Beautiful as such; and still more is this the case if we can require that others should take an interest in it too. This happens as a matter of fact when we regard as coarse and ignoble the mental attitude of those persons who have no _feeling_ for beautiful Nature (for thus we describe a susceptibility to interest in its contemplation), and who confine themselves to eating and drinking--to the mere enjoyments of sense. § 43. _Of Art in general_ (1). _Art_ is distinguished from Nature, as doing (_facere_) is distinguished from acting or working generally (_agere_), and as the product or result of the former is distinguished as _work_ (_opus_) from the working (_effectus_) of the latter. By right we ought only to describe as Art, production through freedom, _i.e._ through a will that places Reason at the basis of its actions. For although we like to call the product of bees (regularly built cells of wax) a work of art, this is only by way of analogy: as soon as we feel that this work of theirs is based on no proper rational deliberation, we say that it is a product of Nature (of instinct), and as Art only ascribe it to their Creator. If, as sometimes happens, in searching through a bog we come upon a bit of shaped wood, we do not say: this is a product of Nature, but, of Art. Its producing cause has conceived a purpose to which the bit of wood owes its form. Elsewhere too we should see art in everything which is made so that a representation of it in its cause must have preceded its actuality (as even in the case of the bees), though the effect could not have been _thought_ by the cause. But if we call anything absolutely a work of art in order to distinguish it from a natural effect, we always understand by that a work of man. (2). _Art_ regarded as human skill differs from _science_ (as _can_ from _know_) as a practical faculty does from a theoretical, as Technic does from Theory (as mensuration from geometry). And so what we _can_ do, as soon as we merely _know_ what ought to be done and therefore are sufficiently cognisant of the desired effect, is not called Art. Only that which a man, even if he knows it completely, may not therefore have the skill to accomplish, belongs to Art. _Camper_[75] describes very exactly how the best shoes must be made, but he certainly could not make one.[76]