THEN AND NOW
555
become aware that their predecessors were all hooted off the stage for
opposing each important art current as it appeared ; they would never be
laughingstocks , come what may . So they have proceeded to enshrine every
absurdity that comes along-not exactly a road to distinction. Europe has
presented a parallel trend, although the museum shows, being government
financed , are apt to be less capricious.
Alas, there is one element which cannot be taught , and that is an eye for
quality.
*
It
wasn 't long before shock-value became an appreciable commod–
ity on the market, and it came as an unexpected bonus; the trouble was that
we were soon given exhibitions as noxious as the American scenes they had
displaced . Of course we are all aware that each new direction in art, music, or
literature is apt to prove distasteful to the uninitiated . That doesn't mean ,
conversely , that everything unfamiliar will someday prove distinguished; it
takes more than novelty to survive a second glance .
Quite naturally, with forces commanding such formidable organs of
publicity , painting and sculpture soon became big business as curators went
on the payrolls ofcollectors ;
I'
llieave this aspect of the contemporary scene to
others . My interest lies in its effect upon the artists themselves. For it seems to
be implicit in our time that no one who achieves universal stature is able to
sustain his quality . Fewwould grant that T .S. Eliot ever again reached his level
of 1923 ; Joyce, Stravinsky , Richard Strauss, Picasso, Leger, Braque-theyall
followed similar patterns in varying degrees. (Mondrian did better-his fame
was largely posthumous.) What a contrast to the Renaissance, when old age
usually brought final fruition; and this held true up until the end of the last
century.
Something must have gone wrong somewhere . Certainly modern
methods of publicity, with their stress on sensation and the cult of personality
(it's a "name" that sells a painting) , could well prove inimical to profound
development . Closely allied is the above-mentioned emphasis on novelty ;
there are indeed times when old dogmas wear thin and a complete reorienta–
tion becomes imperative-we have been through several in the last hundred
years . On the other hand, there are periods when
art
forms need consolida–
tion ; it can take a long time for a tradition to reach maturity .
Most convolutions throughout our era have been implemented in the
name offreedom , and, to the creative mind, freedom is particularly precious .
However, in art the word can have different connotations. Who is to say that
Raphael , who brushed very exactly , was any less "free" than Tintoretto, who
was demonstrably loose? Each was sufficiently free to realize his potentialities .
*1 am aware of the ambiguities latent in this phrase; perhaps it can best be conveyed
through examples, and they can turn up in the most unexpected quarters. The late Andrew
Mellon certainly had an eye for the old masters--<:ompare his bequests in Washington with
those of other " great collections ," some of which hang adjacent . A.E. Gallatin had it for
modern art, as was shown by his museum at N .Y.U. In 1942, the N .Y.U. trustees (who didn't
have it) ordered all his masterpieces of cubist and abStract art removed on ten days ' notice.
