Viewing page 11 of 34

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-2-

Would the cooperation of liberal American artists be of any realistic benefit to labor?

As Professor Shotwell of Columbia put it: Whether we like it or not, the human mind is 95% emotion and 5% logical thinking -- if any. The power of art is that it is a direct appeal to our emotions. Can intelligent and liberal parties, rather than the retrogressive and conservative elements in America harness art to strengthen their program?

In every great national struggle in the world's history art has been harnessed, for good or evil.
 
It is recognized as a major weapon of education. Voltaire paved the way for the French Revolution; Thomas Paine for our Declaration of Independence. In the European war, Uncle Sam employed the artists of the highest rank to sell Liberty Bonds and enlist soldiers for the front. Italy, France, Russia, Germany uses its best artists because they are an invaluable weapon in shaping a national policy.

In what specific way can art help liberal labor?

Labor is attempting to unionize the workers. Art posters, cartoons, large editions of lithographs are more telling arguments than reams of printed words. They hit the bull's eye. They are a direct appeal. Labor organization is not understood by and large in America. The second problem of the C.I.O. is to sell its philosophy to America. Is there a better way of doing this than through the achieved reputation of the foremost American Artists?

But this point must be made clear and plain.

Artists -- in their own interest -- are not primarily concerned in a particular strike or movement toward unionization. They would insist in a long range program of cooperation between art and labor.

The artists recognize the value to them of such a program. Can the C.I.O. be made to see it as a realistic measure?

The artists Congress and Artists' unions are non partisan organizations, but