but the fruit of the Critique of Judgement is essentially a philosophic
fruit, necessary to the systematic exposition of a way of thought,
and not in the strictest sense a contribution to the study of art. By
and large, it is undeniable that aestheticians fall into two classes:
those with a highly developed critical apparatus but little or no
direct knowledge of the material they are concerned with, and those
(common in all ages) who have an extensive acquaintance with
artistic activity in one form or another but little or no equipment
for ordering and utilizing their experience. Into the first class falls
the bulk of the professional philosophers; into the second the large
majority of writers, critics, and so forth. Instances of those who
combine both qualifications are few and far between.

It would seem from the way in which we have defined aesthetics
that the second class of investigators could serve no useful purpose
at all; but this is not true. If aesthetic means inquiring what art is,
rather than what it might be, a historical factor enters for us on the
scene. No one living since the eighteenth century will deny that art
changes, even if only superficially (and not necessarily 'for the
better'), from generation to generation, ¹ and since the growth of
anthropology at least, that it has from age to age changed very
radically indeed, not only as regards media but also as regards inten-
tions. This implies that not only must aesthetics be treated as an
historical field of study but also that any aesthetic doctrine which is
not purely a display of academic virtuosity must pay serious attention
to the detail of such contemporary art as surrounds the aesthetician
at the time of his writing. This requirement was much obscured in
the past by the traditions of hellenic and latinist studies; ² now that
the ancients no longer exercise so despotic a rule over the world of
art, it becomes self-evident. And it implies that the artist-critic, or
even the critic pure and simple, spending his life in close contact with
artists and presumably aware of their aims and intentions, is not a
parasite living off dust-jacket 'blurbs' and the credulity of a bewil-
dered public, but a man who, not entitled to the last word on the art
of his times, is in certain circumstances entitled to the first. It becomes
the task of the aesthetician, studying art in various media and the
intentions of artists as professed elsewhere by themselves and their

-4-