1936: Meyer Schapiro, "Art Front," and the Popular Front

Patricia Hills

Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, Meyer Schapiro. (1994), pp. 30-41.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0142-6540%281994%2917%3A1%3C30%3A1MS%22FA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

Oxford Art Journal is currently published by Oxford University Press.

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/oup.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 12:07:09 2008 1936: Meyer Schapiro, Art Front, and the Popular Front

On November 27, 1935, Stuart Davis wrote to Meyer in February 1936.' The two Congresses would both Schapiro soliciting an article for Art Front, the cultivate professional artists, in contrast to the John monthly magazine of the Artists' Union, then edited Reed Clubs which sought to erase distinctions by Davis. 'I would be extremely pleased if you could between amateurs from working-class ranks and find a way to propose an article on some topic within academically trained professionals. our general policy. A critical article on some The editorial policies of Art Front reflected the outstanding figure in the field ofart (who is in the news coming to terms with this new strategy. At the time at the time of publication) would be very welcome.' when Schapiro was being asked to submit an article, Davis adds that he hopes Schapiro can attend an Davis and the active members of the editorial board editorial meeting scheduled for the next day. Such were hammering out their ambitious plans to meetings served as forums where ideas could be revamp the December 1935 issue into a more shared, attacked, debated, modified and tested out in professional art magazine. Previously, from its first practice, and Davis knew that Schapiro, as a Marxist issue dated November 1934, Art Front had been an polemicist, would contribute to the debates.' eight-page tabloid hawked at demonstrations called Davis's invitation to Schapiro to become involved by the Artists' Committee for Action and the Artists' with Art Front came at a time, 1935-36, when the Union. It had provided a forum for union activities, tactics of the Popular Front strategy of the Com- had cheered on social content in art and had carried munist Party were still being worked out. The on a scrappy debate with Thomas Hart Benton and Artists' Union was firmly in the communist move- John Steuart Curry, whom, along with other ment even if not all members were card-carrying Regionalists, they accused of 'self-glorifi~ation'.~In Communists; the Union had, after all, been largely contrast, the new version of Art Front was to be organized by Party members.' By the end of 1935 smaller in format, expanded to sixteen pages, con- Schapiro had also been immersed for several years in tain better reproductions, and be more diverse in its the movement: he had written Marxist analyses for articles. The new guidelines stated: New Masses as early as 1932, had voted the Com- munist Party ticket in the elections that year,3 and Each issue of Art Front contains reports of activities of the had lectured at the John Reed Club School of Art Union and similar groups throughout the country, during the 1934-35 ~eason.~But a year later he had critical articles on outstanding art events, articles by moved away from the Party. The strains in his rela- experts on the social and economic positions of the artists to day [sic], essays of opinion on esthetic directions, on tionship with the Artists' Union and the Party point the social significance of various 'schools' of art, critical not just to Schapiro's independent Marxist position, analyses of outstanding figures in contemporary art, but they highlight some of the contradictions articles on the technique and craft of painting, editorial inherent in the Popular Front strategy. comment and of course important drawings, reproduc- During 1935, the CPUSA, in line with the tions and photograph^.^ response of the Third International to fascist threats to the Soviet Union, called for a 'united front' - a Davis, an incorrigible list-maker, enumerated issues broad alliance of the Communist Party with other 'which must be kept to the fore in Art Front', one of democratic groups and parties to fight fa~cism.~In which was 'controversial articles by artists and critics the cultural field this meant that Party members and - not in A.U'.1° fellow-travellers would phase out the sectarian, The decision by the editors of Art Front to feature proletarian culture organizations, such as the John contributors outside the Artists' Union - particu- Reed Clubs, and develop broadbased organizations larly men and women ofwell-known expertise -also of artists where leadership would be shared with conformed to the new Popular Front strategy. non- communist^.^ The result was a wooing of non- Schapiro would have been seen as a rising star. He communist writers and artists considered progres- taught at Columbia College and had written sive without overtly recruiting them or otherwise brilliantly on Romanesque sculpture as well as on the making political demands on them. The two Post-impressionists; he would obviously lend stature occasions created by the Party to do this were the to the revamped publication. Other major intel- American Writers' Congress, the first conference lectuals and writers not in the Communist Party (at held by the League of American Writers in April least not openly in the Party), were also invited to 1935, and the American Artists' Congress, just then write, such as Lincoln Kirstein and Irwin Edman, being planned by Davis and others for a conference professor of philosophy at Columbia. The artist Charmion von Wiegand, wife of New Masses editor artist Louis Lozowick participated, outlined on Joseph Freeman, and Elizabeth hIcCausland, art paper the role of intellectuals: critic for the Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican who wrote under the pen name 'Elizabeth Noble', had a. The intellectual crystallizes, formulates, and interprets both written for New Masses; they now began writing the motivating forces at work in any age. He thinks, for Art Front as well. These, along with staff writers writes, paints, etc. his feelings about the society in which Harold Rosenberg, Joe Solman, and Clarence he lives. b. In this sense, intellectuals are the chroniclers Weinstock, and frequent contributors Louis Lozo- and interpreters of the movement of events. c. They feel the currents and forces underlying movements before wick, Jacob Kainen, Grace Clements and others, those currents and forces reach the surface, and through would make Art Front the most intellectually stimu- their arts and letters bring them to public attention. d. In lating magazine of art and politics of the mid-1930s." a very real sense, therefore, intellectuals may be pioneers Much has been written about the effects that the and forerunners.I6 CP's Popular Front strategy had on the fellow- travellers, liberals, Lovestoneites, and Trotskyists of To Lozowick's committee, the tasks of American the period.'* Many of these began to accuse the intellectuals are 'propaganda among the workers', Communist Party of selling out to capitalism when it 'helping the workers to articulate both their daily toned down its talk of communist revolution and needs and their class goal', and 'filling strategic posi- joined with the forces of Roosevelt's New Deal. To tions on the cultural front', which meant assuming most Communists, on the other hand, it was a war leadership responsibilities of organizations and measure, necessitated by the fact that the Soviet editorships of their publications. Clearly to Lozo- Union was having difficulty making strategic wick's group, the intellectual's role is to diagnose the alliances with France, Great Britain and the United current situation, to prescribe strategies and tactics States.13 With the Popular Front strategy in place, for, in Lenin's words, 'what is to be done', and then Communist Parties of each nation could build to join cadres working for such goals.17 support for the Soviet Union through citizen groups Through the early 1930s Lozowick and others in and professional organizations. Inevitably, problems the communist movement had thoroughly internal- arose when the Marxist rhetoric of Party function- ized these principles, and hence prescriptive art aries began to accommodate too readily to a liberal criticism became the norm. Movement critics dif- and, in the United States, to a Democratic Party fered only in the degree to which each advocated audience. For example, whereas Party Chairman stylistic imagination and experimentation and in the Earl Browder still spoke of the 'class struggle' forcefulness with which each reminded the audience between workers and capitalists when he addressed of the primacy of working-class concerns. Even into the American Writers' Congress in April 1935, two the Popular Front period of 1936, the term 'revolu- years later, at the Second Congress of June 1937, he tionary artist' was still used with great enthusiasm, assured delegates that 'the two great warring camps' although the rhetoric of 'working-class revolution' are democracy and fascism.14 Dissenting factions was becoming more and more toned down by Party wanted something more radical -more Marxist - members.l8 than the mouthing of platitudes about bourgeois Schapiro's earliest forays into prescriptive art democracy and exhortations to support Roosevelt criticism were his occasional pieces written in 1932, and the New Deal. 1933, and 1934, for New Masses.19 Relevant to It is against the background ofthese changes within Schapiro's later Art Front articles was his review, the communist movement, at the moment when the written as 'John Kwait', for the February 1933 issue Popular Front strategy was being implemented, that of New Masses that criticized the John Reed Club we should consider Schapiro's partisan, prescriptive exhibition 'The Social Viewpoint in Art'.*O In criticism - that criticism which urges artists to Schapiro's analysis, the exhibition could not qualify action. He was an intellectual in the movement, active as a success since, 'more than half the objects shown in artists' organizations such as the Artists' Union and express no revolutionary ideas; and of the rest, only a the American Artists' Congress, but not committed to few re-enact for the worker in simple, plastic any line. For his independence, he obviously won the language the crucial situations of his class'. Critical admiration of many artists. Moreover, artists did act of the inclusion of Thomas Hart Benton, whose on his suggestions. But in an era of realpolitik he also stereotypes of blacks he deplored, Schapiro added: opened himself to criticism by activist artists that he 'Better to have a small show of twenty good, wasjust an ivory tower scholar advancing 'left extrem- genuinely militant paintings than two hundred ism' when circumstances called for pragmatism.15 mixed works of unequal quality and of all shades of Schapiro was one of many critics developing a social opinion.' prescriptive art criticism. The agitational thrust of To Schapiro the purpose of the exhibition should partisan art criticism came out of the collective have been to encourage the artist 'to confront life meetings of the early 1930s of the John Reed Clubs and to ally himself with the workers', but instead the when Party members and fellow-travellers articu- exhibition offered the artist 'no bearings, no techni- lated what it meant to be an intellectual. For cal aid, no definite model of action'. Although he example, one book project meeting of 1930, in which wants to narrow the exhibition to message pictures, he would broaden the range of subjects to re-enact The future classless culture will not spring full-blown 'in a vivid, forceful manner the most important revo- from the brow of the proletariat. It is up to the revolution- lutionary situations', and would include the popular ary artists to help pave the way for a complete break with arts, including 'examples of cooperative work by bourgeois culture by developing new plastic revolution- artists - series of prints, with a connected content, ary expressions which are an outgrowth of the class for cheap circulation; cartoons for newspapers and struggle and which embody the aspirations of the magazines; posters; banners; signs; illustrations of working class for the desired classless statesz3 slogans; historical pictures of the revolutionary tradition of America. Such pictures have a clear Schapiro was, in fact, an admirer of Trotsky's value in the fight for freedom'. To Schapiro the writings; whether or not he made that known to the purpose of such an exhibition was persuasion: 'The circle of Jacob Burck in 1933 is not known.24 good revolutionary picture is not necessarily a Burck's critique of 'Kwait' was not all that negative; Burck admits that he 'correctly points out cartoon, but it should have the legibility and pointedness of a cartoon, and like the cartoon it the necessity for participating in the every day should reach great masses of workers at little struggles ofthe workers when he says that "the artist expense.' And he ends the article with the suggestion who must produce daily a trenchant pictorial commentary on daily events for a workers' news- that the John Reed Club undertake the publication of a series of agitational prints. In fact, his article can paper quickly develops an imagination and form adequate for his task"'.25But Burck follows up that be considered one of the best of the agitprop essays to be printed by New Masses. remark by turning to a critique of the studio artist and the armchair critic: 'The revolutionary artist Not everyone responded favourably to Schapiro. In the April 1933 issue of New Masses, artist Jacob (this applies equally to the revolutionary critic) Burck, in an essay 'Sectarianism in Art', took 'Kwait' cannot remain aloof from the class struggle and to task for his 'dangerous tendency to approach the expect to create revolutionary art. He must consider himself as a unit in the struggle. In no other way can problem of proletarian culture from a purely mechanical viewpoint without taking into account he acquire vitality and development in his work and escape from an individualistic subjectivity.' While existing cultural conditions and traditions, and the the remark was clearly directed at Kwait/Schapiro, problems they present to the revolutionary arti~t'.~' we might assume that it was done in the spirit of To Burck, Kwait/Schapiro misinterpreted the comradely criticism -a criticism that exhorts rather intention of the exhibition which was to show the than crushes its opponent.26 range and uneven development of artists in the In the same New Masses issue of April 1933, Kwait/ movement and to contrast Club members (who had Schapiro writes a 'Reply to Burck'. His remarks are their membership noted on the accompanying brief. He was not against 'a united front as such, but labels) to those, like Benton, who were not members. Burke then accuses 'Kwait' of 'extreme leftism', by the obvious weakness of this particular front, its vague taking the stance of a 'Marxian purist'. This, to enemy, its unallied members, its lack of a conspicu- ous leader~hip'.~'Schapiro chooses not to address the Burck, shows the influence of Trotsky: accusation Burck leveled against him of a reductive 'extreme leftism' and 'Marxian purity'. Throughout his entire treatment of this enterprise of the club there runs the concept that proletarian art (painting In spite of Burck's accusation of Schapiro's 'left and sculpture) must either await the final victory of the extremism', the next major exhibition of the John working class, or be abandoned as a peculiar bourgeois Reed Club seems to have incorporated many of phenomenon, and that the only art suitable for the Schapiro's points. The exhibition, called 'The working class is agitational, i.e., 'cartoons, black and World Crisis Expressed in Art: Paintings Sculpture, white prints, posters, banners, signs, and illustrations of Drawings, Prints on the Theme Hunger[,] Fasc- slogans'. The idea is not new, of course. It comes very ism[,] War', opened on December 8, 1933 and ran close to the formulation Trotsky made in his Literature and until January 7, 1934. The catalogue introduction is Revolution years ago. Namely, that proletarian art can sharp and focused. exist only in a classless society. The fallacy of such a position is now quite evident to any revolutionary who In holding exhibitions on specific themes related to the has passed out of the cafeteria stage of 'Marxi~rn'.~~ social struggle, the John Reed Club hopes to collect and show in one Exhibition works of artists who have been Burck's last remark snidely refers to those who sat in motivated by the militant upsurge of the workers. We cafeterias discussing Marxism as opposed to those in hope that these exhibitions serve not only to show what the thick of the class struggle - artists and writers has already been done, but exert an influence which may who joined strikes and marches, passed out leaflets, inspire and encourage artists to express their reactions to and went to union meetings. economic turmoil. . . .28 To Burck, himself an active member of the John Reed Club, an exhibition such as 'The Social The introduction continues by stating that it is up to Viewpoint in Art' was part of a process of education of the artist to decide 'what style, manner, school of the viewers and of the artists themselves. Burck con- form is best suited to the artistic expression of the tinues: struggles of the oppressed'. But the artist must take a position, and only those artists will be shown at the artist who 'repudiates [bourgeois society's] moral John Reed Club Gallery 'who take the side of the standards and responsibilities'. Unable really to 'act revolutionary working class in its fight against on the world', this artist: hunger, fascism and war'. Indeed, the artists exhibited were those whose names appear fre- shows in his art an astonishing ingenuity and joy in quently in political exhibitions of the 1930s; neither transforming the shapes of familiar things. This plastic Benton nor the regionalists were included. Further- freedom should not be considered in itself an evidence of more, the titles of the artworks make it clear that the the artist's positive will to change society or a reflection of majority of works had a sharp political message.29 real transforming movements in the every-day world. For While Schapiro may have noted that the changes it is essential in this anti-naturalistic art that just those relations of visual experience which are most important in the exhibition policy of the John Reed Club were for action are destroyed by the modern artist.37 more in line with his earlier suggestions, he had another agenda in these years. As a scholar he was Abstract art, in other words, cannot incite action - intent on developing a social history of art. He tested cannot act to change the world. The abstract artist these theories out to a live, Popular Front audience remains characteristically passive, but so too does when he delivered a paper, 'The Social Bases of Art', the figurative artist whose 'figures look at each other to the first closed session of the American Artists' or at a landscape or are plunged in a revery or Congress held at the New School for Social Research simulate some kind of absor~tion'.~~ in Februry 1936.30He begins by explaining that the Schapiro will not make moral judgements of this enterprise of the social history of art is not reductive: disengaged art, because it has sprung from the social 'When we speak in this paper of the social bases of conditions of the artist's life. However, the con- art we do not mean to reduce art to economics or sciousness of this process might embolden the artist sociology or politics. Art has its own conditions to change and to join the struggle. Here Schapiro which distinguish it from other a~tivities.'~~To leaves the historical analysis of art and his diagnosis understand diversity, he adds, we need to under- of the current situation, as he shifts to a prescriptive stand the social aspect of art: 'It is as members of a programme: society with its special traditions, its common means and purposes, prior to themselves, that individuals In recognizing the dependence of his situation and learn to paint, speak and act in the current man- attitudes on the character of modem society, the artist r~er.'~*This process, to Schapiro, is dynamic and acquires the courage to change things, to act on his responsive to changing conditions: 'And it is in society and for himself in an effective manner. terms of changes in their immediate common world He acquires at the same time new artistic conceptions. that individuals are impelled together to modify Artists who are concerned with the world around them in their no longer adequate conception^.'^^ its action and conflict, who ask the same questions that Schapiro reviews earlier art and sees parallels and are asked by the impoverished masses and oppressed differences between the aesthetic qualities of the past minorities - these artists cannot permanently devote and the modern period, and notes: 'The conception themselves to a painting committed to the aesthetic of art as purely aesthetic and individual can exist moments of life, to spectacles designed for passive, only where culture has been detached from practical detached individuals, or to an art of the studio.39 and collective interests and is supported by indi- Moreover, such artists will finally come to realize the viduals alone.'34 The class of people who support unfortunate situation that they 'are able to achieve and patronize art determines the character of the art. such freedom only because of the oppression and Schapiro elaborates the process -and describes the misery of the masses'. To Schapiro the only art of the late nineteenth century when typical meaningful 'freedom' is in a society without patrons came from the urban rentier class of economic oppre~sion.~~ consumers, not producers. 'The older stable forms The basic premise that the needs and concerns of of family life and sexual morality have been the working classes must be kept in the forefront of destroyed; there is no royal court or church to the artist's consciousness informs the two major impose a regulating pattern on his activity. For this essays that Meyer Schapiro wrote for Art Front in individual the world is a spectacle, a source of novel 1936. pleasant sensations, or a field in which he may 'Race, Nationality and Art' opens with a general- realize his 'individuality', through art, through ization about artists and their beliefs about national- sexual intrigue and the most varied, but non-pro- ism: ductive, mobility.'35 This situation affects artists: 'Even the artist of lower middle-class or working- Many artists agree as a matter of course that the art of a class origin comes to create pictures congenial to the German must have a German character, of a Frenchman, members of this upper class, without having to a French character, of a Jew, a Jewish character. They identify himself directly with it. He builds, to begin believe that national groups, like individual human with, on the art of the last generation and is influ- beings, have fairly fixed psychological qualities, and that enced by the success of recent painters.'36 their art will consequently show distinct traits, which are Schapiro points out the marginalized status of the unmistakable ingredients of a national or racial style. Schapiro then goes on to point out that this attitude in the May 1936 issue of Art Front.46Tofel misses translates into 'propaganda for war and fascism'. He the thrust of Schapiro's argument and accuses deplores the racialist theories of fascism that 'call Schapiro of holding the view 'that nationality is an constantly on the traditions of art'.41 illusion and nationalism a source of danger'.47Tofel Schapiro then turns to the cultural nationalism of accuses Schapiro of advocating the suppression of American critics and their similar emphasis on the historical heritages of different ethnic groups 'blood and soil' theories that restricted what was including languages, folklore and Bibles and 'American' to those of Anglo-Saxon blood and to Korans. Tofel admits that an aggressive nationalism homegrown products uninfluenced by foreign arts. has been fomented by Mussolini and Hitler, but he Schapiro sees the debate within the context of the still feels 'that nationalism can be a source of great social conditions of the 1930s: good'. And while Tofel encourages artists to learn from one another, he argues that authenticity in art depends on the artist's 'identification with the As political reaction grows, every argument which national and cultural group he springs from'. At the supports the notion of fixed racial and national dif- ferences, acquires a new relevance. It provokes powerful end, Tofel makes a plea: 'Do not wish to take away divisions within the masses of the people, who are becom- from the artists of the minority peoples particularly, ing more articulate and aggressive in their demands for a their own cultural heritage when you offer them decent living and control over their own lives. The basic yours, in the manner of religious missionaries. antagonism of worker toward capitalist, debtor toward Tolerate but each one to develop his own in the creditor, is diverted into channels of racial antagonism, open sight of all - and we shall perhaps all be the which weakens and confuses the masses, but leaves wiser for it in time.'48 untouched the original relations of rich and poor. A Schapiro briefly replies to Tofel in the same foreign enemy is substituted for the enemy at home, and issue.49 Testily he urges the artist to re-read his innocent and defenseless minorities are offered as victims articles more carefully. A shared culture, to Scha- for the blind rage of economically frustrated citizens.42 piro, is more important than race in determining artistic production. Moreover, 'traditional customs To Schapiro what makes one nation's art seem to and institutions are double-edged; they may serve as look different from another's is not 'blood' and 'soil', the basis for asserting the human capacities of the but, rather, the complex circumstances of time and oppressed group and its claims to political and place, 'the common culture in which [artists] grew cultural autonomy. But these customs and traditions up and produced their art' and the psychology of the may also be a brake on such aspirations; they may dominant class which patronizes art.43 teach passivity, conservatism, submission.' And He asserts that for an artist to follow only his or Schapiro points out the many instances when her specific ethnic traditions would mean the European colonialists encouraged native art and donning of an artistic straitjacket that would breed customs 'as a means of retarding the struggle for further racism. As an example he points to 'Negro independence'. And finally, to designate national- liberals who teach that the American Negro artist ism as good and bad merely confuses the issues. should cultivate the old African styles, that his real Schapiro finishes with an example close to the racial genius has emerged most powerfully in those current situation in 1936: 'Wars are not due to styles, and that he must give up his effort to paint 'avaricious nations', but to the needs of the domina- and carve like a white man'. This view, Schapiro ting classes of capitalist nations; they need new lands maintains, plays into the hands of reactionaries who for raw materials, for new markets or new fields of would keep blacks in an inferior status. Schapiro investment. Or they fight in order to consolidate reminds his reader that African art resulted from its their possessions or to maintain a threatened status special circumstances -very different from those of quo.' Schapiro's argument did not deviate from that contemporary black Americans. For a modern artist of most other Marxists, then and now. to attempt to emulate classical African art would That Schapiro was becoming a critical force result in 'only inferior pastiches, like the European among artists is evident from Balcomb Greene's fakers who fabricate pseudo-African sculpture for review of an Artists' Union show held in May 1936.50 ignorant to~rists'.~~ Greene begins by admitting that the editors of Art Schapiro ends his article by deploring racism and Front had difficulty in finding a critic to write about a by repeating that American conditions are 'varied group show, since 'the prevailing opinion on Art and in constant change .. . [Wlhat is or should be Front now is that a group show is dull, perhaps American is determined in the last analysis by the ought not to be held, much less reviewed, unless it history, tradition, means, interests and mode of life has been organized for a purpose'.51To Greene there of the different classes in society.'45Again, as in his are two kinds of criticism - the adjective style and paper for the American Artists' Congress, Schapiro the thesis style. The former style describes the critic maintains that class needs are a crucial element in who strings together adjectives of praise. For the the production of art. second kind of criticism, he points to Meyer A response to Schapiro's article came in a letter to Schapiro, for whom he has ambivalent respect. His the editor written by Jennings Tofel and published remarks on Schapiro are quoted here in full: Let Meyer Shapiro [sic] review a show of modern work. teaching to an every day world and to a future which he He's a learned man and teaches at Columbia. He believes can anticipate with enthusiasm. Bourgeois art-study, as a that most modern art, from CCzanne on became profession, is usually servile, precious, pessimistic, and in introverted, cramped, fussy, and essentially decadent. He its larger views of history, human nature and contem- gives examples. Somewhere in the course of his verbal porary life, thoroughly reactionary. We do not overcome adroitness is the assumption, which ought to be a premise these things by abandoning the study of art, but by giving it open to inspection, that his examples of 'modern' are a a Marxist direction. We might as well abandon poetry or fair representation of the achievement of forty years of sociology, because the official practitioners are sterile. If painting. At some point he ought to distinguish between we give up the study & teaching of art, we leave this large the experiments and what we call the fruit of revolu- field in the hands of the reactionaries, and we give no tionary effort. guidance and expert knowledge to the thousands of There is no excuse, in the absence of Mr Shapiro [sic], artists, students and workers to whom art is a funda- for disputing him any further. The point is that the mental activity, which certainly will survive the revolu- analytical review with a point of view, if the premise is tion, and more than that, plays a real part in the cultural wrong, becomes more misleading the further it is carried, life of the revolutionary movement today. the more comprehensive it seeks to be, and the more What form of activity one chooses is a personal matter enforced it is by historical data. depending on one's character, interests and abilities: But Let the academic theorist talk in the clouds about you once you are convinced of the correctness of the revolu- artists! or let the critic get down in the dust like a tionary philosophy, you are bound to put it into practice newshawk and smell around your feet!52 in your chosen field of work. Naturally, there is a gap between what you wish to do and what you actually do, Greene here is tacitly voicing the complaint that but this has to be judged in the light of conditions and Schapiro's premise as to what represents 'the results. modern', rests on a canon, or rather a pantheon, of I must add, finally, that a Marxist history of art, which artists whose agenda did not include making an art yet remains to be built, does not give up the techniques of research into details & fact developed during the last 100 of revolutionary social content. Moreover, when years - on the contrary, it insists upon scientific method Greene (himself an abstract artist) asserts that throughout: but it rejects as unscientific the typical Schapiro 'ought to distinguish between the experi- methods & theories of Wolfflin & Dvorak (the best of the ments and what we call the fruit of revolutionary modern art historians) for scientific reasons which must effort', he is probably alluding to the debates, grow- be obvious to you. ing out of Russian constructivism, that made distinc- tions between the 'laboratory art' of abstract Schapiro ends by telling Louchheim that he 'was experimentation on the one hand, and abstract art delighted' with her 'account of the Paris demonstra- and design at the service of revolution on the other; tions' and he admires the enthusiasm of the French the former was justified as a prelude to the second.53 workers. Typical of a writer touched by the Greene ends by urging artists to create their own communist movement, he returns his discussion to forum for criticism and to paint and model while the worker. being fully engaged with life. In his second long article for Art Front, 'Public Use Privately, Schapiro considered his writing activity of Art', which appeared in the November 1936issue, not simply as that of an 'academic theorist' talking he turns to the existing cultural conditions of the 'in the clouds', but as advancing the cause of a Federal Art Project artists. Recall that Burke in 1933 Marxist revolution. In a letter he wrote to Aline had advised Kwait/Schapiro to take into account existing conditions for artists; by 1936 Schapiro Bernstein Louchheim on August 18, 1936, he defended 'intellectual work', a phrase in common seems to have been in the thick of artists' discussions parlance in communist movement circles.54 To and to have come face-to-face with the facts of their Schapiro 'fight against bourgeois society takes place 'uneven development'. In this year not only did he on every front -economic, political and cultural - participate in the American Artists' Congress, but he and when the showdown comes, we will all take to also attended the Artists' Union convention for the arms or everything we value will be lost'. As regards Eastern District of the United States held in New art historians and their profession, his remarks are York in early May 1936. During the three-day the clearest Marxist statement to come out of the convention that focused on the economic situation 1930s as to the role and responsibilities of the art for artists, Schapiro spoke on 'Art and Art historian intellectual. These remarks deserve to be project^'.^^ It might have been this talk that sculptor quoted at length: Robert Cronbach described to Helen Harrison in 1976. Schapiro electrified his audience, Cronbach recalled: Art historians know only too well that their work belongs to a decadent culture, that their ideas, if exposed to a I remember a discussion following a meeting of the larger criticism, will seem precious and trivial & that the Artists Union at which Meyer Schapiro spoke. Paul academic pursuit of attributions is a dull game, that is Block, who was an active member of the Union, was ultimately tied to the market interest in pictures and to talking about it with other people. Meyer Schapiro made the vanities of possession and pedigree. But an art the very valid point that if we wanted the [FAP] to historian, who is a Marxist, has at once a whole series of continue - and all the artists certainly did - we had to problems and responsibilities which tie his work & find more direct uses for the work we produced, not just wait for some accident or benefactor to find it. So, some To Schapiro, the achievement of a public art time in the weeks following that, the Public Use of Art necessitates two conditions: 'that the art embody a Committee was set content and achieve qualities accessible to the masses of the people, [and] that the people control The newly formed Committee at first focused on art the means of production and attain a standard of for subways, which seemed the appropriate sites for living and a level of culture such that the enjoyment a public art. of art of a high quality becomes an important part of In the paper as published, Schapiro begins by their life'.60 For the people to 'control the means of lauding the twin benefits of the Federal Art Project: production' was the code phrase, from Karl Marx, the creation of a public art and financial security for for a communist revolution. At a time when the CP artists. But what more can be done, he asks, to was eager to make the Popular Front strategy work, advance 'toward a really public art?'57 such talk coming from independents could be Schapiro points out that although artists on the condoned, but were it voiced by a CP member, he or projects have become like workers, there are still she would be privately chastened. fundamental differences between the interests of the In anticipation of such criticism, Schapiro adds: two groups. Industrial workers on the projects 'Now it may seem to some of you that this talk of receive wages below what their skills could com- socialism has carried us too far from the present mand in better days; they want to return to regular program, that we ought simply to stick to our work with social insurance: 'Artists on the other demand that the government extend the art projects hand would rather maintain the projects than return to reach a wider publi~.'~'But he pushes his previous to their former unhappy state of individual work for point and urges artists not to be short-sighted, not to an uncertain market.' Moreover, workers and artists ignore the possibility that they might become differ in their class interests and the role they play in 'dependent on a brutal fascist regime', which society. Unlike industrial workers, artists produce already happened to artists in Germany and Italy. hand-crafted luxury items which they 'peddle to He warns artists to beware of government support of dealers and private patrons. They employ an archaic art; not only might it abruptly end but it 'may divert technique and are relatively independent and the attention of the artist and the members of the anarchic in their methods of work, their hours of unions from the harsh realities of class government labor, their relations with others.' Once industrial and concealed dangers of crisis, war and fascist workers are fully employed, artists will have to enlist oppre~sion'.~~ their support by convincing workers of the need for Schapiro drives the argument home that: 'Artistic an artists' project and the benefits of a public art: display is a familiar demagogic means', and he supplies an historic example to clinch his point. As It is necessary that the artists show their solidarity with the workers both in their support of the workers' to the present era Schapiro points out the 'conven- demands and in their art. If they produce simply pictures tional images of peace, justice, social harmony, pro- to decorate the offices of municipal and state officials, if ductive labor, the idylls of the farms and the they serve the governmental demagogy by decorating factories' favoured as mural subjects by the govern- institutions courted by the present regime, then their art ment. But, he continues: 'In their seemingly neutral has little interest to the workers. But if in collaboration glorification of work, progress and national history, with working-class groups, with unions, clubs, coopera- these public murals are instruments of a class; a tives and schools, they demand the extension of the Republican administration would have solicited program to reach a wider public, if they present a plan for essentially similar art', but with a different cast of art- art work and art education in connection with the ists. In his conclusion Schapiro calls for nothing demands of the teachers for further support of free short of revolution when he exhorts the artist to cre- schooling for the masses of workers and poor farmers, ate a solidarity with the workers and 'combat the who without such public education are almost com- pletely excluded from a decent culture, then they will win illusion that his own insecurity and the wretched the backing of the workers.58 state of our culture can be overcome within the framework of our present society'.63 Schapiro then examines the nature of public art, The radicalism of Schapiro's statement is in sharp which, he maintains, already exists in the form of contrast to the article 'Official Art', written by comics, magazine illustrations and the movies. If Elizabeth McCausland, using the pen name 'Eliza- artists want workers to enjoy such things as land- beth Noble', which appeared in that same Novem- scapes and abstractions, then workers need 'a degree ber issue. She, too, points out that the government in of culture and a living standard possessed by very its mural programme 'wants from art safe and harm- few. . . We can speak of a public and democratic less clichb, allegorical justice triumphing over a fic- enjoyment of art only when the works of the best titious evi1'.'j4 Her conclusion is that decisions about artists are as well known as the most popular movies, aesthetic merit should be removed from the comic strips and magazine pictures.' The contradic- bureaucracy of the Treasury Department, which tion is that most artworks are 'luxury-objects, signs administered all of the murals in post offices and of power and wealth' which are viewed by workers as government buildings. Speaking for artists, she says: 'an instrument of snobbery and class distin~tion'.~~ 'We are not willing to have the Treasury usurp the function of superintending creative pictorial and CP for its support ofRoosevelt and the New Deal, they plastic functions of which (by the testimony of its would have wholeheartedly approved Schapiro's own deeds) it knows little or nothing.'65 It was not conclusions.71 revolution, but a reform of the system that McCaus- Moreover, November was also the month when land was calling for. Norman Thomas and the Trotskyists announced the The debate about public art continued in the formation of the Provisional American Committee for December issue of Art Front. In an article 'Public Art the Defense of Leon Trotsky to be headed by John in Practice' staff writer Clarence Weinstock reports Dewey, the distinguished Columbia professor.72 on the activities of the Public Use of Art Committee, Trotsky along with other old Bolsheviks, had been which had petitioned the regional director of the accused by the Soviet Union ofvarious crimes against FAP, Audrey McMahon about the possibility of the state, but Trotsky had not taken the stand at the placing artwork in union halls. Although nowhere in Moscow Trials because he was in exile. To the editors his article does Weinstock refer to Schapiro's article, of New Masses, a CP publication, the Trotsky defense he yet manages to answer some of the issues raised committee was one more bit of mischief-making at a by Schapiro. A new audience would mean that 'the moment when 'all the forces of darkness and reaction artists need no longer paint what the administration throughout the world are unleashing a violent considers appropriate for its mythical public but campaign against communism in general and against what the real public of hundreds of thousands of the Soviet Union in parti~ular'.~~ trade unions thinks appropriate for itself .66 To put While many of the Art Front regulars would be these plans into practice, the Public Use of Art Com- uneasy with Schapiro's rhetoric of class struggle mittee contacted various unions to ascertain the (even while they appreciated some of his sugges- kinds of subjects their union membership would tions), his overt alliance with the Trotsky defense like. For example, the Union of Dining Car Em- committee would spell the end of his relationship ployees 'needs works showing the effect of speedup with the Artists' Union. Schapiro recalled in 1976 to on dining-car employees; the battle for union recog- Helen Harrison that 'a resolution was passed at a nition on the Santa Fe; anti-war subjects; exploita- meeting of the Union denouncing me for having tion of women employed in hotel dining rooms and signed a protest against the Moscow trials and kitchens; anti-lynching subjects; scenes in the calling on me to withdraw from the present commit- culinary industry; Negro discrimination'. The tee . . . It was merely a pro forma affair managed by Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters offered detailed the Communist members of the Union, perhaps at suggestions for both subjects and a content that the instigation of a party representative. I was not would show 'a pattern of struggle, sacrifice and invited to meetings of the Union after that time, nor fighting'.(" kept informed of the activities of the [Public Use of As if to rebut Schapiro, Weinstock asserts that: Art Committee] .'74 'The artist's mission is not to 'teach' the workers but On March 13, 1937, he wrote to his friend Aline to educate himself. He is not there to lead the Louchheim explaining that his involvement with the workers gently away from their concrete demands to Trotsky defense committee was a principled one.75 sympathy for the "higher" forms of art.'68 While He asks if she has had a chance to read the Weinstock praises the success of the agitational work pamphlets from the committee and gives a spirited of the Committee for the Public Use of Art, he defense of his own actions: declines to raise the issue of revolution or 'class struggle'. Instead he follows the Party line and dis- so that you will at least know the reasons why many plays Popular Front rhetoric, ending with the plea to people, who are obviously not 'counter-revolutionaries artists to 'join in their common struggle for a rich, and traitors', have joined the committee. I myself am not free, truly modern life'.'j9 a Trotskyist, and in joining this committee have had to Schapiro's veiled attack on the Roosevelt admini- suffer [the] abuse and ill-will from people who were stration would have made the Communists in the formerly dear friends. But in this matter, my conscience is Artists' Union uncomfortable, to say the least, since it clear; if I said nothing about the trials, the burden would was published in November 1936, the month that be much heavier to bear. Roosevelt won an overwhelming majority of the vote in a campaign that involved the active (if sub rosa) Schapiro wants to make it plain that any dictatorship support of the CP. Schapiro, however, had no reason is abhorrent to him: to pull his punches, since he was independent of the Party, and, in the speech codes of the time, wanted to make that clear. Although in 1932 he had voted the The issue of these trials is vastly more important than Trotsky; and I am confident that as time goes on and Communist ticket, in 1936 he voted for the Socialist more and more evidence accumulates, I will be con- Party, headed by Norman Thomas.70 Thomas, firmed in my view that the whole future of socialism is at whose Party in 1936 had merged with the American stake, that the democratizing ofthe Soviet Union depends Trotskyists led by James P. Cannon, had refused to on the consciousness of the world working-class, aroused join the united front of the Communists. As the to the dangers and perversions of dictatorship by just Socialists and the Trotskyists were both critical of the such crucial experience as these trials. Schapiro ends by saying that although he does 'not Gold would never accept the thesis of these intel- want to be alienated from friends by political differ- lectuals that Marxist 'practice' could bejust the teach- ences', he supports the investigation into Trotsky's ing of Marxist principles in the university or simply case on principle, 'even if I thought Trotsky guilty - writing a class analysis of art and culture. To Gold for he has never been tried, and, above all, he has not practice meant engaging in the 'class struggle' of confessed'. He adds that he thinks the trials a frame- actual workers. Moreover, the Communist Party fol- up anyway. lowed the Leninist principle that there needed to be a Schapiro was not the first intellectual to leave the party in which ideas were collectively pooled and Communist Party orbit at the time of the Moscow debated. Hence, meetings - whether of the CP's trials. Other events occurred that split and frag- central committee or of the editorial board of Art mented the communist movement even further, such Front -played a prominent role for both the leader- as the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August ship and the rank-and-file. A keystone of Party organ- 1939, and the invasion and occupation of Finland by ization was democratic centralism, which meant that the Soviet Union in November 1939.76More often debate preceded decisions; those decisions, once than not such events were not the reason, but the made, should be collectively supported.79These are occasion for the independent Marxist intellectuals to the premises behind Gold's remarks; he is adamant go in other directions: to realign themselves, form that Communists have to recognize the necessity of new loyalties or leave politics altogether. loyalty to the decisions of the Party, 'otherwise the The issue of Trotskyism vs Stalinism that has party dissolves into chaotic particle^'.^^ become a staple of recent analyses of left politics in The contradiction thus emerges: Gold and the CP the 1930s diverts attention away from an analysis of were calling for 'class struggle' in practice (out in the what the Party thought it stood for at the end of 1936 fields organizing workers to fight bosses), but were and the internal contradictions of its strategy. committed to the CP's Popular Front strategy that Perhaps the best spokesperson for attitudes within deliberately suppressed revolutionary rhetoric when the Communist Party is Michael Gold, editor of New advancing theories of art, culture, and society. Party Masses. Shortly after the Provisional American members, even if they privately disagreed with the Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky was line - and the Popular Front strategy still is formed, Gold took the opportunity to publish justifiably controversial - would not sabotage it. 'Migratory Intellectuals', for the December 15, 1936 Hence, the Party sacrificed a sharp cultural critique issue. Naming Sidney Hook, James T. Farrell, and of capitalism to political expediency. At the same Anita Brenner specifically, but alluding to others as time, independent intellectuals like Schapiro in their well, Gold castigates careerist intellectuals who writings called for 'revolution' for artists and cultural spout theory in New York without knowing the workers, but remained aloof from collective action reality of anti-communism in California's Imperial and the struggles in the streets. Democratic central- Valley where wealthy growers and shippers terrorize ism had no restraining influence on such independ- Communist union organizers and workers through ents, and they did not hesitate to join breakaway vigilante groups: groups whenever they disagreed with the majority opinions.81 Schapiro was no exception. Almost fifty years It is easy, damned easy, to claim to be a Communist, but not a 'Stalinite' Communist; oh, no! not the sort of low- later, in 1983, he confessed to Helen Epstein in her brow Communist who goes into Imperial Valley to long biographical study written for Artnews: 'In the organize workers and spread socialism, does the job, in early '30s, I had to make a decision between joining brief, and doesn't know there is a little group of Phi Beta the Communist party and doing my work. I could Kappa Trotskyites in New York who think harshly of him. not commit myself wholeheartedly to it', but adds Ah, these wonderful victories on paper of the New York that he did admire people who were 'able to pursue super-Leftists, these stern attitudes they strike in their scholarship, teaching and politics - and do it vacuum, these monuments of sterile theory they erect!77 Schapiro had the freedom to say what he wanted, for the very reason that he was not Referring to Hook in the early 1930s, when Hook accountable to the collective discipline of a party. first came around the Party, Gold continues with his But once removed from the CP and its activist typical pugnacious sarcasm: programme, he was also removed from the class struggles of union activities. It is not surprising, then, that after 1936 the phrase 'class struggle' disappears What pompous and formal schemes they offered, what from the concerns of his critici~m.~~In fact, he leaves elaborate projects for inner reform, what revolutions and prescriptive criticism altogether and concentrates on revelations! When their programs were not immediately accepted, they felt injured. It was the 'mediocre' leader- the social history of art. ship that could not, or would not, understand their Nevertheless, during the mid-1930s, when Scha- superior plans. Never once did it enter the deeps of their piro was at the centre of the discourse taking place bookish minds that it is one thing to spin a plan, even the about the relationship of art to economic and most perfect plan, and another thing to put it into political conditions, he made his own unique practice.78 contributions. His prescriptive art criticism was bril- iiant and timely, and I have quoted at length from it papers and proceedings of the Writers' Congress, see Henry Hart, ed., to demonstrate the subtlety with which he builds his American Writers Congress (New York, International Publishers, 1935). 8. In the February 1935 issue, p. 6, Stuart Davis criticized the arguments. In his 'Race, ~ationalit~and Art' essay, promotion of the regionalists in a Trme magazine article of December 24, he advanced arguments against a sentimental multi- 1934. Since there was no March 1935 issue, the April issue carried culturalism that would stimulate heated debates Curry's letter of defense (p. 2). In the same April issue Benton argued his today. In his 'Public Use of Art' essay, he proposed position in answers to a long questionnaire Art Front had sent him (pp. 4 theories that translated into practice - not just the and 8); and Jacob Burck submitted a rejoiner titled 'Benton Sees Red' (pp. 5 and 8). The May 1935 issue had Benton's reply to Burck, a letter practice of art (as Clement Greenberg's theories from Jacob Kainen and a joint letter from Robert M. Coates and Peter would later do) but the practice of artists reaching Blume who requested that Benton's complete answer to one of the out to join with the struggles of the working classes.84 questions be published (p. 7). Thus Benton's answer to the question, 'What is the social function of a mural?' was printed in full (pp. 7 and 8). In the July 1935 issue (pp. 6 and 8), Lincoln Kirstein wrote: 'An Iowa Memling', on Grant Wood, which both praised and criticized Wood in moderate terms. The editors' attempt to include a broader range of Notes aesthetic views had begun but was decidedly tentative throughout 1935. The Archives of American Art has a complete run of Art Front. 1. Stuart Davis Papers (not microfilmed), Archives of American Art. 9. The memo is in the Stuart Davis Papers (not microfilmed), Washington DC. I want to thank Stephanie Taylor and Amy Lyford for Archives of American Art, Washington D.C. help in tracking down photocopies. I am also grateful to the 10. The note is in the Stuart Davis Papers (not microfilmed), Archives conversations I have had with the following who provided me with of American Art, Washington D.C. information not found in the scholarly literature and who through their 11. Kirstein had already written for the July 1935 issue; see note 8. conversations helped me clarify the salient issues: David Brody, David Other lively publications that included notes on art were Partisan Review, Craven, Garnett McCoy, Meyer Schapiro, Paul Sporn, Jeffrey Stewart, whose editors M1illiam Phillips and Philip Rahv broke with the Alan Wallach, Alan Wald, and especially Kevin Whitfield. My Communist Party in the mid-1930s and became sympathetic to Trotsky. groundwork research was conducted during 1982-83 when I held a John and Workers Age, a Lovestoneite publication. What distinguishes Art Simon Guggenheim Fellowship to research socially concerned artists. Front was that it was written by and for artists. 2. For histories of the Artists' Union and Art Front, see Gerald M. 12. Very little has been written about the effects of the Popular Front Monroe, 'The Artists Union of New York', Ph.D. dissertation, New strategy on artists who remained Party members, that is, those who did York University, 1971, and Francine Tyler, 'Artists Respond to the not leave the Party in the 1930s. The most sympathetic account of the Great Depression and the Threat of Fascism: The New York Artists' writers is Lawrence H. Schwartz, Marxism and Culture: The CPUSA and Union and Its Magazine Art Front (1934-1937)', Ph.D. dissertation, New Aesthetics in the 1930s (Port Washington: NY, Kennikat Press, 1980). York University, 1991. In 1935 one could still speak of a 'communist Maurice Isserman, Whrch Side Were You On? The American Communist movement', since the Communist Party was the consistent, driving force Party during the Second World War (Middletown, CT, Wesleyan behind almost all radical mass organizations, and Party members were University Press, 1982), pp. 9-14, gives an account of how the Popular respected for their organizational skills and hard work. By the end of Front appealed to young radicals in general. During the 1950s most 1936 the sharp, irreconcilable differences among the groups on the Left histories were severely anti-communist, such as Irving Howe and Lewis had sharpened to the point that the term became severely compromised. Coser, The American Communist Party, A Critical History 1919-1957 3. See Helen Epstein, 'A Passion to Know and Make Known', (Boston, Beacon Press, 1957). Since the Cold War, much has been Artnews 82 (Summer 1983) 84. published by scholars and activists of the left opposition. For such views 4. Schapiro gave a lecture on mural painting on May 8, 1935. See on the Popular Front see Robert J. Alexander, The Rzght Opposztion: The advertisement, Art Front 1 (May 1935) 8. Lovestoneites and the International Communist Opposition ofthe 1930s (West- 5. See Georgi Dimitroff, The Un~tedFront Against Fasczsm: Speeches port, CT, Greenwood Press, 1981), Frank A. Warren, 111, Liberals and Deltvered at the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, July Communism: The 'Red Decade' Revisited (Bloomington, IN, Indiana Uni- 25-August 20, 1935 (New York, New Century Publishers, 1935). versity Press, 1966), and James Weinstein, Ambiguous Legacy, The Left in 6. For a history of the John Reed Clubs, see Arthur Hughes, American Poltttcs (New York, New Viewpoint, 1975). Although critical of 'Proletarian Art and the John Reed Club Artists, 1928-34', M.A. thesis, the Communist Party, the most useful book and one that can be culled Hunter College, City University of New York, 1970. How much of the for bibliographical references pro and con concerning the reverses in CP leadership was actually shared was and still is a point of contention as policies, is Alan M. Wald, TheNew Tork Intellectuals: The Rise and Dechne well as of mystery, since there were secret members of the Party, whose of the Anti-Stalinzst Left from the 1930s to the 1980~(Chapel Hill, NC, memberships are still unknown today. moreo over, there are people well University of North Carolina Press, 1987). known as not in the Party, such as William Gropper and Rockwell Kent, 13. See William L. Shirer, The Rrse and Fall of the Third Rkch (New who were outspoken and consistent in their loyalties to the Party. York, Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1959), pp. 546,576,641,655ff., regard- 7. Davis attended the Writers' Congress, as evidenced by notes he ing the Allies' suspicions of Stalin's attempt to make alliances with them. scribbled over the printed agenda (see Davis Papers, not microfilmed, 14. I am indebted to Paul Sporn, who shared with me his paper, 'The Archives of American An). In fact Davis would soon leave the editorship MJriter and the Left in the 1930s: The Failure of a Promise', wherein he of Art Front in order to devote himself more fully to the AAC convention contrasts the speeches made by Browder to the American Writers' planned for Town Hall for February 1936. Policy disputes as well as Congress in 1935 and 1937. personality differences with people such as Herman Baron were also 15. It is not my intention to demonize either Stalin or Trotsky in this factors in his leaving. Joe Solman then assumed the editorship. See essay, but rather to analyze the dialectical relationship between Schapiro Stuart Davis Papers (not microfilmed), Archives of American Art. The on the one hand and Party members and loyalists on the other in the Congress published the papers and proceedings in 1936; see First pivotal year of 1936. Amencan Artzsts' Congress (New York: [American Artists' Congress], 16. The outline is marked 'editorial committee' and dated July 24, 1936). The meetings were held February 14, 15, and 16, 1936, at both 1930. Louis Lozowick Papers, Archives of American Art, roll 1335, frame Town Hall and the New School for Social Research, and over 400 942. attended. The editorial committee that published the papers included 17. Lenin's phrase, from his book, What Is to Be Done? headed the the chair Jerome Klein, and E. IM.Benson, Margaret Duroc, Louis outline. Lozowick, and Ralph IM.Pearson. Stuart Davis remained the National 18. See Harold Rosenberg, 'The Wit ofWilliam Gropper', Art Front 2 Secretary, until his resignation in April 1940. For a reprint and useful (March 1936), pp. 7-8; Louis Lozowick, 'Towards a Revolutionary Art', history of the organization, see Matthew Baigell and Julia U'illiams, Art Front 2 (July-August 1936), pp. 12-13; and Charmion van Wiegand, eds., Artists Against War and Fascism: Papers of the First American Artzsts' 'Five on Revolutionary Art', Art Front 2 (September-October 1936), Congress (New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1986). For the p. 10. Wiegand's article quotes Orozco: 'We have reached a new stage in revolutionary art where we recognize that the painter has the right to be of Fasctsm, Sara Berman's Struggle Against Fasctsm, Nicolai Cikovsky's an artist first. We social revolutionary painters need above all now to Young Communist and On the Picket Ltne, Bernarda Bryson's Twilight of define our problems within the field of art itself.' This is a Popular Front the Capitalists, Philip Evergood's Miners, William Gropper's Imperialism, statement that would also herald the sentiments of the avant-garde Norman Lewis's &R.A., and Chicamichi Yamasaki, Strike. artists of the early 1940s. 30. Printed in Ftrst American Artists' Congress, pp. 31-7. For a survey of the socially concerned art of the period, see Patricia 31. Ihtd., p. 31. Hills, Social Concern and Urhan Realism: Amm'can Painting of the 7930s 32. Ibid. (Boston, Boston University Art Gallery, 1983). Despite the brakes placed 33. Ibtd., p. 33. on political rhetoric, 'class struggle' pictures by Communists, for 34. Ibid., p. 34. example the theme of workers fighting police during strike situations, 35. Ihid., p. 35. did not disappear in the Popular Front period. During my interviews 36. Ibid. with artists close to the Party in the 1930s, conducted during 1982-83, 37. Ihid., p. 36. each denied that the CP had laid down a line as to what to paint. The CP 38. Ibid. His later essays on abstract art shift away from these leadership seem to have been more interested in their participation in positions. union activities. However, artists such as Nicolai Cikovsky did turn more 39. Ibid., p. 37. and more to landscape. Certainly in their work submitted to the 40. Ibid. government projects (Public Works of Arts Project, 1933-34, and the 41. 'Race, Nationality and Art', Art Front 2 (March 1936), p. 10. Federal Art Project and Section projects of 1935-43), they were under 42. Ibid. constraints not to submit political work. See Helen A. Harrison, 'John 43. Ihid., p. 12. Reed Club Artists and the New Deal: Radical Responses to Roosevelt's 44. Ibid., p. 10. When he wrote this, Schapiro might have had in mind 'Peaceful Revolution', Prospects 5 (1980), pp. 240-68. Alain Locke, who was accused of holding such views at the time. See 19. For the September 1932 issue, he wrote an unsigned piece, James A. Porter, 'The Negro Artist and Racial Bias', Art Front 3 (June- 'Engels on Goethe', in which he translated Engels and wrote his own July 1937), pp. 8-9. Locke defended himself from this accusation in a critique; in May and December 1932 he wrote articles on architecture letter to the editor, Art Front 3 (October 1937), pp. 19-20. I am grateful and Buckminister Fuller, and for the July 3, 1934 issue of New Masses he to Jeffrey Stewart, who is writing a biography of Locke, for discussing wrote a review, under his given name, of Lewis Mumford's book Technics these issues with me. Further elaboration of the debates within the and Ctvilization. The last three were critiques that insisted on analyses African-American community is beyond the scope of this paper. grounded in the social conditions of capitalism. The pen name 'Kwait' 45. Ihid., p. 12. came from his maternal grandmother, according to information 46. 'Race, Nationality and Art: A Correspondence', Art Front 2 (May Schapiro relayed to David Craven and Andrew Hemingway. I am 1936), pp. 11-12. Jennings Tofel (1891-1959) was an expressionist grateful to David Craven for bringing my attention to the other articles. painter, whose figurative style was not unlike Max Weber's. See Arthur 20. New Masses (February 1933), p. 23. The quotations that follow all Granick, Jennings Tofel (New York, 1976). come from this one page. The essay is republished in David Shapiro, ed., 47. Ihid., p. 11. Social Realism: Art as a Weapon (New York, Frderick Ungar Publishing 48. Ihid., p. 12. Co., 1973), pp. 66-8. 49. 'Mr Schapiro Replies', Art Front 2 (May 1936), p. 12. All 21. NmMasses (April 1933), pp. 26-7, also reprinted in Shapiro, op. quotations are from this one page. cit., pp. 69-73. Note, however, that Shapiro incorrectly cites 'March' 50. B[alcomb] G[reene], 'The Union Show', Art Front 2 Uune 1936), 1933 as the date. pp. 13-14. 22. Ibid. Burck's reference to the 'extreme leftism' of Trotsky rests on 51. Ibid., p. 13. Greene might have had in mind the American Artists' the Communists' critique of Trotsky's position that simultaneous Congress exhibition 'War and Fascism: An International Exhibition of revolutions in all the industrialized countries were necessary for Cartoons, Drawings and Prints', which received a positive review from communism to be established, whereas the CP advocated that socialism Lynd Ward in the same issue of Art Front. could be built in one country at a time. The CP argument was 52. Ibid., p. 14. developed in Lenin's Left- Wing Communtsm: An Infantile Disorder. 53. For a discussion of 'laboratory art', see Christina Lodder, 'The 23. Burck, op. cit. Transition to Constructivism', Guggenheim Museum, The Great Litopta: 24. OnJuly 25, 1942, Schapiro wrote to his friend James T. Farrell: 'I The Russian and Soviet Avant-Garde, 1915-1932 (New York, Solomon R. share your enthusiasm for Trotsky's My Life; I read it in two sittings Guggenheim Museum, 1992), pp. 267-81. In Art Front 1 (February when I was a student in the graduate school, and it gave me the deep 1935), p. 6, Stuart Davis had referred to the phrase 'laboratory work'. He respect for Leon Trotsky that I have preserved to this day . . . What is so criticizes John Curry as one 'who paints as though no laboratory work wonderful about Leon Trotsky is that he kept to the last day the same had ever been done in painting, who wilfully or through ignorance heroic energy and devotion, he never gave out'. Quoted in Alan M. ignores the discoveries of Monet, Seurat, Ctzanne and Picasso'. This Wald, James T. Farrell: The Revolutionary Socialist Years (New York, New phrasing indicates Davis equated the work of the four artists to York University Press, 1978), pp. 105-6. 'laboratory work', that is, work preceding revolutionary artwork. 25. Burck, op. cit., pp. 26-7. 54. Aline Saarinen Papers, Archives of American Art. I am grateful to 26. Ibid., p. 27. In 1933 the CP would not have considered literary Garnett McCoy for bringing the Aline Bernstein Louchheim Saarinen Trotskyists a threat; 1936, when Trotsky was gaining support in Socialist letters to my attention. Andrew Hemingway transcribed the handwritten Party circles, was a different matter. letters into type. Aline Louchheim (1914-72) studied at the Institute of 27. 'Reply to Burck', New Masses (April 1933), p. 27; also republished Fine Arts, New York University from 1935 to 1941. Schapiro taught a in Shapiro, op. cit., p. 73. He singles out the one weak spot in Burck's course at New York University which Saarinen took, and he stayed in critique, that is, Burck's naming Thomas Hart Benton and Kenneth touch with her (Telephone conversation with author, July 16, 1993.) Hays Miller as 'the leaders in the leftward movement of the artists'. 55. See 'Full Report of the Eastern District Convention of the Artists' Indeed, Benton and Miller were not political leaders of young leftist Unions', Art Front I1 Uune 1935), pp. 5-7. artists; they were, however, then influential art teachers to (not 'in') 'the 56. Quoted in Helen A. Harrison, 'Subway Art and the Public Use of leftward movement of the artists'. I have no interest in defending Burck, Arts Committee', Archives ofAmerican Art Journal 21, no. 1 (1981). except that his use of the preposition 'in' seems so odd. Especially after 57. 'Public Use of Art', Art Front 2 (November 1936), p. 4. Benton's 1932 Whitney murals were exhibited, many artists broke with 58. Ihid. Benton over his racist stereotypes, for example, Mervin Jules (con- 59. Ihid., p. 5. versation with author, February 27, 1981). 60. Ihtd. 28. The World Crisis Expressed in Art, New York, John Reed Club 61. Ihid. Gallery, December 8, 1933-January 7, 1934. Philip Evergood Papers, 62. Ihtd., p. 6. Archives of American Art, [p. I]. 63. Ibid. 29. The titles of the artworks makes it clear that almost all of the 64. 'Official Art', Art Front 2 (November 1936), p. 8. works had a political content. For example: Maurice Becker's The Mask 65. Ibid., p. 10. 66. 'Public Art in Practice', Art Front 2 (December 1936), p. 8. of the AAC, including Stuart Davis, wanted the organization to remain Weinstock (1910-64) was an orthodox Marxist writer who had been neutral in order to stave off an avoidable split. Schapiro forced the vote trained as an artist but did not practice art. He later became editor of anyway, and Schapiro and sixteen others were a decided minority. Masses and Mainstream, using the pseudonym Charles Humboldt. See Schapiro thereupon resigned. See Garnett McCoy, 'The Rise and Fall of Tyler, op. cit., pp. 356-7. the American Artists' Congress', Prospects 13 (1988), pp. 325-40. 67. Ibtd. 77. 'Migratory Intellectuals', New Masses 21 (December 15, 1936), 68. Ibtd., p. 9. p. 27. 69. Ibid., p. 10. See Harrison, 'Subway Art'; the Artists' Union 78. Ibtd. continued to focus on subway art, and their efforts culminated in an 79. Anti-Stalinists, of course, have raised the accusation as to whether exhibition, 'Subway Art', held at the Museum of Modern Art in 1938. the Party functioned democratically at the rank-and-file level or got its 70. Epstein. 'A Passion to Know and Make Known: Part 2', p. 86. 'orders from Moscow'. However, in practice there was a complex 71. The Trotskyists were expelled from the Socialist Party in 1938 and dialectical relationship between policies issued by the leadership and the formed the Socialist Workers Party. See Tim Wohlforth, 'Trotskyism', responses of the membership. For example, the leadership of the CP Man Jo Buhle, Paul Buhle and Dan Georgakas, Encyclopedia of the denounced Diego Rivera, who had shown his sympathies for Trotsky Amnican Left (New York, Garland Publishing Inc., 1990), pp. 782-6. early in the 1930s. However. almost every radical New York artist came 72. Wald, The New York Intellectuals, pp. 130-9. to admire Rivera's mural in progress at Radio City Music Hall, and 73. Editorial, 'The Nation and Trotsky', flew Masses 21 (November joined the protest with Hugo Gellert and other artists in the Party when 10, 1936), p. 11. the mural was threatened with destruction in 1933. 74. See Harrison, 'Subway Art', note 10. Schapiro confirmed this 80. Ibid., p. 29. The article goes on to castigate 'the people that don't during a telephone conversation with the author on July 16, 1993. He believe in the United Front, who sabotage it everywhere . . . The same noted that Harold Rosenberg had attended the meeting denouncing intellectuals I have described'. Schapiro and 'said nothing'. I have tried to establish when Schapiro first 81. The so-called 'splits' in the Party were in fact generally the allied himself with the Trotsky Defense Committee, and I am grateful to breaking away of the independents from the Party line. Compare the Alan Wald for providing me with useful information. In a letter of later breakup of the American Artists' Congress, which Schapiro led; see August 10, 1993, Wald conveyed to me some facts gleaned from his note 76. research on James T. Farrell: Schapiro's name first appears on the mast- 82. Epstein, p. 84. He singles out Irving Howe for praise. head of the News Bulletin of the American Committee for the Defense of 83. By the 1940s, to Schapiro and other critics emerging on the scene, Leon Trotsky in issue #4, dated February 19, 1937. Wald states: 'That 'revolutionary artist' became 'avant-garde artist' - one involved in particular issue features an article on the CP's campaign to break up the artistic experimentation. See the 1936 quotation from Orozco, quoted in committee, emphasizing that a number of people had succumbed to note 18 above, which heralds this movement. pressure to withdraw, while others had been irritated and therefore 84. Space constraints do not allow a discussion here of Schapiro's signed up. Schapiro's name is not mentioned in these articles, but on relationship to the literary Trotskyists. He contributed essays to the p. 3 there is a letter from him to the Committee: 'Mr. Kenneth Durant, three issues of Marxist Quarterly which appeared in early 1937 and to the director of the American branch of TASS, the official Soviet news Parttsan Review, beginning in 1938. Both journals focused on cultural agency, called me by phone on Friday, Feb. 5, in order to find out -as a issues and were not agitational as was Art Front. An exception was matter of journalistic fact - whether I was still a member of the 'Manifesto: Towards a Free Revolutionary Art', written by Andr.6 Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky'. He describes how Durant Breton and Leon Trotsky [not Diego Rivera as printed] and published in tried to convince him to quit. Clearly this establishes that Meyer was a the Autumn 1938 issue of Partisan Review. To the editors of Partisan member [of the Trotsky Defense Committee], or at least considered Revtew, especially Philip Rahv and William Phillips, revolution came to himself and was believed to be a member, prior to Feb. 5, 1937.' mean artistic and stylistic innovations. Economic issues and working 75. Aline Saarinen Papers, Archives of American Art. I am grateful to class struggles tended to disappear in their rhetoric of anti-Stalinism. Garnett McCoy for bringing this second letter to my attention. Schapiro continued to be active in artists' organizations. When he 76. Schapiro played a major role in the split within the American resigned from the American Artists' Congress, he helped to organize the Artists' Congress in April 1940. The occasion was the motion introduced Federation of Modern Painters and Sculptors. Later, as Helen Epstein at a meeting as to whether to support Herbert Hoover's Finnish Relief points out, he was well known for his avid support of struggling artists Committee; the issue he and others raised was the influence of Party and graduate students. members in blocking the motion from coming to a vote. The leadership http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS - Page 1 of 1 -

You have printed the following article: 1936: Meyer Schapiro, "Art Front," and the Popular Front Patricia Hills Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, Meyer Schapiro. (1994), pp. 30-41. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0142-6540%281994%2917%3A1%3C30%3A1MS%22FA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

Notes

56 Subway Art and the Public Use of Arts Committee Helen A. Harrison Archives of American Art Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2. (1981), pp. 2-12. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-9853%281981%2921%3A2%3C2%3ASAATPU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

69 Subway Art and the Public Use of Arts Committee Helen A. Harrison Archives of American Art Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2. (1981), pp. 2-12. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-9853%281981%2921%3A2%3C2%3ASAATPU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

74 Subway Art and the Public Use of Arts Committee Helen A. Harrison Archives of American Art Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2. (1981), pp. 2-12. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-9853%281981%2921%3A2%3C2%3ASAATPU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.