![]() |
| The first part of Margarita Nietos illuminating tour of the local art scene of the 1930s took us through the California Artists Fiesta, the impact and controversy of David Alfaro Siqueiros, the arrival of the Federal Works of Art Project, and the emergence of some key Hollywood-based galleries. The first part of this journey brought us from 1930 through 1934; we pick up with the start of the second half of the decade.--Ed. |
| A small group of works drawn from the Jerome Eddy collection is on view at Earl Stendahl Gallery in February. Jerome Eddy of Chicago and Phoenix--whose acquisitions have enriched the Art Institute of Chicago, as well as the superb collection of local residents Louise and Walter C. Arensberg--was a close friend of Stendahls, and there are significant works by Monet, Franz Marc, Kandinsky and Jawlensky, as well as the less familiar Charbeaux and Herbin. Its very warm for May in part because the Hollywood gallery scene is heating up. Elizabeth Ann Mills, the gallery curator at Stanley Rose, has organized a Postsurrealists and Other Moderns exhibition with a catalogue essay and guest lecture by none other than Jules Langsner, and featuring works by Feitelson, Lundeberg, Picasso, Derain, Dali, Kadish, Merrild, Goldstein, Taeuber-Arp, Leger, Hofer, Gris and Arp. Postsurrealism is defined as a movement born of Surrealism itself. But not unlike most offspring, it stands in opposition to the parent, imposing impeccable esthetic order. . .conscious rather than the unconscious manipulation of materials, and the normal functions of the mind rather than the. . .idiosyncrasies of the dream, according to Langsner. Meanwhile Lorser Feitelson shows Paul Klee in July at his own Hollywood Gallery of Modern Art. In September we sneak in for a private view of Surrealist pictures by Max Ernst at the Centaur Gallery where, yes, Howard Putzel is now settled in as the new and very active Director. We return to May where the mid-month meeting of the Los Angeles Art Noon Club memorializes the lives and work of departed California artists, including Guy Rose, William Keith, Thomas Moran, Elmer Wachtell and many others. A permanent collection of the works of these artists planned to represent the historical development of California art will be started at this meeting, according to Harry Muir Kurtzworth writing in Saturday Night. And lets linger a moment longer on this warm evening in May so we can ride slowly down Seventh Street, gazing into the department store windows, once more transformed into the Art Lane. Oh, but we see mixed signals. Here we are, viewing the National Housing Exposition Art Exhibition opening on May 18 and endeavoring to show the influences which had a bearing on Western Art--Spanish, Mexican, Indian, Chinese, Japanese--as well as the typographical [!] effect of the country. Kurtzworth writing in Saturday Night two weeks later gives an overview of the development of mural art in Los Angeles. Applauding the efforts of the PWAP projects and specifically, the suggestions for themes and ideas recently printed in the bulletin of the Treasury Departments Section of Painting and Sculpture, he states that under them, the cities of America now bid well to own works of art which should protect American ideals in an American way even better than Diego Rivera and the other Mexicans attempted to depict America from the standpoint of the Mexican communist. He notes however that in Los Angeles, the progress in mural painting beginning with the Mexicans and the Mural Block inspired by them here-and-now through the PWAP, [mural painting] bids well to become the most significant and enduring of all of our art expressions. |
| So we hear the echo of the prophetic voice of Miss Schmidt? Yes, it seems that murals are THE thing in Los Angeles but only if they suit certain tastes and views. We scan the pages of the Los Angeles Times as we ride along and learn that Leo Katzs mural has been ordered removed by the School Board for its depiction of war and murder inspired by greed. Oh, and remember our January visit to the Ebell? Well, the Club voted to obliterate Maxine Albros The Four Sibyls fresco by the use of lye. All of this was preceded by New Yorks Rivera mural fiasco at Rockefeller Center, as Arthur Millier reminded his readers, along with an admonition to the artists responsibility to understand what their public wants. Public walls held no place for personal beliefs; noble forms will not be destroyed, proclaims the headline. And the heat goes on. Heres an article from the Los Angeles Herald on a protest against Revolutionists in Club Murals, for it seems that a series of murals by Alfredo Ramos Martinez at the Friday Morning Club has caused displeaure among the members. Mrs. Leafie Sloan-Orcutt for one, summed it up: But perhaps I like best the pictures of flowers, of sunsets, of marine scenes. According to another report, the mural cartoons depict the peons of Mexico, sad-eyed and stolid, staring out into space. They will apparently be allowed to remain on display through the end of the month (Whew!). Still more international art. Stanley Rose shows the Rabelasian Surrealist Joan Miro in November as well as Yves Tanguy, eliciting the following verses from art critic Millier: In the light of Doctor Freud/Monsieur Tanguy searched his void. Found there in a weird confusion/bones and livers in profusion. To which Howard Putzel retorted: Prostate glands, not livers: Millier/Vainly represents things sillier. Tanguy knows (though Arthur dont)/ What he will and what he wont. But Milliers reaction to the Roses Toulouse-Lautrec exhibition of 100 lithographs in December is a model of intelligent, succinct criticism. He refers to Lautrecs works as among the most sharply sensitive ever drawn on litho stone. Over at Stendahl, a Rodin sculpture, the Fallen Caryatide, a marble detail from the never finished Gates of Hell, also draws a positive commentary. Can you hear what theyre saying out there? The husbands of Los Angeles women artists have formed a Society for the Preservation of Personal Identity. Tired of being introduced as Mrs. So and Sos husband. A movement led by Mr. Kathryn Leighten and Mr. Evelyna Miller among others. |
| Hang on everyone. Its summer and Red, Red lights ahead. Radical Encroachment say the headlines. The aftermath of the American Artists Congress recently held in New York really enlivens things here. This movement encourages American artists to paint pictures of class struggle and social criticism. Lorser Feitelston for one, organizes a meeting of American artists to launch An American art action against the establishment of Marxian and other Propaganda as an art criticism. Meanwhile Leo Katz will speak on Social Aspects of Art--Past, Present and Future at the Los Angeles Branch of the American Artists Congress, this on September 1. Is this the group under attack? You have to wonder if this has anything to do with the removal of his mural and its imagery? In September at Stendahls the American Artists, now calling themselves the Independent Artists, are holding a group show declaring their independence from all judgment of art on the basis of subject matter. Included are Ara, Nicholas Brigante, Feitelson, Henri de Kruif, Lundeberg, Buckley MacGurrin and Ben Messick, among others. A most important issue confronting voters in the fall would make it possible for publicly owned institutions to delegate the management of art sections to art associations or societies. The issue prompts Millier to speak publicly in its favor since it involves the de-politicization of museums, providing for greater growth and stability. In the words of the editor of Art Digest, . . .it takes the control out of the hands of those whose interest is in petrified trees, stuffed skins and the jawbones of saber-toothed tigers. Despite the raging battle over American art and Marxist propaganda art, Putzel shows a Van Gogh in October, prompting a lengthy commentary by Buckley MacGurrin, writing in Rob Wagners Script. In it MacGurrin notes that according to the Los Angeles Junior Chamber of Commerce, California has more artists in proportion to the population than any other state in the Union save New York, and that two-thirds of these are in Southern California. In November, Putzel shows half a dozen paintings, gouaches, and drawings by Yves Tanguy. And in December, putting a final flourish on the American vs. Propaganda artists, Stanley Rose hosts the American Artists Congress print show, America Today, with titles such as Adobe Brickmaker, and Dust Bowl. Millier for the most part is critical of the show, stating that again and again, they flaunt some vicious or miserable aspect of American life in overdone blacks. Herman Reuter is, surprisingly, less negative although he does sprinkle his review with words like regimented. The only Southern California artist represented is Fletcher Martin with his Trouble in Frisco, a circular piece with two struggling dock workers. |
| But voices rising in defense of Picasso include novelist Irving Stone who states that . . .our world (shall) be enriched for the next generation by the pioneering of such painters as Picasso, Matisse, Klee, Braque and here in Los Angeles, by such trailblazers as Peter Krasnow and Knud Merrild. Merle Armitage asserts that the protest has been launched by a small group of people, most of them painters of the old school. . . Fletcher Martin goes a step further: The people who are raising all the fuss simply coined money during the 1920s with their pink-and-blue landscapes and picturesque Indians and cowboys. Now the market for their paintings has fallen to pieces and they are reduced to throwing stink bombs to attract attention. The issue of course awakens the divisions which came to the forefront just three years ago. Now its Sanity in Art versus The American Artists Congress. The traditional against the innovative. The old versus the new. The establishment versus the interlopers. Oh, and where are we now? A final stop at Stendahls, reading a letter over Earls shoulder that he is about to post to the actress Dolores del Rio: December 9, 1939 Dear Miss Del Rio: Have just returned from a months trip into Mexico, where I saw quite a lot of Diego and Freda [sic] Rivera. Could we get together sometime to talk over plans for an exhibition? I am reserving the month of February as I know Fredas things will go over big. Please let me hear from you. But sadly, it never happened. PostScript, sixty years later and two months shy of the end of the millennium. Circumstances of course, changed the panorama of the city after 1939 and 1940. First, the Second World War and its consequences--internment camps, the draft, an increased sense of fear of things foreign. The rise of the aerospace industry and changing demographics; the expanding city and consequently, the de-centered city; the development of the valleys--San Fernando, San Gabriel--the rise of Orange County; and, of course, the freeways, which did away with the Red cars (our mythical one as well) and which in overlaying the city, made it less cohesive. But what are we left with? First, a legacy of muralism, thanks to the handful that are still with us through the awareness of an aesthetic protected and conserved by those willing to inform themselves, and powerfully advanced by new generations of painters who recognize the mural language as an indigenous tongue that expresses Los Angeles. Retained also is a continuity based on a tension, an ongoing struggle between a regionalist perspective and an international view, that is always present in the artistic environment of Los Angeles. The quantity of local talent was better, more varied and more extensive than most are aware of--though local galleries and museums have begun to revive a fresh awareness of some them. Perhaps more surprising were the number and stature of modernist exemplars from the international art world who were exhibited here, and who often visited or settled as well. Many questions remain of course. How and when did Howard Putzel leave California and go to New York (where he shows up working with Peggy Guggenheim)? What happened to the Centaur Gallery? Who were these painter/critics like Wagner, Kurzworth and Armitage? Just to raise a few. How sad to see the demise of those publications focusing on art. And how exciting to think that a major daily would devote front page space to a debate on art (even if the debate really leaned toward the reactionary). So much passion. Such liveliness. What a dream. And finally, that might be our greatest legacy. |
|