74
PARTISAN REVIEW
into question all the conveniencies by which we live. Nor is this lim–
ited to the declarative art of literature. When Rembrandt turned
from flattering portraits of Dutch burghers to deeper studies of the
human face, he lost his clientele and his reputation; for his tech–
nique had altered, and what it became was
in
itself sufficient to send
shudders through any Dutchman. What do we hear of the first
reception of Beethoven's symphonies? That the music is grandiose, no
doubt, but very upsetting.
As
for the later quartets, they must be
mad, for otherwise
we
are mad.
We must not fail to notice and to admit it is the
art
and not
the opinions of the artist that causes this unsettling and makes the
work truly subversive.
M oby-Dick,
for example, says little directly
that could shock an American of a hundred years ago. But coming
after the pleasant dreamland of the same author's
Typee
and
Omoo,
it tastes bitter and virtually fails. A dozen years after
Moby-Dick,
Melville's entire yearly sale of ten of his books amounts to three
hundred copies.
Yet it is through such failures that the great artist momentarily
regenerates the world; it is by acts of aggression such as Rembrandt's
and Melville's that the crust of dead thought and feeling is broken
up and room made for the fresh impulse.
The question remains whether something deliberate can be
done to gear the power of the great artist to our expensive social
machinery for art-the institutions that profess themselves ready to
exploit him nobly for the nation's good. Can the great artist not be fed
and praised without being tamed out of his genius? Certainly, but
not by an institution, whether it be competitive fellowships for
projects, or a term on some charming campus as captive Poet for pet
undergraduates. Still less can he work as one of the daisy-chain gang
in some ideal retreat for gestating artists. In all these situations, he
will pleasantly stifle. He will be somebody's man, without even being
able to resent the slavery.
The simple solution is that the genius should be born to an
independent income. But this is less and less likely under our in–
creasing egalitarian collectivism. And this in tum means that the
remaining sources of funded wealth-the foundations, the corpora–
tions, the universities, as well as the few private patrons-must adopt
policies which will truly bestow independence. So far, they seem not
