Theunderlyingnormsoftasteareofveryancientgrowth，probablyfarantedatingtheadventofthepecuniaryinstitutionsthatarehereunderdiscussion。Consequently，byforceofthepastselectiveadaptationofmen’shabitsofthought，ithappensthattherequirementsofbeauty，simply，areforthemostpartbestsatisfiedbyinexpensivecontrivancesandstructureswhichinastraightforwardmannersuggestboththeofficewhichtheyaretoperformandthemethodofservingtheirend，Itmaybeinplacetorecallthemodernpsychologicalposition。Beautyofformseemstobeaquestionoffacilityofapperception。Thepropositioncouldperhapssafelybemadebroaderthanthis。Ifabstractionismadefromassociation，suggestion，and“expression，“classedaselementsofbeauty，thenbeautyinanyperceivedobjectmeansthatthemidreadilyunfoldsitsapperceptiveactivityinthedirectionswhichtheobjectinquestionaffords。Butthedirectionsinwhichactivityreadilyunfoldsorexpressesitselfarethedirectionstowhichlongandclosehabituationbasmadethemindprone。Sofarasconcernstheessentialelementsofbeauty，thishabituationisanhabituationsocloseandlongastohaveinducednotonlyaproclivitytotheapperceptiveforminquestion，butanadaptationofphysiologicalstructureandfunctionaswell。Sofarastheeconomicinterestentersintotheconstitutionofbeauty，itentersasasuggestionorexpressionofadequacytoapurpose，amanifestandreadilyinferablesubserviencetothelifeprocess。Thisexpressionofeconomicfacilityoreconomicserviceabilityinanyobject——
　　whatmaybecalledtheeconomicbeautyoftheobject-isbestsewedbyneatandunambiguoussuggestionofitsofficeanditsefficiencyforthematerialendsoflife。
　　Onthisground，amongobjectsofusethesimpleandunadornedarticleisaestheticallythebest。Butsincethepecuniarycanonofreputabilityrejectstheinexpensiveinarticlesappropriatedtoindividualconsumption，thesatisfactionofourcravingforbeautifulthingsmustbesoughtbywayofcompromise。Thecanonsofbeautymustbecircumventedbysomecontrivancewhichwillgiveevidenceofareputablywastefulexpenditure，atthesametimethatitmeetsthedemandsofourcriticalsenseoftheusefulandthebeautiful，oratleastmeetsthedemandofsomehabitwhichhascometododutyinplaceofthatsense。Suchanauxiliarysenseoftasteisthesenseofnovelty；andthislatterishelpedoutinitssurrogateshipbythecuriositywithwhichmenviewingeniousandpuzzlingcontrivances。Henceitcomesthatmostobjectsallegedtobebeautiful，anddoingdutyassuch，showconsiderableingenuityofdesignandarecalculatedtopuzzlethebeholder——tobewilderhimwithirrelevantsuggestionsandhintsoftheimprobable——atthesametimethattheygiveevidenceofanexpenditureoflaborinexcessofwhatwouldgivethemtheirfullestefficencyfortheirostensibleeconomicend。
　　Thismaybeshownbyanillustrationtakenfromoutsidetherangeofoureverydayhabitsandeverydaycontact，andsooutsidetherangeofourbias。SucharetheremarkablefeathermantlesofHawaii，orthewell-knowncawedhandlesoftheceremonialadzesofseveralPolynesianislands，Theseareundeniablybeautiful，bothinthesensethattheyofferapleasingcompositionofform，lines，andcolor，andinthesensethattheyevincegreatskillandingenuityindesignandconstruction。Atthesametimethearticlesaremanifestlyillfittedtoserveanyothereconomicpurpose。Butitisnotalwaysthattheevolutionofingeniousandpuzzlingcontrivancesundertheguidanceofthecanonofwastedeffortworksoutsohappyaresult。Theresultisquiteasoftenavirtuallycompletesuppressionofallelementsthatwouldbearscrutinyasexpressionsofbeauty，orofserviceability，andthesubstitutionofevidencesofmisspentingenuityandlabor，backedbyaconspicuousineptitude；untilmanyoftheobjectswithwhichwesurroundourselvesineverydaylife，andevenmanyarticlesofeverydaydressandornament，aresuchaswouldnotbetoleratedexceptunderthestressofprescriptivetradition。Illustrationsofthissubstitutionofingenuityandexpenseinplaceofbeautyandserviceabilityaretobeseen，forinstance，indomesticarchitecture，indomesticartorfancywork，invariousarticlesofapparel，especiallyoffeminineandpriestlyapparel。
　　Thecanonofbeautyrequiresexpressionofthegeneric。The“novelty“duetothedemandsofconspicuouswastetraversesthiscanonofbeauty，inthatitresultsinmakingthephysiognomyofourobjectsoftasteacongeriesofidiosyncrasies；andtheidiosyncrasiesare，moreover，undertheselectivesurveillanceofthecanonofexpensiveness。
　　Thisprocessofselectiveadaptationofdesignstotheendofconspicuouswaste，andthesubstitutionofpecuniarybeautyforaestheticbeauty，hasbeenespeciallyeffectiveinthedevelopmentofarchitecture。Itwouldbeextremelydifficulttofindamoderncivilizedresidenceorpublicbuildingwhichcanclaimanythingbetterthanrelativeinoffensivenessintheeyesofanyonewhowilldissociatetheelementsofbeautyfromthoseofhonorificwaste。Theendlessvarietyoffrontspresentedbythebetterclassoftenementsandapartmenthousesinourcitiesisanendlessvarietyofarchitecturaldistressandofsuggestionsofexpensivediscomfort。Consideredasobjectsofbeauty，thedeadwallsofthesidesandbackofthesestructures，leftuntouchedbythehandsoftheartist，arecommonlythebestfeatureofthebuilding。
　　Whathasbeensaidoftheinfluenceofthelawofconspicuouswasteuponthecanonsoftastewillholdtrue，withbutaslightchangeofterms，ofitsinfluenceuponournotionsoftheserviceabilityofgoodsforotherendsthantheaestheticone。Goodsareproducedandconsumedasameanstothefullerunfoldingofhumanlife；andtheirutilityconsists，inthefirstinstance，intheirefficiencyasmeanstothisend。Theendis，inthefirstinstance，thefullnessoflifeoftheindividual，takeninabsoluteterms。Butthehumanproclivitytoemulationhasseizedupontheconsumptionofgoodsasameanstoaninvidiouscomparison，andhastherebyinvestedconstablegoodswithasecondaryutilityasevidenceofrelativeabilitytopay。
　　Thisindirectorsecondaryuseofconsumablegoodslendsanhonorificcharactertoconsumptionandpresentlyalsotothegoodswhichbestservetheemulativeendofconsumption。Theconsumptionofexpensivegoodsismeritorious，andthegoodswhichcontainanappreciableelementofcostinexcessofwhatgoestogivethemserviceabilityfortheirostensiblemechanicalpurposearehonorific。Themarksofsuperfluouscostlinessinthegoodsarethereforemarksofworth——ofhighefficencyfortheindirect，invidiousendtobeservedbytheirconsumption；andconversely。goodsarehumilific，andthereforeunattractive，iftheyshowtoothriftyanadaptationtothemechanicalendsoughtanddonotincludeamarginofexpensivenessonwhichtorestacomplacentinvidiouscomparison。Thisindirectutilitygivesmuchoftheirvaluetothe“better“gradesofgoods。Inordertoappealtothecultivatedsenseofutility，anarticlemustcontainamodicumofthisindirectutility。
　　Whilemenmayhavesetoutwithdisapprovinganinexpensivemanneroflivingbecauseitindicatedinabilitytospendmuch，andsoindicatedalackofpecuniarysuccess，theyendbyfallingintothehabitofdisapprovingcheapthingsasbeingintrinsicallydishonorableorunworthybecausetheyarecheap。Astimehasgoneon，eachsucceedinggenerationhasreceivedthistraditionofmeritoriousexpenditurefromthegenerationbeforeit，andhasinitsturnfurtherelaboratedandfortifiedthetraditionalcanonofpecuniaryreputabilityingoodsconsumed；
　　untilwehavefinallyreachedsuchadegreeofconvictionastotheunworthinessofallinexpensivethings，thatwehavenolongeranymisgivingsinformulatingthemaxim，“Cheapandnasty。“Sothoroughlyhasthehabitofapprovingtheexpensiveanddisapprovingtheinexpensivebeeningrainedintoourthinkingthatweinstinctivelyinsistuponatleastsomemeasureofwastefulexpensivenessinallourconsumption，eveninthecaseofgoodswhichareconsumedinstrictprivacyandwithouttheslightestthoughtofdisplay。Weallfeel，sincerelyandwithoutmisgiving，thatwearethemoreliftedupinspiritforhaving，evenintheprivacyofourownhousehold，eatenourdailymealbythehelpofhand-wroughtsilverutensils，fromhand-paintedchinaoftenofdubiousartisticvaluelaidonhigh-pricedtablelinen。Anyretrogressionfromthestandardoflivingwhichweareaccustomedtoregardasworthyinthisrespectisfelttobeagrievousviolationofourhumandignity。So，also，forthelastdozenyearscandleshavebeenamorepleasingsourceoflightatdinnerthananyother。Candlelightisnowsofter，lessdistressingtowell-bredeyes，thanoil，gas，orelectriclight。
　　Thesamecouldnothavebeensaidthirtyyearsago，whencandleswere，orrecentlyhadbeen，thecheapestavailablelightfordomesticuse。Norarecandlesevennowfoundtogiveanacceptableoreffectivelightforanyotherthanaceremonialillumination。
　　Apoliticalsagestilllivinghassummeduptheconclusionofthiswholematterinthedictum:“Acheapcoatmakesacheapman，“andthereisprobablynoonewhodoesnotfeeltheconvincingforceofthemaxim。
　　Thehabitoflookingforthemarksofsuperfluousexpensivenessingoods，andofrequiringthatallgoodsshouldaffordsomeutilityoftheindirectorinvidioussort，leadstoachangeinthestandardsbywhichtheutilityofgoodsisgauged。
　　Thehonorificelementandtheelementofbruteefficiencyarenotheldapartintheconsumer’sappreciationofcommodities，andthetwotogethergotomakeuptheunanalyzedaggregateserviceabilityofthegoods。Undertheresultingstandardofserviceability，noarticlewillpassmusteronthestrengthofmaterialsufficiencyalone。Inordertocompletenessandfullacceptabilitytotheconsumeritmustalsoshowthehonorificelement。Itresultsthattheproducersofarticlesofconsumptiondirecttheireffortstotheproductionofgoodsthatshallmeetthisdemandforthehonorificelement。Theywilldothiswithallthemorealacrityandeffect，sincetheyarethemselvesunderthedominanceofthesamestandardofworthingoods，andwouldbesincerelygrievedatthesightofgoodswhichlacktheproperhonorificfinish。Henceithascomeaboutthattherearetodaynogoodssuppliedinanytradewhichdonotcontainthehonorificelementingreaterorlessdegree。Anyconsumerwhomight，Diogenes-like，insistontheeliminationofallhonorificorwastefulelementsfromhisconsumption，wouldbeunabletosupplyhismosttrivialwantsinthemodernmarket。Indeed，evenifheresortedtosupplyinghiswantsdirectlybyhisownefforts，hewouldfinditdifficultifnotimpossibletodivesthimselfofthecurrenthabitsofthoughtonthishead；sothathecouldscarcelycompassasupplyofthenecessariesoflifeforaday’sconsumptionwithoutinstinctivelyandbyoversightincorporatinginhishome-madeproductsomethingofthishonorific，quasi-decorativeelementofwastedlabor。
　　Itisnotoriousthatintheirselectionofserviceablegoodsintheretailmarketpurchasersareguidedmorebythefinishandworkmanshipofthegoodsthanbyanymarksofsubstantialserviceability。Goods，inordertosell，musthavesomeappreciableamountoflaborspentingivingthemthemarksofdecentexpensiveness，inadditiontowhatgoestogivethemefficiencyforthematerialusewhichtheyaretoserve。Thishabitofmakingobviouscostlinessacanonofserviceabilityofcourseactstoenhancetheaggregatecostofarticlesofconsumption。Itputsusonourguardagainstcheapnessbyidentifyingmeritinsomedegreewithcost。Thereisordinarilyaconsistenteffortonthepartoftheconsumertoobtaingoodsoftherequiredserviceabilityatasadvantageousabargainasmaybe；buttheconventionalrequirementofobviouscostliness，asavoucherandaconstituentoftheserviceabilityofthegoods，leadshimtorejectasundergradesuchgoodsasdonotcontainalargeelementofconspicuouswaste。
　　Itistobeaddedthatalargeshareofthosefeaturesofconsumablegoodswhichfigureinpopularapprehensionasmarksofserviceability，andtowhichreferenceisherehadaselementsofconspicuouswaste，commendthemselvestotheconsumeralsoonothergroundsthanthatofexpensivenessalone。Theyusuallygiveevidenceofskillandeffectiveworkmanship，eveniftheydonotcontributetothesubstantialserviceabilityofthegoods；anditisnodoubtlargelyonsomesuchgroundthatanyparticularmarkofhonorificserviceabilityfirstcomesintovogueandafterwardmaintainsitsfootingasanormalconstituentelementoftheworthofanarticle。Adisplayofefficientworkmanshipispleasingsimplyassuch，evenwhereitsremoter，forthetimeunconsidered，outcomeisfutile。