But this imitation becomes a mere _aping_, if the scholar _copies_ everything down to the deformities, which the genius must have let pass only because he could not well remove them without weakening his Idea. This mental characteristic is meritorious only in the case of a genius. A certain _audacity_ in expression--and in general many a departure from common rules--becomes him well, but it is in no way worthy of imitation; it always remains a fault in itself which we must seek to remove, though the genius is as it were privileged to commit it, because the inimitable rush of his spirit would suffer from over-anxious carefulness. _Mannerism_ is another kind of aping, viz. of mere _peculiarity_ (originality) in general; by which a man separates himself as far as possible from imitators, without however possessing the talent to be at the same time _exemplary_.--There are indeed in general two ways (_modi_) in which such a man may put together his notions of expressing himself; the one is called a _manner_ (_modus aestheticus_), the other a _method_ (_modus logicus_). They differ in this, that the former has no other standard than the _feeling_ of unity in the presentment, but the latter follows definite _principles_; hence the former alone avails for beautiful art. But an artistic product is said to show _mannerism_ only when the exposition of the artist’s Idea is _founded_ on its very singularity, and is not made appropriate to the Idea itself. The ostentatious (_précieux_), contorted, and affected [manner, adopted] to differentiate oneself from ordinary persons (though devoid of spirit) is like the behaviour of a man of whom we say, that he hears himself talk, or who stands and moves about as if he were on a stage in order to be stared at; this always betrays a bungler. § 50. _Of the combination of Taste with Genius in the products of beautiful Art_ To ask whether it is more important for the things of beautiful art that Genius or Taste should be displayed, is the same as to ask whether in it more depends on Imagination or on Judgement. Now, since in respect of the first an art is rather said to be _full of spirit_, but only deserves to be called a _beautiful_ art on account of the second; this latter is at least, as its indispensable condition (_conditio sine qua non_), the most important thing to which one has to look in the judging of art as beautiful art. Abundance and originality of Ideas are less necessary to beauty than the accordance of the Imagination in its freedom with the conformity to law of the Understanding. For all the abundance of the former produces in lawless freedom nothing but nonsense; on the other hand, the Judgement is the faculty by which it is adjusted to the Understanding.