of the picture consist in that? Does it not attach to the representation
of the concrete, individual pond? I do not mean that there may not be
beauty in the expression of universals; in fact, I have explicitly
maintained that there may, under certain conditions; I am simply
insisting that beauty may belong to expressions of the individual also,
and that you cannot reduce these to mere illustrations of universal
ideas. Because of its completeness and internal harmony, the philosopher
may find the simplest melody a revelation of the Absolute; but even
if it were, its beauty would still pertain to it primarily as a
revelation of the individual experience which it embodies. Again, by
reason of the freedom from the particular conditions out of which it
arises acquired by a work of art, its individual meaning easily becomes
typical, so that it often serves as a universal under which individuals
similar to those represented are subsumed--as when we speak of "a
Faust" or "a Hamlet"; nevertheless, the adequate expression of the
individual is at once the basis of its beauty and of its extended,
universalized significance. It is when works of art are profoundly
individual that we generalize their meaning. In art the individual
never sinks to the position of a mere specimen or example of a universal
law. The intellectualistic theory is partly true of symbolic art, but
not wholly, for even there, the individuality of the symbol counts.
And yet, as we shall see, there is another meaning of artistic truth,
which is legitimate.

Aesthetic value, therefore, is not alone sensuous value or ethical or
scientific or philosophical value. A work of art may contain one or
all of these values; but they do not constitute its unique value as
art. The foregoing attempts to define the value of art fail because
they renounce the idea of unique value, substituting goodness, sensuous
pleasure, or truth-values found outside of art. But the intrinsic value