Viewing page 40 of 58

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

GOVERNMENT IN ART
MUNICIPAL ART CENTER
HARRY GOTTLIEB

Today the artist is becoming increasingly aware of the inadequacy of the various traditional agencies upon which he has depended for contact with the public and for economic security. 
Most of the dealers, because of their inability to cope with the situation, their adherence to policies determined by profit and speculation, and in many instances their antagonism to the artist's interests, have failed to be of any appreciable service to him and the community. 
The failure of the dealer system plus the failure of museums to give tangible support to living artists makes it imperative for municipalities to accept some responsibility by establishing municipal art centers.
Such centers would stimulate public interest in contemporary art, encourage sales, and bring artists into closer cooperation with one another.
In New York City the question of a municipal art center, long hopefully discussed by artists, became an issue of the day with the First Municipal Art Exhibition. This was held under the Mayor's official sponsorship in March, 1934 at Rockefeller Center, only a few weeks after the destruction there of Diego Rivera's mural.
Feeling that this "harmony show," purporting to show community of interest among all New York artists, was actually serving to whitewash Rockefeller vandalism, a group of artists refused to participate and picketed the exhibition.
Out of this protest there was formed the Artists' Committee of Action, to work for a municipal art program under democratic administration by artists, who would see to it that no private individuals or corporation would exploit such a program for their own interests.
Under the splendid leadership of Hugo Gellert, the committee drew up a complete plan, backed by the artists and by prominent liberals such as John Dewey, Lewis Mumford and Heywood Broun, who joined demonstrations that marched to City Hall on behalf of the program.
The plan, presented to Mayor LaGuardia on three occasions, March 20th, May 9th, and August 30th, 1934, contained the following main features: (1) a permanent art gallery for all New York artists, (2) a circulating library for pictures and sculptures, (3) a no-jury system, with no discrimination against any creed or color, (4) administration by artists.
At length, on January 6th, 1935 Mayor LaGuardia announced "his" idea
{68}

for a Municipal Art Center. Ignoring those who had originated and popularized the plan, he put it in charge of a hand-picked "Committee of One Hundred."
In December, 1935 Mrs. Henry Breckinridge, chairman of the "Committee of One Hundred," announced the forthcoming opening of a temporary gallery in a remodeled house at 62 West 53rd Street. Artists were to exhibit in self-determined groups.
Invited to show with one of the groups, one of New York's most prominent artists, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, was forced to turn back his entry blank when he found it in a clause limiting exhibitors to citizens. Because of Japanese birth, barring him from United States citizenship, he and other artists were shut off form any possibility of participating in the program.
The meaning of discrimination struck home to score of leading New York artists when they found one of their own number, a man who had played a distinguished part in the art life of the city for nearly thirty years, thus affected by it. Indignant protests by more than a hundred prominent artists were concentrated through an Artists' Provisional Committee Against Discrimination, which cooperated with the Artists' Union in demanding withdrawal of the obnoxious clause. Artist members of the "Committee of One Hundred," credited with responsibility for the clause by Mrs. Breckinridge, contradicted her by denying it.
Faced with prospect of picket lines at the opening of the art center, Mrs. Breckinridge announced a residence requirement which eliminated the citizenship ruling. Further, at the insistence of the Artists' Union, there was withdrawn a "hospitality clause" that would have permitted censorship of any art not satisfactory to the administration.
Nothing could have more dramatically revealed the urgent need for democratic defenses of interest common to all artists. The discrimination issue at the Municipal Art Center precipitated the decision of several well known artists, previously hesitant to join the Artists' Congress in order to work toward that goal.
It also completely vindicated the original stand of the Artists' Committee of action for administration by artists responsible to organizations embracing the great mass of artists in New York. Such an administration is still to be gained.
Moreover, the temporary Municipal Art Center must be expanded. Another building should be added where a circulating library can be maintained for the rental of art works to institutions and private individuals, the rental payable to the artists, as specified int he original plans of the Artists' Committee of Action, and proposed in the Federal art bill sponsored by the Artists' Union. There should also be a school and a discussion forum.
With the temporary art center, New York artists have made a good beginning. This should be an incentive to all artists throughout the country to build municipal art centers in every city in the United States.
{69}