While it is the province of the actor’s art to simulate expression, it is in general the office of fine art to imitate and render the expressive by image, picture, musical notes, etc. The artist is the expresser and simulator _par excellence_, and complete and perfect expressiveness is his constant aim, though not for utility or amusement, but for the sake of awakening the æsthetic emotion. I cannot then agree with Bosanquet, who, as I understand, makes æsthetic feeling the emotion of expression, expression for expression’s sake. For expression by its very nature is such only as _expressive_, that is, as going beyond itself, as being a means, and not an end in itself, hence expression for expression’s sake is meaningless phrase. Expression, so far as it attempts to stand merely for itself, is an empty mannerism and a barren technique. Expression is only such as it is backed by the emotion expressed, as significant of some psychosis; and artistic expression or art is the expression of the artistic or æsthetic emotion, a peculiar feeling about things, as apple blossoms, a sunset, a child playing. This emotion is often awakened by cognizance of an expression, as an expression of joy or horror by a child, and may thus be an emotion of or at expression, as also in the case where it is roused by the skill in purposive expression of any kind, æsthetic or other, but expression is obviously not the only way of exciting the emotion, its object may be a mere patch of colour, a pure musical note, etc. Æsthetic emotion tends to manifest or express itself just like all emotions, and in attaining perfect expression it strengthens itself. Likewise language, as an instrument of thought, a logical expression, has strengthened thought, but a purely formal logic is as barren and void as a purely formal æsthetic. Language as expressive of thought and as expressive of æsthetic emotion is equally dependent upon what it expresses, and æsthetics is thus not peculiar in its relation to expression.