MISS PORTER AND MISS STEIN
by geography? Is it true that
transition
and Miss Stein were inseparable
components of a muddled "occultism" and that the lack of a mother
tongue betrayed them both? Muddled as Jolas was editorially, he
printed Joyce's
Work in Progress,
and Miss Porter concedes that Joyce
had a mother tongue. Jolas even printed Miss Porter. The hospitality
of
transition
accounts for diversified creative efforts as well as for sense–
less mouthings now sunk in the sands.
One becomes nostalgic for that hospitality even with its muddle.
Some irresponsibility must
be
allowed the artist in
;1.
world geared to
collective uniformity; singularity needs to be safeguarded, not feared.
This is no argument for a detachment that pays no heed to a moral
climate. It may be the time to re-examine a trend, but in what spirit
is
this
to
be
undertaken? What goal is it to serve? The entire field of
modem art is now under fire and one should say, in justice to Miss
Porter, that there is no evidence of an intention to share in the general
attack. The fact remains that her charge of "irresponsibility" is echoed
by less scrupulous persons in broadsides against modem art and writing
without distinction between the sham and the genuine, without de–
fining. the ends to be served.
Is there any relevance in the fact that Hitler condemned modem art
and burned the books? In effect, he made art a public enemy, almost as
guilty as the Jews. Nor did Joyce's mother tongue spare him from the nec–
essity of fleeing Paris when the Nazis came. During the war the impulse to
name a guilty party induced a group of writers, led by Archibald Mac–
Leish, to cite as "irresponsible" such writers as Joyce, Proust, D. H.
Lawrence, and T. S. Eliot. Van Wyck Brooks sponsored Longfellow
and Lowell as safe democratic carriers. Magazines and newspapers cur–
rently define modern art as "subversive," as a "racket," "degenerate,"
and "irresponsible." The trustees of the Institute of Modern Art in
Boston have just repudiated the word "modern," substituting "contem–
porary"; as outlined by the trustees, the principles laid down for future
policy have a familiar, unholy sound. On February 12, the
New York
Times
reported that the Central Committee of the Communist Party
had denounced Russia's three leading composers for displaying anti–
democratic leanings, for ideological errors, and for utilizing atonality
rather than melody. Seven "irresponsible" composers were ordered to
return to the "great Russian traditions in music." A month previously,
the writer Fadayev was obliged to admit his "errors" and to accept the
corrections as "sound, fatherly" advice. Nor does fatherly advice stop
with the arts; an important economist was bawled out for his con–
sidered findings on the state of capitalism in the Western World.
571
