Modernism in literature, the theme taken up in Currents in Modern Thought in this issue, illustrates the independence of art from the contrivances of politicians. It also alerts us to the need to protect the independence of artists from those who would impose political constraints on them, for not all great artists are of good character or hold responsible political views.
Who, reading Hugh Kenner's marvelous analysis of Ezra Pound's poetry, can fail to recognize the artistic genius, the subtlety, and the reach of mind of Pound? Yet Pound was pro-fascist, anti-Semitic, and basically ignorant of economics and society. If his mad views occasionally resulted in the poetic deterioration of some of the later Cantos, even there the genius of Pound still produced bursts of poetic beauty that resonated with great themes from the vast heritage of Western and Oriental civilization.
Even though one might not have wanted to invite Pound to one's cocktail parties, was there not unseemly pettiness, even perhaps mean-spiritedness, in incarcerating him in an insane asylum after the war? I am not recommending that great artists be freed from responsibility or accountability. But Pound had committed no crimes against humanity. His service to the enemy did not approach Jane Fonda's. He was no physical threat to himself or others. He had no political following. His sin was primarily that of giving vent to contemptible beliefs and of supporting fascist Italy during the war. He was a great cultural treasure. Would it not have been sufficient to hold him at arm's length?
Pound was neither the first nor will he be the last great artist to hold contemptible beliefs. Pablo Picasso remained a communist during the period of Stalin's great crimes despite the fact that he was not allowed to show his works in the Soviet Union. Ferdinand-Louis Celine was anti-Semitic (although he was also a very decent man, and incidentally, like almost all fascists, a socialist). Charlie Chaplin was a fool about politics. James Joyce worked out his peculiar relationship with his wife in Chamber Music. And his unresolved personality conflicts produced some of the greatest scenes in literature in Ulysses.
If it is important to protect and nurture artists, to insulate them from political pressures, and to provide an ambience within which genius is given space to flourish, we do not have to lionize individuals who have little personal merit. Norman Mailer, for instance, is a self-important boor (and incidentally less than a great writer). Ed Asner is a simpleton about politics. Shirley MacLaine, a former fan of Mao, is lost in some imaginary world. Many artists, who shall remain nameless, lead disgusting lives. Why not enjoy their art and ignore them?
It is one of the glories of democracy that art, and thus, great art, has room to flourish. Fashion may make the road easier or harder and the payoff smaller or larger. But no political figure and no economic sultan can forbid a style of art or constrain the opinions of beliefs that can be expressed. According to Gresham's law, rubbish and fakery do flourish best in a climate of freedom. But we are free to produce good art and to exercise good taste. How different elsewhere! The European art section was closed off when I visited the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. Only socialist realism was accessible and the old cloakroom lady who took my coat plaintively said, "How sad that you did not come when you could see
...
Read Full Article
|
