Although, as I believe, this current interpretation of art is erroneous, I must admit that it gives satisfaction to most people. Moreover, if it is a mistake, it is a harmless one, at least in the sense that its consequences in no way affect moral life. But mental disorder is something bad in itself, so I felt a sort of urge to put my own ideas in order, first of all for myself, but also for the benefit of those others among my fellow men who may have an uneasy feeling on the subject. It would not be fair to conceal the fact that this book calls for the revision of a certain number of ideas. Even should most people concede as immediately evident the proposition that art is concerned with making, not with knowing, they would, nevertheless, proceed to assess works of art in terms of knowledge and intellection, as though the act of making them, that is to say, of causing them to be, was irrelevant to the philosophy of art as well as to esthetics.
Nobody is ever wholly wrong.
Moreover, it is impossible to describe a general situation without running the risk of neglecting innumerable exceptions or of overlooking shades of thought which it would be only fair to take into account. Still, I do not think I am betraying the real intentions of most of those who write about art, by saying that their chief concern is to turn it into something that can be talked about. In order to succeed, they have to interpret an act of production as if it were an act of expression and of communication. A single example will help to make this point clear. Everybody has heard of the famous portrait of Whistler's Mother.