Viewing page 39 of 58

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

criticism, abstract painting, and the like. For instance, in the very first bulletin Admiral Peoples made the following cogent remarks: 
"It has been said that among the reasons why Florentine painting reached such heights, was that the firm critical standard of those who ordered work was that no such artist dared to do a mediocre painting or piece of sculpture. Another was that the inhabitants, including the artists, were so imbued with the glovery of Florence, that they would no nothing which did not enhance that glory. Without being sentimental, the Section of Painting and Sculpture hopes that in employing the vital talents of this country, faith in the country and a renewed sense of its glorious possibilities will be awaked both in the artists and their audiences..."
This might conceivably be interpreted as a hint that socially critical art would not be tolerated by the Procurement Division. Such an interpretation can be substantiated by subsequent developments. 
The Procurement Division's "firm critical standard" was brought into play with a vengeance in its national competition for Department of Justice murals. It was announced that "The subject matter of these murals should deal with some phase of the administration of justice in relation to contemporary American life."
Fifty-five nationally known artists, competing by invitation, sent in ninety sketches dealing with that subject. Every sketch was rejected and the competition closed without compensation to the artists. In reply to inquiries, it was stated that none of the sketches had been "adequate in composition"! 
On top of that, when a director of the Art Students' League in New York asked permission to exhibit the rejected mural sketches, he was advised against it. 
To invited artists to deal according to their honest convictions with so serious a subject, and then to handle their work in an arbitrary and secretive fashion hardly makes for confidence in the sincerity of those responsible. 
By contrast, the action of the Treasury Department in approving the sketches of George Biddle over the veto of the Fine Arts Commission is a commendable liberal step. Acceptance of Biddle's sketch of the tenements and sweatshops of yesterday and a related panel looking to social betterment, marks a significant victory for the forces of social progress. 
Much of the friction and dissatisfaction over disposition of the work of artists, both in Treasury Department competitions and government projects throughout the country is due to the predominance of laymen on juries. 
The best contracts awarded by the Treasury Department were given without competition to artists selected by an Advisory Committee dominated by museum directors and administrators. Perhaps the Treasury Department was under the illusion that the seven museum directors were just as qualified as the four artists. Let the Treasury Department disabuse itself of such notions. Museum directors have very little to do with the contemporary art; normally they are authorities on antiques. As such, they are out of touch with the problems of contemporary art.
To do justice to the interests of American artists as a whole, it is essential that juries not only be composed of artists, but of those recommended by artists' organizations, to whom the jury members would owe responsibility for their decisions. 
It is likewise contrary to the interests of artists to enter competitions on a highly speculative basis. Each winner in the Post Office competition was to get $3,000 for murals on two panels. This pay was to include the expense of installation, cost of materials, models, scaffolding, and in most cases, rental of studios in Washington. In the long run, the pay for the winners in the Washington competition is probably less per hour than pay for the artists on the projects. And those who did not win got nothing for their preliminary sketches. Architects receive pay for designs submitted for Federal buildings. Why shouldn't artists invited to submit sketches be paid for their time and effort?
Since the further history of the projects under WPA is treated elsewhere, it is needless to repeat it here. 
Suffice it to say, in conclusion, that the government is a major factor in American art today. It has the power and, insofar as the artists are unemployed, the obligation, to stimulate tremendously the growth of art in this country. We cannot doubt that the only fruitful course is that which lies in the frank and equitable treatment of artists, giving them a full measure of democratic participation in the administration of art enterprises, and the opportunity to work according to their honest convictions. We artists have a right to expect that of any administration truly representative of the American people.