ABSTRACT
Dissertatons in art criticism not infrequently assume on the part of the reader some acquaintance with the theory of value upon which the critic may be proceeding, and consistently, in the course of his evaluations. Worse than this superficiality and obscurity, however, is the confusion that results from critical comparisons that are based on a mixture of value theories. It is, of course, to utter a tautology to say, “only comparable values are comparable.”All complex senses of value “must in the end be reducible to simplest parts.” The conclusion that value is a characteristic, however, is supported by the premise that value is simple. Value could not be apprehended in part, as one might grasp a single constituent of a complex before going on to the apprehension of further constituents. Knowledge of value could be no developing process of thought; rather, it would be a state of mind, in which value would be apprehended.
