Art Front

Gerald M. Monroe

Archives of American Art Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3. (1973), pp. 13-19.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-9853%281973%2913%3A3%3C13%3AAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

Archives of American Art Journal is currently published by The Smithsonian Institution.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/si.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org Sun Jan 13 12:08:42 2008 writer and &tor of trade magazines, a Communist functionary with respon- published an art bulletin under the aegis sibility in cultural matters, placed the of his gallery. He offered Gellert the use magazine under the direct control of the of the bulletin; Gellert suggested to the union, and the split dtorial committee executive board of the Artists Union that was abandoned in favor of a slngle edi- an official journal would be useful to torial board. The April 1935 issue de- both organizations- the board agreed. clared that Art Front was the "official The first item of business at the publication of the Artists Union." The meeting was the selection of a name for combined logos of the Artists Commit- the proposed publication. After several tee of Action and the Artists Union con- unsuccessful proposals the word "front" tinued to appear on the masthead until seemed to be in the air. The Russians December 1936, although the magazine Art Front had a literarymagazine called On Guard, had been truly cosponsored only for the and Mayakovsky edited a magazine first two issues. Gerald M. Monroe called Left Front. New York artists were The demise of the Artists Commit- more likely to be familiar with the organ tee of Action did not completely remove Dunng the bleak days of the Great of the Chcago Reed Club, also known as conflicting attitudes regarding the proper Depression the Roosevelt Admimstra- Left Front and published in 1933 and role for the publication. The editorial tion resorted to large-scale work-relief 1934. Herb Kruckman suggested Art board was in agreement on the need to projects as a partial response to the se- Front as the title and it was immediately stress the economic goals of the union, vere economic crisis. A traumatized adopted. An editorial committee was to publicize grievances, and to report Congress gave the president a relatively formed with Baron as managing editor, activities related to the struggle for eco- free hand to innovate programs in the and the first issue was planned to appear nomic and professional security. The hope that he rmght turn the economy in time to publicize a mass demonstra- board dsdained "those arty magazines around and relieve the suffering of the tion to be held at City Hall on October which normally ignore anythmg outside unemployed. One of themore innovative 27, 1934. The readers of Art Front were the gallery world." Conflicts arose per- -and controversial- programs was mas- assured it would be unlike any other art taining to the extent art essays, critiques, sive employment of artists by the gov- magazine: and reviews would be included. Although ernment. In an effort to gain and expand the social realists were in the vast ma- government patronage, a group of mili- Without one exception, however, jority, the entire range of art styles tant artists formed a trade union of these periodicals support outworn existed within the rank and file and the painters, sculptors, and print-makers, economic concepts as a basis for the leadership.The leaders, hghly motivated many of whom were close to or mflu- support of art which victimize and by their political involvement, were enced by the Communist Party. The dy- destroy art. The urgent need for a generally committed to the Marxist doc- namic, colorful Artists Union soon be- publicationwhich speaks for the art- trine of "art as propaganda." They be- came know for its aggressive tactics- ist, battles for his economic security lieved the official publication of the engaging in mass picketing, stnkes, and and guides hmin hsartistic efforts union had a responsibility to guide its sit-ins. For three years, the union pub- is self-evident.l members in their role as revolutionary lished Art Front, probably the liveliest The magazine sold for five cents a artists, and there was always pressure art periodical of the time. copy with a yearly subscription rate of within the editorial board to interpret In the fall of 1934, Hugo Gellert in- sixty cents. The intention clearly was to that role in the narrowest social-realist vited Herman Baron, who ehbited publish monthly, but the first volume of sense. The editors and writers of Art many of the left-wing artists in his seven issues appeared intermittently Front were committed to social change American Contemporary Artists gallery, over a period of tlxrteen months (No- and concerned about the correct role of to join the executive board of the Artists vember 1934, and January, February, art and the artist in a changing society; Committee of Action, a loose confedera- April, May, July, and November 1935), much of the vidty of this spunky little tion of artists organized to protest the printed in an awkward, oversize eleven- magazine derived from the struggle of a destruction of the Die o Rivera mural at by-sixteen-inch format, each issue con- minority of the editors to extend the Rockefeller Center wL 'ch had included sisting of eight pages. The generous size range of revolutionary art beyond prop- a portrait of Lenin. Subsequent to the of the magazine was appropriate for aganda. demonstration, the artists decided to street sales during demonstrations; the In the Artists Union section of the continue worlung as a group to agmte posterlike covers were broadly designed first issue of Art Front, considerable for a municipally-supported but artist- and highly visible. The February 1935 space was devoted to a proposal for a per- operated gallery. Gellert, well known as issue had several photographs of a street manent federal art project; it was to re- a left-wing artist, was elected chauman, demonstration in which members of the main a major editorial theme and it was Lionel Reiss became secretary, and Zol- Artists Union can be seen hawking Art a rare issue that did not have an editorial tan Hecht was chosen as treasurer. It was Front. or an article concerning the plan. a more or less "paper" organization con- trolled by Gellert who was able to attract Dunng the fomdmg of the maga- Stuart Davis functioned as editor-in- large numbers of artists to demonstra- zine, tensions had developed between chief for the second through the tenth tions and to solicit the support of dis- the Artists Committee of Action, with issue, although the masthead did not in- tinguished public figures. Baron, a former its primarily professional goals, and the dcate an editorial board until the sev- Artists Union, with its primarily eco- enth issue, or an editor-in-chief until the nomic goals. The first issue was almost eighth issue. Davis was able to maintain exclusively devoted to promotmg the a close personal relationshp with Hugo programs of both groups, but there was Gellert and the social reahsts on the heated debate about the eventual thrust board, whle encouragmg a more open Gerald M. Monroe teaches painting and drawing at of the magazine as well as the ability of attitude toward art content in the maga- Glassboro State College and is a 1973 recipient of a zine. He asked John Graham to review Fellowshp from the National Endowment for the the two organizations to work together. Humanities to study the influence of left-wing po- The resolution of these problems, re- Eight Modes of Modem Painting at the litical activities in the visual arts during the 1930s. solved with the assistance of V. J. Jerome, Julien Levy Gallery and Davis, himself, NOVEMBER 1934

ARTISTS COMMITTEI '

ARTISTS UNION reviewed favorably the painting by Sal- on Time's cover, Davis cruelly added, ney Museum exhibition, Abstract Paint- vadore Dali at the same gallery. "We must at least gve him credit for ing in America, and the exhibition itself Clarence Weinstock, writer, board not making any exception in his general were both attacked by Weinstock in the member, and later managing editor, underestimation of the human race." 6 April issue. Abstract art, declared Wein- joined Art Front when the second issue As for John Stewart Curry, Davis asks, stock, "is founded on a limited debtion was being prepared. Weinstock, an ex- "How can a man . . . who willfully or of painting. . . . Form becomes like so patriate art student in Paris, gave up his through ignorance ignores the discover- much monopoly capital in which the so- studies for a Me of intellectual bohemi- ies of Monet, Seurat, Cezanne and Pi- ciety of art is sacrificed."13 Davis de- anism, and became a Marxist literary casso and proceeds as though painting fended abstract art: "In the materralism and art critic. A dted writer and a de- were a jolly lark for amateurs to be ex- of abstract art in general, is implicit a vout Communist, he became editor of hibited in county fairs .. . be considered negation of many ideals dear to the bour- Masses and Mainstream after World War an asset to American art?" geois heart . . . the result of a revolution- II, using the name Charles Hurnbolet. ary struggle relative to bourgeois aca- On October 27, 1934, the day of the art- In the same issue, Moses Soyer wrote a review of his own ehbition at Klee- demic associations." Davis then asks ists' large demonstration at City Hall, Weinstock not to equate the "abstract Weinstock returned to the United States. mann's Galleries. Soyer, a member of the Artists Union, used the article to endorse tendencies in painting and the fascist Strolling the streets of lower Manhattan, tendencies of the American Scene school he wandered into the demonstration, the "important, ever-growing group of met some of the artists he had known in artists that has chosen the American of Benton, etc., . . . because they are both Europe, and was swept into the activities scene for its theme." Soyer had no diffi- within the bourgeois scheme."14 of the day. Learning about Art Front, he culty denouncing "Cubism, Futurism, Although Davis continued to write immediately volunteered to help and Surrealism and all the other artificial occasional articles for Art Front, he no soon became the magazine's most active schools of painting," but he is apologetic longer did any reviews or argued on the contributor. about the "lack of class consciousness pages of the magazine with the advocates Probably no one enjoyed working on on the part of Moses Soyer," which he of the general theory of dialectal materi- Art Front as much as Weinstock; he was attributes to "an uncertainty in hsown alism. He wrote a spirited denunciation completely devoted to it. Nothing de- powers, an almost unconscious reluc- of the Municipal Art Commission for re- lighted him more than crossing literary tance to tackle such serious themes." jecting a mural by Ben Shahn and Lou swords with other critics and he main- Curry's reply in the April issue of Block for the penitentiary on Rikers Is- tained a voluminous correspondence Art Front politely defended his work, in- land.15In November, Davis made a blis- with Marxist critics in this country and ferring that social realist and American tering attack on Forbes Watson, the tech- in Europe, many of whom were induced Scene concepts were not so far apart, and nical director of the Section of Painting by him to contribute articles to the mag- drawing a parallel between the "vicious- and Sculpture of the Treasury Depart- azine. In the February issue of Art Front, ness of life" portrayed by Jacob Buxck, an ment, for having an elitist attitude to- Weinstock attacked Stuart Davis' favor- avowed Communist, and the "subtle ward federal patronage. l6 able review of Dali, charmthe Surreal- characterization" of Thomas Bent~n.~ During the fall of 1935, some mem- ist with being merely a "sophisticated Benton, on the other hand, bluntly bers of the union- Joseph Solmon, Ilya illustrator." Dali's paintings, according declared that Davis' motives were plain Bolotowsky, Balcomb Greene, Mark to Weinstock, were in the reactionary -"no verbiage can disguise the squawks Rothkowitz, Byron Browne, George Mc- tradition that was forced to psychologi- of the defeated and the impotent."1° He Neil, and others-began to grumble about cal portrayal because "the facts of the asked the editors to submit ten questions the narrow esthetic line monopolizing world made it ashamed to show its face to him and give him space in which to the magazine. The group met informally on any other plane." In the same issue, respond. Benton's reply to the questions to discuss the need for a broader view- Jerome Klein, who regularly wrote art appeared in the April issue. He made point. Joe Solmon drew up a manifesto criticism for the New York Post, also some uncomplimentary references to for presentation at a union meeting, ar- attacked Dali and the Surrealists, who, Communism which the editors declined guing that a magazine representing a being "neurotically incapable of giving to answer because the magazine was mass organization of artists should en- their effort a point of leverage in the real "non-political" and non-sectarian. Jacob courage diverse views. The &tors, he world, have dodged the issue of revolu- Burck, "one of the outstandmg revolu- charged, were apparently unaware of the tionary art." tionary artists,"ll was asked to reply. educational value of the Museum of The art style that the editors could Benton continued the controversy with Modem Art. Solmon also believed Art agree upon was the so-called American a long letter in the May Art Front. He, Front should look like an art magazine Scene painting; they detested it. When too, believed in a "better consumption- as well as a union journal. Time magazine declared that the works production economy" but preferred to The statement hit the meeting like of Thomas Benton, Grant Wood, Charles "work pragmatically with actual Ameri- a bombshell and was followed by spirited Burchfield, Reginald Marsh, John Stew- can forces to that end [and with] demo- debate. The meeting was chaired by Phil art Curry, and other American Scene cratic procedures . ..without the need of Bard, a solid adherent of the social real- painters were "destined to turn the tide armed forces instalkg and protecting a ists. One of his cartoons appeared in the of artistic taste in the United States," dictatorship . . . however idealistic its May 1935 Art Front satirizing the ab- Art Front launched an attack against the airns."12 In a letter to the editor, Art stract artist as Don Quixote on a rocking movement. Stuart Davis charged that Front editor Jacob Kainen suggested, "If horse. He and Solmon had differed in Benton's "gross caricature of Negroes" Benton wants a better society, he can ideological and esthetic discussion at was a "third-rate vaudeville character help by being an artist of the social union meetings, but they respected each clichC with the humor omitted" and, revolution." other and later became close friends. commenting on the Benton self-portrait The alliance against the American Convinced that Solmon's complaint had Scene artists did not deter the somewhat merit, Bard suggested that he be invited more polite but no less lively debate be- onto the magazine's editorial board. tween Davis and the proselytizers of so- These were the early days of the Popular Fig. 1. The Cover of the first Art Front, No- cial realism on the magazine. Davis' Front and it is possible that Bard was re- vember 1934. introduction to the catalog of the Whit- flecting a general desire by the knowl- edgeable left wing to open its ranks Shahn, Otto Dehn, and others. Very few Art Front. Rosenberg, as well as Spivak esthetically, as well as politically. reproductions of paintings, graphics, or and Solmon, annoyed other board mem- Solmon joined the editorial board for the sculpture appeared in the first seven is- bers who preferred a publication that December 1935 issue, the first of Volume sues. With the publication of the Decem- emphasized political and economic is- 11; the changes were immediate and ber issue, Art Front began to look like an sues. Rosenberg made no effort to dis- apparent. art journal. Solmon set the new tone by guise his disdain for his critics on the The masthead of the first three is- selecting for the cover illustration a Jan- board and in the leadership; he consid- sues of the second volume listed Stuart sen woodcut borrowed from the New Art ered most of them intellectually shallow Davis as managmg editor, but he was Circle gallery. The theme of the wood- and boring. At any time, such an attitude now devoting his energies to the Arneri- cut, a contemporary Horsemen of the would have created personal problems; can Artists Congress and was no longer Apocalypse, was rendered in a harsh mys- in this particular time of great crisis, as interested in the official publication tical style in the manner of the German when the need for unity seemed so es- of the Artists Union. Davis wrote an Expressionists. Inside, along with politi- sential, it was considered subversive. It article on the American Artists Congress cal cartoons by Hugo Gellert and Boris was probably Solmon who was most in- for the December 1935 issue; it was the Gorelick, was a full-page reproduction of fluential in liberalizing Art Front's pol- last piece by him to appear in Art Front. a Uger drawing. The text of a lecture icy, but it was the activities of Rosenberg With the December issue, the di- given by Uger at the Museum of Modem and Spivak that proved to be a greater mensions of the journal changed from Art accompanied the reproduction; the annoyance to the union's leadership. The the eleven-by-sixteen-inchformat to the translation was made by Harold Rosen- two friends were concerned by what they nine-by-twelve-inch format. The size of berg who, a decade later, became one of perceived to be the narrow mechanical the issues varied between sixteen and the nation's lea- art critics. He had line of their colleagues on the editorial thirty-twopages. Almost all the art work been among the first group of artists board, but their somewhat flippant per- reproduced in the first volume was polit- hired for WPA art projects and was as- sonal style exacerbated the suspicion ical cartoons by brilliant practitioners: signed as a mural assistant to Max Spi- that they were conspiratorial and self- William Gropper, George Grosz, Ben vak, a member of the editorial board of serving. Weinstock attempted to play the

Fig. 2. Artists Union Demonstration, 1936 (the front page of Art Front for January 1937). role of harmonizer at the lengthy board January as did Davis, Gellert, Baron, and ists. Often the discussion was formal and meetings and often voted with the lssi- H. Glintenkamp. The other four board duect in side by side articles or in lengthy dents; his attitude perplexed and angered members probably quit because of their letters to the eltor and rebuttals. Meyer most of the editorial board who inter- involvement with the more prestigious Shapiro, Isamu Noguch, Louis Aragon, preted his actions as opportunistic. American Artists Congress, which was Lynd Ward, Elizabeth McCausland, Fred- The conflict erupted at a Wednesday preparing for its first national meeting at erick Kiesler, and Bernice Abbott were night meeting. Joe Jones rose to charge Town Hall on February 14, 1936. some of the notables whose work ap- that Art Front had failed to fulfill its Solmon was elected managing editor peared in the magazines, usually at the essential function as the organizing and and he brought in Balcomb Greene, one behest of Weinstock or Solmon. No one, ~nformationalinstrument of the union. of the union's few abstractionists. Prior of course, was ever paid a fee. Sometimes Jones was a handsome, articulate man to his official appointment as managing a writer who was employed by the "bour- given to "left-patriotic" speeches de- eltor, Solmon had already changed the geois" press would use a pseudonym; nouncing modem art, whch impressed concept of Art Front. Of the sixteen Elizabeth McCausland, art critic for the the rank and file. He was cheered when pages in the January 1936 issue, one was Springfield Republican, wrote for Art he declared that he was speaking for the used for the cover, two for advertising, Front under the name of Elizabeth Noble. artists of the Midwest; Rosenberg an- three for Artists Union eltorial matter, One regular contributor to the mag- gered the crowd when he shot back, and the ten remaining pages were de- azine was Jacob henwho usually re- 'Who the hell made you the representa- voted to essays, critiques, reviews, and viewed exhibitions. His articles generally tive of the artists of the Midwest?" reproductions. A Jacques Lipchitz sculp- mdested a social realist bias, but were Wednesday night meetings were al- ture is reproduced on the cover, and of written with the intelligence one would ways well attended because, among the six reproductions in the magazine, expect of the fine art hstorian that he other, more important, reasons, they not one is a cartoon. Thls issue is proba- was. Kainen's highly critical review of were a source of entertainment. This bly the one that precipitated the charges Hendnk Van Loon's book, meArts, was particular evening attendance was espe- by Joe Jones. Solmon wrote adrmnngly eliminated by the eltorial board because cially large and the "show" was surely of the early surrealist paintings of De Van Loon had publicly endorsed the art not disappointing. Rosenberg in reply to Chirico, and Lincoln Kirstein contrib- project! the charge that hs clique frustrated the uted an article on scenery for theatrical Another outstandmg artist-critic for will of the majority of the board, shouted dancing. Greene and Weinstock had a Art Front was Charmion Von Weigand, 'We put out the magazine; they are a lively debate about the work of Lkger, in the wife of New Masses editor, Joseph bunch of dummies!" Cries of "elitism" which Greene asserted "the complete Freeman. She, too, was a fine art histo- filled the hall as he continued to demean revolutionist, assuming he is healthy rian, partial to work of social content. In the union's leadership. Unable to find a and capable of requisite sensory compre- a review of surrealist art at the Museum chair, Weinstock perched on a window hension, will also welcome a new art of Modem Art, she astutely analyzed the sill and quietly observed theproceedings. which has, because of its functional pur- evolution of surrealism, praised the ex- Someone in the crowd shouted, 'Wein- pose, rejected literal translation." l7 hbition, and concluded that the art of stock is a Robespierre!," so talung him Weinstock argued in turn that painting the future which ". . . will strive for a by surprise that he fell from the sill. cannot free art from subject matter until new humanism on a social basis . . .will A motion was made to expel the "subject matter itself is free, that is, find uses for the technical innovations of "clique" from the eltorial board, but when objects no longer need be seen in the modem escapists." 21 Bard, who was chairing the meeting, de- relationships that in turn enslave the art- Undoubtedly a substantial minority clared that the motion was out of order ist and then us." Margaret Duroc's re- in the union looked forward to each issue and would be referred to the executive view of an exhibition at the John Reed of Art Front, welcoming it as a lively board of the union. Bard's decision came Club is rooted almost entirely in the ex- forum for stimulating esthetic lscus- as a shock since expulsion would have amination of content: ". . . the meaning sion. The Artists Union, however, was a been carried by the membership. Here and composition in Grunbaum's paint- mass organization and the majority was again, it is likely that Bard, better in- ing are impaired by representing the relatively unsophisticatedj many re- formed politically than the rank and file, Negro with his head bowed passively. . . sented the scholarly tone of the maga- was anxious to avoid any charge of sec- it falsely suggests the Negro relies on the zine and considered it an indulgence of a tarianism. In early 1936, the impact of white worker alone for his freedom." '9 clique of intellectuals. In his review of the new policy on Party cadre was clear; The range of esthetic attitudes ex- Salvadore Dali's book, Conquest of the cooperation with socialists and liberals pressed in the JanuaryArt Front reflected Irrational, in the April 1936 Art Front, on short-range goals was not only accept- the new liberal editorial policy. Without Rosenberg warned that the book is ". . . able, it was desirable. exception, however, all the writers were not recommended to those readers of Art No change was made in the editorial concerned with the problem of creating Front who have complained of the ob- board and the conflict remained unset- a revolutionary art. In a review of the scurity of some of the articles in these tled. A meeting was called for Party Lipchtz exhibition at the Bnunmer Gal- volumes." At a union meeting, Solmon members and fellow travelers on the edi- lery, Martin Craig argued that an art had to defend the reproduction of an El torial board to be held at the office of which obviously resembled nature could Lissitzky nonobjective painting by point- Alexander Trachtenberg, the head of In- no longer be meamngful. Discussing the ing out that the Russian artist was a cele- ternational Publishers. Neither Rosen- distorted figures of the sculpture, he as- brated designer- of posters in the USSR. berg or Solmon was present, but there serted, "If there is to be a vital revolu- The magazine was produced by a was a special guest, a French official of tionary art in the future, then this is the printer who worked for many unions the Cornintern, visiting the United road it will take." 20 and left-wing organizations. The quality States. The guest recommended the Art Front was, in effect, an esthetic of printing did not meet the standards of broader concept of the magazine, but also dialogue on the left. American Scene art- an art magazine, but the cost of better suggested, in view of the bitter feelings ists and the academicians were roundly reproduction was out of the question. generated by the disagreement, that Spi- condemned, but a lively debate evolved During the first year of publication, Ben vak resign from the eltorial board. Spi- among the social realists, the expression- Shahn recommended the purchase of a vak raised no objections; he resigned in ists, the surrealists, and the abstraction- multilith printer capable of producing Fig. 3. Stuart Davis, Sixth Avenue El, 1932, lithograph. Used as an illustration in Art Front. Pho)to: Sotheby Parke Bemet, New York. Art Front's short printing run in color, that Orozco and Sequeiros were at the Paris, but maintained that contemporary but the suggestion was rejected. Some nucleus of the Mexican League of Revo- art could only be siphcant when it em- board members feared that, because of lutionary Artists and Writers and that it ployed social content. The magazine Shahn's interest in exploring the use of was therefore incumbent upon "our own continued to include articles of general the multicolor printer, the magazine organ of publicity [not to publicize indi- interest to the members-project news, might become his personal showcase. viduals] to the detriment or harm of any unionmatters, educational and technical After a year as the managing edltor, union engaged in a smggle common to data, political comment, listings of cur- Solmon decided the demands made upon all of us." 22 rent exhibitions, and so on. Artwork was hmby the magazine were too time-con- Solmon's broad policy lost some liberally reproduced, especially that suming. In addition to his obligations to momentum when Weinstock became which had been completed on the art the WPA, he was a leading member of an managing editor. However, Weinstock project. exhibition group known as the Ten did enjoy provoking vigorous debates for Members of the union's executive which had been receiving some recogni- which Art Front was the forum. He pub- board were always represented on the tion. The December 1936 issue was the lished a speech by Louis Aragon, the editorial board to assure that Art Front last in which Solmon functioned as the French Communist poet who had been a remained an instrument of the union's managing editor, although he remained surrealist, asserting that the new style economic policy and to control publica- on the board for the January 1937 Art "will be a socialistic realism or it will tion costs. It was assumed by some with- Front when Weinstock succeeded him. cease to exist." 23 Dali agreed to write a in the leadership that the magazine was The last article Solmon contributed to rebuttal, accusing Aragon of being a left- an expensive indulgence, but it is likely the magazine was a laudatory review of ist opport~nist.~~Weinstock then leaped that Art Front actually was self-support- an exhibition by the Mexican painter into the fray, labeling Dali as a counter- ing. Union financing was generally cas- Rufino Tamayo. Solmon's statement that revolutionary artist who pleases the ual and the magazine's finances were the paintings of Tamayo "soared above bourgeois "with his slimy watches." 25 apparently not separated from general the work of most of his compatriots" The change of emphasis was subtle funds. In addition to sales and advertis- caused a furor among a clique of Seque- when control of the magazine shdted ing income, which was little enough, the iros admirers and during the "good and from Solmon to Weinstock. The new magazine relied upon funds from an Art welfare" portion of a membership meet- managing editor relied less on the un- Front Ball that was held on Thanksgiving ing Solmon was charged with insulting ion's artist-critics and was more apt to at the Savoy Ballroom in Harlem. For the the Mexican muralist. A. J. Schneider, use Marxist analysts like A. L. Lloyd, six-month period en- December 31, who worked in the Sequeiros workshop, F. D. Klingender, and Samuel Putnarn, 1936, total income for Art Front was wrote a letter of complaint to be printed whose esthetic views admitted the tech- $939.35, while printing expenses were in the next issue, in which he proclaimed nical achievements of the School of only $737.14. Granting that a twelve- month statement might not be so favor- ued to produce mimeographed newslet- able, the magazine could not realistically ters and bulletins of various kinds, and The Curator's be deemed a financial burden to the un- from time to time, there was talk of ion that used Art Front's income for gen- sponsoring another publication. There eral expenses while it failed to meet the was one serious attempt in 1940 when Report printing obligations. the union published New York Artist, a The feeling persisted that Art Front pocket-size magazine that only lasted for Arthur Breton had to be made financially responsible, four issues. The avowed purpose of the so when Naum Tschacbasov, in Decem- new magazine was not "to print an arty During the period January through ber 1936, suggested the magazine could publication, but . . . to develop unity September 1973, papers or microfilms of become a source of income for the union, &ong artists . . . to advance their inter- the following persons or organizations he was appointed business manager. ests." 26 It was, on the whole, rather dull. were received in the Washington office Tschacbasov was a dynamic and ambi- Perhaps because it was the joumal of the Archives. This list includes both tious man who had the reputation of be- of a unique organization -a trade union gfts and loans. of fine artists-there has never again ing vain, self-serving, and even ruthless. Samuel Adler He immediately rented office space been a magazine quite llke Art Front. The professional art joumals llke the Art Larry Aldnch at 41 Union Square, purchased office fur- Digest and the Magazine of Art were Architectural League of New York niture and equipment, and hired a pretty conservative and stuffy, while left-wing Clifford W. Ashley but totally incompetent secretary. Wein- joumals with an interest in the arts llke Associated American Artists Gallery, stock and Rothman thought the move New Masses were primarily literary. For New York ridiculous but nevertheless thoroughly anyone wishing to investigate the ten- Peggy Bacon enjoyed the new, luxurious environment; sions between art and politics during the Thomas Badger they even had a room with a long table 1930s, Art Front is an invaluable docu- Ruth Jonas Bardm for board meetings. The idyll lasted ment. Only the Archives of American William Baziotes about three months -until the furniture Art and the Museum of Modem Art Li- Michel Benisovich was repossessed for nonpayment. brary have complete sets of the magazine Eugene Berman Weinstock Informed Rothman that available for study. Karl Bitter he was the new business manager when Edwin Howland Blashfield Tschacbasov quit, and Chet LaMore Louis BouchC joined the board in an effort by the lead- Notes Paul Bransom ership to strengthen its control of the 1. Art Front, November 1934, p. 3. Margaret Brown Gallery, Boston magazine. LaMore was reputed to be 2. Ethyl Olenikov, "In Answer to Art News," Art Front, November 1934, p. 5. Louise Bruner tough and efficient; Weinstock and Roth- 3. Clarence Weinstock, "A Letter on Salvador Lawrence Calcagno man welcomed the help. By his own ad- Dali," Art Front, February 1935, p. 8. William Christopher mission a poor businessman, Rothman 4. rerome Klein, "Dada for Propaganda," Art Alphaeus Cole was unaware that the magazine's adver- Front, February 1935, p. 8. 5. "The U.S. Scene in Art," Time, December Bruce Conner tising salesman was pocketing the reve- 24, 1934, p. 24. Paul Cummings nue. The "sloppy" finances infuriated 6. Stuart Davis, "The New York American Ben Cunningham the leadershp. Former president Harry Scene in Art," Art Front, February 1935, p. 6. Lily Cushing Gottlieb was added to the editorial board 7. Ibid. 8. Moses Soyer, "About Moses Soyer," Art Charles Daniel and Rothmanwas brought up on charges. Front, February 1935, p. 6. Morris Davidson Weinstock ran to V. J. Jerome to com- 9. john Stewart Cuny, "A Letter from Cuny," John Day plain and he assigned Tim Holmes to Art Front, April 1935, p. 6. Julian Delbos help adjudicate. 10. Thomas Benton, 'Why Mr. Benton," Art Front, April 1935, p. 4. Downtown Gallery -Although there was a question of 11. jacob Burck, "Benton Sees Red," Art Front, Paula Eliasoph misappropriated funds, it is llkely that April 1935, p. 6. Raphael Ellender older dissatisfactions with the magazine 12. Correspondence, Art Front, May 1935, p. 7. 13. Clarence Weinstock, "Contrahctions in Stephen Morgan Etnier became a dominant factor; a segment of Abstractions," Art Front, April 1935, p. 5. Ralph Fabri the leadership believed the magazine in- 14. Stuart Davis, "A Mehum of Tko Dimen- Clara Fasano adequately represented the goals of the sions," Art Front, May 1935, p. 6. Paul Feeley union and resented Weinstock's control. 15. Stuart Davis, 'We Reject-The Art Com- mission," Art Front, july 1935, p. 4. Hamilton Easter Field The charges against Rothman may have 16. Stuart Davis. "Some Chance." Art Front, Mary Fife been leveled to discredit Weinstock in- November 1935, pp. 4-7. Edward Fitzgerald directly. Holmes repeatedly referred to 17. Balcomb Greene, "The Function of Ltger," John R. Frazier Weinstock as a Trotskyite even though Art Front, ranuary 1936, p. 9. 18. Clarence Weinstock, "Freedom in Paint- Augustus Fuller no one had made those charges. Wein- ing," Art Front, January 1936, p. 10. George Fuller stock continued as managing editor 19. Margaret Dwoc, "Critique from the Left," Albert Eugene Gallatin through December 1937, the date of the Art Front, january 1936, p. 8. Oronzo Gasparo magazine's last issue. 20. Martin Craig, "jacques Lipchitz," Art Front, ranuary 1936, pp. 10-11. Jan Gelb Art Front went out of existence 21. Charmion Von Weigand, "The Surrealists," Charles H. Gifford without warning; the last issue was still Art Front, ranuary 1937, pp. 12-15. William Glackens soliciting subscriptions and requesting 22. A. 1. Schneider, Art Front, March 1937, p. Fay Gold lSi also roseph Solmon, "Tarnayo," Art Front, Feb- notification to the circulation depart- ruary 1937, p. 17. Mke Goldberg ment of change of address. Of the per- 23. Louis Aragon, "Painting and Reality," Art Chaim Gross sons interviewed for this study, none can Front, january 1937, p. 7. Karl Gruppe recall why the magazine ceased so sud- 24. Salvador Dali, "I Defy Aragon, " Art Front, William Preston Harrison March 1937, p. 7. denly though some speculated that it 25. Clarence Weinstock, "The Man in the Bal- Abraham Harriton may have been an economy measure by loon," Art Front, March 1937, p. 8. Marsden Hartley the executive board. The union contin- 26. New York Artist, March 1940, p. 2. Cleo Hartwig