to be.”Not only are Clark’sadjectives flippantnhere but so is his escalation of an adjnective for a certain kind of intellectual inadequacyninto the putative name of an intellectuainclass (that, need we say, cannotnbe found on Earth).nWhat is the “average reader” to makenof passing references such as this aboutnBotticelli’s illustrations to Dante? “Sincenthe war the drawings have been in EastnBerlin (actually about a third of them arenon loan in Dahlem).” Unless the readernknows already to what that last term refers,nsomeone other than Clark must tellnhim or her that Dahlem is the name of ansection of West Berlin in which, to extendnthe allusion, the Dahlem Museum isnlocated. Since Clark does not even say “innthe Dahlem,”thesuspicionis that here henis addressing an audience not of “averagenreaders” but exclusively of professionalncolleagues who can grasp, without pause,nnot just the first level of his reference butnthe second!nAnother problem is Clark’s arrogance.nIt results in his making controversial assertionsnthat he implies need not be supportednor qualified:nThroughout history revolutions in artnhave taken the form of a return to naturenagainst exhausted formulas of picture-making,nor an excessive attachmentnto style for its own sake. All truenrevolutions are popular and antihierarchic,nand ultimately popular artnis always realistic art. That modemnabstract art should be called ‘bolshevik’nis a comical misnomer; fer fromnbeing the art of the bolshoi, the many,nit is the art of the very few, and in anynin the Mailnthorough-going revolution it wouldnbe swept away. It could be correctlyndescribed as anarchic, contrary to thenold laws, and so entirely subjective.nWhat makes this passage arrogant is thatnnot only obvious objections but criticalnquestions come to mind. If Clark’s implicitnpoint is that abstract modernism is notnreally revolutionary, because it does notnfit his putative historical model, then henshould say so explicitly in his next sentencesnwhich here, however, merely continuenan earlier commentary on Alberti. Ifnthis book were edited, rather than merelynprocessed, a statement like this wouldnhave been challenged and then eithernexplained, corrected, or deleted.nWhywasthisbookpublished?WhydonKeimeth Clark’s scholarly, detailed lecturesnon five 15th-century artists now appearnas a trade book? To go afi;er an answernis to uncover a major intellectualnscandal of our time—n scandal everyonenknows, but few acknowledge—which is,nsimply, that in deciding which scholarlynworks to issue today, commercial publishersnare less concerned with intellectualnvalue and even editorial accuracynthan with the feme of the author. The keynthat opens their coffers is celebrity, notnitisight or reputation, which is to say, innthis case, that once Clarkbecamefemousnthrough a television series, operationsnlike Harper & Row were predisposed tonexhume his lecture notes. And naivenbook reviewers were predisposed tonshower any new Kenneth Clark tide withnperfunctory praise. The cynical assumptionnis that to be sold in sufBciendy re­nIhe Drama Circle Quarterly Letter, Winter 1983; The Drama Circle; St Paul, MN. Arguesnagainst dramatists like Antonln Artaud with the weapon of sociobiology. Fire with fire?nfroOTiJi^totoI^:i4M.4Mto6/bgrfl/;&ybyFrederickVanderblltField; Lawrence Hill&Co.;nWes^rt, CT. A Fifth Avenue-bred member of the CP.U.SA maintains that it’s better to be rednthan rich. (Yes, it happens in even the best of femlUes.)nTheAdolescentDrug-Sex-CfitneMattenCommonSenseAboutgteNationalDefensebynS»dneyVemon;RovemPress;Willijnantic,CT.Dr.Vemonmalntainsthatthelllegaldrugindustrynshould be nationalized. Some think lobotomies cure headaches.n34inChronicles of Culturennnmunerative numbers a scholarly booknneedsafemiliar name, apretentious tide,nand then an introduction assuring firstnthe publishers, then the reviewers whonread only introductions, and finally thenbookstore managers that this trade tidenought to be accessible to thegeneralpublic.nWith so much deceit all along the line,neveryone involved should be ashamed.nIt should be noted that for all of thenpublisher’s dreams of dollar signs, therenwas not enough desire to make a booknthat agreed with the text. One reasonnwhy The Art of Humanism is cheapernthan many other art books available todaynis that the illustrations are all black andnwhite. This limitation is scarcely noticednuntil a peculiar painting is credited withn”ravishingly beautiful colour,” or Clarkndescribes a certain sculpture as “polychrome.”nIn the latter case, the readernwants either to be told what colors arenthere or to see them in an illustration. Innthis hasty transition from a slide show tona book, there is neither. On the othernhand, in the limitation of the illustrationsnis perhaps an implicit slight—^that SirnKenneth, for all of his celebrity, was notnenough of a sure-fire star to justify the expensenof color! (Only Norman Mailer onnMarilyn Monroe would deserve that.)nThe worst problem plaguing culturalncommunication today is that in choosingnwhich particular intellectuals and ideasnto push through their incomparable distributionnsystems, commercial booknpublishers appear to follow the newnmedia more than to lead them. As soon asna writer appears prominentiy on thentube, too many book publishers rush tonscrape (and package) his lint oflf the screen.nAnd most everyone else involvednwith the dissemination of culture, firomnbook reviewers to teachers, appear predisposednto follow the wagging tail,nexemplifying Harold Rosenberg’s classicnimage of “the herd of independentnminds.” This abdication of cultural initiative,ncoupled with an inability to correctnthe corruptions of cultural communication,nis, to be fi-ank, the surest sign of thentreason of the supposed intellectuals innour time. Dn