The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-04-04

NH AAhhONAAN1 ID q oCl6ulluC GA
AVA petition into hitherto unex-
plored regions. It attempts to prove
that all art, and especially literature,
is propaganda. In Sinclair's words,
g. from the dawn of human his
tory, the path to honor and success
in the arts has been thru the service
and glorification of the ruling classes;
entertaining them, making them
pleasant to themselves, and teaching
their subjects and slaves to stand in
awe of them" For a believer in this
materialistic conception of history
the mere statement Of the case in
these terms enjoins belief.
More narrowly stated the purpose
of the book is; first, to show how ar
lists have made their living, from
whom, and what they had to do for it,
briefly. the economics of art; second
ly, to kill some of the cart lies" now
prevalent. such as art for arts sake,
art for the few only, art as immoral,
as, entertainment, as non-propagan-
dist, and art as tradition, chained to
the methods and themes of the mas
ters." Sinclair more than proves his
contentious, and covers the high
peaks in the worlds literature, art,
and music in the process. Curiously
enuf, he does not touch upon any liv-
ing artists, perhaps due to lack OF
space, perhaps because he believes
with Shaw that concerning the living
one should speak no evil. Yet there
in he would not be himself. However,
Trotsky Literature and Revolu.
tion') has handled contemporary cur
rents in literature beautifully, and
altho his writer's are Russian, still
their schools and theories exist every
where. Kliuev, Yessenin, Pilnyak,
and Belly are simply the Andersons
Lowells, Barbusses, Conan Doyles OF
Western Europe and America.
A clever device which Sinclair uses
again and again is that Of starting
with a quotation from one Of his
books, and shading off into quotations
from Juvenal, Balzac. Moliere, etc.
to show that great" writer's said just
as terrible" and as true things OF
the ruling class as he did. For the
sake of those comrades who still be.
lieve that literature is sacred and the
one thing immune from materialistc
dialectics, 1 may quote one or two
bits from Sinclair.
"The great poems, Shakespeare IS
included, are poisonous to the idea
of the pride and dignity Of the com
mon people, the life-blood of democ
racy. The models of our literature
as we get It from other lands, ultra
marine, have had their birth in courts
and basked and grown in castle sun
shine; all smell of princes favors.'
So thinks Sinclair, beg pardon. Whit
man, OF writer's and the ruling class
"And the artists producing art will
not be, as now, merely few people
selected from a small section Of the
nation, members OF the upper classes
or their hangers-on, but will consist
OF all those gifted members Of the
whole people who prove capable Of
and are inclined towards artistic &C
tivity." So thinks Upton Tolstoy OF
the art Of the future. And when Sin
clair berates the worlds greatest
painters, such as Raphael: "What is
esthetics? The art OF praising or be,
littling works of art. What works OF
art must be praised? Those that glor-
ify the upper classes. Therefore
Raphael and Michaelangelo are the
most famous artists, for they giorified
the religious falsehoods Of the upper
classes. Shakespeare magnifed kings
and Goethe magniaed himself, the
writer Of the upper classes. But how
about other works or art? There must
not be Others" So does q writer OF
the working class regard artists. And
Strindberg knew his fellow craftsmen.
A few other of Sinclair's arguments