Viewing page 10 of 49

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

B

All of which creates a somewhat bewildering atmosphere for such crusaders of modern art as Alfred Barr of the MoMA, who, defending modern art with almost Calvinist intensity, is constantly reminded by customs examiners that Uncle Sam does not agree. This wire construction or these two undefinable shapes by Henry Moore are not sculpture at all, since they represent neither animal or human form. Much as the nursery school teacher valiantly seeks for one redeeming factor to mention in her report on the wayward child, the examiners try to be helpful. One of them, for instance, [[strikethrough]] pondered gazed lengthily [[/strikethrough]] aware that under no stretch of the imagination could a bottle be considered a natural form, gazed lengthily at Boccioni's "Dev. of a Bottle in Space," trying earnestly to find an apple image in the chunky shapes.

(To Sweeney story)

But the most famous controversy over "what is sculpture" ocured in 1928, when the photo. Edward Steichen imported Brancusi's  "Brd in Flight" as a wk of art, [[strikethrough]] only to find it [[encumbered?]] [[/strikethrough]] only to discover by that the customs collector considered it a manufacture of metal & therefore  dutiable at 40 per centum ad valorem. An [[strikethrough]] eminent [[/strikethrough]] illustrious [[strikethrough]] group [[/strikethrough]] parade of witnesses, including sculptor Jacob Epstein, critic Henry MacBride & Forbes Watson & "Vanity Fair" editor Frank Crowninshield, [[strikethrough]] appeared in customs court and went through eloquent [[/strikethrough]] appeared in the third district customs case to defend the "natural form" of the sleek airplane propellor-like shaft. [[strikethrough]] form [[/strikethrough]] They admitted it had neither "head nor feet nor feathers" & Steichen confessed that if he "would