Thereisagratificationoftheartisticsenseinthecontemplationofskillfulwork。Butitisalsotobeaddedthatnosuchevidenceofskillfulworkmanship，orofingeniousandeffectiveadaptationofmeanstoanend，will，inthelongrun，enjoytheapprobationofthemoderncivilizedconsumerunlessithasthesanctionoftheCanonofconspicuouswaste。
　　Thepositionheretakenisenforcedinafelicitousmannerbytheplaceassignedintheeconomyofconsumptiontomachineproducts。Thepointofmaterialdifferencebetweenmachine-madegoodsandthehand-wroughtgoodswhichservethesamepurposesis，ordinarily，thattheformerservetheirprimarypurposemoreadequately。Theyareamoreperfectproduct——showamoreperfectadaptationofmeanstoend。Thisdoesnotsavethemfromdisesteemanddeprecation，fortheyfallshortunderthetestofhonorificwaste。Handlaborisamorewastefulmethodofproduction；hencethegoodsturnedoutbythismethodaremoreserviceableforthepurposeofpecuniaryreputability；hencethemarksofhandlaborcometobehonorific，andthegoodswhichexhibitthesemarkstakerankasofhighergradethanthecorrespondingmachineproduct。Commonly，ifnotinvariably，thehonorificmarksofhandlaborarecertainimperfectionsandirregularitiesinthelinesofthehand-wroughtarticle，showingwheretheworkmanhasfallenshortintheexecutionofthedesign。Thegroundofthesuperiorityofhand-wroughtgoods，therefore，isacertainmarginofcrudeness。Thismarginmustneverbesowideastoshowbunglingworkmanship，sincethatwouldbeevidenceoflowcost，norsonarrowastosuggesttheidealprecisionattainedonlybythemachine，forthatwouldbeevidenceoflowcost。
　　TheappreciationofthoseevidencesofhonorificcrUdenesstowhichhand-wroughtgoodsowetheirsuperiorworthandcharmintheeyesofwell-bredpeopleisamatterofnicediscrimination。
　　Itrequirestrainingandtheformationofrighthabitsofthoughtwithrespecttowhatmaybecalledthephysiognomyofgoods。
　　Machine-madegoodsofdailyuseareoftenadmiredandpreferredpreciselyonaccountoftheirexcessiveperfectionbythevulgarandtheunderbredwhohavenotgivenduethoughttothepunctiliosofelegantconsumption。Theceremonialinferiorityofmachineproductsgoestoshowthattheperfectionofskillandworkmanshipembodiedinanycostlyinnovationsinthefinishofgoodsisnotsufficientofitselftosecurethemacceptanceandpermanentfavor。Theinnovationmusthavethesupportofthecanonofconspicuouswaste。Anyfeatureinthephysiognomyofgoods，howeverpleasinginitself，andhoweverwellitmayapproveitselftothetasteforeffectivework，willnotbetoleratedifitprovesobnoxioustothisnormofpecuniaryreputability。
　　Theceremonialinferiorityoruncleannessinconsumablegoodsdueto“commonness，“orinotherwordstotheirslightcostofproduction，hasbeentakenveryseriouslybymanypersons。Theobjectiontomachineproductsisoftenformulatedasanobjectiontothecommonnessofsuchgoods。Whatiscommoniswithinthepecuniaryreachofmanypeople。Itsconsumptionisthereforenothonorific，sinceitdoesnotservethepurposeofafavorableinvidiouscomparisonwithotherconsumers。Hencetheconsumption，oreventhesightofsuchgoods，isinseparablefromanodioussuggestionofthelowerlevelsofhumanlife，andonecomesawayfromtheircontemplationwithapervadingsenseofmeannessthatisextremelydistastefulanddepressingtoapersonofsensibility。Inpersonswhosetastesassertthemselvesimperiously，andwhohavenotthegift，habit，orincentivetodiscriminatebetweenthegroundsoftheirvariousjudgmentsoftaste，thedeliverancesofthesenseofthehonorificcoalescewiththoseofthesenseofbeautyandofthesenseofserviceability——inthemanneralreadyspokenof；theresultingcompositevaluationservesasajudgmentoftheobject’sbeautyoritsserviceability，accordingasthevaluer’sbiasorinterestinclineshimtoapprehendtheobjectintheoneortheotheroftheseaspects。Itfollowsnotinfrequentlythatthemarksofcheapnessorcommonnessareacceptedasdefinitivemarksofartisticunfitness，andacodeorscheduleofaestheticproprietiesontheonehand，andofaestheticabominationsOntheother，isconstructedonthisbasisforguidanceinquestionsoftaste。
　　Ashasalreadybeenpointedout，thecheap，andthereforeindecorous，articlesofdailyconsumptioninmodernindustrialcommunitiesarecommonlymachineproducts；andthegenericfeatureofthephysiognomyofmachine-madegoodsascomparedwiththehand-wroughtarticleistheirgreaterperfectioninworkmanshipandgreateraccuracyinthedetailexecutionofthedesign。Henceitcomesaboutthatthevisibleimperfectionsofthehand-wroughtgoods，beinghonorific，areaccountedmarksofsuperiorityinpointofbeauty，Orserviceability，orboth。Hencehasarisenthatexaltationofthedefective，ofwhichJohnRuskinandWilliamMorrisweresucheagerspokesmenintheirtime；andonthisgroundtheirpropagandaofcrudityandwastedefforthasbeentakenupandcarriedforwardsincetheirtime。Andhencealsothepropagandaforareturntohandicraftandhouseholdindustry。Somuchoftheworkandspeculationsofthisgroupofmenasfairlycomesunderthecharacterizationheregivenwouldhavebeenimpossibleatatimewhenthevisiblymoreperfectgoodswerenotthecheaper。
　　Itisofcourseonlyastotheeconomicvalueofthisschoolofaestheticteachingthatanythingisintendedtobesaidorcanbesaidhere。Whatissaidisnottobetakeninthesenseofdepreciation，butchieflyasacharacterizationofthetendencyofthisteachinginitseffectonconsumptionandontheproductionofconsumablegoods。
　　ThemannerinwhichthebiasofthisgrowthoftastehasworkeditselfoutinproductionisperhapsmostcogentlyexemplifiedinthebookmanufacturewithwhichMorrisbusiedhimselfduringthelateryearsofhislife；butwhatholdstrueoftheworkoftheKelmscottPressinaneminentdegree，holdstruewithbutslightlyabatedforcewhenappliedtolatter-dayartisticbook-makinggenerally——astotype，paper，illustration，bindingmaterials，andbinder’swork。Theclaimstoexcellenceputforwardbythelaterproductsofthebookmaker’sindustryrestinsomemeasureonthedegreeofitsapproximationtothecruditiesofthetimewhentheworkofbook-makingwasadoubtfulstrugglewithrefractorymaterialscarriedonbymeansofinsufficientappliances。Theseproducts，sincetheyrequirehandlabor，aremoreexpensive；theyarealsolessconvenientforusethanthebooksturnedoutwithaviewtoserviceabilityalone；theythereforeargueabilityonthepartofthepurchasertoconsumefreely，aswellasabilitytowastetimeandeffort。
　　Itisonthisbasisthattheprintersoftodayarereturningto“old-style，“andothermoreorlessobsoletestylesoftypewhicharelesslegibleandgiveacruderappearancetothepagethanthe“modern。“Evenascientificperiodical，withostensiblynopurposebutthemosteffectivepresentationofmatterwithwhichitsscienceisconcerned，willconcedesomuchtothedemandsofthispecuniarybeautyastopublishitsscientificdiscussionsinoldstyletype，onlaidpaper，andwithuncutedges。Butbookswhicharenotostensiblyconcernedwiththeeffectivepresentationoftheircontentsalone，ofcoursegofartherinthisdirection。Herewehaveasomewhatcrudertype，printedonhand-laid，deckel-edgedpaper，withexcessivemarginsanduncutleaves，withbindingsofapainstakingcrudenessandelaborateineptitude。TheKelmscottPressreducedthemattertoanabsurdity——asseenfromthepointofviewofbruteserviceabilityalone——byissuingbooksformodernuse，editedwiththeobsoletespelling，printedinblack-letter，andboundinlimpvellumfittedwiththongs。Asafurthercharacteristicfeaturewhichfixestheeconomicplaceofartisticbook-making，thereisthefactthatthesemoreelegantbooksare，attheirbest，printedinlimitededitions。Alimitededitionisineffectaguarantee——somewhatcrude，itistrue——thatthisbookisscarceandthatitthereforeiscostlyandlendspecuniarydistinctiontoitsconsumer。
　　Thespecialattractivenessofthesebook-productstothebook-buyerofcultivatedtastelies，ofcourse，notinaconscious，naiverecognitionoftheircostlinessandsuperiorclumsiness。Here，asintheparallelcaseofthesuperiorityofhand-wroughtarticlesovermachineproducts，theconsciousgroundofpreferenceisanintrinsicexcellenceimputedtothecostlierandmoreawkwardarticle。Thesuperiorexcellenceimputedtothebookwhichimitatestheproductsofantiqueandobsoleteprocessesisconceivedtobechieflyasuperiorutilityintheaestheticrespect；butitisnotunusualtofindawell-bredbook-loverinsistingthattheclumsierproductisalsomoreserviceableasavehicleofprintedspeech。Sofarasregardsthesuperioraestheticvalueofthedecadentbook，thechancesarethatthebook-lover’scontentionhassomeground。Thebookisdesignedwithaneyesingletoitsbeauty，andtheresultiscommonlysomemeasureofsuccessonthepartofthedesigner。
　　Whatisinsistedonhere，however，isthatthecanonoftasteunderwhichthedesignerworksisacanonformedunderthesurveillanceofthelawofconspicuouswaste，andthatthislawactsselectivelytoeliminateanycanonoftastethatdoesnotconformtoitsdemands。Thatistosay，whilethedecadentbookmaybebeautiful，thelimitswithinwhichthedesignermayworkarefixedbyrequirementsofanon-aesthetickind。Theproduct，ifitisbeautiful，mustalsoatthesametimebecostlyandilladaptedtoitsostensibleuse。Thismandatorycanonoftasteinthecaseofthebook-designer，however，isnotshapedentirelybythelawofwasteinitsfirstform；thecanonistosomeextentshapedinconformitytothatsecondaryexpressionofthepredatorytemperament，venerationforthearchaicorobsolete，whichinoneofitsspecialdevelopmentsiscalledclassicism。
　　Inaesthetictheoryitmightbeextremelydifficult，ifnotquiteimpracticable，todrawalinebetweenthecanonofclassicism，orregardforthearchaic，andthecanonofbeauty，Fortheaestheticpurposesuchadistinctionneedscarcelybedrawn，andindeeditneednotexist。Foratheoryoftastetheexpressionofanacceptedidealofarchaism，onwhateverbasisitmayhavebeenaccepted，isperhapsbestratedasanelementofbeauty；thereneedbenoquestionofitslegitimation。Butforthepresentpurpose——forthepurposeofdeterminingwhateconomicgroundsarepresentintheacceptedcanonsoftasteandwhatistheirsignificanceforthedistributionandconsumptionofgoods——thedistinctionisnotsimilarlybesidethepoint。
　　Thepositionofmachineproductsinthecivilizedschemeofconsumptionservestopointoutthenatureoftherelationwhichsubsistsbetweenthecanonofconspicuouswasteandthecodeofproprietiesinconsumption。Neitherinmattersofartandtasteproper，norasregardsthecurrentsenseoftheserviceabilityofgoods，doesthiscanonactasaprincipleofinnovationorinitiative。Itdoesnotgointothefutureasacreativeprinciplewhichmakesinnovationsandaddsnewitemsofconsumptionandnewelementsofcost。Theprincipleinquestionis，inacertainsense，anegativeratherthanapositivelaw。Itisaregulativeratherthanacreativeprinciple。Itveryrarelyinitiatesororiginatesanyusageorcustomdirectly。Itsactionisselectiveonly。Conspicuouswastefulnessdoesnotdirectlyaffordgroundforvariationandgrowth，butconformitytoitsrequirementsisaconditiontothesurvivalofsuchinnovationsasmaybemadeonothergrounds。Inwhateverwayusagesandcustomsandmethodsofexpenditurearise，theyareallsubjecttotheselectiveactionofthisnormofreputability；andthedegreeinwhichtheyconformtoitsrequirementsisatestoftheirfitnesstosurviveinthecompetitionwithothersimilarusagesandcustoms。Otherthingbeingequal，themoreobviouslywastefulusageormethodstandsthebetterchanceofsurvivalunderthislaw。Thelawofconspicuouswastedoesnotaccountfortheoriginofvariations，butonlyforthepersistenceofsuchformsasarefittosurviveunderitsdominance。Itactstoconservethefit，nottooriginatetheacceptable。Itsofficeistoproveallthingsandtoholdfastthatwhichisgoodforitspurpose。
　　ChapterSevenDressasanExpressionofthePecuniaryCultureItwillinplace，bywayofillustration，toshowinsomedetailhowtheeconomicprinciplessofarsetforthapplytoeverydayfactsinsomeonedirectionofthelifeprocess。Forthispurposenolineofconsumptionaffordsamoreaptillustrationthanexpenditureondress。Itisespeciallytheruleoftheconspicuouswasteofgoodsthatfindsexpressionindress，althoughtheother，relatedprinciplesofpecuniaryreputearealsoexemplifiedinthesamecontrivances。Othermethodsofputtingone’specuniarystandinginevidenceservetheirendeffectually，andothermethodsareinvoguealwaysandeverywhere；butexpenditureondresshasthisadvantageovermostothermethods，thatourapparelisalwaysinevidenceandaffordsanindicationofourpecuniarystandingtoallobserversatthefirstglance。Itisalsotruethatadmittedexpenditurefordisplayismoreobviouslypresent，andis，perhaps，moreuniversallypracticedinthematterofdressthaninanyotherlineofconsumption。Noonefindsdifficultyinassentingtothecommonplacethatthegreaterpartoftheexpenditureincurredbyallclassesforapparelisincurredforthesakeofarespectableappearanceratherthanfortheprotectionoftheperson。Andprobablyatnootherpointisthesenseofshabbinesssokeenlyfeltasitisifwefallshortofthestandardsetbysocialusageinthismatterofdress。Itistrueofdressinevenahigherdegreethanofmostotheritemsofconsumption，thatpeoplewillundergoaveryconsiderabledegreeofprivationinthecomfortsortheneCessariesoflifeinordertoaffordwhatisconsideredadecentamountofwastefulconsumption；sothatitisbynomeansanuncommonoccurrence，inaninclementclimate，forpeopletogoillcladinordertoappearwelldressed。Andthecommercialvalueofthegoodsusedforclottinginanymoderncommunityismadeuptoamuchlargerextentofthefashionableness，thereputabilityofthegoodsthanofthemechanicalservicewhichtheyrenderinclothingthepersonofthewearer。Theneedofdressiseminentlya“higher“orspiritualneed。