The New Deal Art Projects in New York Francis V

The New Deal Art Projects in New York

Francis V. O'Connor

American Art Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Autumn, 1969), pp. 58-79.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7359%28196923%291%3A2%3C58%3ATNDAPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

American Art Journal is currently published by Kennedy Galleries, Inc..

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/kgi.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 12:05:49 2008 The American Art Journal The New Deal Art Projects in New York

BY FRANCIS V. O'CONNOR

I. THEPROJECTS IN GENERAL' The Federal Government sought to alleviate the acute economic need of the nation's visual artists by cresting four art projects in the Depression. These were the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP, December, 1933, to June, 1934), the Treasury Section of Painting and Sculpture (Section, October, 1934, to June, 1943), the Treasury Relief Art Project (TRAP, July, 1935, to about June, 1939), and the Works Progress Administration's Federal Art Project (WPA/FAP, Au- gust, 1935, to April, 1943).2 The PWAP was organized to help unemployed artists through the winter of 1933-34. Its funds were supplied by Harry Hopkins' Civil Works Administration and it was directed by Edward Bruce of the Treasury Department, the one government agency at the time mandated to supervise the acquisition of works of art. Bruce, a lawyer, had been a banker, newspaper owner, art collector and, since 1923, a professional painter. During the first intense months of the New Deal he represented the Treasury as a silver expert at the London Economic Conference. While there he held a successful one-man show. When he returned to the Treas- ury Department, he was found to be highly equipped for the delicate task of initiating a patronage program for unemployed artists. The primary aim of the PWAP was to provide work for these artists in the decoration of non-Federal public buildings and parks. Art, as defined for the purpose of this project, covered sculpture, painting, design, and the products of

1. I have relied for the most part on the following works: Edward Bruce and Forbes Watson, Art in Federal Buildings, Washington, D.C., 1936; Belisario R. Contreras, "Treasury Art Programs, The New Deal and the American Artist," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ameri- can University, 1967; Olin Dows, "The New Deal's Treasury Art Program: A Memoir," Arts in Society, Vol. 2, no. 4, n.d., 51-58; William F. MacDonald, "Federal Relief Administration and the Arts: A Study of the Works Progress Administration," unpublished manuscript, New York, 1949; Ralph Purcell, Government and Art, Washington, D.C., 1956; Erica Beckh Rubenstein, "Tax Payer's Murals," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard, 1944, and Pre- liminary lnventory of the Records of the Public Buildings Service, Record Group 121, com- piled by W. Lane Van Neste and Virgil E. Baugh, National Archives, Washington, D.C., 1958. Much material has also been drawn from the primary source documents concerning the WPA Federal Art Project preserved in Record Group 69 at the National Archives. 2. For a more detailed published history and chronology of the national New Deal art projects see my Federal Art Patronage: 1933 to 1943, College Park, University of Maryland Art Gallery, 1966, and my Federal Support for the Visual Arts: The New Deal and Now; A Francis V. O'Connor is assistant pro- Report on the New Deal art projects in New York City and State with recommendations fessor of art history at the University for present-day Federal support of the visual arts to the National Endowment for the Arts, of Maryland and is writing a history Roger L. Stevens, Chairman, Washington, D.C., 1968, Greenwich, Connecticut: The New of American art in the 1930s. York Graphic Society, 1969. The American Art Journal craft. While the primary purpose of the project was to give employment to needy artists, a dual selection standard was set up. The artist had actually to be in need as well as competent. This dual standard raised the question of whether PWAP was to be administered as a relief project or one designed to acquire art for the Government. The Washington office never really clarified this point, though Edward Bruce tried. In his general instructions of December 10, 1933, he sug- gested that artists be employed on a weekly basis, so their performance could be checked and the "drones" eliminated.3 On December 14, he wrote to Mrs. Juliana Force, director of the New York Region:

It is going to take a fine sense of discrimination on all of us to select only those needy artists whose artistic ability is worthy of their employment. One phase of this work, of course, is to put men to work, but I think that we ought all remember that we are putting artists to work and not trying to make artists out of bums.*

Bruce wanted to stress the idea that PWAP was not a relief measure, but a public works program to employ artists to beautify public buildings in America. Thus, in March, 1934, shortly before PWAP came to an end, he was thinking of with- drawing from the Civil Works Administration by seeking an appropriation from the Public Works Administration. This would eliminate the relief feature of the project and enable Bruce to employ artists on the sole basis of q~ality.~He would realize this ambition as director of the Section. PWAP limited the subject matter to the "American Scene" and was chary of anything experimental, unconventional, or possibly titillating. These attitudes are revealingly set forth in a satisfied letter from Edward B. Rowan, Assistant Tech- nical Director of PWAP, to Emmanuel M. Benson dated May, 24,1934:

Instructions sent from the central office in Washington to the various regions was that the artists be employed as quickly as possible for the decoration of public buildings (any building supported wholly, or in part, by taxation) and that the term of embellishment could be interpreted to cover any of the plastic and graphic arts' media. Naturally, some artists thought instantly of fresco, others of easel paintings, others of sculpture, lithography, etching, batik and the like. In no case was any stress laid upon either conservative or experimental work-the artist was encouraged to work in that mode which was compatible to his own individual nature. The one restriction, which I think was absolutely

3. Edward Bruce and Forbes Watson to Duncan Phillips, December 10, 1933; National Ar- chives Record Group 121, entry group 106, box 3. Hereafter only entry group and box number will be given. See my A Preliminarp Report of Activities and Accomplishments with a Guide to New Deal Art Project Documentation, Federal Support for the Visual Arts: The New Deal and Now, A Research Project, Washington, D.C., 1968, for a detailed ex- planation and inventory of the National Archives' holdings in the field of the New Deal projects. 4. 105:ll 5. Bruce to Force, March 15, 1934; 116:5. The American Art Jouvnal

justified in view of the fact that the artists were working for the American Government, was that they stress in as far as ~ossiblethe American scene. This was very broadly interpreted and rightly so. Every phase of the American scene was brought forth including still life and figure painting. There were very few nude paintings and my personal reaction is that this was as it should be in view of the fact that all of the works were designed for public buildings. All in all I think that the artists showed a very intelligent approach and we noted that many of those who in the past had done extremely experimental things at- tempted to tone down their expression with the result that there was a decided note of sincerity in the majority of the work. I hope you know me well enough to know that I have never disparaged experimental work-I personally get much pleasure from experimentation and encourage it in the case of the private painters. I feel that most of the painters felt that the time was so limited that they must get down to brass tacks and work with those things in which they were perfectly familiar. I hope you do not regard my attitude as narrow in this case but I was happy to see that there were few vaudeville stunts pulled by the artists under the Pr~ject.~

No doubt the limited scope of the PWAP also reduced the incidence of "vaudeville stunts." The original employment quota of 2,500 artists was divided among sixteen regions, each of which received an allocation in accordance with its population and with the number of artists who were estimated to live in it. In all, 3,749 artists were aided by the PWAP. They produced some 15,633 art and craft items. These works were sponsored for the most part by tax-supported institutions throughout the co~ntry.~ Due to the limited goals of the program, however, only about 25 percent of the artists in need of employment in the country were actually given work, and of these, about 50 per cent were non-relief. These facts eventually led to the establishment of a more comprehensive relief program under the Works Progress Administration. The total cost of the PWAP to the government was $1,312,177, of which about 90 per cent went directly to unemployed artist^.^ Weekly wages ranged from $26.50 to $42.50 and were determined by the pay scales set up by the CWA for skilled craftsmen. While technically a program of work-relief, no direct means tests were imposed. When the PWAP came to an end in the early summer of 1934 it was obvious that patronage of the arts was a feasible function of government. It was also obvious that a conflict existed between the goal of aiding indigent artists and that of acquiring quality works of art for the government from artists with different levels of professional experience and ability. As a result two separate

6. 108 :2 7. Public Works of Art Project: Report of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to Federal Emergency Relief Administrator, December 8, 1933, to Tune 30, 1934, Washington, D.C., 1934, p. 7. 8. Ibid., p. 5. The American Art ]ouynal art programs were eventually established. The Treasury Department, several months after the end of PWAP, set up the Section of Painting and Sculpture spe- cifically to employ the best available professional artists to decorate government buildings. Art relief, on the other hand, had to wait until the fall of 1935 when the Works Progress Administration established the Federal Art Project. These two programs then operated concurrently, with several important administrative changes, until they were liquidated by Presidential order early in 1943. On October 14,1934, about five months after the end of the PWAP, Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau established the Section of Painting and Sculpture within his Department. The Secretary's order listed five objectives for the new Section:

1. To secure suitable art of the best quality for the embellishment of public buildings; 2. To carry out this work in such a way as will assist in stimulating, as far as practicable, development of art in this country and reward what is regarded as the outstanding talent which develops; 3. So far as consistent with a high standard of art, to employ local talent; 4. To endeavor to secure the cooperation of people throughout the country interested in the arts and whose judgment in connection with art has the respect of the Section in selecting artists for the work to be done and criticism and advice as to their production; 5. In carrying out this work, to make every effort to afford an opportunity to all artists on the sole test of their qualifications as artists and, accordingly, to encourage competitions wherever practicable recognizing the fact, however, that certain artists in the country, because of their recognized talent, are entitled to receive work without competition."

These objectives were carried out by a staff led by the same men who had supervised the PWAP: Edward Bruce as chief with Edward Rowan and Forbes Watson assisting him. Their primary objective was to secure the best possible art for the embellishment of government buildings. To do this they worked closely with Christian Joy Peoples, Director of Procurement for the Treasury Depart- ment, and Louis A. Simon, its supervising architect. Unlike the PWAP-and the WPA/FAP later-they did not have to rely upon direct appropriations to support the activities of the Section. Instead, 1per cent of the funds allocated by Congress for the construction of public buildings was set aside for artistic decoration. Since this was an internal procedure of the Treasury, the Section came in for less public scrutiny and Congressional harassment than did the WPA/FAP. The directors of the Section studiously cultivated this anonymity. The Section commissioned murals and sculpture on a contract basis after selecting the artists by means of fair and financially rewarding local and national com-

9. Quoted in Bulletin No. I, Section of Painting and Sculpture, Public Works Branch, Procure- ment Division, Treasury Department, Washington, D.C., March 1,1935, pp. 3-4. The An~ericanArt Journal

petitions. It sponsored about 1,116 murals and 300 sculptures in post offices and other Federal buildings at an expenditure of $2,571,267." Each artist's work was kept under close scrutiny with payments being made only after the Section approved each stage in the creative process: preliminary designs, full-scale cartoons or models, half-way through final execution and upon completion. The Section kept a strict eye on subject matter and style and was not reticent in demanding changes as the work progressed. Such supervision tended to make most Section murals dry and uninteresting. Indeed, the best murals painted here during the thirties (if one excludes those done by the Mexican muralists) were painted by Thomas Hart Benton, an artist who, though invited several times, never chose to work for the Section. His reasons are revealing: in a letter to Edward B. Rowan dated October 7,1936, he says:

I am going to lay this whole matter of the Federal mural business frankly before you. I have no objection to putting up the performance bond called for on the award of a Federal contract. As such this is all right. But as I see it I am not in this particular Federal case genuinely awarded a contract. That is, I am not myself a completely responsible party in the contract. You and others share responsibility with me-and to such an extent that you feel you have to watch me and pet me along to keep me from running you onto the brink of possible difficulty. I haven't liked this business from the very first. I understand your position and that of Ned Bruce and the rest of you who have helped put "Painting" on the political map of the U.S. I see that you are in a sort of "touchy" situation. I believe you are doing the best you can in that situation, especially with the inexperience you have to deal with in getting good wall pictures. I understand all this, but I can't work under it. The sketches I submitted last year are no good-and I think they are no good because I didn't feel free when I did them. I don't want to show those sketches or do the job for which they were intended. Just let me out on it and re-award the space. If you can ever give me a contract in which all responsibility is mine, in which I am completely trusted to do a good job and over which no one but myself has effective rights of approval or disapproval I'll work. Otherwise, I can't be sure 1'11 do a real piece of work.ll

Benton's remarks strike home at one of the basic weaknesses of the Section- the lack of freedom it afforded the individual artist. It was this fault which seriously compromised both its immediate effectiveness and future influence. The TRAP operated both under the Section, which supervised its creative activities, and the WPA/FAP, which provided funds and numerous work-relief artists and technicians. Its principal aim was to administer mural and sculpture projects in old Federal buildings that could not be funded by the Section. In prac-

10. Rubenstein, op. cif., p. 82. 11. 133:124. The American Art Journal tice the Section selected a master artist for a project and he chose assistants from the rolls of the WPA/FAP. The TRAP spent $833,784 to produce 89 murals, 65 sculptures and about I~,OOOother works, mostly easel paintings and water- col~rs.'~ The WPA/FAP, of all the New Deal art projects, was the most extensive and comprehensive and had the greatest impact on the culture and consciousness of the nation. It was directed from its inception until its liquidation by Holger Cahill. Like Edward Bruce, Cahill was eminently suited to direct this vast enterprise. He was a recognized authority on American folk art and an established writer and critic. He had been in charge of public relations at the Newark Museum and director of exhibitions at the Museum of Modern Art, positions that brought him into contact with many of the country's leading artists. He was in full sympathy with the New Deal and the problems of the unemployed and his conception of the WPA/FAPrs social and aesthetic potentialities far exceeded its legal mandate to provide work-relief for indigent artists. In October, 1935, Cahill outlined the basic ~rocedureof the Federal Art Project on the first page of its operating manual:

The Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration will employ persons of training and experience in the art field who are certified . . . as eligible to participate in the Works Program. The primary objective of the project is the employment of artists who are on the relief rolls. The Federal Art Project will draw at least 90 per cent of its personnel from relief. The project is p!anned in the belief that among these artists will be found the talent and the skill necessary to carry on an art program which will make contributions of permanent value to the community. Where necessary, artists may be drawn from non-relief sources, but in no case in excess of ten percent of the total number employed. Cahill went on to outline the plan and aims of the WPA/FAP: The plan of the Federal Art Project provides for the employment of artists in varied enterprises. Through employment of creative artists it is hoped to secure for the public outstanding examples of contemporary American art; through art teaching and recreational art activities to create a broader national art consciousness and work out constructive ways of using leisure time; through services in applied art to aid various campaigns of social value; and through research projects to clarify the native background in the arts. The aim of the project will be to work toward an integration of the arts with the daily life of the community, and an integration of the fine arts and practical arts.13

Implicit in these goals was Cahill's strong belief that the Government should work with the artist in raising artistic standards and increasing cultural aware-

12. Final Report: Treasury Relief Art Project, mimeographed, n.d., pp. 4-5. 13. Federal Art Project Manual, Works Progress Administration, October, 1935, p. 1. The American Art Journal

ness. This was in contrast to the aims of the Section, which sought out artists to work for the Government and imposed a subtle academic discipline upon them. In general an artist was permitted to work at his own rate of production and required to submit an agreed upon number of works-or period of time in the case of a muralist-for his wages. The works were judged in terms of his known abilities and were either allocated to a public institution or the WPA/FAP's own exhibition program for circulation among the Federal Art Galleries. There were no restrictions as to style or content and abstract and surrealist works were accepted along with more conventional works in the "social realist" or "American scene" vein. The WPA/FAP, in effect, continued and expanded the work-relief activities of the PWAP. At its nationwide peak of more than 5,000 artists employed, it was sponsoring easel and mural painting, sculpture, graphic art, the Index of Amer- ican Design, posters, art photography, a vast art teaching program, mosaics, stained glass and other arts and crafts. It also set up more than 100 Community Art Centers and Federal Art Galleries that organized art classes, lectures and shows of its best creations in regions where an original work of art had never been seen and artistic creativity was unknown. Indeed, so great was its scope and cultural impact, that the initials "WPA" have become erroneously associated with all four New Deal art programs. The WPA/FAP produced 2,566 murals, 108,099 easel paintings, 17,744 sculptures, 11,285 designs for fine prints and 22,000 Index of American Design plates, to give statistics for its major activities.14 Its total national expenditures are very difficult to determine precisely but seem to have amounted to about $35,000,000. Of this roughly $14,000,000 was spent in New York.15 In all, the WPA/FAP did the most to sustain the nation's artists during the hard years of the Depression. It preserved their skills by providing the freedom to use them and invented with imagination and foresight projects that would have lasting value to the nation. While the definitive history of these four nationwide projects and the art they produced has yet to be written, it is possible to begin to understand the role they played in the history of American art in the 1930's by studying their activities in New York.

New York's position as the cultural center of the nation made it inevitable that its large population of visual artists would be the first to require assistance after the economic collapse of October, 1929. Initially of course, only public welfare was available to artists whose usual sources of income had dried up. During the

14. Final Report on the WPA Program: 1935 to 1943, Federal Works Agency, Washington, D.C., 1946, Table XVI. 15. For a complete discussion of the expenditures of the nationwide WPA/FAP see my final report to the National Endowment, op. cit., pp. 73-75. The American Art Journal last years of the Hoover Administration, little was-or could be--done in New York for the indigent artist. The earliest attempts were private in nature. Many art galleries sponsored sales exhibitions for needy artists and affluent patrons saw that favored artists received anonymous gifts each month. Obviously such attempts had minimal effect.'' It was two years after the beginning of the Depression that a work-relief program was organized capable of reaching the artistic community. In August, 1931, the Gibson Committee raised $20,695,000 for the relief of white-collar workers not able to do outdoor manual labor. These funds were administered through its Emergency Work Bureau. In September, 1931, the New York State Legisla- ture passed the Wicks Act, which established the New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration (hereafter State TERA). Its chairman was Harry Hopkins and the innovations in work-relief undertaken in New York State between 1931 through the inauguration of its Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt as President would be expanded thereafter on a national basis, first as a Federal TERA (1933- 35), and, later as the Works Progress Administration (1935-43). In 1932 the College Art Association petitioned the Emergency Work Bureau of the Gibson Committee, whose funds were by now augmented by the State TERA, to create a program designed to help the unemployed artists. This was done and Frances Pollak and Audrey McMahon of the staff of the College Art Association, working with Harry Knight, who acted as liaison between the EWB and the CAA, created a limited but effective work-relief program for artists. In October, 1933, the following report by Harry Knight was published in Parnassus, the journal of the College Art Association, in an article titled "May the Artist Live" by Audrey McMahon:

Since December 1932 many artists have been employed to carry out projects of varied and highly interesting nature in the execution of which they have created works of satisfaction to themselves and of aesthetic and cultural value to the community. All of this work has been done for institutions of a non- profit making character, the institutions paying for the materials used, and the Emergency Work Bureau lending the services of the artists in its employ. This is work which has been made possible only through this cooperation so that it has in no sense been competitive. It is created work. About one hundred artists have been placed and up to August 1, 1933, approximately $20,000 in salaries had been paid these men. The usual arrangement of work was for alternate weeks. Married men were paid at the rate of $25.00 for each working week, and single men $18.00. Where circumstances required it, a part-time weekly basis was scheduled and in some cases where it was necessary for the good of the work, artists worked on a full-time basis. Despite limited time and

16. For an idea of the variety of these early relief measures, which included the first Washing- ton Square outdoor exhibits, see the New York Times Index, entry for "Artists," 1932, p. 160 and 1933, pp. 180-81. The Amevican Art Jouvnal

funds, which necessarily narrowed its scope, we feel that the work has been most successful. It has not only helped the artists financially, but has given them opportunities for work on a more ambitious scale than they had in nor- mal times, and what is equally important, and we feel of permanent value, it has been of immense cultural benefit to the various communities in putting art where it can reach the people.17

This work continued through June of 1934, parallel with the activities of the Public Works of Art Project in New York City (which will be discussed below). When the PWAP also came to an end at that time, its work was taken over by the Works Division of the Emergency Relief Bureau of the Federal TERA which had been organized in December, 1933, under the Civil Works Adminis- tration. It continued under this agency until August 1,1935. During these fifteen months artists' work-relief was organized under the Federal TERA by the College Art Association under the direction of Pollak and McMahon. By July, 1935, it was employing some 393 artists. On August 1,1935, the Emergency Relief Bureau of the Federal TERA was succeeded by the WPA for the City of New York, which organized the WPA/FAP later in the fall of 1935 under the direction of Mrs. McMahon. It should be noted that there is a direct continuity between the creative projects begun on the PWAP, continued through the CAA project and, in many cases, completed in the first year of the WPA/FAP. This is especially true of the many "mural designs" conceived on the PWAP, developed on the CAA and finished on the WPA/FAP. Needless to say, from the point of view of the artists involved, there was no break in this continuity despite the different sources of their wages.

Parallel, for a time, with the early activities of the CAA in New York City, was the first of the Federal Government's attempts to help the artist-the Public Works of Art Project. Administered in New York by Mrs. Juliana Force, the director of the Whitney Museum, this project helped about 800 artists between December 1933 and June 1934. The Regional Advisory Committee of the New York Metropolitan Area (which included parts of Connecticut and New Jersey) was made up of the following persons :

Mrs. Juliana Force, chairman Bryson Burroughs, curator of painting, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. William Fox, director of the Brooklyn Museum of Art, Brooklyn, N.Y. Gordon Washburn, director of the Albright Art Gallery, Buffalo, N.Y. Mrs. Herdle Moore, director of the Memorial Art Gallery, Rochester, N.Y. The American Art Journal

Miss Beatrice Winser, director of the Newark Museum Association, Newark, N.J. Alfred Barr Jr., director of the Museum of Modern Art, New York City. E.M.M. Warburg, trustee, Museum of Modern Art, New York City. James Rosenberg Mrs. Harry Payne Whitney, founder of the Whitney Museum of Art, New York City. Arthur F. Egner, president, Newark Museum, Newark, N.J. Samuel Levy, president, Borough of Manhattan, City Hall, New York City. Lloyd Goodrich Maj. C. M. Penfield''

The PWAP filled a desperate need in New York City and State, especially in view of the limited scope of the CAA's program. This is well illustrated by the many letters written to Mrs. Force describing the plight of unemployed artists. Typical is that of William Zorach written in behalf of William Gropper:

Both Gropper and his wife have always worked hard. She has just lost her job and the publications for which he works are unable to pay him for his work. They have two small children and feel quite desperate about the whole situation.'"

Similarly, Isaac Soyer wrote :

At present I am teaching Hebrew and am payed (sic). very inadequately and irregularly for it. Therefore my painting is done under the worst possible conditions. I cannot afford a studio or models and am constantly worried about the payment of bills.'O

Gravely limited in funds, employment quota and duration, the Advisory Com- mittee of the PWAP in New York City, following the attitudes of the Washing- ton Administration, nevertheless took a very hard line on the qualifications of those to be employed. Especially stringent was the view that the "American Scene" and a representational style were the criteria of quality art. Thus the abstract sculptor Isamu Noguchi could not get his designs approved either by the New York Committee or by the Washington Administration. Mrs. Force thought his work lacked "a pure sculptural character." In two letters, dated February 28 and April 12,1934, he expressed his feelings concerning this situation:

May I ask of you the great kindness to allow me to once more work for the PWAP. I propose to model weather vanes for public buildings. I have plans for musical and illuminated weather vanes. I will also be most pleased to make

18. PWAP Final Report, op. cit., p. 11. 19. January 18,1934;117:ll. 20. January 2, 1934,117:lO. The American Art Journal

them according to your specifications. Please give me an opportunity to explain to you that God must come to me thru the PWAP.'l I realize that you, personally, are not altogether unsympathetic to the birth and fostering of new ideas. On the contrary, I am aware that the fault is inherent in a system of minimum dole and regimentation. I imagine one might as well abandon the expectation of enthusiastic leadership from those imbued with timid hope."

Similarly the semiabstract artist Byron Browne wrote bitterly to the New York office:

The PWAP does not help the real creative artist. In the first place the subject matter is dictated to the artist. As my work contains little or no emphasis on subject matter, I was ignored for a long time after the PWAP began to function and then cut off after a period of four weeks. This has also happened in many other cases. So here we have a great art movement in the country with the idea of aiding the artist. As far as I and many others are concerned, we might be at the north pole.2"

Style was not the only reason for freezing out artists. The PWAP's limited employment quota was also a factor and, combined with the strict criteria imposed by the Committee, caused some unrest among the New York artists. The militant Artists Union in New York City insisted on seeing PWAP as a relief project designed to help the artists. The Artists Union had organized out of economic necessity, to demand employment for all artists, and to demonstrate for continued government employment. Yet the restriction of the PWAP quota for the New York region made it impossible to satisfy the demands of the Artists Union. As of February 19, 1934, the quota was 500 artists, although 4,000 artists had registered with the project in Manhattan alone. The relationship between the union and the PWAP was further strained by the procedures used by its Ad- visory Committee to select artists. The Committee picked 722 artists to work for two weeks to prove themselves. Then 208 artists of the 722 were eliminated by the committee who judged that their work was not good enough for the project. Part of the committee's procedures was to classify the artists into A, 8, and C classes, according to their creative and technical abilities. In March, the Artists Union wrote to Mrs. Force: "We protest against callous disregard for hundreds of destitute artists dropped. We demand reinstatement of artists dr~pped."'~Mrs. Force took the position that the New York project, while receiving its funds from the Civil Works Administration, was under the direct supervision of the Treasury Department in Washington. She said:

21. 108:2 22. Ibid. 23. Browne to Ann Craton, n.d., 108:l. 24. March 17, 1934; 116:5. Data from Contreras, op. cit., p. 58-9 The American Art Journal

Our instructions also state that having many times more applicants than can possibly be employed under the quota for this Region, we are empowered to select those artists who, in our judgment, are of sufficient merit to warrant their employment. Quality is of first importance and must be made a major consideration in selecting which unemployed artists shall be employed.25

Further demands on Mrs. Force by the Artists Union were sent in March to the Washington Office. Bruce thereupon replied:

It is not fair or sporting on your part to complain to this group of people about the project when there would have been no project if it had not been for them and when the limitations of the project are entirely outside of their power and are subscribed by the Federal Government. If you want the project continued, you should not blame those who have done their utmost to secure for you the maximum help they can get, but you should make your wishes known to those in authority and that is the Congress of the United States and the Admini~tration.'~

Despite the inevitable difficulties, many artists accepted by the Committee found the PWAP a free haven from the afflictions of the times. The painter and printmaker George Constant wrote directly to Edward Bruce:

It is a great privilege to work under such liberal conditions. For the first time in the history of the world the artist is free to work at his own discretion and without the dictation of patr~nage.'~

When the PWAP ended, the painter Thomas Donnelly wrote to Franklin Roose- velt :

When the PWAP closed down . . . , the artist, in need of help and without resources of his own, was left to the tender mercy of his local Work Division (relief). In different parts of the country, where art is recognized as a profes- sion and the artist is accepted as a valuable member of the community, use was made of his ability. But in Westchester County, art is regarded as very unimportant and art projects are frowned upon. The only hope of serious artists of communities like Westchester, is a Federal project not administered by local Works Division officials. As you know, any real private patronage of art has practically ceased, and the government can perform a real service to artists and the future of American art-and help toward the attainment of your ideal of a more cultured and abundant life by once more functioning as a patron of art, in the truly democratic manner of the PWAP.28

25. Press Release, March 18,1934; 116:5. 26. Bruce to Bernarda Bryson, March 28,1934; 116:5. 27. January 22,1934; 108:l. 28. About June, 1934. The American Art Journal

As discussed in the previous part, the New Deal reacted to the PWAP experi- ment by setting up the Section and the WPA/FAP.

IV. THETREASURY SECTION IN NEWYORK

Since the policies and practices of the Section were consistent throughout the country, there is little that can be added of significance concerning its operations in New York City and State. In general, its effect on the State was twofold: First, it commissioned 68 murals and 18sculptures at an expenditure of $137,712 between 1934 and 1943; Second, it awarded commissions to 299 other New York artists-many of them employed on the WPA/FAP-to create murals and sculpture for Federal buildings else- where in the country.'" There follows a complete list of the Section's commissions, listing location, artist, fee, date completed and medium taken from the Section's final report" that constitutes, in effect, an outline history of its activities in New York City and State:

Date Mural or Location Artist Amount Completed Sculpture Akron Elizabeth Logan Albion Judson Smith Amsterdam Henry Schankenberg Angola Leopold F. Scholtz Attica Thomas Donnelly Baldwinsville Paul Weller Bay Shore Wheeler Williams Binghamton Kenneth Washburn Boonville Lucerne McCullough Buffalo Marine Hospital William B. Rowe Canajoharie Anatol Shulkin Canastota Alizon M. Kingsbury Canton Berta Margoulies Clyde Thomas Donnelly Cortland Ryah Ludins Delhi Mary Earley Delmar Sol Wilson Depew Anne Poor Dolgeville Michael Newel1 East Rochester Bernard GUSSOW Ellenville Louis Bouche Endicott Douglass Crockwell Fairport Henry Van Wolf Flushing-Forest Hills Postal Station Sten Jacobson Flushing-Jackson Heights Branch Peppino Mangravite Fort Edward George Picken Frankfort Albert Wein

29. Rubenstein, op. cit., Appendix, p. XIX. 30. Final Report, Section of Fine Arts, Public Buildings Administration, October 16, 1934, to July 15, 1943. The American Art Journal

Date Mural or Location Artist Amount Completed Sculpture

Fredonia Arnold Blanch Fulton Caroline S. Rohland Garden City J. Theodore Johnson Geneva Peter Blume Goshen Georgina Klitgaard Great Neck Gaetano Cecero Hamilton Humbert Albriszio Harrison Harold Goodwin Hempstead Peppino Mangravite Homer Frank Romanelli Honeoyo Falls Stuart Edie Hudson Falls George Picken Huntington Paul Chapman Hyde Park P.O. & Agri. Olin DOWS Ilien Edmond Amateis Jamaica Woodhaven Br. Ben Shahn Lake George Judson Smith Lake Placid Henry Billings Lancaster Arthur Getz Long Beach Jon Corbino Lowville Helen Wilson Middleburg Mary Earley Middleport Marianne Appel Moravia Kenneth Washburn New Rochelle David Hutchinson New York-Brooklyn Kensington P.S.A. Clemins Finley New York-Bronx Central P.O. Henry Kreis (Carving) Charles Rudy (Carving) Ben Shahn N.Y.C.-Canal St. Wheeler Williams Madison Sq. Edmond Amateis Kindred McLeary Louis Slobodkin Station "0" Paul Fiene Wakefield Abraham Lishinsky Oxford Mordi Gassner Painted Post Amy Jones Poughkeepsie Gerald Foster Georgina Klitgaard Charles Rosen Rhinebeck Olin Dows Richfield Springs John W. Taylor Rockville Center Victor White Rome Wendell Jones Rye Guy P. DuBois Scarsdale Gordon Samstag Schenectady-Scotia Br. Amy Jones Spring Valley Stephen Etnier Springville Victoria Huntley St. Johnsville Jirayr H. Zorthian Suffern Elliott Means The American Art Journal

Date Mural or Location Artist Amount Completed Sculpture Ticonderoga Frederick Massa Tonawanda Symeon Shimin Troy Waldo Pierce Wappingers Falls Henry Billings Waverly Musa McKim Westhampton Beach Sol Wilson Whitehall Axel Horn Yonkers-Bronxville Br. John Sloan Orchard Park Francis de Luna

Like the Section, the TRAP'S history in New York is essentially the record of the works it produced. It sponsored about twenty-three mural projects and eight sculpture projects in New York and neighboring states. Its most extensive and successful mural project was the Reginald Marsh cycle in the New York Custom House.31 There follows a listing of the mural and sculpture projects reconstructed from the TRAP records at the National Archives. Because of the nature of the records, it is not possible to be certain that this list is complete:32

Master Artist Mural or City State or Assistant Sculpture Atlantic City Housing Project N.J. Aaron Douglas-M M Beacon P.O. N.Y. Charles Rosen-M Clarence Bolten-A Buffalo Marine Hospital N.Y. Frank Romanelli-M Camden Housing Project N.J. Grace Greenwood Ames-M Marion Greenwood-M Charles Bateman-A Lloyd Lozes Goff-A Ben Hoffman-A John T. Robertson-A Arthur Schneider-A Conrad Vasquez-A Ahron Ben-Shmuel-M Cooperstown P.O. N.Y. Bela Janowsky-M Cranford P.O. N.J. John H. Poehler-M M Freeport P.O. N.Y. William Gropper-M M Morris Pass-A M Geneva P.O. N.Y. Theodore V. Barbarossa-M S Rudolph Henn-A S Guiseppe Bartoli-A S Dominic La Salle-A S Harlem Housing Project N.Y. Elsie G. Driggs-M M Doris Spiegel-M M

31. See my "New Deal Murals in New York," Artforum, November, 1968, pp. 48-9. 32. Record Group 121, entry groups 118 to 121. The American Avt Journal

Master Artist Mural or City State or Assistant Sculpture Algot Stenbery-M M Richmond Bartoli-M S Theodore Barbarossa-M s Domenico Mortellito-A S Erwin Springweiler-A S Heinz Warneke-M S Robert Fuller-A S Rudolph Henn-A S Hudson P.O. N.Y. Joseph Kaplan-M M Vincent Glinsky-M s Leo Schulemowitz-A S Hudson Falls P.O. N.Y. George A. Picken-M M Ludwig Mactarian-A M Johnson City P.O. N.Y. Frederick Knight-M M Oliver M. Baker-A M Bernard Finestone-A M James D. Mitchel-A M Winfield R. Walking-A M Mt. Kisco P.O. N.Y. Thomas Donnelly-M M Nyack P.O. N.Y. Jacob G. Smeth-M M Jacob Peltzman-A M N.Y.C. Custom House N.Y. Reginald Marsh-M M Oliver M. Baker-A M Xavier Barile-A M Charles Bateman-A M Mary Fife-A M Lloyd Lozes Goff-A M John Poehler-A M Erica Volsung-A M Ludwig Mactarian-A M N.Y. General P.O. N.Y. Louis Lozowick-M M Joseph Kaplan-A M N.Y. P.O. Annex N.Y. Frederico Lebrun-M M Channing Peake-A M Oyster Bay P.O. N.Y. Ernest Peixotto-M M Arthur A. Sturges-A M Leo Lentelli-M S Frank Arno-A S Lawrence Cupani-A S Dominic La Salle-A S Frank A. Machera-A S Gaetano Venezia-A S Eduardo Villafrato-A S Port Chester P.O. N.Y. Domenico Mortellito-M M Gustavo Cenci-A M Port Washington P.O. N.Y. Harry S. Lane-M M Saratoga Springs P.O. N.Y. Guy Pene de Bois-M M Stanford Housing Project Conn. Ann B. McNulty-M M Edna Reindel-M M The Amevican Avt 7ouvnr;zl

VI. THEWPA FEDERALART PROJECT IN NEWYORK

The final report of the WPA for New York City published March 2, 1943, about a month after the liquidation of the Federal Art Project, states the following concerning the administration of the four arts projects:

In Sepember 1935, the Washington office announced the establishment of Federal Project No. 1, sponsored by the WPA itself, to embrace the four fields of theatre, art, music, and writing. In January of the following year a fifth activity, a Historical Records Survey, was added. From February 1936, to March 1937, these projects were placed under the titular jurisdiction of the New York City WPA. The project operated independently of the New York City WPA from March 1937 until September 1939, when Mayor LaGuardia became the sponsor of the art, music, writing, and historical records projects, the theatre project having been abolished by Congress in July of that year. These projects were placed under the full jurisdiction of the New York City Administration. The writing and historical records programs were discontinued as such in July 1942 but the art and music programs were continued until the liquidation of the WPA program.33

Thus the history of the New York City WPA/FAP can be divided into four phases corresponding to basic changes in administrative structure. The first of these covers the period from the summer of 1935, when a work-relief program for artists within the Works Progress Administration was planned, to February, 1936, when, the fundamental procedures of the WPA/FAP in New York City, having been established through intensive consultation between the National Director and the New York staff headed by Audrey McMahon, the project was placed under the jurisdiction of the WPA in New York. From February, 1936, through March, 1937, the project operated under the New York City WPA Office with technical control exercised by the National Director from Washington. The third phase, from March, 1937, to September, 1939, saw the flowering of the NYC/FAP under direct administrative and technical control of Washington. The fourth phase, from September, 1939, through the liquidation of the project in the early months of 1943, saw the steady decline of the project due to the reimposi- tion of local control, the necessity for 25 per cent local sponsorship, and the attrition caused by the onset of the war. In order to present the basic facts concerning the administration of the WPA/ FAP in New York City in the most concise manner, these four phases will be outlined chronologically with notations of employment where known:34

33. Final Report of the Work Projects Administration for the City of New York: 1935 to 1943, Kew York City, March 2,1943, p. 229. Note: after 1939 the Works Progress Administra- tion becomes the Work Projects Administration. 34. This chronology is a distillation of thousands of pages of documents in the National Ar- chives' Record Group 69. The material was photocopied and organized in a "New York City Document File" which has been deposited, along with the other files of my research project, in the Library of the National Collection of Fine Arts in Washington, D.C. See my preliminary report and guide, op. cit., for the contents of these files. The American Art Journal

Date Important Events Employment Data June 25,1935 Audrey McMahon writes to Bruce McClure of the FERA indicating that the CAA work relief project for artists employs 393 persons engaged in mural painting and sculpture in public buildings, art teaching and poster making. She states about 1,800 artists are registered with the CAA and home relief; of these about 20% are unem- ployable and the greatest number of the rest, about 600, are qualified for easel and mural work. Projects in mural painting, sculpture, easel painting, graphic art and photography are available and about 875 persons could be employed immediately. 393 August 1,1935 CAA projects transferred to WPA in New York City. Sept. 26,1935 McMahon indicates the NYC creative art projects consist of mural painting, easel painting, graphic art, sculpture, theatrical design and models, and photography. This same month projects which will become the Index of American Design and the Design Lab- oratory are discussed and approved by Cahill. October 14,1935 Letter of authorization sent to McMahon estab- lishing Federal Art Project; McMahon becomes Regional Director of FAP in NYC, NYS and NJ. November 4,1935 National WPA ruling prohibits hiring of persons National FAP employs not on relief rolls before Nov. 1; this will cause 1,800,1,210 of them in much protest in the months to come. New York. December, 1935 Problems inherent in relation of NYC/FAP and Washington office raised and resolved now and in next few months; among these are allocation procedures to institutions and Washington, time- keeping, etc. An important decision taken about this time increased from 10% to 25% the number of non-relief artists who could be employed. 1,504 as of 12/31 January, 1936 McMahon becomes assistant to the Federal Art Director and placed on Washington payroll. 1,822 as of 1/1

PHASE11. NEWYORK CITYFEDERAL ARTPROJECTUNDER LOCAL WPA ADMINISTRA- TION: FEBRUARY1936 TO MARCH1937 February, 1936 NYC/FAP placed under administrative jurisdiction of local WPA administrator, Col. Brehon Somervell. 1,843 March, 1936 National WPA ruling stops all further employment on WPA/FAP. 40% of FAP national budget spent in NYC. 2,169 quota as of 1/15 May, 1936 Demonstrations and protests by artists and Art- ists Union at FAP offices in NY over curtailment 2,140 as of 5/1 of employment. 2,160 as of 5/21 The Amevican Avf- Jouvnal

Date Important Events Employment Data June, 1936 25% non-relief quota for FAP cut back to original 10%; November 1, 1935 ruling concerning relief certification abolished. 2.136 as of 6/1 July, 1936 Uncertainty as to future of arts projects. Ruling authorizes that they be written up only for three-month duration; on July 24 permission given to write up projects for six months. August, 1936 McMahon reports to Washington that the unem- ployment situation among artists is acute. Seri- ous protests and demonstrations continue. September, 1936 Public Use of Art Committee formed by artists on NYC/FAP. Col. Somervell asks all non-relief employees to fill out a certificate of need pending welfare in- vestigation. Serious protests all month. October, 1936 Serious demonstrations and protests against pro- 2,225 as of 10/1 jected cuts in employment and welfare investiga- 2,323 as of 10/31 tion. Col. Somervell orders artists' names re- Peak NYC employ- moved from their work in project galleries. ment November, 1936 Rumors spread that FAP is to be terminated; protests and demonstrations against this. December, 1936 Excess non-relief employees are dismissed from FAP; renewed protests and demonstrations. Com- mittee for the Support of the Federal Arts Proj- ects formed. February, 1937 Washington plans reorganization of Federal Proj- ect No. 1 in NYC to make it responsible to Na- tional Directors and not to Col. Somervell. Offices of FAP in NYC move from 6 East, 39th St. to 235 East 42d St.

PHASE111. NYC/FAP PLACEDBACK UNDER CONTROL OF NATIONAL WPA : MARCH1937 TO SEPTEMBER1939

March, 1937 FP #I placed under Washington control; Harold Stein appointed Administrative Officer in NY. 2,033 as of 3/1 April, 1937 Joint Appeals Board set up for FP #I. May, 1937 2,000 artists in NYC are registered with FAP and certified for relief yet are not employed. 2,100 as of 5/17 June, 1937 National WPA ruling requires 25% reduction in personnel; KYC/FAP quota cut by 542 jobs. Dismissals cause violent demonstrations; almost complete work stoppage on NYC/FAP; Mc- Mahon barricaded in her office; Washington refuses to rescind dismissals or set up another appeal board as demanded by Artists Union. 1,588 as of 6/15 July, 1937 Protests and demonstrations concerning 25% cut continue; Washington refuses postponement and officially abandons policy that no one in need will be fired. Alien rule goes into effect-no one not a citizen The American Art 7ournal

Date Important Events Employment Data can be employed on WPA-first-paper workers can hold jobs only if qualified American citizens are not available. 1,838 average for July August, 1937 1,590 September, 1937 Accounting of New York City and State projects indicates $5,274,346 was spent in City and $355,352 in State from their start to September 30,1937. October, 1937 November, 1937 NYC/FAP under quota all summer. December, 1937 January, 1938 February, 1938 3,000 unemployed artists registered with NYC/ FAP, which cannot employ them. April, 1938 Proposal to limit each WPA worker to a salary of $1,000 per year prompts strong protests; it is ultimately defeated. June, 1938 Accounting of New York City and State projects indicates $6,647,192 was spent in City and $455,367 in State from start through June, 1938. July, 1938 New appropriation act requires at least 95% of those employed on any WPA project to be cer- 1,785 quota for tified for relief. 7/1 to 12/31 August, 1938 Quota raised to 1,822 as of 8/1 September, 1938 NYC/FAP moves from 235 E. 42nd St. to 110 King St. November, 1938 NYC/FAP has difficulty keeping within 5% non- relief quota. December, 1938 January, 1939 NYC/FAP plans muraks and other projects at New York World's Fair. February, 1939 March, 1939 April, 1939 Agents of House Investigating Committee inter- rogating FAP workers concerning union affilia- tion and political ties. May, 1939 House hearings indicate $2,216,801 spent on New York City project between July 1, 1938, and May 29, 1939. This constitutes a total expenditure for the City through that date of $8,863,993. Here- after exact figures for City and State projects through January, 1943, are not available. July, 1939 Due to the reorganization of the WPA under the Federal Works Agency and requirement that all WPA projects obtain 25% local sponsorship support, the NYC/FAP is placed back under the administrative control of the NYC/WPA; offices of the National Director in NY are closed. August, 1939 Staff of NYC/FAP (now called WPA Art Pro- The American Art Journal

Date Important Events Employment Data

gram) installed in Col. Somervell's offices; project retains studio areas at 110 King St. Along with reorganization of entire WPA set-up, the legislation requires that all WPA workers employed for more than 18 consecutive months be dismissed. This ruling causes a 70°/0 reduction in NYC employment.

September, 1939 Mayor LaGuardia agrees to sponsor the Art Pro- gram for 12 months starting September 1; Col. Somervell sets new quota at a tentative 1,000. 1,000 as of 91'1 The New York City Art Program continues on a very limited basis with emphasis placed on community service projects and, with the start of the war, national defense projects. March, 1942 Project renamed "Graphic Section of the War Services Division." 630 May, 1942 Artists protest to President Roosevelt deteriora- tion of creative activity on the project. June, 1942 NYC project planning allocation of art that re- mains in its inventories. December, 1942 All remaining art is to be allocated before Feb- ruary 1, 1943. January, 1943 Liquidation. February, 1943 A report prepared immediately after liquidation summarizes the physical achievement of the New York City project from its beginning in 1935: "Some 200 murals have been allocated to hospitals, schools, colleges, libraries, armories, court houses, and penat and welfare institutions. Ap- proximately 2,100 individual pieces of sculpture, both free-standing and architectural, were produced . . . and allocated to various public institutions. Over 12,000 oils, water-colors, gouaches and pastels, more than 75,000 prints from 3,000 original plates, 14,670 poster designs printed in 750,000 copies per year, and over 6,000 plates of the Index of American Design were produced and allocated by the project. . .. "More than 2,000,000 art students attended classes held by the Art Project in 160 locations, with 480 classes throughout the year in the metropolitan area. Hundreds of exhibitions of project work were held in . . . schools, libraries, museums, art galleries, labor unions, prisons and hospitals, all of which were requested, and the requests far surpassed the quantities that the project could supply.""

35. Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment, NYC WPA-Art Program, Sponsored by the Mayor, City of New York, typescript, February, 1943, p. 14. The American Art Journal

The New York State WPA/FAP was quite small in terms of artists employed and art produced when compared with the scope of the project's operation in New York City. The chief centers of artistic activity in the State were Woodstock, which had the most vital project, Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Westchester and Long Island. The State project was vulnerable to employment cutbacks because of the primitive rural welfare system, the unsympathetic State WPA Adminis- tration and the lack of organization among the State's scattered artists. This is graphically illustrated in the employment figures before and after the first serious cutbacks late in 1936. At that time the NYC/FAP employment dropped from its high of 2,323 at the end of October to 1,719 by mid-December-or a cut of 25 per cent. The State employment in November, 1936, was 250. By March, 1937, it had fallen to 143, or by 43 per cent, while the City's total had climbed back over 2,000. In all, the Section probably had a greater impact on the State since it sponsored more than 50 murals, mostly in rural communities, while the WPA/ FAP was effective only where concentrations of artists existed. In conclusion, it must be said that despite the strict supervision and narrow taste of the Treasury projects and the never-ending bureaucratic battles of the WPA/FAP, the New Deal art projects in New York were the most creative and effective in the country. The artists they employed, many of whom would become avant-garde leaders in succeeding decades, were given work and the opportunity to preserve and develop their skills-some for as long as eight consecutive years. They formed an artistic community, united in purpose yet diverse in style, which has not been duplicated before or since in the history of American art. Finally, thanks to the New Deal's subsidy of their personal and professional needs, they produced some of the most important art of the 1930~~which forms an invaluable historical and aesthetic record of a major turning point in our national experience.