ese proportions
we know by admeasurement, whatsoever hath these is 'High Art,'
whatsoever hath not, is 'Low Art.'" This was as certain as the fact
that the sun is a globe of glowing charcoal, because forsooth
they both yield light and heat. Now if the phantom of a then
embryon-electrician had arisen and told them that their "high art
marbles possessed an electric influence, which, acting in the
brain of the observer, would awake in him emotions of so exalted
a character, that he forthwith, inevitably nodding at them,
must utter the tremendous syllables 'High Art;'" he, the then
embryon-electrician, from that age withheld to bless and irradiate
the physiology of ours, would have done something more to the purpose
than all the critics and the compasses.

Thus then we see, that the antique, however successfully it may have
wrought, is not our model; for, according to that faith demanded at
setting out, fine art delights us from its being the semblance of
what in nature delights. Now, as the artist does not work by the
instrumentality of rule and science, but mainly by an instinctive
impulse; if he copy the antique, unable as he is to segregate the
merely delectable matter, he must needs copy the whole, and thereby
multiply models, which the casting-man can do equally well; whereas
if he copy nature, with a like inability to distinguish that
delectable attribute which allures him to copy her, and under the
same necessity of copying the whole, to make sure of this "tenant of
nowhere;" we then have the artist, the instructed of nature,
fulfilling his natural capacity, while his works we have as manifold
yet various as nature's own thoughts for her children.

But reverting to the subject, it was stated at the beginning that
'Fine Art' delights, by presenting us with objects, which in nature
delight us; and 'High Art' was defined, that which addresses the
intellect; and hence it might appear, as delight is an emotion of the
mind, that 'Low Art,' which addresses the senses, is not Fine Art at
all. But then it must be remembered, that it was neither stated of
'Fine Art,' nor of 'High Art,' that it always delights; and again,
that delight is not entirely mental. To point out the confines of
high and low art, where the one terminates and the other commences,
would be difficult, if not impracticable without sub-defining or
circumscribing the import of the terms, pain, pleasure, delight,
sensory, mental, psychical, intellectual, o