MARK POLIZZOTTI
417
for today or for tomorrow, to consent that art should submit to a dis–
cipline which we hold to be radically incompatible with its nature, we
give a flat refusal." In what might be considered an excess of zeal, Bre–
ton had also thought to include Trotsky's own former prescription:
"Complete freedom for art,
except against the proletarian revolution."
But
Trotsky, who too often had seen this latter caveat misused by the pro–
ponents of Socialist Realism, himself deleted the final clause - bringing
the statement into line not only with his current thinking but with Bre–
ton's own writings as well. The manifesto concluded with Breton's twin
injunction: "Our aims: The independence of art - for the revolution;
The revolution - for the complete liberation of art!"
"For an Independent Revolutionary Art" condensed and focused
many of the discussions on art and politics that had taken place between
the two authors during their recent contacts. In many ways it demon–
strates a remarkable concordance of ideas, and stands, as one critic has
pointed out, as one of the few examples in history of a joint statement
by a political theorist and a poet. At the same time, the manifesto shows
the basic differences between Trotsky the pragmatist and Breton the
quasi-utopian. For although both men agreed that art had suffered under
the bourgeoisie, Trotsky's comments on art as "expressing the inner
needs of man and of mankind in its time" inevitably call to mind his ear–
lier remarks that art would ultimately disappear when life itself better
responded to those needs. Whereas Breton, here as elsewhere, conceived
of a future society in which the unconscious energies of desire would be
allowed to blossom into ever more daring, ever more otherworldly
forms of art.
Moreover, it is indicative that this manifesto, the crowning achieve–
ment and most durable trace of Breton's visit to Mexico, should be a
statement about the role of the
artist
rather than a political tract - even
though Breton had written many purely political statements during his
thirteen years of social involvement. By meeting Trotsky on the literary
terrain, Breton reinforced the vision he'd had of him since 1925: as a
masterful writer and thinker, rather than as the ruthless bureaucrat to
which much of his career bore witness. For his part - and notwithstand–
ing the respect he felt for Breton, which had been visibly enhanced by
their contacts - Trotsky underscored the attitude that had always fol–
lowed the Surrealist leader in his dealings with scientists and politicians,
from Freud to Leon Blum: that in the final account, Andre Breton re–
mained a poet, and his domain that of aesthetics.
Trotsky further highlighted this attitude when he insisted that the
manifesto should be co-signed not by himself, but by Diego Rivera, who
