38
PARTISAN REVIEW
drianism it seeks to overcome. The lines quoted from Yeats above
referred to Byzantium, which is very close to Alexandria; and in
a sense this imitation of imitating is a superior sort of Alexandrian–
ism. But there is one most important difference: the avant-garde
moves, while Alexandrianism stands still. And this, precisely, is
what justifies the avant-garde's methods and makes them necessary.
The necessity lies in the fact that by no other means is it possible
today to create art and literature of a high order. To quarrel with
necessity by throwing about terms like "formalism," "purism,"
"ivory tower" and so forth is either dull or dishonest. This is not
to say, however, that it is to the
social
advantage of the avant-garde
that it is what it is. Quite the opposite.
The avant-garde's specialization of itself, the fact that its best
artists are artists' artists, its best poets, poets' poets, has estranged
a great many of those who were capable formerly of enjoying and
apprecifl.ting ambitious art and literature, but who are now unwill–
ing or unable to acquire an initiation into their craft secrets. The
masses have always remained more or less indifferent to culture in
the process of development. But today such culture is being aban·
doned by those to whom it actually belongs-our ruling class. For
it is to the latter that the avant-garde belongs. No culture can
develop without a social basis, without a source of stable income.
And in the case of the avant-garde this was provided by an elite
among the ruling clas!S of that society from which it assumed itself
to be cut off, but to which it has always remained attached by an
~mbilical
cord of gold. The paradox is real. And now this elite is
rapidly shrinking. Since the avant-garde forms the only living
culture we now have, the survival in the near future of culture in
general is thus threatened.
We must not be deceived by superficial phenomena and local
successes. Picasso's shows still draw crowds, and T. S. Eliot is
taught in the universities; the dealers in modernist art are still in
business, and the publishers still publish some "difficult" poetry.
But the avant-garde itself, already sensing the danger, is becoming
more and more timid every day that passes. Academicism and com·
mercialism are appearing in the strangest places. This can mean
only one thing: that the avant-garde is becoming unsure of the
audience it depends on-the rich and the cultivated.
Is it the nature itself of avant-garde culture that is alone
