The valuation of works of art is necessarily correct when all three conditions are taken into account; and inevitably incorrect when works are valued not on the basis of all three conditions but only of one or two of them.

And yet such valuation of works of art on the basis of only one of the three conditions is a particularly prevalent error in our time, lowering the general level of what is demanded from art to what can be reached by a mere imitation of it, and confusing the minds of critics, and of the public, and of artists themselves, as to what is really art and as to where its boundary lies--the line that divides it from craftsmanship and from mere amusement.

This confusion arises from the fact that people who lack the capacity to understand true art judge of works of art from one side only, and according to their own characters and training observe in them the first, the second, or the third side only, imagining and assuming that this one side perceptible to them--and the significance of art based on this one condition--defines the whole of art. Some see only the importance of the content, others only the beauty of form, and others again only the artist’s sincerity and therefore truthfulness. And according to what they see, they define the nature of art itself, construct their theories, and praise and encourage those who, like themselves, not understanding wherein a work of art consists, turn them out like pancakes and inundate our world with foul floods of all kinds of follies and abominations, which they call “works of art.”

Such are the majority of people and, as representatives of that majority, such were the originators of the three esthetic theories already alluded to, which meet the perceptions and demands of that majority.

All these theories are based on a misunderstanding of the whole importance of art, and on severing its three fundamental conditions; and therefore these three false theories of art clash, as a result of the fact that real art has three fundamental conditions, of which each of those theories accepts but one.

The first theory, of so-called “tendencious” art, accepts as a work of art one that has for its subject something which, though it be not new, is important to all men by its moral content, independently of its beauty and spiritual depth.

The second (“art for art’s sake”) recognizes as a work of art only that which has beauty of form, independently of its novelty, the importance of its content, or its sincerity.

The third theory, the “realistic,” recognizes as a work of art only that in which the author is sincerely related to his subject and which is therefore truthful. The last theory says that however insignificant or even nasty may be the content, with a more or less beautiful form, the work will be good if the author’s relation to what he depicts is sincere and therefore truthful.