cerned with salad dressing and carburetorsnthan Just Causes. So in a matter ofnminutes Lumet and Newman show thatndoctors make mistakes and, if they’renfamous, cover them up; that the Churchnis still concocting plots with its powerfulnpurse (says Newman to a prelate as henfondles a check for $210,000 that he willnnot take from the sullied holy man, “If Intook it, I would be lost”; the music of ancelestial choir is implied); and thatnjudges are invariably failed lawyers whonare “bag boys for the men downtown.”nHowever, the pair is cautious in itsnhandling of the hero. This is the firstnpost-nonhero age—remember all of thenpolls that indicated that there was no onen”to believe in” during the 70’s?—so itnwants fallible but successfial heroes (e.g.,nIndiana Jones oi Raiders of the Lost Ark,nTV’s Magnum P.I.). The lawyer thuslynstumbles to success with a more raggednArt & IdeologynRockwell Kent: An Anthology of HisnWork; Edited by Fridolf Johnson;nAlfred A. Knopf; New York.nOne admires Rockwell Kent’s art innsomewhat the same way one is compellednto accept Jane Fonda’s acting ability ornMuhammad All’s boxing prowess—nreluctantly, granting near-grudgingnrespect for accomplishments in theirnfields of competence, though one hasnonly contempt for the ideological positionsnthey have espoused. That Mr. Kentnwas great with brush, pencil, and woodcutnutensils few would deny This large.nAUIngait than that of his filmic predecessors.nPerhaps the only twist to the plot,none that could be indicative of a pro-nE.R.A. statement, is that he rejects thengirl. However, that rejection is really onnpar with the intellectual maturity of ThenVerdict: all preadolescent boys know thatngirls are “ucky,” just as seminal mindsnlike Lumet and Newman know that doctorsnaren’t really admirable, the Churchniscormpt… Messrs. Lumet and Mamet,nthe authors, seem fully oblivious to thenserious meaning of drama, one manifestnin works as variegated as those by Sophocles,nShakespeare, D.W. Griffith, andnJohn Ford. Namely, that there is a distinctionnbetween better and worse. TonLumet and Mamet, the world is cmdelynManichaean, simply bad or good, exactlynthe way it appears to dim-witted juveniles,njaundiced Utopians, and hardbittennpunks. (SM) Dnbeautifully appointed volume providesnample testimony to his skills and versatility.nBut Mr. Johnson’s biographicalntext paints another portrait—one of anman of astonishing arrogance, egotism,nand sociopolitical naivete. The demise ofnhis first two marriages seems to have bafflednKent—despite his year-long absences,nhis frequent and freely admittedninfidelities, and his almost total absorptionnin his own work to the detriment ofnany personal relationships. His willingnessnto perform manual labor and hisnexaltation of the working class are atnstriking odds with his apparent conviction,nfrom the first, that private philanthropynor the government or someonenshould provide support for artists and thenarts sufficient to enable the practitionersnto concentrate solely on their work, thusnfreeing them from such prosaic mattersnas paying rent, bills, etc. His ideologicalnand political convictions were at bestnsilly, at worst dangerous—althoughnthat’s not how Kent, himself, saw it, ofncourse. But how else can one characterizenthe sentiments of a man who termednU.S. involvement in Vietnam an “utterlynunprovoked and illegal invasion”? Hentherefore sent to the Vietnamese ambassadornin Moscow $10,000: “it beingnbut a token of my shame and sorrow.”nIt is a tmism that art and ideology arenlinked inextricably and complexly.nKent’s powers of visualizing intrinsicnliterary, particularly poetic, contentsnestablishes him as one of the most impressivenand seminal illustrators in thenAmerican history of art. He had anwonderful way of endowing his worknwith a sense of style and a striking force ofnimagery that transcended the idiosyncrasiesnof his epoch. He was highly impressionable,nand blatant echoes of othernmasters and graphic languages sometimesnhaunt his output. But only unconscionablensticklers would consider that ancase against him. DnSend for your complimentaryncopy of The Rockford Institute’snAnnual Report featuringnthe work of the eminentnartist and designer WarrennChappell.nMail this coupon to:nThe Rockford Instituten934 North Main StreetnRockford, IL 61103nNamennnAddressnCity State Zipni43nMarch 1983n