Page 14 - Studio International - September 1974

some uncomplimentary references to The statement hit the meeting like a in this particular time of great crisis, when the
Communism which the editors declined to bombshell and was followed by spirited debate. need for unity seemed so essential, it was
answer because the magazine was 'non-political' The meeting was chaired by Phil Bard, a solid considered subversive. It was probably Solmon
and non-sectarian. Jacob Burck, 'one of the adherent of the social realists. One of his who was most influential in liberalizing Art
outstanding revolutionary artists'," was asked cartoons appeared in the May 1935 Art Front Front's policy, but it was the activities of
to reply. Benton continued the controversy with satirizing the abstract artist as Don Quixote on a Rosenberg and Spivak that proved to be a
a long letter in the May Art Front. He, too, rocking horse. He and Solmon had differed in greater annoyance to the union's leadership. The
believed in a 'better consumption-production ideological and aesthetic discussion at union two friends were concerned by what they
economy' but preferred to 'work pragmatically meetings, but they respected each other and perceived to be the narrow mechanical line of
with actual American forces to that end [and later became close friends. Convinced that their colleagues on the editorial board but their
with] democratic procedures . . . without the Solmon's complaint had merit, Bard suggested somewhat flippant personal style exacerbated
need of armed forces installing and protecting a that he be invited on to the magazine's editorial the suspicion that they were conspiratorial and
dictatorship . . . however idealistic its aims'.12 board. These were the early days of the Popular self-serving. Weinstock attempted to play the
In a letter to the editor, Art Front editorJacob Front and it is possible that Bard was reflecting a role of harmonizer at the lengthy board
Kainen suggested, 'If Benton wants a better general desire by the knowledgeable left wing to meetings and often voted with the dissidents;
society, he can help by being an artist of the open its ranks aesthetically, as well as politically. his attitude perplexed and angered most of the
social revolution'. Solmon joined the editorial board for the editorial board who interpreted his actions as
The alliance against the American Scene December 1935 issue, the first of volume 2; the opportunistic.
artists did not deter the somewhat more polite changes were immediate and apparent. The conflict erupted at a Wednesday night
but no less lively debate between Davis and the The masthead of the first three issues of the meeting. Joe Jones rose t o charge that Art Front
proselytizers of social realism on the magazine. second volume listed Stuart Davis as managing had failed to fulfil its essential function as the
Davis's introduction to the catalogue of the editor, but he was now devoting his energies to organizing and informational instrument of the
Whitney Museum exhibition, 'Abstract the American Artists' Congress and was no union. Jones was a handsome, articulate man
Painting in America', and the exhibition itself longer as interested in the official publication of given to `left-patriotic' speeches denouncing
were both attacked by Weinstock in the April the Artists' Union. Davis wrote an article on the modern art, which impressed the rank and file.
issue. Abstract art, declared Weinstock, 'is American Artists' Congress for the December He was cheered when he declared that he was
founded on a limited definition of painting. . . . 1935 issue; it was the last piece by him to appear speaking for the artists of the mid-west;
Form becomes like so much monopoly capital in in Art Front. Rosenberg angered the crowd when he shot
which the society of art is sacrificed'.13 Davis With the December issue, the dimensions of back, 'Who the hell made you the representative
defended abstract art: 'In the materialism of the journal changed from the eleven-by- of the artists of the mid-west?'
abstract art in general, is implicit a negation of sixteen-inch format to the nine-by-twelve-inch Wednesday night meetings were always well
many ideals dear to the bourgeois heart . . . the format. The size of the issues varied between attended because, among other, more important,
result of a revolutionary struggle relative to sixteen and thirty-two pages. Almost all the art reasons, they were a source of entertainment.
bourgeois academic associations.' Davis then work reproduced in the first volume was This particular evening, attendance was
asks Weinstock not to equate the 'abstract political cartoons by brilliant practitioners : especially large and the 'show' was surely not
tendencies in painting and the fascist tendencies William Gropper, George Grosz, Ben Shahn, disappointing. Rosenberg, in reply to the charge
of the American Scene school of Benton, etc., Adolph Dehn, and others. Very few that his clique frustrated the will of the majority
. . . because they are both within the bourgeois reproductions of paintings, graphics, or of the board, shouted 'We put out the magazine;
scheme'.14 sculpture appeared in the first seven issues. they are a bunch of dummies !' Cries of
Although Davis continued to write occasional With the publication of the December issue, `elitism' filled the hall as he continued to demean
articles for Art Front, he no longer did any Art Front began to look like an art journal. the union's leadership. Unable to find a chair,
reviews or argued on the pages of the magazine Solomon set the new tone by selecting for the Weinstock perched on a window sill and quietly
with the advocates of the general theory of cover illustration a Jansen woodcut borrowed observed the proceedings. Someone in the
dialectal materialism. He wrote a spirited from the New Art Circle gallery. The theme of crowd shouted, 'Weinstock is a Robespierre!',
denunciation of the Municipal Art Commission the woodcut, a contemporary Horsemen of the so taking him by surprise that he fell from the
for rejecting a mural by Ben Shahn and Lou Apocalypse, was rendered in a harsh mystical sill.
Block for the penitentiary on Rikers Island.15 In style in the manner of the German A motion was made to expel the 'clique' from
November, Davis made a blistering attack on expressionists. Inside, along with political the editorial board, but Bard, who was chairing
Forbes Watson, the technical director of the cartoons by Hugo Gellert and Boris Gorelick, the meeting, declared that the motion was out of
Section of Painting and Sculpture of the was a full-page reproduction of a Leger drawing. order and would be referred to the executive
Treasury Department, for having an elitist The text of a lecture given by Leger at the board of the union. Bard's decision came as a
attitude toward federal patronage.16 Museum of Modern Art accompanied the shock since expulsion would have been carried
During the fall of 1935, some members of the reproduction; the translation was made by by the membership. Here again, it is likely that
union — Joseph Solmon, Ilya Bolotowsky, Harold Rosenberg who, a decade later, became Bard, better informed politically than the rank
Balcomb Greene, Mark Rothkowitz, Byron one of the nation's leading art critics. He had and file, was anxious to avoid any charge of
Browne, George McNeil, and others — began to been among the first group of artists hired for sectarianism. In early 1936, the impact of the
grumble about the narrow aesthetic line WPA art projects and was assigned as a mural new policy on Party cadre was clear; cooperation
monopolizing the magazine. The group met assistant to Max Spivak, a member of the with socialists and liberals on short-range goals
informally to discuss the need for a broader editorial board of Art Front. Rosenberg, as well was not only acceptable, it was desirable.
viewpoint. Joe Solmon drew up a manifesto for as Spivak and Solmon, annoyed other board No change was made in the editorial board
presentation at a union meeting, arguing that a members who preferred a publication that and the conflict remained unsettled. A meeting
magazine representing a mass organization of emphasized political and economic issues. was called for Party members and fellow
artists should encourage diverse views. The Rosenberg made no effort to disguise his disdain travellers on the editorial board to be held at the
editors, he charged, were apparently unaware of for his critics on the board and in the leadership; office of Alexander Trachtenberg, the head of
the educational value of the Museum of Modern he considered most of them intellectually International Publishers. Neither Rosenberg
Art. Solmon also believed Art Front should look shallow and boring. At any time, such an nor Solmon was present, but there was a special
like an art magazine as well as a union journal. attitude would have created personal problems; guest, a French official of the Comintern,

68