Viewing page 35 of 58

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

in this field-infinitely more important than the eleven million dollar copies of Greek temples for storage warehouse purposes, and even of greater social value than the masterpieces therein housed. In saying this I am not denying the historical importance of great creations of the past nor their cultural importance to specialists who make a specialized study and use of them nor their supplementary value to the general public; I am merely saying that the first-hand creative experience in its own right is of greater individual and social value than is the act of reverencing remote examples of that experience produced in other centuries when artists somehow had the chance to function effectively. If the museums were capable of recognizing this fact they would themselves be initiating such constructive practices as rental to living creators instead of refusing to artist producers this minimum of tangible support. And they would be pressing for larger fees than the ones so far mentioned, especially for the most distinguished works, and continually searching for examples to subsidize in that healthiest of all ways - through purchase. The very fact that they combat this move instead of supporting it proves the hopeless negations of the present situation.
On a reorientation of our accepted attitude toward art museums and on a reorganization of their entire structure and educational creed and procedure, probably as much as on any other cultural issue confronting us today, depends the character of the new society we are trying to build on the economic and human ruins of old.
Understanding the issue clearly is the first step in reconstruction. Municipal art centers are a healthy substitute for the inadequacies and negotiations of the current, semi-private institutions - until such can be made genuine community centers. The rental policy is a necessary beginning toward forcing a revision of present practices and the courageous stand so far taken by two important organizations of leading artists must be maintained at all costs till the issue is won. The taking or giving of managerial responsibility to artists in art events (the Artists' Congress is such an assumption of collective responsibility) is a just and unavoidable allocation of authority where it belongs. And, finally, collective social planning that will eliminate the private profiteer and his hirelings from the misplaced respect and authority they now enjoy, replacing them with art activities which are genuine expression of community life - as the constructive government art program of the past two years has been - all these are the ways and means which are now at hand for the rebuilding.

DISCUSSION
In a general paper on "The Artist and His Audience," Jerome Klein showed that the awakening of artists to a consciousness of their relation to society has stimulated their interest in the kind of audience they reach. That in turn has involved a reconsideration of the whole nature and direction of their art, its intelligibility, and the limits of its appeal. Those most seriously concerned with reaching masses of people would necessarily occupy themselves only with those realities of greatest import to those masses. The relation of esthetic focus to outlet and type of audience was outlined with respect to the special problems in each medium, the easel painting, the mural, sculpture and the graphic arts.
Under the heading, William Gropper spoke briefly on the cartoon from the point of view of the revolutionary cartoonist.
[58]
MR. WILLIAM ZORACH: I have a little tale to read to you. It comes from the annual report of the American Federation of Arts.
(Reading) "We have been greatly impressed by the increased emphasis placed by educators upon the significance of the arts and of beauty in education and life. Considerable study has been given to the relation of this changing point of view to the attitude of those responsible for the spending of the vast sums now controlled by nearly 150 foundations at present operating in this country. Their combine capital, representing nearly a billion dollars, and their annual expenditures, of probably 60 million dollars, represent a power and an influence of no little significance.
"Before another report is made we will have gathered figures that accurately indicate the great sums donated, during the past fifty years, by people of means anxious to further 'the cause of art.' At present tentative figures are available only for the years from 1922 to 1932 inclusive, showing gifts totaling over 193 million dollars. For each of the eleven years this gives an average of over 17 1/2 million dollars... It is doubtful if any country or any race has ever known such an avalanche of private wealth for like purposes, given for the most part with so few restrictions..."
I think these figures speak for themselves - louder than anything I can say. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
All this money has been left to enrich the art life of this country. None of it has ever been spent for living art. At least, the percentage is so small it would take an Einstein to figure it out. None of it has ever touched the development of art in this country or been used to contribute to it in any way. No amount of concentration and worship of the art of the past will produce a living and abundant art life in the present. Only support of living art can do that.
* * * *
MR. RASKIN: I would like to say a few words in connection with the paper read by Mr. Ward, about Race, Nationality and Art. I object to his point of view. He opposes the national idea in art because it may lead to some conflicts in society. It may be used as a way of estranging people through the differences of ideas. I say that if a thing can be used in a dangerous manner it is not the fault of the thing itself. A knife may be used for killing - it is not the fault of the knife itself. I say that national and nationalistic are not the same thing. Nationalistic means to use art to glorify a nation, but nationality in art means to glorify art. Whenever there was a great art it expressed deeply-rooted national ideas.
MR. WARD: I think there has been some misunderstanding. Nobody will deny that national differences do exist and have existed in the past. The point is that in the present world the direction is against the increase of those differences, and the direction is toward finding a common basis upon which the artists may stand.
MR. SCHAPIRO: One of the strongest points of Mr. Ward's paper was that there is no such thing as a nationally exclusive art, not only in a social and economic sense, but also culturally... I am entirely in accord with Mr. Ward's insistence that the idea of national art is pernicious.
MR. LOZOWICK: I think the paper by Mr. Ward and support given it by Mr. Schapiro are excellent, but if to preach exclusive nationalism is a very bad thing, on the other hand, to preach exclusive internationalism, though not so bad, is still a great danger.
Let us consider the Soviet Union, where the national minorities have been given a chance to develop their culture. These nationalities have inherited cultures. Now, we cannot possibly doubt that this body of cultural heritage tends to give their expression a peculiar characteristic. This, instead of being suppressed in the name of internationalism, is supported by the Soviet Union.
Therefore, I say that to supplement the paper, which is undoubtedly excellent, we ought to make provision at this time fr the acceptance and support of the culture of any minority.
* * * *
MR. NAT WERNER: Meyer Schapiro's paper, I feel, has been completely negative. I would like to know whether he feels there are any artists today who do not fall into the classifications he has made.
MR. SCHAPIRO: I deliberately limited myself to the task I was assigned, namely to show how the social basis operates even with an art that seems to be an entirely independent art.
* * * *
At the conclusion of the discussion, commissions on permanent organization, teaching, sculpture, artists' unions, etc. were set up to meet during the evening.
[59]