Then, it is by no means easy to persuade the artistically uneducated that there is any need for education. He thinks that the enjoyable aspects of art are fairly obvious and that there is no point in looking beyond the obvious unless he is seeking for some extra-artistic element--some intellectual or spiritual value. As he is only seeking enjoyment, why should he waste time looking for anything else? It must, therefore, be made quite clear to him that the chief aim of the educationist is to increase his pleasure in art and that there is no ulterior motive. Unfortunately the methods of many teachers (and here I include all publicists and would-be popularizers) are not such as to give this impression. Much teaching has been misguided. For example, for some obscure reason critics and teachers frequently fail to discriminate between the “absolute” and the “historical” value of the classics. They delight in praising work which has little claim to our interest other than its antiquity. They confront the bewildered seeker for enjoyable beauty with volumes of extracts from “The Great Writers”, collections of the Hundred Best Books, etc., than which nothing more ungodly, more dreary, uninspired, unworthy, and unbeautiful could possibly be found. They should know better, these people! Why will they do it? Almost as bad are those who go to the opposite extreme and hail with acclamation the newest, most unintelligible phantasies born of a craving for novelty. I am not exaggerating, though certainly the position is improving wonderfully. But, of the books written twenty years ago and earlier with the presumable intention of stimulating interest in literature and art, certainly half would have antagonized the ordinary man--had he bothered about them at all, which he didn’t. The critic may say that he is not concerned with improving the taste of the man in the street. Undoubtedly he has other tasks besides those of the popularizer; much of his work can appeal only to the artistically educated and it would be dangerous for him to devote an undue share of his energies to this work. Nevertheless, he should more often cast aside the highbrow attitude and any idea that the needs of the ordinary man are unworthy of his consideration. The example, in the realms of science, of such men as J. A. Thomson, Lankester, and others equally unlikely to devote their energies to any but a good cause, should help to dispel this illusion. We badly need writers who, without being namby-pamby, superior, or academic, can help the man with the germ of interest, writers who can point to the ascending steps in the ladder of taste. Theirs is not an easy task. In the first place, they must be _themselves_ interesting, for only a minority are willing to read books with an ulterior motive. The actual popularizing books must provide recreation and enjoyment as well as stimulation.