-Emotions.

Now, suppose a man hears a funny story, laughs like a lord, and rushes off to tell it to you and says: "Jack, I've got a new one, a corker!" and then tells a story with every trick he can muster-to make you laugh. He does this because he finds a real happiness and relief in Forcing you to Share his happiness. If you do not laugh, he will look at you, quizzically, and say to himself: Well, that story seemed awfully

funny to me. Am I thick or is he?" And he is really unhappy-because he failed to make a "hit" with you. If you then say: "Well, old top, the story's a good one, but a 'chestnut!' I laughed over that two years ago," he will feel relieved that he is not so queer as he seemed to himself, but he will resent your non-display of social hypocrisy: in not laughing, any way, just to give him a chance to Share his happiness with you-because you refused his "treat!"

Therefore, a mere Funny Story, even a Joke, is already a work of art-because it is an effort at: the Expression of Emotion.

Hence, the primordial spiritual push in every normal man-and abnormal men do not count in a discussion of Art-is not only to stimulate him to Express his emotions, but to: Stir the emotions of his nearest Neighbor. If he succeeds, his reward for the effort is a certain satisfaction, at having successfully relieved himself of his emotional burden, or pressure.

But there is a higher reason. Carlyle said: "The deepest hunger of the human soul is for human recognition." Why? Because as James says in his "Psychology": "No more fiendish punishment could be devised, were such a thing physically possible, than that one should be turned loose in society and remain absolutely unnoticed by all the members thereof." That is to say: men cannot live without the recognition of their fellow-men. And three years of solitary confinement in the prisons of Italy suffices to drag a man to insanity and the grave.

Moreover, man knows by instinct that if he can share the happiness of his own glad emotions with his neighbors, by arousing in them the same emotions and joy-by adequately expressing them-he will obtain for himself not only the joy of recognition, but the Love of his Neighbors and, so, Bind them to himself, and thus, gradually, more or lessaccording to his power of expression-conquer the world and carve out a place immortality—in the hearts of mankind. Thus he satisfies that feeling which, when healthy, we call Self-love or Egotism, which is rooted in the elemental hunger for selfpreservation: Nature's first command.

Says Darwin, in his "Autobiography"-in order to explain why he succeeded in life: "What is far more important, my love of natural science has been steady and ardent. This pure love has, however, been much aided by the ambition to be esteemed by my fellow naturalists." Thus we see that the hunger for human recognition, with the vast majority of men, even the greatest, is the strongest drivingpower in the world, the very cosmic urge which is pushing man from high to higher toward an evermore perfect state of civilization: through the more and more perfect Expression of those of his emotions which lift his fellows up to himself, and beyond.

Hence, those men who have the largest and deepest hunger for the love of their fellow-men-for "human recognition”—are impelled to serve them most and so enter the ranks, not only of the great artists, but of great heroes and the saviors of the race. And the more gifted the artist-the more of this "hunger for human recognition" will he possess.

He may not care for a "blatant beating of the big bazoo," or for a vulgar notoriety, but, deep down, he will have enough of that "decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as Jefferson said, to make his

work so perfect that he will run the chance at least, of escaping the critical condemnation or ridicule of his contemporaries, which is a desire for at least a negative human recognition, and equally rooted in the primal desire for self-preservation. Hence, feebleness of desire for human recognition always accompanies Creative Mediocrity.

If this hunger for human recognition is so strong that it will make a man, with a beneficent purpose, Work for it: by clean, rational methods, it may be called and welcomed as-Beneficent Egotism. A man so possessed will never be content merely to express his own emotions, and "let it go at that!" He will be doubly urged on, first by a natural impulse, and second, by an acquired desire: to Communicate his emotions to his fellow-men, to Stir the emotions of mankind,-in some language or medium of expression. And the greater this urge in

man, and the greater the skill and power he manifests in stirring the emotions of mankind, and the more lofty and sublime the emotions with which he fills the majority of men, and for the longest period of time, the greater artist he will prove to be!

Per contra, should a man's self-love and desire for human recognition take on a diseased form, and urge him to seek a quick Notoriety: simply to have himself talked about, like Beaudelaire, Oscar Wilde or Cagliostro, by methods at once charlatanistic and unclean, then it becomes: Egomania, a destructive force, not only in Life but in Art.

Thus, we have gradually dug down to the fundamental truths of life:-that a Surprise is an Emotion; that Agreeable emotions give us Happiness; that to Share this happiness with our Neighbors is a desire implanted in us by Nature; that to do this we Express our emotions in the most adequate and forceful Form we can command: by Poetry, Oratory, Painting, Sculpture, Music, Architecture, etc., all of which we call-Art.

In short, the Joy of Experiencing and Expressing human Emotion is at the basis of both Life and Art. Now, these facts are the deepest and broadest basis for an invulnerable definition of art. Hence, I repeat, the simplest, solid definition of art, in the abstract, is this: Art is an Expression of Human Emotion. But, as I said before, this is not sufficient. Therefore, philosophers have striven for a more comprehensive and detailed definition.

The best of these is by Eugène Véron in his "Esthetics," 1873:-"We may, therefore, as a general definition say, that art is the manifestation of an emotion, translating itself, exteriorily, either by a combination of lines, of forms or of colors, or by a series of gestures, of sounds or of words, subjected to certain rhythms." A perfect definition of artin the abstract.

But this is not enough: because it only defines Art in the abstract, fails to be explicit: as to whether art means a Process or a Product, and fails to imply that there are Two Kinds of artists: Those who are merely content to Express their own emotions, and, so, nearly always remain trivial artists, and those who aim to Stir the emotions of their fellow-men, and, so, sometimes become truly great.

The next important definition is by Tolstoi in his: "What Is Art?" 1898:-"Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others the feelings (emotions) he has lived through, and

that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them."

This is faulty: because it Excludes Works of Art which were made without: "One man Consciously handing over to others the feelings (emotions) he has lived through." Because a man may express his own emotions and produce a work of art, without ever dreaming of "infecting others" with his own emotions, and, sometimes, produce a great work of art; besides, a Sound definition must not exclude any work of art. Also, it defines art only as an Activity, which is unphilosophic. We know Tolstoi framed his one-sided definition to serve his own purpose: social reform, in which labor he went to extremes, forgetting the Greek injunction: "Nothing to Excess."

Taine, an important French writer, made a definition which is not a definition at all, but a direction: how to produce a Work of Art.

Bacon's definition: "Art is man added to Nature!" is also not a definition of Art, but it is a definition of Style because that is what style is -an addition of a man's personality to a work of nature.

Delsarte's definition: "Art is an emotion passed through thought and fixed in form," is an excellent definition of art in the abstract, much like Véron's, but also insufficient: because merely defining art in the abstract, and giving no hint that there are men who care only to express their own emotions and others who long to arouse the emotions of others, and that there are various degrees of excellence in art, from the Trivial to the Great.

Now, lest the laymen may think that the defining of Art is not an important national matter, I will quote a part of an address delivered at the National Arts Club about a year ago, in which I said:

"Previous to the fall of 1898 I was frequently called by the United States Government, as an expert, to testify as to whether certain statues, held for duty at the Custom House here, were works of art. One day in 1898, while at work as general manager of the building of the Dewey Arch on Twenty-third Street and Fifth Avenue, one of the architects engaged in the work appeared to me looking somewhat gloomy. 'What's the matter, old man?' I queried. 'Oh,' he replied, 'I have just come from the Custom House, where I lost a case. I had one of my Church Altars cut in Caen stone, in Caen, France; and, when it got here, I was forced to pay duty, on the plea that it was not a work of art. I protested. But a number of sculptors said it was not a work of art. And so I lose.'

"What!' I said. "They testified your altar is not a work of art?'

"Yes,' he replied.

"Why, they are dreaming!' I said, and I told him my idea of what constitutes a work of art, and why his altar is, inevitably, a work of art.

""Will you testify to that before the Collector?' he asked. ""Surely! I replied. And we proceeded with work on the Arch.

"Later, I was subpoenaed before the Collector and, as near as I can recollect, this took place: Arrived at the Custom House I took my seat, and, while the stenographer and the Collector listened, his attorney established my status as an expert. Then he placed before me a blueprint of an altar. After examining it I said: 'Well, sir?'

"'Do you consider that a work of art?' he asked. "I certainly do.'

""You do?'

""I do.'

"Well,' with a solemn pause, 'do you know that St. Gaudens, Ward, Hartley, MacDonald, Rhind and others have testified that it is not a work of art?'

""That does not worry me. A man may be a great success as a synthetic sculptor and a great failure as an analytical thinker. All the men you mention have simply

never gone to the bottom of things in their thinking on the theory of art and aesthetics.'

"Well,' he said, with a sardonic air, 'can you define art?' "'Yes, I can,' I replied.

""Will you kindly do so?'

"I then gave him this definition of art:

"EVERY HUMAN WORK, MADE IN ANY LANGUAGE, WITH THE PURPOSE OF EXPRESSING, OR STIRRING, HUMAN EMOTION, IS A WORK OF ART; AND A WORK OF ART IS GREAT IN RATIO OF ITS POWER OF STIRRING THE HIGHEST EMOTIONS OF THE LARGEST NUMBER OF CULTURED PEOPLE FOR THE LONGEST PERIOD OF TIME. "Well,' he said, 'isn't that rather broad?'

""Of course it is broad. A definition, in order to define, must be both inclusive and exclusive, and I think you will find mine conclusive.'

"He looked stalemated. And I continued: 'All thinkers on art, however they may differ on detail, agree on this: That the function of all artists is: First, to express their own emotions, and second, to stir the emotions of their fellowmen, be those emotions trivial or great, high or low. Now, a Cathedral is the greatest instrument on earth for stirring the highest human emotion, and the altar is the most important part of that instrument. If the altar is a mere rock, it is not a work of art; it is a mere article of use. But, if the altar shows some kind of design, and an effort to make the altar beautiful, in order to arouse the emotions and lift the soul of the worshipers, it is a work of art, no matter what its design. You have not asked me if this altar is a Great Work of Art. And that is none of the government's business. The question the government alone should ask is this: "Is this altar a work of art?" I reply that, if it were the most grotesque design in the world, so long as the deliberate purpose of the artist was to express his emotions and to arouse the emotions of his fellowmen, however simple or complex, skilful or crude, his design may be, it is a work of art, no matter how it may grate upon the feelings of other men whose tastes differ from that of the artist. The sculptors who testified that the altar is not a work of art meant to imply that it is not a Great Work of Art. But, for the purpose of the infliction of a tariff, the government should not ask, is a work of art Great or Trivial. It should allow every original work of art, however good or bad, to come in free, for an American, and strike with fifteen per cent. duty every such work of art of an alien. The only question the government should ask is this: 'Is it morally clean and an original work of art; that is, not a duplicate, not a copy?" Many critics call many of the works of Rodin fine; many others call them crimes in marble. Who is going to decide? Hence, the question of the excellence or greatness of a work of art, imported, is beyond the province of the government, so long as the work is morally clean.'

""That is all,' he said.

"The case went to Washington and the architect won. The government accepted my definition of art; and, reversing the Collector's decision, even though bolstered up by the testimony of the leading sculptors named above, returned him his money.

"This incident shows the supreme importance of a final and correct definition of art, from which no one can escape. And I think that my definition, as above given, is such a final one.

"The importance of my definition of art is derived not from my defining art in the abstract, not because the United States Government accepted my definition, but because it is the first definition in the history of aesthetics which, besides defining art in the abstract, also defines Great Art, and asserts that the greatness of a work of art depends upon its power of stirring our highest emotions and for the longest period of time. Thus it furnishes a beacon light for all those artists who wish to create truly great and enduring art, instead of wasting their lives producing ephemeral artistic stunts, destined for the morgue of oblivion.

"Another important point. Every æsthetician, from Baumgarten to Tolstoi, agrees that Art is a Language, for communicating with our fellowmen. This has, lately, been questioned by a few aberrated writers on art. My definition reaffirms that art is a language.

"Finally, my definition divides art into two great categories: Trivial and Great Art. That is, merely Decorative and Playful Art, and Expressive and Stimulative Art. What divides the two like a wall? The spirit of Social Service.

"A merely decorative work of art is addressed only to the senses, having no meaning beyond satisfying our sensuous

love of agreeable lines, colors, sounds and movements. And this is a trivial function by the side of the great spiritual function of arousing the highest emotions of the soul of mankind. An expressive work of art of any kind, in which the artist clearly aimed to produce a thing so beautiful, by poetizing his subject, as to arouse, universally, the emotions of mankind, belongs to the category of Great Art, even if it lacks mere technical cleverness. Why? Because, when we produce a thing which gives joy and ecstasy to the majority of mankind, or at least of our own race, we create an active, unifying social force, a thing that brings all men of our race, high or low, prince or peasant, into a sympathetic relation. It tends to increase the love between man and man. And that is the highest thing possible on this earth. And, when we engage in such an activity, we ally ourselves with the loftiest forces of nature, or with our

Heavenly Father, 'Who so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son' to lift mankind into a greater and grander unity. Therefore, those expressive works of art, which show that the artists struggled hard to stir our loftiest emotions, they belong to the category of great art. It makes no difference if they are technically as defective and awkward as are the works of Fra Angelico at Florence, or of Orcagna at Pisa, when compared with such perfect works as Titian's 'Assumption,' or Leonardo's 'Last Supper.' Just as the hunchback slave Aesop is in the category of great men, because he solaced and buttressed the courage of mankind and spiritualized its aspirations, so, even the awkward works of Angelico and Orcagna are great because they radiate a social spirit which has lifted the souls of millions of men above the commonplace to the sublime, above the material to the spiritual. Thus they became a social power, working for higher social ends. They become unifying, binding forces which still work in the direction of concentrating the energies of men-for the perfection of the race and its environment. That is what entitles them to be placed in the temple of truly Great Art. Therefore, when the facts of life and of nature lift an artist into a state of sublime creative emotion and he translates that emotion into a work of supreme beauty that arouses sublime emotions in his fellowmen, high or humble, he becomes a conqueror of the world. While the artist who spends a long life in merely expressing himself in smart or clever works, which show clearly that he thought nothing of lifting his fellowmen to noble, spiritual enterprises but, rather, of calling the attention of the world to his clever, technical, stylistic stunts, he is destined to be forgotten. For, as Emerson said: "The true artist has the planet for his pedestal; the adventurer, after years of strife, has nothing broader than his own shoes.' That is to say, the difference between Trivial and Great Art is one of Morals of a spiritual and a social purpose."

The main cause of so much confusion in æsthetics is the fact that every Esthetician, heretofore, has tried to define-in one definition, more than is possible to define in any one definition in any human language and, in addition, has done it in slipshod language, like Plato, when he defined Beauty as: "Variety in Unity," which is childish, seeing that Variety and Unity will also produce the Ugly! You cannot define two diametrically opposed things by one definition! A definition of Day will not define Night. And it is amazing that, during two thousand years, hundreds of writers have, like stupid parrots, repeated this error. Variety in Unity is one element of beauty, but those three words do not define: Beauty.

It is impossible to include in a definition of Art every element that enters into a Work of Art. Hence, all we can do is: to find the Fundamental thing that separates a Work of Art from everything else, and that is: The Expression of Human Emotion. After that, the most we can do is to suggest what makes a Work of Art greater and greater, from the most Trivial to the most Great.

Hence it is astonishing that no æsthetician has, heretofore, been able to see that, to avoid destructive confusion in the World of Art, we must divide all

Art into at least three distinct categories: Trivial Art, Clever Art and Great Art.

And what is it that divides these three categories? It is: their relative power of Stirring either only the Sensuous, or merely the Intellectual, or the Spiritual emotions of mankind. In each of these three categories of Art we see a display of a greater and greater anxiety, energy and power on the part of the Artist, first: to Express adequately his own emotions or, second, his trying to Stir the emotions of his fellow-men.

For example, a crude Japanese fan, involving only a few grotesquely drawn rocks and some water, manifestly made in a careless mood, showing no great energy or labor of love, and made to appeal only to our love of Sensuous color, and arousing in us only a gentle emotion of such Mirth as forces us to say: "Hello! isn't that cute?" is a Trivial Work of Art: but it is, nevertheless, a Work of Art. Why? because the man who made it found some degree of joy in merely expressing his simple, sensuous, even grotesque emotion.

An example of Clever Art is: A Louis XVI screen with Fragonard decorations. The function of the screen is a trivial one and the subjects of the decorations are trivial also. But the whole thing is lifted out of the category of purely trivial art into the category of Clever Art, by the extraordinary display of Intellectual Skill, plus manual skill, plus loving dexterity of hand, and anxiety in the composition and execution of so perfect a thing, of its kind—an exponent of the cleverness of a clever age so that we can imagine the joy both the cabinet-maker and the painter found in the mere making of the screen. Hence, it appeals to our Intellect as well as our senses, and arouses in us an emotion of-Delight, a higher emotion than the emotion of Mirth.

An example of a Great Work of Art is: Leonardo's "Last Supper." We know of "Last Suppers" by five of the great Renaissance artists, by Tintoretto, Raphael, Ghirlandajo, Del Sarto and Leonardo. Tintoretto was so little Emotioned by the subject that he handled it in a nonchalant way, and the result is trivial and makes us smile rather than worship. Raphael's decoration is dignified, but also nearly as trivial as Tintoretto's, because it has neither the cleverness of composition of that of Ghirlandajo, nor the dramatic expression of that of Del Sarto. It lacks character. The one by Ghirlandajo is truly Clever, because of the clever and charming composition and color scheme, and a certain serenity that pervades it. But it is only clever, because it lacks the profoundly dramatic expression-possible in the subject. The one by Del Sarto is less charming in color and composition than Ghirlandajo’s, but greater-because more Dramatic, and showing more profoundly expressed human emotion on the faces of the actors in the drama. Hence, it stirs in us loftier emotions.

But the greatest of the five, and one of the six greatest works of the painter's art of all times, is that by Leonardo. Why? Because he alone of the five was himself Emotioned by the subject to the highest pitch, and then made the finest composition and with infinite love and labor, succeeded in imagining and then expressing, the emotioning Dramatic disturbance, which must have followed, when Jesus said: "Verily I say unto you, one of you shall betray me this very night!" The more we contem