Viewing page 15 of 58

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

1066 Filbert St.
Sunday. July 21 '40

I have been in SF a month. I have accomplished so little. Much has been fleeting, momentary, pleasurable, exciting, but I have found so little of true worth fo my career.

Otis Oldfield and I had a long talk at the school, on the new French School art that many of the progressive younger artists in S.F. are following. He thought it was the significant movement of the day - errotic doodling, linear and space management, abstract or non-objective.

I was completed confused. Walter & Tom added their ideas later, rallying [[??]] for sub-conscious art. I was completely confused. On one hand I had to defend Walter's work (experimental, moving, strange), Tom Hayes', (the dream) Shirley Stascen's (surrealist), the beauty of line in Hayter's work, the significance of Picasso, of Klee (Walter's great), Kadinsky - and Hofer, then on the other hand let my friends know of my personal ideas on art - my land - my landscapes; had to convince them that I [[crossed out]] have [[/crossed out]] did know about the balance of the abstract pattern, and had to cling to the idea that patter is secondary, that message is primary.

My work must look academic to them, for it has subject matter of a representational nature. I wonder: do they feel deep enough to understand land and sea? Or am I harping on an old theme, worn to [[crossed out]] old for [[/crossed out]] threadbare to have any flare in the scheme of things today?

I go to the fair and see the contemporary Am. work. My work would fit well there (as it did in National shows) (Remember what Naguchi said, what Madge Tennent said).

Whose word shall we believe today? Are the