Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 9.djvu/530

 516 YRJO HIRN : By those who adopt this attitude which seems the more justified in the present state of artistic differentiation the possibility is denied, not only of all general art-philosophy, but also of all sociological and psychological treatment of artistic manifestations as a whole. Even if all other hypo- theses are banished, aesthetic research cannot possibly dis- pense with the fundamental assumption of the unity of art. But, if we do not insist on too minute and positive demar- cations, we shall after all be able to find in most systems at least one common quality which is ascribed to all the different forms of art. Notwithstanding the mutual contradictions of art-theories, the believers in general aesthetic can always appeal to the unanimity with which the majority of authors have upheld the negative criterion of art. Metaphysicians as well as psychologists, Hegelians as well as Darwinists, all agree in declaring, that a work which can be proved to serve any utilitarian, non-aesthetic purpose must not be considered as a genuine work of art. True art has its one end in itself, and rejects every extraneous purpose : such is the doctrine unanimously stated by Kant, Schiller. Spencer, Hennequin, Grosse, and others. And popular opinion agrees in this re- spect with the conclusions of science. This distinctive quality of independence seems therefore to afford us a convenient starting-point for the treatment of art in general. Owing to its negative character, this criterion does not give us much information as to the real qualities of art. But even the poorest definition is enough to begin with, if it only holds good with regard to all particular cases. Unfortunately, however, we need only apply the test of independence to existing works of art to find that even this single point of agreement between the different theories is open to dispute. There is scarcely any author, however he may formulate his general definitions of art, who would assess the relative value of art-works according to their degrees of disinterestedness. For instance, no candid man would, now- adays seriously contend that an arabesque composition is per se on a higher aesthetical level than a statue or a poem. But we may even go farther. We must question whether every work of art ought to be degraded from its aesthetic rank, if it can be convicted of having served any external, utilitarian purpose. This strict conception of the aesthetic boundaries has been eloquently attacked by Guyau in his celebrated treatise Le principe de I'art et de la poe'sie. Though the ultimate conclusions of this work are perhaps not so clear as might be desired, yet we do not see how his attitude in estimating concrete manifestations of art can be