Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social Realism: Art as a Weapon by David ShapiroReview by: Alfred WernerArt Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Winter, 1974-1975), pp. 182+184Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/775905 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 15:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 91.229.229.13 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:45:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
... do your stuff." Among the essayists are Surrealists, Social Realists, and Abstraction- ists. One prominent Abstractionist warns that "this current vogue for the superficial in art may be a serious social omen." The egalitarian spirit of the Project was expressed in the single wage rate paid to nearly all Project workers, the young and unknown along with the older and more experienced artists. An exhibition di- rector points out that the "artist who has won many prizes is hung on equal terms with the newcomer."
The book is divided into sections on "The Fine Arts," "The Practical Arts." "Art Educa- tion," and "Artists' Organizations," each sec- tion containing logical subcategories. The es- says are short; few are more than two pages. As might be expected they suffer somewhat from puffery and repetition, but if the claims of a renaissance seem overstated it would be diffi- cult not to be impressed with the sincerity of the writers. This reviewer found himself una-
bashedly moved by the joy and optimism expressed by these participants in the noble effort of the Roosevelt Administration to trans- late the dominion of art into a form of social action. The text is accompanied by reproduc- tions, almost all of which were made from
photographs taken after the work was com- pleted on the Project. Both scholars and buffs of the period will find the book interesting and informative.
GERALD M. MONROE
Glassboro State College
David Shapiro, ed., Social Realism: Art as a Weapon, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co. 340 pp., ills., $12.00.
In the past two or three years, we have wit- nessed a veritable avalanche of books dealing with American art of the 1930s. There seem to be several reasons for this. Too frequently, representational art produced here in that decade was downgraded by the newer critics, and often with such ferocity or contemptuous- ness that the desire for a revision or, at least, for another look at this much maligned "story- telling" art was bound to come (abstract art was, of course, created here in the same period, but, as Andrew Carnduff Ritchie correctly assessed it in Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America, it was "relatively weak and unim- portant compared with the tremendous swell of American Scene and Social Realist painting which accompanied the hysteria and social convulsions of these tragic days").
Secondly, there now appear to be parallels in the social and cultural scene of our time. The prosperity of the 1960s has been succeeded by a relatively lean period, in which museums, art galleries, and, of course, the individual artists bear the brunt of a "recession" threatening to turn into a real slump. Most of the people
... do your stuff." Among the essayists are Surrealists, Social Realists, and Abstraction- ists. One prominent Abstractionist warns that "this current vogue for the superficial in art may be a serious social omen." The egalitarian spirit of the Project was expressed in the single wage rate paid to nearly all Project workers, the young and unknown along with the older and more experienced artists. An exhibition di- rector points out that the "artist who has won many prizes is hung on equal terms with the newcomer."
The book is divided into sections on "The Fine Arts," "The Practical Arts." "Art Educa- tion," and "Artists' Organizations," each sec- tion containing logical subcategories. The es- says are short; few are more than two pages. As might be expected they suffer somewhat from puffery and repetition, but if the claims of a renaissance seem overstated it would be diffi- cult not to be impressed with the sincerity of the writers. This reviewer found himself una-
bashedly moved by the joy and optimism expressed by these participants in the noble effort of the Roosevelt Administration to trans- late the dominion of art into a form of social action. The text is accompanied by reproduc- tions, almost all of which were made from
photographs taken after the work was com- pleted on the Project. Both scholars and buffs of the period will find the book interesting and informative.
GERALD M. MONROE
Glassboro State College
David Shapiro, ed., Social Realism: Art as a Weapon, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co. 340 pp., ills., $12.00.
In the past two or three years, we have wit- nessed a veritable avalanche of books dealing with American art of the 1930s. There seem to be several reasons for this. Too frequently, representational art produced here in that decade was downgraded by the newer critics, and often with such ferocity or contemptuous- ness that the desire for a revision or, at least, for another look at this much maligned "story- telling" art was bound to come (abstract art was, of course, created here in the same period, but, as Andrew Carnduff Ritchie correctly assessed it in Abstract Painting and Sculpture in America, it was "relatively weak and unim- portant compared with the tremendous swell of American Scene and Social Realist painting which accompanied the hysteria and social convulsions of these tragic days").
Secondly, there now appear to be parallels in the social and cultural scene of our time. The prosperity of the 1960s has been succeeded by a relatively lean period, in which museums, art galleries, and, of course, the individual artists bear the brunt of a "recession" threatening to turn into a real slump. Most of the people
currently involved in the arts will understand the significance of Audrey McMahon's warning question, "May the Artist Live?", raised in an issue of Parnassus in 1933.
Some will also wonder whether Mrs. McMa- hon, who was to become director of New York's WPA/FAP, was entirely wrong when she blamed the terrible gap between art and soci- ety upon the remoteness of art and artists from the Americans' daily life. The astonishing cur- rent revival of interest in the work of the dean of American Scene painters, Thomas Benton, the amazing success of Andrew Wyeth and his followers, and the emergence of a new school of Neo-Realists suggest a slackening of delight in the offerings of a good many heroes of the art establishment of the 1960s, whose clever per- formances, coupled with grandiloquent self- advertisements, have begun to irritate even the most tolerant aficionados of everything "new."
Mr. Shapiro's selection of writings was pre- ceded by two related books, both edited by Francis V. O'Connor: The New Deal Art Proj- ects: An Anthology of Memoirs, and Art for the Millions: Essays from the 1930's by Artists and Administrators of the WPA Federal Art Project. In the new book, the letters "WPA" turn up repeatedly. The cast of characters- from Berenice Abbott to William Zorach-is al- most identical. But Professor Shapiro is not merely concerned with the first large-scale subsidy to artists in the history of the United States. He is more eager to find out what per- manent values, if any, were created by the men and women who lived and worked during the WPA period and, in particular, in those who created the style that became known as "Social Realism." For not everyone active here be- tween the Great Crash and Pearl Harbor used art "as a weapon." There was a vast gap be- tween, say, Stuart Davis and William Gropper, yet although Davis' near-abstract pictures had no obvious relation to the problems of the '30s, he was as much a believer in social action and in the unionization of artists as was the left- wing cartoonist Gropper.
In histories of WPA, the activist Davis is mentioned repeatedly. In Mr. Shapiro's book, Gropper and his colleagues with similar aes- thetic aims are each given much more space than Davis, maker of what he himself de- scribed as "just color-space compositions." In his introductory essay, "Social Realism Recon- sidered," Shapiro earnestly raises a number of questions, the most important being: what did the artists, discussed here, actually achieve in artistic terms? Apart from describing the con- ditions-political, social, economic-that al- most inevitably led to the formation of this school, the editor seeks to capsulize its methods and goals:
"... the Social Realists . . . concerned them- selves with the communication of ideas, with an art that pointed a moral, told a story, or created an emotion in the onlooker-preferably
currently involved in the arts will understand the significance of Audrey McMahon's warning question, "May the Artist Live?", raised in an issue of Parnassus in 1933.
Some will also wonder whether Mrs. McMa- hon, who was to become director of New York's WPA/FAP, was entirely wrong when she blamed the terrible gap between art and soci- ety upon the remoteness of art and artists from the Americans' daily life. The astonishing cur- rent revival of interest in the work of the dean of American Scene painters, Thomas Benton, the amazing success of Andrew Wyeth and his followers, and the emergence of a new school of Neo-Realists suggest a slackening of delight in the offerings of a good many heroes of the art establishment of the 1960s, whose clever per- formances, coupled with grandiloquent self- advertisements, have begun to irritate even the most tolerant aficionados of everything "new."
Mr. Shapiro's selection of writings was pre- ceded by two related books, both edited by Francis V. O'Connor: The New Deal Art Proj- ects: An Anthology of Memoirs, and Art for the Millions: Essays from the 1930's by Artists and Administrators of the WPA Federal Art Project. In the new book, the letters "WPA" turn up repeatedly. The cast of characters- from Berenice Abbott to William Zorach-is al- most identical. But Professor Shapiro is not merely concerned with the first large-scale subsidy to artists in the history of the United States. He is more eager to find out what per- manent values, if any, were created by the men and women who lived and worked during the WPA period and, in particular, in those who created the style that became known as "Social Realism." For not everyone active here be- tween the Great Crash and Pearl Harbor used art "as a weapon." There was a vast gap be- tween, say, Stuart Davis and William Gropper, yet although Davis' near-abstract pictures had no obvious relation to the problems of the '30s, he was as much a believer in social action and in the unionization of artists as was the left- wing cartoonist Gropper.
In histories of WPA, the activist Davis is mentioned repeatedly. In Mr. Shapiro's book, Gropper and his colleagues with similar aes- thetic aims are each given much more space than Davis, maker of what he himself de- scribed as "just color-space compositions." In his introductory essay, "Social Realism Recon- sidered," Shapiro earnestly raises a number of questions, the most important being: what did the artists, discussed here, actually achieve in artistic terms? Apart from describing the con- ditions-political, social, economic-that al- most inevitably led to the formation of this school, the editor seeks to capsulize its methods and goals:
"... the Social Realists . . . concerned them- selves with the communication of ideas, with an art that pointed a moral, told a story, or created an emotion in the onlooker-preferably
an emotion that led to militant social ac- tion.... At its best Social Realism was not merely imitative of people and objects in the real world. Its point of view sometimes allowed it to transform objective reality into symbols of transcendent meaning."
The background writings-culled from New Masses, Modern Quarterly, The Nation, Art Digest, and other publications-demonstrate that their authors, artists as well as critics, sincerely believed that what was being created was, on the whole, good propaganda for good goals as well as good art. They disassociated themselves from Clive Bell's position that fine art was, by necessity, detached from subject matter. Anita Brenner disagreed: "An artist whose heart and head make him a social revolutionist can make posters and banners which, besides being ideologically militant and immediately useful, may be as beautiful and aesthetically sound as any religious or romantic work of other days."
But Shapiro also includes dissenting views. "Propaganda cannot produce an original art- cannot produce any art," critic Thomas Craven asserted, and he quoted an unnamed cartoonist who explained to him that he would cease being an artist, were he to become a Commu- nist: "Propaganda is to art what the gun is to the soldier-not an expression but an explo- sive." In a similar spirit, Thomas Benton told an interviewer: "Belief', when it becomes dogma, has been historically detrimental to the evolution of artistic practice...."
None of these pronouncements made in the 1930s could be expected to be calmly objec- tive, as the battles for and against "Art as a Weapon" were being waged relentlessly by the very persons whose opinions are reprinted here. Hence, one must turn to Section Three, which focuses on five artists-Philip Evergood, Wil- liam Gropper, Jacob Lawrence, Jack Levine, and Ben Shahn-who are quoted, along with their defenders and assailers. For there one finds a critic, Hilton Kramer, who goes so far as to condemn the entire movement! Jack Le- vine's work confirms his "suspicion that 'social realism' is one of the most extreme forms of mannerism in modern painting."
Is it true that, as Kramer put it, Levine's subject matter has "lost its urgency"? There have been other critics, too, who have said that, though the men and women involved in the movement have had lofty goals, they did not create much that survives despite the obsoleteness of the subject (the way Goya's Third of May, for instance, causes us to shud- der and reflect, after a lapse of far more than a century). Mr. Shapiro thinks differently-he is convinced that Social Realism has "contrib- uted viable paintings and ideas to the reper- toire of American art." His anthology, at any rate, may persuade some of us to examine again the works of the 90 artists he lists, painters, printmakers, and two or three sculp- tors, who, for a time at least, "based their work
an emotion that led to militant social ac- tion.... At its best Social Realism was not merely imitative of people and objects in the real world. Its point of view sometimes allowed it to transform objective reality into symbols of transcendent meaning."
The background writings-culled from New Masses, Modern Quarterly, The Nation, Art Digest, and other publications-demonstrate that their authors, artists as well as critics, sincerely believed that what was being created was, on the whole, good propaganda for good goals as well as good art. They disassociated themselves from Clive Bell's position that fine art was, by necessity, detached from subject matter. Anita Brenner disagreed: "An artist whose heart and head make him a social revolutionist can make posters and banners which, besides being ideologically militant and immediately useful, may be as beautiful and aesthetically sound as any religious or romantic work of other days."
But Shapiro also includes dissenting views. "Propaganda cannot produce an original art- cannot produce any art," critic Thomas Craven asserted, and he quoted an unnamed cartoonist who explained to him that he would cease being an artist, were he to become a Commu- nist: "Propaganda is to art what the gun is to the soldier-not an expression but an explo- sive." In a similar spirit, Thomas Benton told an interviewer: "Belief', when it becomes dogma, has been historically detrimental to the evolution of artistic practice...."
None of these pronouncements made in the 1930s could be expected to be calmly objec- tive, as the battles for and against "Art as a Weapon" were being waged relentlessly by the very persons whose opinions are reprinted here. Hence, one must turn to Section Three, which focuses on five artists-Philip Evergood, Wil- liam Gropper, Jacob Lawrence, Jack Levine, and Ben Shahn-who are quoted, along with their defenders and assailers. For there one finds a critic, Hilton Kramer, who goes so far as to condemn the entire movement! Jack Le- vine's work confirms his "suspicion that 'social realism' is one of the most extreme forms of mannerism in modern painting."
Is it true that, as Kramer put it, Levine's subject matter has "lost its urgency"? There have been other critics, too, who have said that, though the men and women involved in the movement have had lofty goals, they did not create much that survives despite the obsoleteness of the subject (the way Goya's Third of May, for instance, causes us to shud- der and reflect, after a lapse of far more than a century). Mr. Shapiro thinks differently-he is convinced that Social Realism has "contrib- uted viable paintings and ideas to the reper- toire of American art." His anthology, at any rate, may persuade some of us to examine again the works of the 90 artists he lists, painters, printmakers, and two or three sculp- tors, who, for a time at least, "based their work
ART JOURNAL, XXXIV/2 ART JOURNAL, XXXIV/2 182 182
This content downloaded from 91.229.229.13 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:45:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
on the belief that art was a weapon for social change."
The volume contains biographical notes on the writers of the essays that were reprinted, a very useful bibliography of Social Realism, and a well-organized index.
ALFRED WERNER
Rutgers State University
Richard Fitzgerald, Art and Politics: Car- toonists of the "Masses" and "Liberator", Westport, Conn., Greenwood Publishing Co., 1973. 254 pp., ills., $14.50.
In this book, labor historian Richard Fitzgerald attempted to explore the relationship between art and politics through an analysis of the work of five political cartoonists for the left-wing periodicals Masses and Liberator. The artists -Art Young, Robert Minor, John Sloan, K. R. Chamberlain, and Maurice Becker-were all prominent contributors to the magazines but their personal, political, and professional com- mitments varied enough to provide interesting and instructive contrasts. Also the shift in political focus in the transition from Masses to Liberator provides an effective background for an examination of the means used by these artists to fulfill ideological goals through indi- vidual styles.
Masses had been founded in 1911 by a group that included radicals as well as nonradicals. It may be pointed out that, prior to its founding, few socialist publications gave more than a perfunctory attention to literary or aesthetic matters. In addition to the artists discussed in the book, Masses could boast of the collabora- tion of Boardman Robinson, Stuart Davis, Robert Henri, George Bellows, Glenn Coleman, and others, who made it the best illustrated periodical in America. The magazine was fiercely militant but it was also entertaining, lusty, humorous, and irreverent. The editors professed revolutionary goals but were not dogmatic; for this reason, despite the inevita- ble factional feuds, the publication was a meeting ground for a variety of political atti- tudes and social types. Because of the coopera- tive nature of the project (staff members were shareholders), everybody could vote on articles and illustrations. Suggestions for illustrations and/or captions, however, often would come from the editors. Because of its antiwar pro- nouncements, Masses was forced to cease pub- lication in 1917 but it was succeeded in 1918 by Liberator with the same editor (Max Eastman) and much of the same staff. The new maga- zine, however, began to reflect the ideas of the American Communist movement, which emerged in 1919, and gradually lost its inde- pendent momentum. In the fall of 1922, Liberator became the official journal of the Workers Party whereupon its artistic side be- came extremely propagandistic and sectarian. Two years later it merged with a few other left-wing periodicals to become the Workers
on the belief that art was a weapon for social change."
The volume contains biographical notes on the writers of the essays that were reprinted, a very useful bibliography of Social Realism, and a well-organized index.
ALFRED WERNER
Rutgers State University
Richard Fitzgerald, Art and Politics: Car- toonists of the "Masses" and "Liberator", Westport, Conn., Greenwood Publishing Co., 1973. 254 pp., ills., $14.50.
In this book, labor historian Richard Fitzgerald attempted to explore the relationship between art and politics through an analysis of the work of five political cartoonists for the left-wing periodicals Masses and Liberator. The artists -Art Young, Robert Minor, John Sloan, K. R. Chamberlain, and Maurice Becker-were all prominent contributors to the magazines but their personal, political, and professional com- mitments varied enough to provide interesting and instructive contrasts. Also the shift in political focus in the transition from Masses to Liberator provides an effective background for an examination of the means used by these artists to fulfill ideological goals through indi- vidual styles.
Masses had been founded in 1911 by a group that included radicals as well as nonradicals. It may be pointed out that, prior to its founding, few socialist publications gave more than a perfunctory attention to literary or aesthetic matters. In addition to the artists discussed in the book, Masses could boast of the collabora- tion of Boardman Robinson, Stuart Davis, Robert Henri, George Bellows, Glenn Coleman, and others, who made it the best illustrated periodical in America. The magazine was fiercely militant but it was also entertaining, lusty, humorous, and irreverent. The editors professed revolutionary goals but were not dogmatic; for this reason, despite the inevita- ble factional feuds, the publication was a meeting ground for a variety of political atti- tudes and social types. Because of the coopera- tive nature of the project (staff members were shareholders), everybody could vote on articles and illustrations. Suggestions for illustrations and/or captions, however, often would come from the editors. Because of its antiwar pro- nouncements, Masses was forced to cease pub- lication in 1917 but it was succeeded in 1918 by Liberator with the same editor (Max Eastman) and much of the same staff. The new maga- zine, however, began to reflect the ideas of the American Communist movement, which emerged in 1919, and gradually lost its inde- pendent momentum. In the fall of 1922, Liberator became the official journal of the Workers Party whereupon its artistic side be- came extremely propagandistic and sectarian. Two years later it merged with a few other left-wing periodicals to become the Workers
on the belief that art was a weapon for social change."
The volume contains biographical notes on the writers of the essays that were reprinted, a very useful bibliography of Social Realism, and a well-organized index.
ALFRED WERNER
Rutgers State University
Richard Fitzgerald, Art and Politics: Car- toonists of the "Masses" and "Liberator", Westport, Conn., Greenwood Publishing Co., 1973. 254 pp., ills., $14.50.
In this book, labor historian Richard Fitzgerald attempted to explore the relationship between art and politics through an analysis of the work of five political cartoonists for the left-wing periodicals Masses and Liberator. The artists -Art Young, Robert Minor, John Sloan, K. R. Chamberlain, and Maurice Becker-were all prominent contributors to the magazines but their personal, political, and professional com- mitments varied enough to provide interesting and instructive contrasts. Also the shift in political focus in the transition from Masses to Liberator provides an effective background for an examination of the means used by these artists to fulfill ideological goals through indi- vidual styles.
Masses had been founded in 1911 by a group that included radicals as well as nonradicals. It may be pointed out that, prior to its founding, few socialist publications gave more than a perfunctory attention to literary or aesthetic matters. In addition to the artists discussed in the book, Masses could boast of the collabora- tion of Boardman Robinson, Stuart Davis, Robert Henri, George Bellows, Glenn Coleman, and others, who made it the best illustrated periodical in America. The magazine was fiercely militant but it was also entertaining, lusty, humorous, and irreverent. The editors professed revolutionary goals but were not dogmatic; for this reason, despite the inevita- ble factional feuds, the publication was a meeting ground for a variety of political atti- tudes and social types. Because of the coopera- tive nature of the project (staff members were shareholders), everybody could vote on articles and illustrations. Suggestions for illustrations and/or captions, however, often would come from the editors. Because of its antiwar pro- nouncements, Masses was forced to cease pub- lication in 1917 but it was succeeded in 1918 by Liberator with the same editor (Max Eastman) and much of the same staff. The new maga- zine, however, began to reflect the ideas of the American Communist movement, which emerged in 1919, and gradually lost its inde- pendent momentum. In the fall of 1922, Liberator became the official journal of the Workers Party whereupon its artistic side be- came extremely propagandistic and sectarian. Two years later it merged with a few other left-wing periodicals to become the Workers
Monthly. The brief history of these two jour- nals represents a transition from the broadly based socialist perspective of Masses to the "soft" communism of the early Liberator, ending in the rigid party control of the later period.
In the early part of the 20th century, Ameri- can political cartooning had already grown into an important medium in the mass-circulation "bourgeois press," and many of the cartoonists, who later worked on socialist periodicals, had developed distinct personal styles. Thus, Rob- ert Minor had been one of the country's best known political cartoonists when he worked on the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Art Young worked for the Chicago Inter-Ocean and the New York Evening Journal among other pa- pers. John Sloan was one of the original Philadelphia Inquirer group of newspaper art- ists who studied with Robert Henri. Of a younger generation, Maurice Becker and K. R. Chamberlain did their first political cartoons for Masses although they were already selling some freelance illustration to the commercial periodicals.
Neither Masses nor Liberator ever paid its contributors who apparently were attracted by the opportunity of expressing social protest not possible in the conventional press. Some may also have been drawn by a sense of personal rebelliousness-even bohemianism-although the greater influence probably was a strong equalitarian or humanitarian inclination which made them sympathetic to some aspects of Marxism. Minor was a founder of the Workers Party and had been decisive in the turning over (with the consent of the staff) of Liberation to the party. In 1926 he decided he could not be both a political leader and a cartoonist so he opted for a career in politics, rising to acting secretary of the Communist Party in 1939 when Earl Browder was imprisoned. It has been said of Minor that the movement lost a first-rate cartoonist for a second-rate bureaucrat. Young was an eclectic socialist, but was the most forceful in his emphasis on propaganda and would tangle with Sloan and others who in- sisted on a policy of socialist and artistic expression. Sloan had never developed class hatred; charity, not a worker's republic, was the essence of his socialism. For Chamberlain, to work on a radical magazine was fun, as well as a means of rebelling against the absurdities of American life. Becker was a life-long pacifist socialist who made no distinction between art and propaganda and seemed to be able to reconcile his expressionist painting style with his work as a cartoonist.
In his study Fitzgerald combines biography with a comparative analysis of the artists' styles. The mixture works well enough, though, at times, his aesthetic judgment seems a bit uncertain. Occasionally the bias of his own discipline seems inappropriate as, for instance, in the cases when he refers to artists as being "proletarianized" and selling their "labor
Monthly. The brief history of these two jour- nals represents a transition from the broadly based socialist perspective of Masses to the "soft" communism of the early Liberator, ending in the rigid party control of the later period.
In the early part of the 20th century, Ameri- can political cartooning had already grown into an important medium in the mass-circulation "bourgeois press," and many of the cartoonists, who later worked on socialist periodicals, had developed distinct personal styles. Thus, Rob- ert Minor had been one of the country's best known political cartoonists when he worked on the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Art Young worked for the Chicago Inter-Ocean and the New York Evening Journal among other pa- pers. John Sloan was one of the original Philadelphia Inquirer group of newspaper art- ists who studied with Robert Henri. Of a younger generation, Maurice Becker and K. R. Chamberlain did their first political cartoons for Masses although they were already selling some freelance illustration to the commercial periodicals.
Neither Masses nor Liberator ever paid its contributors who apparently were attracted by the opportunity of expressing social protest not possible in the conventional press. Some may also have been drawn by a sense of personal rebelliousness-even bohemianism-although the greater influence probably was a strong equalitarian or humanitarian inclination which made them sympathetic to some aspects of Marxism. Minor was a founder of the Workers Party and had been decisive in the turning over (with the consent of the staff) of Liberation to the party. In 1926 he decided he could not be both a political leader and a cartoonist so he opted for a career in politics, rising to acting secretary of the Communist Party in 1939 when Earl Browder was imprisoned. It has been said of Minor that the movement lost a first-rate cartoonist for a second-rate bureaucrat. Young was an eclectic socialist, but was the most forceful in his emphasis on propaganda and would tangle with Sloan and others who in- sisted on a policy of socialist and artistic expression. Sloan had never developed class hatred; charity, not a worker's republic, was the essence of his socialism. For Chamberlain, to work on a radical magazine was fun, as well as a means of rebelling against the absurdities of American life. Becker was a life-long pacifist socialist who made no distinction between art and propaganda and seemed to be able to reconcile his expressionist painting style with his work as a cartoonist.
In his study Fitzgerald combines biography with a comparative analysis of the artists' styles. The mixture works well enough, though, at times, his aesthetic judgment seems a bit uncertain. Occasionally the bias of his own discipline seems inappropriate as, for instance, in the cases when he refers to artists as being "proletarianized" and selling their "labor
Monthly. The brief history of these two jour- nals represents a transition from the broadly based socialist perspective of Masses to the "soft" communism of the early Liberator, ending in the rigid party control of the later period.
In the early part of the 20th century, Ameri- can political cartooning had already grown into an important medium in the mass-circulation "bourgeois press," and many of the cartoonists, who later worked on socialist periodicals, had developed distinct personal styles. Thus, Rob- ert Minor had been one of the country's best known political cartoonists when he worked on the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Art Young worked for the Chicago Inter-Ocean and the New York Evening Journal among other pa- pers. John Sloan was one of the original Philadelphia Inquirer group of newspaper art- ists who studied with Robert Henri. Of a younger generation, Maurice Becker and K. R. Chamberlain did their first political cartoons for Masses although they were already selling some freelance illustration to the commercial periodicals.
Neither Masses nor Liberator ever paid its contributors who apparently were attracted by the opportunity of expressing social protest not possible in the conventional press. Some may also have been drawn by a sense of personal rebelliousness-even bohemianism-although the greater influence probably was a strong equalitarian or humanitarian inclination which made them sympathetic to some aspects of Marxism. Minor was a founder of the Workers Party and had been decisive in the turning over (with the consent of the staff) of Liberation to the party. In 1926 he decided he could not be both a political leader and a cartoonist so he opted for a career in politics, rising to acting secretary of the Communist Party in 1939 when Earl Browder was imprisoned. It has been said of Minor that the movement lost a first-rate cartoonist for a second-rate bureaucrat. Young was an eclectic socialist, but was the most forceful in his emphasis on propaganda and would tangle with Sloan and others who in- sisted on a policy of socialist and artistic expression. Sloan had never developed class hatred; charity, not a worker's republic, was the essence of his socialism. For Chamberlain, to work on a radical magazine was fun, as well as a means of rebelling against the absurdities of American life. Becker was a life-long pacifist socialist who made no distinction between art and propaganda and seemed to be able to reconcile his expressionist painting style with his work as a cartoonist.
In his study Fitzgerald combines biography with a comparative analysis of the artists' styles. The mixture works well enough, though, at times, his aesthetic judgment seems a bit uncertain. Occasionally the bias of his own discipline seems inappropriate as, for instance, in the cases when he refers to artists as being "proletarianized" and selling their "labor
power," or when he describes them as "small businessmen" with "marketing ... frequently controlled by middlemen." Not exactly incor- rect, but a bit out of focus for the problem at hand. I thought rather extravagant the au- thor's premise that "Any serious political movement must integrate the interests of the artist, which may or may not be political, and the interests of the movement, which may or
may not be culturally alluring." But these are quibbles. Fitzgerald has written a thoughtful book that makes a valuable contribution to- ward an understanding of the difficulties en- countered by the artist who attempts to coa- lesce his artistic and political values.
GERALD M. MONROE
Glassboro State College
books received I~~~~~~~
power," or when he describes them as "small businessmen" with "marketing ... frequently controlled by middlemen." Not exactly incor- rect, but a bit out of focus for the problem at hand. I thought rather extravagant the au- thor's premise that "Any serious political movement must integrate the interests of the artist, which may or may not be political, and the interests of the movement, which may or
may not be culturally alluring." But these are quibbles. Fitzgerald has written a thoughtful book that makes a valuable contribution to- ward an understanding of the difficulties en- countered by the artist who attempts to coa- lesce his artistic and political values.
GERALD M. MONROE
Glassboro State College
books received I~~~~~~~
power," or when he describes them as "small businessmen" with "marketing ... frequently controlled by middlemen." Not exactly incor- rect, but a bit out of focus for the problem at hand. I thought rather extravagant the au- thor's premise that "Any serious political movement must integrate the interests of the artist, which may or may not be political, and the interests of the movement, which may or
may not be culturally alluring." But these are quibbles. Fitzgerald has written a thoughtful book that makes a valuable contribution to- ward an understanding of the difficulties en- countered by the artist who attempts to coa- lesce his artistic and political values.
GERALD M. MONROE
Glassboro State College
books received I~~~~~~~
ABDUL HAK, SELIM, et al., AN ILLUSTRATED INVENTORY OF
FAMOUS DISMEMBERED WORKS OF ART: EUROPEAN PAINT-
ING, Paris, UNESCO, 1974. 223 pp., ills. $23.10. BOARDMAN, JOHN, ATHENIAN BLACK FIGURE VASES, New
York, Oxford University Press, 1974. 252 pp., 383 ills. $10.00.
BRACKETT, WARD, WHEN YOU PAINT: A COMPLETE GUIDE
FOR PRACTICING ARTISTS, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1974. 127 pp., ills. $17.95.
BRAHAM, ALLAN and PETER SMITH, FRANCOIS MANSART,
London, A. Zwemmer, 1973, 300 pp., 563 ills. ?38 (two volumes).
BRAVMANN, RENE A., ISLAM AND TRIBAL ART IN WEST
AFRICA, African Studies Series 11, New York, Cam-
bridge University Press, 1974. 190 pp., 83 ills. $13.95.
BRION, MARCEL, CEZANNE, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1974. 95 pp., 124 ills. $9.95.
BRUMBAUGH, THOMAS B., MARTHA I. STRAYHORN, and
GARY G. GORE, ARCHITECTURE OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE,
Nashville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt University Press, 1974. 170 pp., ills. $17.95.
BURNHAM, JACK, GREAT WESTERN SALT WORKS: ESSAYS ON
THE MEANING OF POST-FORMALIST ART, New York, George Braziller, 1974. 167 pp., ills. $12.50.
CARPENTER, JAMES M., COLOR IN ART: A TRIBUTE TO
ARTHUR POPE, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fogg Art
Museum, Harvard University, 1974. 134 pp., ills.
$11.00. COX, WARREN L. et al., A GUIDE TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF
WASHINGTON, D.C. Second Edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1974. 246 pp., ills. $5.95.
CREAGER, CLARA, WEAVING, A CREATIVE APPROACH FOR
BEGINNERS, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1974. 192 pp., ills. $3.95.
CROSS, LINDA and JOHN, KITCHEN CRAFTS, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1974. 120 pp., ills. $8.95 (cloth), $3.95 (paper).
DOBAI, JOHANNES, DIE KUNSTLITERATUR DES KLASSIZISMUS
UND DER ROMANTIK IN ENGLAND, BAND I. 1700-1750, Bern, Benteli Verlag, 1974. 920 pp.
EBERT, JOHN AND KATHERINE, OLD AMERICAN PRINTS FOR
COLLECTORS, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974. 277 pp., ills. $15.00.
ELSEN, ALBERT E., ORIGINS OF MODERN SCULUPTURE:
PIONEERS AND PREMISES, New York, George Braziller, 1974. 179 pp., 167 ills. $12.50.
EPPLE, ANNE ORTH, NATURE CRAFTS, Radnor, Pennsylva- nia, Chilton Book Company, 1974. 149 pp., ills. $9.95.
ABDUL HAK, SELIM, et al., AN ILLUSTRATED INVENTORY OF
FAMOUS DISMEMBERED WORKS OF ART: EUROPEAN PAINT-
ING, Paris, UNESCO, 1974. 223 pp., ills. $23.10. BOARDMAN, JOHN, ATHENIAN BLACK FIGURE VASES, New
York, Oxford University Press, 1974. 252 pp., 383 ills. $10.00.
BRACKETT, WARD, WHEN YOU PAINT: A COMPLETE GUIDE
FOR PRACTICING ARTISTS, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1974. 127 pp., ills. $17.95.
BRAHAM, ALLAN and PETER SMITH, FRANCOIS MANSART,
London, A. Zwemmer, 1973, 300 pp., 563 ills. ?38 (two volumes).
BRAVMANN, RENE A., ISLAM AND TRIBAL ART IN WEST
AFRICA, African Studies Series 11, New York, Cam-
bridge University Press, 1974. 190 pp., 83 ills. $13.95.
BRION, MARCEL, CEZANNE, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1974. 95 pp., 124 ills. $9.95.
BRUMBAUGH, THOMAS B., MARTHA I. STRAYHORN, and
GARY G. GORE, ARCHITECTURE OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE,
Nashville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt University Press, 1974. 170 pp., ills. $17.95.
BURNHAM, JACK, GREAT WESTERN SALT WORKS: ESSAYS ON
THE MEANING OF POST-FORMALIST ART, New York, George Braziller, 1974. 167 pp., ills. $12.50.
CARPENTER, JAMES M., COLOR IN ART: A TRIBUTE TO
ARTHUR POPE, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fogg Art
Museum, Harvard University, 1974. 134 pp., ills.
$11.00. COX, WARREN L. et al., A GUIDE TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF
WASHINGTON, D.C. Second Edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1974. 246 pp., ills. $5.95.
CREAGER, CLARA, WEAVING, A CREATIVE APPROACH FOR
BEGINNERS, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1974. 192 pp., ills. $3.95.
CROSS, LINDA and JOHN, KITCHEN CRAFTS, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1974. 120 pp., ills. $8.95 (cloth), $3.95 (paper).
DOBAI, JOHANNES, DIE KUNSTLITERATUR DES KLASSIZISMUS
UND DER ROMANTIK IN ENGLAND, BAND I. 1700-1750, Bern, Benteli Verlag, 1974. 920 pp.
EBERT, JOHN AND KATHERINE, OLD AMERICAN PRINTS FOR
COLLECTORS, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974. 277 pp., ills. $15.00.
ELSEN, ALBERT E., ORIGINS OF MODERN SCULUPTURE:
PIONEERS AND PREMISES, New York, George Braziller, 1974. 179 pp., 167 ills. $12.50.
EPPLE, ANNE ORTH, NATURE CRAFTS, Radnor, Pennsylva- nia, Chilton Book Company, 1974. 149 pp., ills. $9.95.
ABDUL HAK, SELIM, et al., AN ILLUSTRATED INVENTORY OF
FAMOUS DISMEMBERED WORKS OF ART: EUROPEAN PAINT-
ING, Paris, UNESCO, 1974. 223 pp., ills. $23.10. BOARDMAN, JOHN, ATHENIAN BLACK FIGURE VASES, New
York, Oxford University Press, 1974. 252 pp., 383 ills. $10.00.
BRACKETT, WARD, WHEN YOU PAINT: A COMPLETE GUIDE
FOR PRACTICING ARTISTS, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1974. 127 pp., ills. $17.95.
BRAHAM, ALLAN and PETER SMITH, FRANCOIS MANSART,
London, A. Zwemmer, 1973, 300 pp., 563 ills. ?38 (two volumes).
BRAVMANN, RENE A., ISLAM AND TRIBAL ART IN WEST
AFRICA, African Studies Series 11, New York, Cam-
bridge University Press, 1974. 190 pp., 83 ills. $13.95.
BRION, MARCEL, CEZANNE, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1974. 95 pp., 124 ills. $9.95.
BRUMBAUGH, THOMAS B., MARTHA I. STRAYHORN, and
GARY G. GORE, ARCHITECTURE OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE,
Nashville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt University Press, 1974. 170 pp., ills. $17.95.
BURNHAM, JACK, GREAT WESTERN SALT WORKS: ESSAYS ON
THE MEANING OF POST-FORMALIST ART, New York, George Braziller, 1974. 167 pp., ills. $12.50.
CARPENTER, JAMES M., COLOR IN ART: A TRIBUTE TO
ARTHUR POPE, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fogg Art
Museum, Harvard University, 1974. 134 pp., ills.
$11.00. COX, WARREN L. et al., A GUIDE TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF
WASHINGTON, D.C. Second Edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1974. 246 pp., ills. $5.95.
CREAGER, CLARA, WEAVING, A CREATIVE APPROACH FOR
BEGINNERS, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1974. 192 pp., ills. $3.95.
CROSS, LINDA and JOHN, KITCHEN CRAFTS, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1974. 120 pp., ills. $8.95 (cloth), $3.95 (paper).
DOBAI, JOHANNES, DIE KUNSTLITERATUR DES KLASSIZISMUS
UND DER ROMANTIK IN ENGLAND, BAND I. 1700-1750, Bern, Benteli Verlag, 1974. 920 pp.
EBERT, JOHN AND KATHERINE, OLD AMERICAN PRINTS FOR
COLLECTORS, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974. 277 pp., ills. $15.00.
ELSEN, ALBERT E., ORIGINS OF MODERN SCULUPTURE:
PIONEERS AND PREMISES, New York, George Braziller, 1974. 179 pp., 167 ills. $12.50.
EPPLE, ANNE ORTH, NATURE CRAFTS, Radnor, Pennsylva- nia, Chilton Book Company, 1974. 149 pp., ills. $9.95.
ART JOURNAL, XXXI V/2 ART JOURNAL, XXXI V/2 ART JOURNAL, XXXI V/2 184 184 184
This content downloaded from 91.229.229.13 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:45:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
