LETTERS
Finally, I think that Bloom is argu–
ing against "absolute values" when he
points out that "absolute relativism" is
just as great a tyranny and that its in–
tellectual foundation is superficial. I
understand Bloom to be asking us as
Americans to realize that the Consti–
tution and democracy do not preach
"absolute relativism" but only a
moderate relativism based on a mu–
tual respect for democratic proce–
dures. When you state your own re–
pugnance for "pushing the concept
of democracy to wild extremes" I
believe both of you are on common
ground.
Mark Mirsky
New York
William Phillips Replies :
I am glad to see that Mark Mirsky
agrees with most of my observations
about Bloom and the state of college
education . On the question of the
teaching of values, the question is
what values. Certainly, intellectual
values should be fostered : a respect
for knowledge , curiosity about the in–
tellectual past, open-mindedness, ra–
tionality, etc. On the other hand, the
university is clearly not the place to
propagate ideas about how to live. It
is in this area that teaching deterior–
ates into talk about life today and into
the various notions about relevance
to students' lives.
Some years ago, it will be recalled,
a student sued Columbia University
for failing to impart wisdom to him.
A judge ruled properly, in my opin–
ion, that the the university is sup-
333
posed to teach knowledge not
WlS–
dom .
As for Bloom's remark about our
early attitude to the modernist writ–
ers, perhaps I should have made it
clearer that Bloom does not seem to
be aware that we knew that writers
like Joyce and Proust were not radi–
cals. But this was precisely our policy:
to value not only the great modernists
but any new writers of talent, regard–
less of their politics.
To the Editor:
William Phillips
Boston
Karen Wilkin's article
(PR
#1,
1989) on the recent gallery offerings
shows a disregard of the origins of the
current emphases in the plastic arts to
which she refers. The "yearning" for
"tangible physical substance" (her
terms) among painters which she dates
from 1980 is not by any means a new
response to the flatness of the canvas
surface. As far back as 1919 Kurt
Schwitters used wood and other ob–
jects on the surface of the canvas, as
did Max Ernst in 1922, in obvious vio–
lation of the dictum offlatness. Also
in
a period closer to the present, Jackson
Pollock, among many others, added
objects to the surface in a bid for "phys–
icality." Why does Ms. Wilkin not
credit a similar "yearning" among
these and other acknowledged mas–
ters? In my own modest case I began
to make paintings, shown in New
York from 1977 to 1987, with a promi–
nent raised element, and I was not
alone
in
this kind of endeavor which
