It is only the most narrow forms, however, of naturalistically imitative art that are thus made superfluous by scientific inventions. Those artists whose aim is, not to attain the level of nature by servile imitation, but to rival it by idealisation, will always be able to point to their task of representing _essential_ qualities as one which remains for ever a prerogative of artistic production. But there are other signs which make us believe that even this form of intellectualistic purpose will gradually lose importance for creators as well as for spectators. The currents of thought which now prevail are scarcely such as to favour the continuance of professedly or covertly metaphysical doctrines of art. And even if philosophical opinion, which, after all, only has to do with the secondary justification of feelings and impulses, had remained unchanged ever since Hegel’s time, the changes which have taken place in the very personality of modern man could not but exercise an important influence on the production and estimation of art. The intellectualistic illusion that every artistic representation has something to teach us about the essential nature of the things represented, can only arise on condition of there being a certain agreement between the world-view of the artist and that of his public. It presupposes a certain uniformity in the intellectual make of the individual creators and spectators. This condition, however, is fulfilled less than ever in modern life. By the influence of the increasing division of labour, characters become more and more differentiated; and these different characters naturally develop different ways of looking at things. The deviations from actual nature which are to be met with in the work of an individual artist have therefore a poor chance of convincing each individual spectator that they are in conformity with essential reality, as he is apt to conceive it from his individual point of view. Instead of the “eternal truths” so often spoken of in earlier æsthetic literature, we now read about the “illusions particulières” of the several artists. This sceptical attitude would of course exclude all vivid æsthetic life if the motives of artistic production and enjoyment were such as intellectualistic authors declare them to be. It cannot be observed, however, that the changed conceptions of art-activity have exercised any influence on the practice of artists. The same eagerness with which works were created when they were thought to represent the essential nature of things is now displayed by those who are endeavouring to produce works which often do not even pretend to give more than their personal impressions. And the critical public has shown itself ready to adopt a corresponding attitude in estimating the value of artistic manifestations. It no longer lays the chief stress on the intellectualistic requirement that artistic representation should be true to nature.