that throughout all the great periods of art-expression, artists have expressed the same things. In the canvases of the old masters a flow of solids manifests itself with depressing regularity. Time, one might think, would have lifted the soul of the artist out of solid space. But, as we know, the feverish desire to express a too solid world has not grown less till of recent years. It may be due to this deadlock that art criticism has seldom risen above mediocrity. How indeed could it reach the highest creative achievement of the critical mind if works of art lack the creative principle to be judged? The creative critic cannot possibly build his house of illumination without the essential fundamental materials. And these the artist must provide. He cannot illuminate the non-existent. And if there are no creative elements to work upon criticism is bound to fall and remain far below the creative standard. It will be uncertain and chaotic in its judgments. History says it is so, and not without proof. It shows us that the art judgment of one age has been sufficient to reverse the art judgment of a previous age. Yet Art itself does not change. If it is badly expressed at any time it is badly expressed for all time. Therefore the said fluctuating judgment has but one interpretation. It means that the judgment itself is at fault, and much of the art criticism to which art critics have given utterance is worthless. The reason is apparent. Art criticism is not based upon a fundamental principle. There is no established law of art criticism.