of æsthetic accomplishment and appreciation in the past, and how dependent these steps have been upon economic conditions. This, on the one hand, arouses in us a demand for a fuller study of the relations of the artistic to the other activities of men; and, on the other hand, is a source of encouragement to critic and artist alike, each of whom in every age is apt to over-emphasize the artistic failures of his time, and to minimize the importance of its artistic accomplishment.
This genetic study has a further value in the guidance of our critical judgment, in that it shows us that the artistic tendencies of our time are but steps in what is a continuous process of development. It shows us arts which have differentiated in the past, and teaches us to look for further differentiations of the arts in the future, thus leading us to critical conclusions of no little importance. This consideration seems to me to be of sufficient interest to warrant our dwelling upon it a little at length. The arts of greatest importance in our time may well be divided into the arts of hearing (e.g., literature, poetry, music) and the arts of sight (e. g., architecture, sculpture, painting, and the graphic arts). These diverse groups of arts were differentiated long before any age of which we have a shadow of record. But many animals display what seem to be rudimentary art instincts, in which rhythmical movement (which is to be classed as an art of sight), and tonal accompaniment are invariably combined, as they are also in the dance and song of the savage; and this fact would seem to indicate that, in the earliest times of man's rise from savagery, the differentiation between the arts of sight and the arts of hearing was at least very incomplete.
But, leaving such surmises, we may consider the arts of sight and the arts of hearing in themselves. We see them still in a measure bound together; for many an artist, for instance, devotes his life to the making of paintings which 'tell a story,' and many a poet to the production of 'word pictures.'
In general, however, it may be said that the arts of hearing and the arts of sight express themselves in totally different languages, so to speak, and they have thus differentiated because each can give a special form of æsthetic delight.
