Guilbaut's narrative, with enough plot twists to satisfy a soap-opera fan and enough insular
factionalism to tax even a Williams to taxonomize, vividly demonstrates what a contradictionary position the New York elite artists were in during this time period. Should artists be Marxist and Stalinist or Marxist and anti-Stalinist and anti-democratic? Should they be elitists and opposed to middle-class and working-class culture or work for popular causes? Should they focus on formalism and abstract act or produce a more accessible art? Should they be American nationalists in favor of American art or French nationalists in favor of French art or globalists in favor of an international art? Should they be anti-fascist or anti-anti-fascist? Should they be surrealists or opposed to surrealism but in favor of explorations of the unconscious? Should they be opposed to markets or in favor of markets because of the demise of the WPA? Given this multitude of dilemmas, in which they were to not so much choose an option but rather to somehow choose both options, it is surprising that American artists did finally a viable solution.

On the other hand, perhaps it is not so surprising. The war made the move to New York from Paris almost inevitable. France was in disgrace because of its collusion with the Nazis. The borders of Europe were closed. It was clear that America was going to be the dominant nation after the war. The United States had market forces and the PR machinery in place to take advantage of this opportunity. Patriotism and the belief that a new path forward was necessary would drive American buyers to want to buy American art and to want an emphasis on energy and exuberance rather than on the cultivation that was typical of French art. When artists are given a choice between art and politics, they will choose art every time. Thus, you can almost read off Jackson Pollock from the set of constraints established beforehand for him. Guilbaut's point is surely that it was these outside factors and not the quality of the art that enabled New York to "steal" modern art from Paris. I have to agree with him here: has a revolution in art ever been less interesting? Elephants have made it on "60 Minutes."

Their situation might have been less distressing if these artists had realized that art does not have to have one function and that a purely aesthetic function for some art is perfectly acceptable. Aesthetic values are important even if not all-important. Who would want to live in a world where aesthetics do not matter? This can be put more strongly: who has ever lived in a
world where aesthetics do not matter? If these artists had made these realizations they would have been less anxious to maintain their radical credentials by directly their revolutionary fervor, which could no longer be directed to politics, against the mass market. In addition, those who bought the art would have found themselves less pressed to justify buying it by saying the purchase was for status reasons. That this view of the mass market is incorrect is shown by the fact that as marginal costs changed mass production has been replaced by mass customization. When the economics are suitable consumers will choose aesthetic differentiation over mass standardization.

If they had reached these conclusions they would have had a more positive attitude toward the development of a larger art market in New York. Isn't this what they wanted after the end of the WPA? If they had met these new consumers of art with a more receptive attitude instead of scorn they might have worked to improve middlebrow tastes rather than showing their superiority and driving middlebrow consumers away. Everything that rises must converge. These artists were very opposed to the assocation of art with fashion, but, since, in my view, the art was not great, the creative forces the new art unleashed in the areas of fashion and design are more important. Such a creative efflorescence presaged the mass customization I mentioned above and had a symbiotic relationship with the workings of the market: it would not have been possible without the market, while its creativity led to future economic development.