emptor: If the expensive price tag doesnnot discourage, the vacuous contentsnshould. Sue Davidson Low^e has no lacknof affection or respect for her Uncle Alnand says so herself:nIt was not until 1932 or 1933, when Inwas ten or eleven years old, that 1 begannto sense the deep respect in which henTales of the UnknownnHoward Gardner: Art, Mind, andnBrain: A Cognitive Approach tonCreativity; Basic Books; New York.nby David A. HallmannA. strong case can be made thatnWestern culture began to define itselfnwith the remarkable conjunction of artnand philosophy vi^ich emerged in PericleannAthens during the fifth centurynB.C. Arguably, also, the “decline of thenWest” began—or at least accelerated—nwith the development of modem psychologynas a popular pseudosciencenduring the current century. The trivializationnof philosophical inquiry in modemnthought opened the gates wide fornwhat might be called the “HumanisticnFallacy” of developmental and therapeuticnpsychology: that is, psychology as an”social science.” The classical attempt tonunderstand man’s complex relationshipsnto the mysteries of nature and life wasncmdely transformed into an effort to explain—and,nby natural extension, toncontrol—that has turned into the bizarrenTheater of Contemporary Psychology.nWhat Allen Tate once called the “modemnsquirrel cage of our sensibility, the extremenintrospection of our time,” maynwell have produced the ultimate Frankensteinnmonster, a self-consciousnessnthat paralyzes instead of Uberates andnwhich finally destroys the very phenomenanit seeks to explain.nDr. Hallman is with the English departmentnat James Madison University.n18inChronicles of Culturenwas held even by the artist and writernfriends who visited him at Lake George;nit would take considerably longer fornme to learn that references to a worldwidenreputation were not hyperbole.nUnfortunately, today, at age 61, she hasnyet to fully comprehend what AlfrednStieglitz was all about. DnTo the ancients, the intimate relationshipnbetween art and philosophy mustnhave seemed natural. From the beginningnof sophisticated aesthetic thought, artnwas judged as an “imitation” of that lifenthe philosophers sought to imderstand—na pejorative to Plato, but to Aristode anprofound statement of the possibilitiesnof life. But in the modem world, as philosophynhas become more abstmse and removednfrom the “human” concerns ofnthe homme bourgeois (existentialism isnthe obvious and rebellious exceptionnhere), its role of seer and mentor has beennassumed by psychology, which shouldnhave been philosophy’s younger sisternin the humanities, but which instead revealednitself as an unfeithfiil relation: annintellectual transvestite—or even transsexual—^allynof the social sciences. Insteadnof “interpreting” the mysteries,nmodem psychology “explains” themnnnaway. Once we are educated to our lives,nwe are able to cope with that which ournignorant ancestors thought inexplicable.nIn effect, we have swapped the Oracle atnDelphi for the twin oracles of “DearnAbby” and “Ann Landers.” Or perhapsnwe ourselves have just become irrelevantnto the great traditions of philosophy,nand maybe the relationship of art to psychologynin our time is just as intimatenand natural—^and as profound a reflectionnof our own sensibilities—as was thenclassical marriage.nCertainly the influence of psychologynon modem art—both popular and highn—^is almost all-pervasive. Freud and Jungnthemselves, not to mention the behavioristsnand others, permeate modem artnin all of its forms. For better or worse,nthe psychologists have created our sensibilitiesnjust as extensively as Plato andnAristotle created those of their own andnlater cultures. And much of this modemnintercourse has been fruitful. Carl Jung’sninfluence on T. S. Eliot alone would justifynhis sometimes-quirky work; Freud’snthought is so pervasive in modem mind,nliterature, and criticism (although it isnoften simplistically adapted and misunderstoodnby both writers and audiences)nthat even today we are confl-onted withnsuch overtly Freudian novels as D. M.nThomas’s The White Hotel, Philip Roth’snPortnoy’s Complaint, and coundessnothers. But it is questionable ^1iethernthe role of psychology, either in art or innour private and public sensibilities (ifnthese can be separated), has been eflScaciousnon the whole. Tate’s comment onnour “extreme introspection” su^ests anprotest i^ainst the narcissism and selfcotisciousnreflection that psychologynforces on individuals, which is reflectednin much art. Such solipsism (anothernterm Tate uses to “denote the failure ofnthe himian personality to function objectivelynin nature and society”) canncause a paralysis of wiU: Hamlet, thenquintessential modem man, complainsnin his great soliloquy on indecisivenessnthat his “native hue of resolution/ Isnacklied over with the pale cast of thougjit”nIt is therefore unsettling to find psychol-n