I think it may safely be said that in no case does this mood manifest itself to the persons to whom it is addressed, although by a process of auto-hypnotism, a certain few no doubt succeed in making themselves believe that they penetrate the real inwardness of these arbitrarily individual mental processes. Granted that these very discerning ones do respond to the real intention of these abstractions it cannot be denied that this work is the most circumscribed in its appeal of anything so far produced in the name of art and, until its working premise is made clearer, its influence must be correspondingly limited. At present it appears to me to be a too purely personal equation to be intelligible to others than the artist himself and therefore, generally speaking, it can not be regarded as art, whatever else it may be. For that that communicates nothing expresses nothing and as the office of art is first and last expression this new form is as yet outside of the domain of art. But that makes the attitude of the _observer_ the test whether a given product is or is not art, while the true test is the attitude of the _producer_. Whether a given work is or is not art is _determined_ and _forever fixed_ at the time of its production. If art to him who creates it, it is art to all humanity for all time; neither a man’s neighbors nor future generations can deprive it of its character. * * * * * Quite a good many years ago I made the attempt, in lecture and book form, to define art.[40] What is Art? The question is as old as man himself, for we have no records of men without some manifestation of the art impulse.... Man is the _combination_ of _thought_ and _symbol_; thought striving to express itself, and symbol, the means whereby it achieves that end. The symbol may be sound, word, or song; or it may be line, form, or structure; it matters not. A cry is the language of the child; speech is the every-day utterance of the man; the heart of the singer bursts forth in song; the musician speaks in harmonies, the painter in line and color, the sculptor in form, the architect in structure, the poet in rhyme and rhythm--and each is silent save in his own way.... Now what is the distinction between _thought_ expression which _is art_ and _thought_ expression which is _not art_? In its broadest significance, and in its very essence, _art is delight in thought and symbol_. Mark the union--art is delight in _both_ the thought _and_ the symbol. Without the double delight--the combination of these two quite distinct delights, there can be no art.