Art and Politics

Walter Gieseking is now back in Europe, and the storm that blew up lover his political beliefs has subsided. Only a few hours before he was scheduled to give a piano concert in New York Monday night, the Justice Department decided to held him for a hearing, apparently to find out whether he was "an undesirable alien." Gieseking chose to leave the country. His departure has been cheered by the various groups that picketed Carnegie Hall before the scheduled concert, charging that the German artist was a Nazi.

Gieseking was never a Nazi party member, although he found it convenient to go along with the German government when the going was good. But the important point is not his polities, which are evidently reprehensible, but the question of whether the work of an artist can be considered separately from his polities. That question has been answered rather consistently by free societies in the past. The western world has taken into its culture the works of many artists whose politics were at least as vicious as those of Gieseking--Richard Wagner and Ezra Pound, to name two. If Gieseking has not been allowed to play for American audiences for political reasons, then the logical absurdity reasons, then the logical absurdity would be to ban the work of Wagner and Pound and all the other artists who also rejected free society.

Many of the groups who opposed the pianist's tour feel that as a Nazi sympathizer, Gieseking should not be able to profit from an American concert tour. This feeling is understandable, but again it leads to a damaging error. This position follows logically to the absurd proposition that American cannot buy goods made by any Germans who condoned the Nazi government. If Gieseking cannot profit from the sale of his talent, the many millions of Germans like him should not be able to profit either.

But there is another side to the opposition. Apart from the question of profit, many people believe that a man who prospered under the Nazis should not be allowed in this country. If Gieseking were a dangerous political character, or if the government had any evidence that he planned to laid "un-American" outfits during his tour, then of course he should have been deported. But the Justice department has presented no such evidence. Unless it does, no one can fairly assume that the pianist was going to do anything but complete his tour and return to Europe.

If that is the case, then the Justice Department has given in to the pressure of picket lines that exceeded a reasonable size and threatened to become coercive, and the kind of protests that were manufactured by Walter Winchell, who called for a demonstration against Gieseking in his Sunday night broadcast. Gieseking's hurried departure has deprived many music-lovers of the opportunity of hearing him play. Many others would undoubtedly choose not to go to his concerts, and in a free society, everyone should have the right to make such a choice. But the Justice Department, evidently under the whip of well-meaning pressure groups, has made that choice for everybody.