There is, of course, a bright side to the picture, and lest we be
accused of pessimism it will be well to discuss this now.
In the first place all forms of art, good, bad, and indifferent, have
benefited by mechanical means of reproduction. The actual numbers
of those who can experience the finest things in art have increased
manifold, and to that extent, the art-life of the world is better
off than before. My only contention is that _proportionately_ fewer
appreciate the best, though _actually_ more do so. My only intention
here is to point out the essentially _quantitative_ tendencies of
to-day, lest we should mistake them for something better. Quantity
alone is not everything, and, if we fail to realize these tendencies
and endeavour to counteract their undesirable features, the time will
come when the disproportion between those who seek the worthy and
those who do not will be very dangerous. Why this will be so I hope to
show in the next chapter.
To return to the bright side--Though quantity is not everything, it
_is_ something. It is better that people should appreciate the lowest
arts than that they should ignore them altogether. Provided, of course,
that any art is not definitely decadent and degenerate, it is better
than none. But even this aspect has its disadvantages. It might be
argued, not without reason, that it is more difficult to wean a person
from the poor thing he knows and has come to like than to introduce an
absolutely artistically-uneducated person to the moderately good. Of
that, however we shall speak later.
Thirdly, improved reproductive methods have enriched art by enabling
minorities to flourish.