For the aesthetic purpose such a distinction need scarcely be drawn, and indeed it need not exist.

For a theory of taste the expression of an accepted ideal of archaism, on whatever basis it may have been accepted, is perhaps best rated as an element of beauty; there need be no question of its legitimation.

But for the present purpose--for the purpose of determining what economic grounds are present in the accepted canons of taste and what is their significance for the distribution and consumption of goods--the distinction is not similarly beside the point.

The position of machine products in the civilized scheme of consumption serves to point out the nature of the relation which subsists between the canon of conspicuous waste and the code of proprieties in consumption.

Neither in matters of art and taste proper, nor as regards the current sense of the serviceability of goods, does this canon act as a principle of innovation or initiative.