It is to him the essential basis upon which he builds. Unless the work of art affects his feelings, he has nothing to think about; he can go no further; the work, to him, is not a work of art at all. But if he is aroused and charmed by it, if his emotional nature is stirred to its depths, and he feels inspired by those spiritual intimations of Eternity which true art always excites, then he has a content to work upon, and this thinking of his, amounts simply to a recognition in other forms, of this eternal element, that glows through the work of art. Hence there is no collision between the artist and the critic, if both are true to their ideal. It certainly is no injury to the work of art to show that it treats in some form the Problem of Life, which is the mystery of the Christian religion. It is no derogation to Beethoven to show how he has solved a problem in music, just as Shakspeare in poetry, and Michael Angelo in painting. Those who are content with the mere feeling, we must always respect if they really have the true art feeling, just as we respect the simple piety of the uneducated peasant. But we must not therefore underrate the conscious seizing of the same thing,—not place St. Augustine or Martin Luther below the simple-minded peasant. Moreover, as our society has for its aim the attainment of an insight into art _in general_, and not the exclusive enjoyment of any particular art, it is all the more important that we should hold by the only connecting link—the only universal element—_thought_. For thought has not only universal _content_, like feeling, but also universal _form_, which feeling has not. Another reason that causes persons to object to art interpretation, is perhaps that such interpretation reminds them of the inevitable moral appended _ad nauseam_ to the stories that delighted our childhood. But it must be remembered that these morals are put forward as the _object_ of the stories. The art critic can never admit for one moment that it is the object of a work of art simply to be didactic. It is true that all art is a means of culture; but that is not its object. Its object is to combine the idea with a sensuous form, so as to embody, as it were, the Infinite; and any motive external to the work of art itself, is at once felt to be destructive to it. II. Upon the Interpretation of Art. 1. The Infinite is not manifested _within_ any particular sphere of finitude, but rather exhibits itself in the collision of a Finite with another Finite _without_ it. For a Finite must by its very nature be limited from without, and the Infinite, therefore, not only includes any given finite sphere, but also its negation (or the other spheres which joined to it make up the whole). 2. “Art is the manifestation of the Infinite in the Finite,” it is said. Therefore, this must mean that art has for its province the treatment of the collisions that necessarily arise between one finite sphere and another.