salvation, it is no less a tool than "socialist realism" for the
"perfecting of character." It conceives of art as a heuristic and
training device for the expression and communication of a
certain vision of reality, ultimately "true" for all, and such that
its criteria will enable one to judge the most beautiful by the
degree to which it represents the most true.

Unlike the three preceding pieces, Louis Kronenberger''s
popular essay called America and Art is, strictly speaking,
a work of criticism rather than aesthetics. Concerned with art
in American culture, it is an astringent statement of what
Kronenberger believes to be the drawbacks to America''s
achievement of what is best in the arts, at least at the present
time. Implicit throughout the essay are the author''s assump-
tions concerning the values of civilization both within and
beyond the functions of the arts. Kronenberger''s attitude may
appear to be directly opposite to that of the Soviet and Orien-
tal writers because he is pointing out that art in America does
not function as exhortation or exercise for the cultivation of
a particular cultural pattern, but rather, as a "compensation"
for the lack of agreement concerning such models. But im-
plicit in Kronenberger''s position is his commitment to the
"humanist tradition" with its standards and its purposes. To
come full circle, it may be that Barzun''s criterion of freedom
is a principle that makes sense only in what Kronenberger
takes to be the humanist tradition.

-14-