There are two ways in which art may be studied—the æsthetic and the
scientific.
The former deals with all manifestations of art from a purely
subjective point of view, and classifies objects according to certain
so-called “canons of art.” These may be the generally recognised rules
of the country or race to which the critic belongs, and may even have
the sanction of antiquity, or they may be due to the idiosyncrasy of
the would-be mentor.
In criticising the art of another country it must be remembered that
racial tendencies may give such a bias as to render it very difficult
to treat foreign art sympathetically. Western Europe and Japan are
cases in point. Dogmatism in æsthetics is absurd, for, after all, the
æsthetic sense is largely based upon personal likes and dislikes, and
it is difficult to see what sure ground there can be which would be
common to the majority of people.
The æsthetic study of art may very well be left to professional art
critics.
We will now turn to a more promising field of inquiry, and see what can
be gained from a scientific treatment of art. This naturally falls into
two categories, the physical and the biological.
I am not aware that much has been done towards establishing a physical
basis for art. The pleasurable sensations which line, form, and colour
may give rise to are doubtless analogous to those caused by musical
sounds, but with this difference, that the latter are caused by the
orderly sequence of particular vibrations, whereas the vibrations of
the former are synchronous. It is possible that not only must the
character of these vibrations be taken into account, but that the
structure of the human eye and personal equation must be allowed for in
an analysis of the pleasurable sensations caused by any work of art.
These remarks necessarily refer only to the forms of things; their
meaning and the sensations thereby evoked belong to the domain of
psychology.