serve the naturalness of his cutting hencuts erratically. Likewise, art is life in thenmoment of creation and must resist thenpull of the intellect if it is to maintain itsngrasp of life.nTo reach and then hold that level ofnpurity in art is nearly impossible. It wouldnmean that each artistic creation couldnbe observed only once, for on the secondnand succeeding times one brings images,nthoughts, and expectations to the work,nand after many times one begins employingnthe intellect to analyze and critiquenthe work. Thus, it is more useful to thinknof degrees of artistic purity. Marm suggests,nfor example, that music is the mostnpure of arts; there are no words to conveynmeaning and by reaching the innermostnemotions it can stir great feelings.nPoetry, especially when it focuses primarilynon words, sounds, and form, ratiiernthan meaning, is considerably more purenthan literature. Indeed, literature, withnits democratizing tendency, frequendynis an ally of politics, and Mann readilynconfesses that he, too, has contributednto the advance of progress—and thensubsequent destruction of music—nthrough his activities as a literary writer.nAnd yet, his literature is signlficandy morenartistic than that of the social novel andnthe European writers he so despised.nNor must one let the subject matter of anwriting confuse in evaluating its artisticnnature: the socialist realism of Sovietnnovels reveals little of life even when itnnever mentions politics, whereas a seeminglynsocial-political novel like RobertnPenn Warren’s A// The King’s Men is artisticnbecause it reveals life rather thannexplaining or justifying it according tonsome dogma.n1 hat there is not much pure art inncontemporary America should not bensurprising. Mann’s imagery applies tonour time as well: it is as if the artist hasnmounted a horse moving in a particularndirection and has the option of gettingnoff or riding it to the end. It is a fact thatnpolitics has won the day, and pure art—nart for art’s sake—no longer has an audience.nIf Mann expected his art to stir thenChronicles of Culturenfeelings and raise the spirit of his countrymen,nhe had no choice but to resortnto literature. And that is why the AmericannFlannery O’Connor created suchngrotesque characters and outrageous incidentsnin her stories: in these politicalntimes the artist may have no choice butnto shock the reader in order to get attention.nPractically speaking, if the artist isndedicated to striking a responsive chordnin the hearts of fellow human beings, thenartist no longer can afford absolute purity.ntest the radicalizing democratization thatnhad spread throughout Europe.nvine might ask why the artist’s viewnshould be regarded as more valuablenthan the politician’s. The answer, and ultimatelynthe key to why art and politicsnare in conflict, is that the artist is not interestednin entering the fray of competingnopinions, but rather seeks to transcendnmere opinion with an inquiry thatnmight lead to the realm of truth. That is,n”Mann’s reputation as a thinker will take some knocks.”n—New York Times Book ReviewnFurthermore, the artist does not havento reject the possibility of knowing simplynbecause he rejects the dogmatic opinionsnof politicians. The artist searches andncreates because life has meaning, and itnis not surprising that the artist thereforendiscovers and pronounces competingnvalues. Much of Mann’s book is an explicationnof and advocacy for the highernvalues that he sees politics and democracyndestroying. His fervent praise ofnGermany and his abject hostility towardnFrance might appear as jingoism, butnthat is an unfair reading. Germany andnFrance are merely representatives ofntwo world views that Mann believed hadnbeen clashing for some time.nHe sees France as the embodiment ofnsociety radicalized in the name of progress.nThe result is a leveling that treatsneveryone the same and a democracy thatnmeans nothing more than citizen participationnin the state. France may be thenepitome of civilization, but civilization,nhand-in-hand with politics, dissolves thenstate and eventually the individual.nGermany is praised as the last resistancento that movement. The German fatherlandntranscends the mere political state,nand its Volk cannot be found anywherenelse in Europe. It is culture, not civilization,nthat provides both form and ordernand binds the German people. Indeed,nMann even praises the war in Europe becausenit reminded the German people ofntheir music, their humanity, their spiritn—^their culture—^and of the need to pro-nnnpolitics and art differ in kind. The politicalnfocuses on and ends with society; artnbegins where pwlitics ends and addressesnthe essential dimension of our personalnlives. Thus, while politicians strive tonsatisfy material wants and needs, the artistnspeaks to our spirituality; while politiciansnpraise our equality at the ballotnbox, the artist glorifies our human equality;nwhile politicians criticize the policiesnof previous administrations, the artistnexamines the vray we Live on a daily basis.nIndeed, the real reason that art is conservativenis that it attempts to conserve thosenvalues that constant preoccupation withnpolitics has caused us to forget.nThis is why Maim is correct in regardingnDostoevski as a greater writer thannTolstoy. Dostoevski knew f)olitics betternthan most writers; his novels are reactionsnto the politics of his Russia. Yet, hendoes not write about politics, but insteadnsparks the religious element in our Uves.nTolstoy, whose later works are superficiallynmore religious and pious, is in factnmuch more the student and critic of society’snvalues. It is not surprising that thenRussian dissidents read Dostoevski whilenin the camps, and it is not surprising thatntheir reading often leads to conversions.nTolstoy may write of salvation, but hisnworks are imbued with society; Dostoevskinmay seem to write of society, but hisnworks are imbued with salvation.n1 oday we need artists like Dostoevski.nPrior to the ill-fated division of life inton