Art and Science ivisions A cloud of perplexity， raised by indistinct and erroneous conceptions， seems at all times to have been hanging over the import of the terms art and science.The common supposition seems to have been， that in the whole field of thought and action ， a determinate number of existing compartments are assignable， marked out all round， and distinguished from one another by so many sets of natural and determinate boundary lines： that of these compartments some are filled， each by an art ， without any mixture of science； others by a science ， without any mixture of art； and others， again， are so constituted， that， as it has never happened to them hitherto， so neither can it ever happen to them in future， to contain in them any thing either of art or science.
This supposition will， it is believed， be found in every part erroneous： as between art and science ， in the whole field of thought and action ， no one spot will be found belonging to either to the exclusion of the other.In whatsoever spot a portion of either is found， a portion of the other may be also seen； whatsoever spot is occupied by either， is occupied by both梚s occupied by them in joint tenancy.Whatsoever spot is thus occupied， is so much taken out of the waste； and there is not any determinate part of the whole waste which is not liable to be thus occupied.
Practice ， in proportion as attention and exertion are regarded as necessary to due performance ， is termed art.Knowledge， in proportion as attention and exertion are regarded as necessary to attainment， is termed science.
In the very nature of the case， they will be found so combined as to be inseparable.Man cannot do anything well， but in proportion as he knows how to do it： he cannot， in consequence of attention and exertion ， know anything but in proportion as he has practised the art of learning it.Correspondent therefore， to every art ， there is at least one branch of science ； correspondent to every branch of science ， there is at least one branch of art.
There is no determinate line of distinction between art on the one hand， and science on the other； no determinate line of distinction between art and science on the one hand， and unartificial practice and unscientific knowledge on the other.In proportion as that which is seen to be done ， is more conspicuous than that which is seen or supposed to be known ，梩hat which has place is apt to be considered as the work of art： in proportion as that which is seen or supposed to be known ， is more conspicuous than anything else that is seen to be done ，梩hat which has place is apt to be set down to the account of science.Day by day， acting in conjunction， art and science are gaining upon the above-mentioned waste梩he field of unartificial practice and unscientific knowledge.Taken collectively， and considered in their connexion with the happiness of society， the arts and sciences may be arranged in two divisions viz.？.Those of amusement and curiosity； 2.Those of utility， immediate and remote.These two branches of human knowledge re quire different methods of treatment on the part of governments.
By arts and sciences of amusement， I mean those which are ordinarily called the fine arts ； such as music， poetry， painting， sculpture， architecture， ornamental gardening， &；c.&；c.
Their complete enumeration must be excused： it would lead us too far from our present subject， were we to plunge into the metaphysical discussions necessary for its accomplishment.Amusements of all sorts would be comprised under this head.
Custom has in a manner compelled us to make the distinction between the arts and sciences of amusement， and those of curiosity.
It is not， however， proper to regard the former as destitute of utility：
on the contrary， there is nothing， the utility of which is more incontestable.
To what shall the character of utility be ascribed， if not to that which is a source of pleasure？ All that can be alleged in diminution of their utility is， that it is limited to the excitement of pleasure： they cannot disperse the clouds of grief or of misfortune.They are useless to those who are not pleased with them： they are useful only to those who take pleasure in them， and only in proportion as they are pleased.
By arts and sciences of curiosity， I mean those which in truth are pleasing， but not in the same degree as the fine arts， and to which at the first glance we might be tempted to refuse this quality.
It is not that these arts and sciences of curiosity do not yield as much pleasure to those who cultivate them as the fine arts； but the number of those who study them is more limited.Of this nature are the sciences of heraldry， of medals， of pure chronology梩he knowledge of ancient and barbarous languages， which present only collections of strange words，梐nd the study of antiquities， inasmuch as they furnish no instruction applicable to morality， or any other branch of useful or agreeable knowledge.
The utility of all these arts and sciences，桰 speak both of those of amusement and curiosity，梩he value which they possess， is exactly in proportion to the pleasure they yield.Every other species of preeminence which may be attempted to be established among them is altogether fanciful.Prejudice apart， the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.If the game of push-pin furnish more pleasure， it is more valuable than either.Everybody can play at push-pin：
