interpret it, it is a fairly open proposition that one statesubsidizednagency should support another in order to satisfyna constituency. The constituents have identified what theyndo—which is the production of crafts and hobbies—withnsomething else, hi order technically to qualify for funds,nwhat they do has been called art. But the bottom line is thatnthey are being rewarded for having attained seniority, andnfor having organized themselves in a politically consciousnway. Clearly, any group could do so within a congressionalndistrict: the young, minorities, unions, the unemployed.nThere can be no objection to their organization as suchn—only to the unpleasant fact that the public manifestahonnof private desires qualifies for monies undeserved.nIowa is of course not alone—southern California is thengreat home of arts feshvals. Periodically throughout thisnpart of the state streets are closed, parks are opened, andnhundreds of well-meaning, untalented, self-ascribed artistsndisplay their crafts and hobbies. We have, by the way, morenthan a million of them in this country if we can trust the lastncensus. That number of people have described themselvesnas artists by intention. Is this country blessed by havingnmany hundred thousand more artists than ever flourishednin the Florentine Renaissance? One doubts it. The test,nafter all, is not the intention but the work. We are so used tonpraising the idea of creativity that we confuse intentionsnwith works.n”Festivals” have become familiar urban events. In somenways they are entirely delightful. But they tend to transvaluenthings: rock music becomes a concert; the consumption ofngoods becomes the acquisition of art; crafts and hobbiesnbecome the achievement of art. Festivals exist because citiesnare anxious to have turnstile statistics proving that they arenall little San Franciscos. They want to be blessed by thenmedia and to qualify for state funds. But in actual practice,na certain amount of municipal activity is like the following,ndescribed last year by a writer for the Canyon Times ofnDenver, Colorado:n20/CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnIf only Shakespeare could be at this year’s Arts Festivalnto see his play Macbeth performed on roller skates! InnFeisty FeuilletonicsnReaders bored to tears by the conventionalnpieties of most of thennation’s pundits will find refreshingnirreverence in The Liberal Crack-nUp by R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. (Simonn& Schuster; New York). But theynmay well recall the appearance twonyears ago of another book by anleading conservative journalist,nStatecraft as Soulcraft by GeorgenWill. Tyrell, like many others onnthe right, did not much care fornWill’s book of vague and toothlessntheorizing. But however differentnhis own book may be in content.nREVISIONSntone, and style, it prompts a similarnperception: the author would donbetter to stick to short pieces.nTyrell’s production does at leastnenjoy one advantage over Will’s: itncan be enjoyed in short snatches.nTaken three or four pages at a time,nthe freewheeling ridicule of liberalnenthusiasts — of Tom Haydennflooding the living room of hisnSanta Barbara home with waternfrom a rooftop solar collector, ofnNorman Mailer hailing JimmynCarter in 1976 as a “political genius,”nof the “lunatic sisters” of radicalnfeminism fighting for women’snright to collect garbage—is delight­nnna 15 minute adaptation of the play, written, producednand directed by local artist Gerald McDonough, Macbethnwill roller skate his way to treachery on Friday, •nJune 25, at 5:45 p.m. in front of Symphony Hall.nHowever, the 15 minute version isn’t quite as tragicnas Shakespeare’s version. According to McDonough,nthe play is a liberal interpretation of the original,nintegrating a cast that includes little Joe McDufF andnLong John Silver, as well as a Lady Macbeth, whonrides a moped. . . . The production is sponsored bynthe Salt Lake Council for the Arts.nThere is no use debating whose shame is the greater; thendirector’s, the Salt Lake Council for the Arts’s, or WilliamnShakespeare’s. The point is that interest in art does notnreally mean interest in art. It means that whatever can bendone to attract public interest, satisfy constituencies, ornattract funds will be done. There are many corollaries. Onenis that it becomes easy to give a little something to everynclaimant for funds. A second is that every claim on fundsnmade in the name of art is legitimate. There has been a fatalnconfusion between the object of producing works of art, andnthe object of satisfying artists.nWe all know that subsidy and its distribution are veryndifferent. Out of the original and noble intention ofnsupporting art comes the political reality of diffusing moneynwith political impartiality in its name. There are othernproblems for democratic societies. I will be talking at thisnpoint about the rationales for art patronage in Great Britain,na country which is often invoked along with Austria as annexample for our own donatives. But it is a country whichnhas experienced the same kind of troubles patronizing art asnwe have: it does not have fewer problems; it just hasnexperienced them sooner. The major problem is that,nalthough there is a British Arts Council in place, annorganization which subsidizes about half the budgets fornmuseums, libraries, and the practice of art, its budgetn(much larger in proportion than that of the NationalnEndowment for the Arts) can never satisfy all those whondesire to share it. There is now a bitter conflict betweennprofessionals and amateurs, between aristocrats and thenfully amusing. Taken in larger dosesnthe frenetic wit begins to seemnforced. The book’s thesis—thatn”the sensible Liberalism of yore”ndisintegrated in the 1960’s and 70’sninto a congeries of mindlessncrusades—is unexceptional, butnbarely holds the author’s rapid-firenassaults on liberalism together. Thenfragmentary and fitful attempts atnserious original analysis rarely donmore than put a peculiar strain onnthe journalistic humor. Tyrell’snwork will evoke some heartynlaughs, as will the dust jacket comparingnhim to H. L. Mencken, ccn