GOTHAM BOOK MART
41 West 47th St., New York 19, N. Y.
BOWEN (Elizabeth)
HEART.
DEATH OF THE
3.00
GREENE (Graham) THE HEART OF THE
MAITER.
3.00
PRITCHEIT (V. S.) THE LIVING NOVEL
Some personalized assessments of stand–
ard authors.
2.75
Others by above authors including
Out-of-Print titles.
A CELEBRATION FOR EDITH SITWELL.
A symposium on her work in honor of
her visit here, with Sir Osbert Sitwell.
1.50
SITWELL (Edith) A SONG OF THE
COLD. Poems.
SITWELL (Osbert) LAUGHTER IN THE
NEXT ROOM. Vol. IV in brilliant auto–
biography.
4.00
A limited number of above titles,
and others in stock, autographed.
'1t
MANN (Thomas) DR. FAUSTUS. Im-
portant new novel.
3.75
THE MAXIMS OF MARCEL PROUST.
Selected by Justin O'Brien.
3.00
LAWRENCE- RUSSELL
CORRESPOND-
ENCE. Ed. by Harry T. Moore. Con–
nected series of letters recording a
controversy between two contrasting
thinkers.
5.00
WOODCOCK (George) THE WRITER
&
POLITICS. Essays on Greene, Koest–
ler, Warner, Kafka , other subjects. 4.20
1r
Send for the GBM AUTUMN CURRENTS
including gift suggestions
&
the best from
the fall lists of American
&
British pub–
lishers.
A list of books of Writing
&
Literature
will also be mailed on request. James T.
Farrell's "The Fate of Writing in America"
25 cents
1258
which all the exhibits are correct, in–
violately, for ever, and cannot be criti–
cised. Because the avant garde (like
the Cominform) must be right, always.
Because nothing can be
said,
and all
(recent) expression, or setting forth,
therefore, as well as all experience,
must be sanctified.
Geoffrey Grigson
Swindon, England
REPLY
I am sorry that I seem to have upset
Mr. Grigson so much, but nothing in
his rejoinder offers any evidence that I
misunderstood or distorted the meaning
of his article in
H
ori<;on.
And besides
he does say that I am wrong in any
case, whether I misunderstood him or
not.
When I objected to his call for "hu–
manity" and "universality" in art it
was not because I assumed he meant
the banality of "socialist realism" or
commercial art, but because what he
meant by "humanity" and "universal–
ity" was academicism. The rest of his
article and his rejoinder both bear me
out in this interpretation. There is a
great difference between the elevated
academicism Mr. Grigson wants--or has
got himself into a confusion about-and
the debased variety sponsored in the
Soviet Union; but they are both acad–
emism in the end.
All the people, distinguished or other–
wise, who have preceded Mr. Grigson
in complaining about modern art be–
cause of its lack of "viable ends" and
"human import," because of its too
great concern with "means" as against
"subject," and so forth, demonstrated
only that they did not know what
painting and sculpture are about. The
nonsense in the second sentence of the
last paragraph of Mr. Grigson's re–
joinder is a particularly appalling ex–
ample of this kind of ignorance--or
should I say lack of experience?
