Kristen Chin
Mrs. Hammatt and Mr. Houston
English 11 Honors, AP American History
5 January 2001
The Federal Art Project
It was the worst of times; it was the best of times. It was the best
because it was the worst. Businesses came to a standstill, the banks
closed, people everywhere were thrown out of work…Until then, every man’s
hand had been against every man. Now, suddenly, all were kindly and
helpful and filled with a compassionate purpose. I know now that it
was our golden age, the only humane era in our history (Laning 89).
Edward Laning was a New Deal artist who survived the Great Depression and
its effects. He admits that although the Depression was a tragic time,
it caused people to open their hearts to each other and to new ideas.
This ideal was exemplified in the New Deal art projects. Before the
federally funded New Deal art programs, the arts were seen in an unfavorable
light. Art was regarded as wasteful and as a luxury for the special
few. Artists were excluded from society’s idea of who comprised the
workforce and faced a plethora of mockery and sarcasm. However, during
the Great Depression, society’s view of the arts was revolutionized as the
Federal Art Project helped dispel these notions. When the United States
Federal Government sponsored the arts in unprecedented ways, the manner in
which art and artists were viewed was transformed. The Federal Art
Project received the largest federal grant to the arts, even to this date.
The New Deal art projects enabled unemployed artists to work, while helping
to revive the American spirit from the Great Depression.
The Great Depression marked one of the most devastating time periods
in United States history. It was a constant struggle to survive as
the economy fell from beneath the American people. Lasting from the
end of 1929 until the early 1940's, the Great Depression threw the nation
into a state of panic and despair. There was an absence of hope as
America saw its economic future plunge towards uncertainty. By 1931,
seven million Americans were without jobs. By the next year, the number
of unemployed had more than doubled. Now, one out of every four Americans
had no source of regular income (Meltzer 2-3).
In 1929, Herbert Hoover had entered the presidency. An unfavorable
time to be president, the American public blamed him for the nation’s plight.
In 1931, he had vetoed further federal help for the drought victims in the
South and Midwest. Also, he opposed giving World War I veterans their
pensions early. Thus, the failing state of the nation made many elect
Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the next president in the 1932 election (Bustard
3). Roosevelt provided people with a sense of hope and gave them an
optimistic spirit, but would not be inaugurated until March 4, 1933.
Many saw this time period of having a new, but powerless president as the,
“most dangerous time since the Civil War,” since our country was on the brink
of a financial disaster (Schraff 41).
The stock market crashed in October 1929 and consequently, the art market
diminished as well. Without any money to spend, no one could afford
to purchase art (O’Connor 27). Artists tried to survive by bartering
their artwork for items, as one observer remarked:
A canvas for a wedding ring. A watercolor for a new shirt. An
etching for a carton of cigarettes and the price of a bottle of wine!
Broke or nearly so, they have come to offer their dreams in paint for vegetables,
clothes, or luxuries they can not afford. (Bustard 1)
Throughout his campaign for the presidency, Roosevelt became associated with
the term, “the New Deal.” In his acceptance speech for his Democratic
nomination he said, “I pledge you, I pledge myself to a New Deal for the
American people.” Roosevelt’s New Deal theme caught on and became his
mantra. His promise for better times caught the attention of the public
because they felt that Hoover had forgotten them. Slogans supporting
Roosevelt appeared, having catchy phrases such as “Roosevelt or ruin,” and,
“The New Deal is Christ’s deal!” (Schraff 43-45). By the time
Roosevelt was inaugurated in March, fifteen million Americans were unemployed.
Of those fifteen million, ten thousand were artists (Laning 38). Now
it was time for Roosevelt to transform his promising words into ones of action.
On April 8, 1935, Roosevelt and Congress authorized the Emergency Relief
Appropriation Act. This act provided nearly five billion dollars for
the 1935-1936 fiscal year. Under this act, Roosevelt created the Works
Progress Administration on May 6, 1935. Its goal was to provide five
million people (Link 393), with “jobs that would sustain their skills and
self-confidence until private industry reabsorbed them,” (Weisberger 21).
The Works Progress Administration was not a cash relief program, but rather
a work relief plan. Roads, airports, schools, improved parks and waterways,
maps, and guidebooks were created (Blum 708). Public morale was on
the rise as the nation attempted to recover from its downward spiral.
With the creation of the Works Progress Administration, Roosevelt appointed
Harry Hopkins as its director. Hopkins was a progressive social worker
and spent four and a half years as the head of the administration.
Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, referred to Hopkins as “Mr.
Root of the Matter,” for he was quick to remedy any problem. He shared
Roosevelt’s desire to help the American people. When he was told that
the New Deal would eventually work, Hopkins replied, “People don’t eat in
the long run. They eat every day,” (Schraff 66-67). In spite
of his unrelenting enthusiasm, Hopkins was fiercely ridiculed for allowing
money to be wasted on the program and responded to his critics by saying:
Work relief costs more than direct relief, but the cost is justified.
First, in the saving of morale. Second, in the preservation of human
skills and talents. Third, in the material enrichment which the unemployed
add to our national wealth through their labors. (Meltzer 18)
Also, Hopkins also received criticism from wanting to support the arts within
the New Deal program. However, he believed that, “They (artists) have
to eat just like other people,” (Laning 38). Over the course of eleven years,
the New Deal spent eighty-three million five hundred thousand dollars on
art projects (Bustard 128).
Before the Works Progress Administration was established and the arts were
funded under Federal Project Number One, the New Deal had helped artists.
About one million dollars was transferred from the Civil Works Administration
and funneled into the Public Works of Art Project in December 1933 (Bustard
4). Organized under George Biddle, an artist and close friend of the
Roosevelts (Meltzer 19-20), Biddle appointed Edward Bruce as the Public Works
of Art Project’s director (Baigell 46). Biddle had written a letter
to Roosevelt requesting that the United States adopt Mexico’s example of
hiring artists at “plumber’s wages” to paint murals, and bring this concept
to the United states. Roosevelt was open to Biddle’s suggestion.
Edward Laning, a New Deal muralist had the unique observation “neither of
the Roosevelts cared about art at all. What is true is first, that
they were great humanitarians, and, second, that they were loyal to their
friends,” (Laning 40).
Roosevelt requested that Biddle meet with treasury officials, Lawrence Robert
and Edward Bruce. Bruce was highly optimistic about the project.
He said, “if we can create the demand for beauty in our lives, our slums
will go,ugliness will be torn down and beauty will take its place,” (Weisberger
20). The concept of the Public Works of Art Project developed from
their talks (Bustard 4). Although the program ended in June 1934, it
was considered successful, for it set the standard that the federal government
was willing to sponsor the arts (Baigell 50).
After the Public Works of Art Project had ceased, the Treasury Department
continued sponsorship of the arts. It established the Section of Painting
and Sculpture in October 1934 (Laning 40). Like the Public Works of
Art Project, this was not a relief program, but was a competitive situation
where artists vied for commissioned work. The Section of Painting and
Sculpture lasted until 1943. Over time, it went by various names and
was transferred from one federal agency to another (Baigell 50). Like
the Public Works of Art Project, the Section of Painting and Sculpture, was
most recognized for the murals it created (Laning 40). In addition
to the Section of Painting and Sculpture, there was a second program created
under the Treasury Department. Called the Treasury Relief Art Projects,
this program supervised the decorations in public buildings and survived
until June 1939 (Baigell 54).
The Public Works of Art Project and the projects under the Treasury Department
were predecessors for the most recognizable federally funded art endeavor
to come. Federal Project Number One was created under the Works Progress
Administration. Out of the five billion dollars allocated for the Works
Progress Administration, Congress permitted twenty-seven million dollars
to be spent on Federal Project Number One. Federal Project Number One
was led by Jacob Baker and branched into four divisions. Collectively
known as the “Big Four,” the projects were the Federal Art Project under
Holger Cahill, the Federal Music Project under Nikolai Sokoloff, the Federal
Theater Project under Hallie Flannagan, and the Federal Writers’ Project
under Henry Alsberg (Meltzer 20-21). According to Robert Asure, who
was involved in the Works Progress Administration, the Big Four had specific
goals in mind:
The directors of these projects wanted to unleash the creative talents of
these people and rehabilitate them, make the country more beautiful, improve
the interests in the arts, and build up an audience for the future. (Smithsonian
Institution)
Forty-two year old Holger Cahill became the director of the Federal Art Project
in 1935. Born on a Minnesota tenant farm, he had first hand experience
with poverty and unemployment. After studying at the New School for
Social Research and Columbia University, he became a free-lance writer.
In addition, Cahill specialized in primitive and folk art. He built
up the Newark Museum’s art collection and soon became responsible for art
shows at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (Meltzer 56). Cahill
desired a program that would speak to “the mass of people” (Weisberger 21),
and defended his post at the Federal Art Project by writing, “We found that
artists, contrary to prevailing opinion, have something vital to say about
themselves, about their crafts, about the world they live in, and about the
relation of all these things to the Federal Art Project,” (O’Connor).
With Cahill’s vision and Roosevelt’s initiative, the Federal Art Project
began in 1935 and lasted for eight years (A New Deal for the Arts).
This project was not a competitive program based on one’s ability as an artist,
but rather served as a relief project. The Work Progress Administration's
regulations stipulated that three quarters of the artists had to be drawn
from the relief rolls (Laning 41). In addition, the Federal Art Project
did not set up an "art for art's sake" program. Instead, it strove
to integrate the fine and practical arts and employed all artists regardless
of their skills. Hence, every person with an interest in the arts could
apply to the Federal Art Project. Those with strong creative abilities
were assigned to the fine arts division and people with a great enthusiasm
for the arts, but were not artistically inclined, were chosen to be teachers.
Commercial artists were assigned to tackle the Index of American Design and
could become involved in the development of posters. Individuals with
craft skills found themselves immersed in making frames for the artwork (O'Connor
18). This proved that the arts were not just for the elite. In
a speech Roosevelt gave at the Museum of Modern Art on May 11, 1939, he enforced
this theme by saying:
The Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration is a practical
relief project, which also emphasizes the best tradition of the democratic
spirit. The WPA artist, in rendering his own impression of things,
speaks also for the spirit of his fellow countrymen everywhere. I think
the WPA artist exemplifies with great force the essential place which the
arts have in a democratic society such as ours. (DeNoon 2)
Before artists could join the Federal Art Project, they underwent a meticulous
examination by the Home Relief Bureau. Known as the Home Relief Examination,
the bureau conducted an extensive investigation about one’s financial situation.
The bureau asked questions about any possible property one might own, additional
money underneath a mattress or in a savings account, insurance, and even
searched through the cupboards to see if there was any extra food.
One’s closets were also taken into account, for the types of clothing were
noted. In addition, neighbors were interrogated to reveal more information,
such as an extra job one may have (Meltzer 58). Maxine Albro Hall,
an artist with the Federal Art Project recalls:
They called it the WPA then because it was a workers relief project and it
was only for people who needed it to live onWe were interviewed to find
out exactly what we did live on and if they found that we had a home and
enough to eat, why those were put off. (Smithsonian Institution)
After the scrupulous Home Relief Examination, one still needed the acceptance
of the Works Progress Administration. Those involved in the fine arts
had to prove that they were professionals and had previously made money from
their art. Students and younger people with less established careers
were required to show their portfolios or school recommendations (Meltzer
59).
In addition to the democratic spirit the program held, one of the greatest
aspects of the Federal Art Project was the freedom it allowed the artists.
Sara Joy, the daughter of artist Vernon Smith, commented, “Artists were in
heaven. They could paint and get paid,” (Sara Joy). The pay for
anyone on the Works Progress Administration’s relief roll was twenty-three
dollars and eighty-six cents a week. This was referred to as a “security
wage.” It paid more than the cost of direct relief, but less than union
wages in order to encourage people to return to their jobs (Meltzer 17).
For artists, it did not matter how many works they turned out. Their
paycheck was not contingent on the quantity of work they produced.
Rather, it was the quality of the work that counted (Sara Joy).
Holger Cahill embraced this freedom and was open to all types of art.
He believed that, “American art is anything that an American artist does,”
(Meltzer 69). For artists, this was an opportunity to create truly
American art and break away from European influences. It was an opportunity
for the art to finally appeal to the mass audience (Weisberger 20), and emerging
from this desire for purely American art, evolved the theme known as the
“American Scene.” Dealing with regional and small town life, it embraced
the virtues of community, democracy, and hard work (A New Deal for the Arts).
The American Scene subdivided itself into the areas known as regionalism
and social regionalism. Regionalism depicted rural and country scenes that
were apolitical, nostalgic, and usually hinted at no signs of the Great Depression.
Social realism, however, portrayed the urban poor and the working class,
in addition to scenes of the “American Dream,” and humanitarianism (Baigell
55,58). In regards to the social realism and dark images of factories
and cities, Raphael Soyer, an artist asked his fellow artists to, “paint
America, but with your eyes open. Do not glorify Main Street.
Paint it as it is mean, dirty, avaricious,” (Bustard 86).
The artist, Thomas Hart Benton, exemplified regionalism. He painted
scenes from the Midwest where people were hard at work with tractors, wheelbarrows,
and machinery. Also prevalent in his works were religious revivals
(Baigell 93-108). In contrast, Ben Shahn was one of the foremost social
realists. Shahn portrayed the affects of the Dust Bowl on farmers in
his painting entitled, “Years of Dust.” In his works, his faces were
painted with signs of struggle and hardship, with sad eyes that peered out
(Bustard 78).
In addition to the American Scene, artists used the freedom of the Federal
Art Project to delve into the abstract (O’Connor 124). As the 1930’s
progressed, many artists grew restless with the American Scene. Despite
the desire to depart from European influences, many painters had an interest
in Matisse and Picasso. Artists whose works were influenced by their
European counterparts, rarely had their work denied by the Works Progress
Administration. However, critics attacked them for destroying “real”
American art (Meltzer 67). Such painters as Jackson Pollock and Ad
Reinhardt had their roots in the Federal Art Project and later evolved to
become some of the greatest abstract painters our country has known (Plagens
62).
Another aspect regarding the subject matter and style of the art was the
enormous challenge regional supervisors faced while trying to distribute
artists’ works. Vernon Smith, an artist and the Federal Art Project’s
regional supervisor for Southeastern Massachusetts, faced various obstacles
while trying to distribute artwork. Smith encountered the closed mindedness
of Cape Cod Hospital when the hospital decided that it would only consider
mural ideas about children or ships. In addition, businesses did not
like abstracts, for they were seen as being too radical and unconventional.
Besides trying to recruit institutions to accept artwork, Smith was responsible
for registering qualified artists, critiquing their work, making sure they
were working to their full potential, and he transporting paintings to Boston
so they could be distributed amongst government buildings by allocation committees
(Sara Joy).
In addition, art from this time period exhibited the strength of the common
person through adversity and hardships. Everyday life, the work place,
and the streets, were popular depictions. Art also created a strong
sense of national identity, which was important to the American people who
were recovering from a harsh economic downfall that had destroyed their spirits.
Muralists painted local histories in order to help people understand an appreciate
art. Also, art supported Roosevelt and his programs by recognizing
the social and economic progress Roosevelt had made. For example, it
promoted the National Recovery Administration which worked to stabilize prices
and wages through radio addresses, rallies, parades, songs, and the National
Recovery Administration’s logo, the “Blue Eagle,” which was created by artists
on the Federal Art Project. However popular Roosevelt’s programs were
with his supporters, his opposition viewed the art as wasteful propaganda
(A New Deal for the Arts).
In spite of these unfavorable comments, the fine arts had a great presence
in the Federal Art Project. Whether it was through murals, sculpture,
easel painting, or graphic arts, the arts emerged as having a strong presence
with a greater democratic appeal to people. Murals played a large roll
in employing artists and helping to educate the public about the arts.
Philip Evergood, a muralist believes that the Great Depression and the establishment
of the Federal Art Project had had brought about a, “...closer understanding
between the artist and the public than could have been done in a longer time
period,” (O’Connor 49). The revival of the mural as an American art
form is indebted to Mexico’s mural programs including Mexican masters such
as Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, and David Alfaro Sisqueiros.
These Mexican murals helped Americans understand the concept of national
unity, furthered our awareness of Mexico as a nation, and exposed us to the
realities of social art (O’Connor 38).
The process of painting a mural was an extensive task. First, the mural
needed sponsors who were willing to have their walls painted. Artists
were commonly given walls in schools, hospitals, libraries, and prisons (O’Connor
52). Second, an artist had to be selected and agree upon the desired
subject matter. Third, research of the subject had to be done along
with preliminary sketches that indicated potential mural ideas. Finally,
these sketches were submitted for approval, and only after this exhausting
process was completed, could the muralist begin to paint (Meltzer 69).
Although many embraced mural painting, the media besieged murals regarding
social issues, hoping to insult Roosevelt. Murals were abrasively referred
to as being, “un-American,” “communistic,” “tripe,” “junk,” and “disgusting,”
(Meltzer 72-73). Conservatives presumed that the murals must have contained
communistic symbols, and in effect, they were methodically searched for any
incriminating symbols (DeNoon 28). Cahill responded to these allegations
along with charges of propaganda by stating that, “Mural art always expressed
social meaning, the experience, history, ideas, and beliefs of a community,”
(Meltzer 69).
Despite the critics’ brutal words, the muralists believed that this was the
opportunity of a lifetime. Charles Alston recounts that:
This was the first opportunity artists had to get a wall...I think the experience
was even more important in a lot of cases than the result. We have
an awful lot of pseudo-Rivera, pseudo-Orozco kind of murals around.
I don’t remember too many very strikingly creative things, but there was
developed an interest in the mural technique...It was a painting experience
that was so valuable. I think it was irreplaceable in its value (Smithsonian
Institution).
Whereas mural painting underwent a lengthy, sometimes bureaucratic process,
easel painting appealed to the individual. Charles Alston, an easel
painter shares this sentiment:
Easel painting is much more of a personal thing. You paint and you
do what you feel or what demands expression out of you...You start a painting...and
it becomes you...with a mural painting, you have to do a little more formal
planning. You have to take into consideration the architectural problems,
the position, how it’s going to be seen, what the light is, what its purpose
is. (Smithsonian Institution)
Vernon Smith, the regional supervisor for Southeastern Massachusetts, was
also an accomplished easel painter. In 1937, he was one out of twelve
selected by the Department of the Interior to travel to Alaska and paint
landscapes for the Alaska Art Project. This program’s purpose was to
promote the development of United States territories. While in Alaska,
Smith did extensive paintings of Mount McKinley and took numerous photographs.
He was able to complete seventy works within his sixteen months Alaskan stay,
and the Mount McKinley Park Hotel exhibited Smith’s work until it burned
down in 1972. In 1987, work from the entire group was shown at the
Anchorage Museum of History and Art. Sadly, only sixty pieces were
exhibited from the whole group, for the rest had been destroyed (Sara Joy).
Besides the muralists and easel painters, there were the sculptors.
However, there were far fewer of them compared to the numbers on the other
divisions of the Federal Art Project. At the height of the project,
there were only five hundred sculptors and half of them lived in New York
City working in clay, bronze, stone, and terra-cotta. Some had begun
to experiment with wood, stone, and the welding of metals. It was stipulated
that sculptors were required to put in at least fifteen hours a week to a
sculpture, but many extra time perfecting their works (Meltzer 73-75).
When completed, the sculptures were loaned or given to public institutions,
and it was during this time that sculpture and architecture were becoming
more intertwined. Sculptures were appearing in playgrounds, schools,
libraries, and botanical gardens. This was advantageous for low-income
areas, such as the playground at the Federal Housing Project’s Third Street
Manhattan home. Sculptors created eight cement animals and fifteen
plaques to be placed around the playground area. Sculptures also graced
such prestigious locations such as the West Point Military Academy, where
a series of sculptures were formed to represent the entire student body (O’Connor
84).
Also under the fine arts were the graphic arts. In February 1936, a
studio workshop for graphic artists opened at the Federal Art Project’s headquarters
in New York City. Here, all supplies, presses, papers, woods, copper
plates, and tools were provided for graphic artists (Meltzer 76).
The beauty about prints was that they were easy to carry around and distribute.
In addition, they were relatively inexpensive and were not being seen from
a purely commercial standpoint anymore. Aspects of fine art were introduced
and were blended into poster design (DeNoon 23). This task was accomplished
with the help of Anthony Velonis who improved upon the silkscreen process
and developed it into a medium for fine arts. Color prints were now
exceedingly popular since up to six hundred posters could be made in one
day with the silkscreen method of production (DeNoon 18). Within one
year, twenty percent of the Federal Art Project’s prints were being done
by silkscreen. This allowed for images to be printed on any surface
and became useful in the mass reproduction of famous works of art at the
Museum of Modern Art (Meltzer 78-79).
Like the muralists, printmakers had to undergo a process of having their
worked approved. First, a graphic artist’s sketch had to be submitted
to the supervisor. Once the sketch was approved, the artist received
a block, plate, or stone to take home and work on. After this had been
completed, the template was brought into the shop and proofs were made.
When the proofs were satisfactory, an entire series was printed. A
series constituted of anywhere between twenty-five and seventy-five prints,
and the artist was allowed to keep three prints from a series (Meltzer 77).
Most importantly, posters had the ability to increase public understanding
and appreciation for the arts (Meltzer 77). Posters accomplished this
task by helping break down socially taboo subjects such as sexually transmitted
diseases and cancer (DeNoon 114-115). Posters also promoted New Deal
social policies, health, safety, tourism, community events, warned of such
dangers as fire and crime, and served as advertisements for theater and musical
productions (A New Deal for the Arts). By encouraging travel through
posters, it inspired Americans to see and explore America, reviving an interest
about traveling within one’s own country, rather than venturing overseas.
Tourism posters enticed the public with the natural beauty of the Southwest
and portrayed how expansive and diverse the United States was (DeNoon 81).
Along with the fine arts, there were the practical arts. Exemplified
by the Index of American Design, it provided a comprehensive look at the
Federal Art Project’s “functional, but decorative objects,” (Weisberger 21).
Four hundred artists found examples of American design from the beginnings
of American folk, decorative, and practical arts up to 1890 (Meltzer 81).
Pictorial records were recorded of such objects as glassware, toys, furniture,
religious icons, weather vanes, and ship figureheads. Holger Cahill
hoped that these drawings and paintings of everyday items would prompt manufactures
to mass-produce these designs (A New Deal for the Arts). The idea for
the Index of American Design engineered by Ruth Reeves, a textile designer
and printer, and Romana Javitz, who was the head of the New York Public Library’s
Picture Collection. The two women noted that records of design had
been done in Europe and Asia, but the United States had never undertaken
such a task. Javitz drafted a proposal and Reeves submitted it to the
Federal Art Project in 1935. They outlined the goals of the index in
their proposal. First and foremost, it was to create a record material
of objects with “historical significance” that had never been studied before
and would become lost if not for the index. Second, it hoped to compile
traditional material to form a foundation for American design. Last,
it sought to assemble accessible records for artist, designers, manufacturers,
museums, libraries, and art schools (Meltzer 81-82).
Cahill embraced the concept of the index and saw it as an opportunity to,
“...recover a usable past.” Pages from the Index of American Design
were exhibited in department stores where consumers and retailers could see
how traditional design influenced modern products (Bustard 107). Unfortunately,
no government, commercial publisher, or nonprofit organization was willing
to sponsor the publication of the index, for it would be too costly. The
project closed before all the work was finished, but the National Gallery
of Art in Washington, D.C., took the collection of design and opened a room
where artists could come in and refer to them (Meltzer 84).
The Index of American Design was not the only idea to bring art to the average
person. Perhaps one of the greatest facades of the Federal Art Project
was the art education it brought to communities through schools and community
art centers. Schools lacked art programs until the Federal Art Project
sent artists to teach (O’Connor 20). Artist Rudy Autio, recalls having
the Works Progress Administration’s art programs in elementary school.
He recollects that artists would come to his school, hold art shows, and
teach at evening classes that he attended. He credits his art career
to the early exposure he had to the arts (Smithsonian Institution).
Artists were not only assigned to teach at schools, but they held classes
at churches, hospitals, boys’ clubs, institutions for the blind and crippled,
and orphanages (O’Connor 201). Irving J. Marantz, an art instructor
at a boys’ club, believed that art was an excellent source of therapy for
troubled kids. He reminisced about one boy, Abe Levine, who was seen
as an uncontrollable child who encountered trouble with the authorities.
Levine was sent to art classes and his behavior dramatically improved.
Art was therapeutic for him and helped Levine vent his frustrations.
Marantz was absent for several weeks, and Levine stopped attending art classes.
Levine ended up in a juvenile delinquent center, which Marantz attributed
to Levine’s failing participation in art classes (O’Connor 197). Levine’s
story is just one instance of how art was brought to the common person.
Art was finally able to touch the average individual and educate the masses.
In cooperation with art education, the Federal Art Project sponsored national
art weeks from 1940-1941. The slogan for these weeks was, “American
art for every American home.” During this time, exhibitions and sales
were sponsored throughout the country in association with art schools, public
schools, and museums. The sale of the artwork was a failure, but an
amazingly, five million people attended these art weeks (Bustard 111).
The American people were receiving art exposure for the first, and for some,
the only time in their lives (Weisberger 21).
In conjunction to art education, community art centers began across the nation.
They did not only interest artists, but attracted students and hobbyists
as well (O’Connor 219). These art centers served as galleries for exhibits,
a place to teach classes to both children and adults, gallery talks, and
provided demonstrations of art techniques. By 1941, there were more
than one hundred art centers across America (Meltzer 85-86).
One of the most renowned community art centers was the Harlem Art Center
in Harlem, New York. It was successful and had such a positive reputation
that it brought in aspiring artists from everywhere. Color was never an issue
here. Within one year, the Harlem Art Center had three thousand students
who were taught by accomplished teachers such as Charles Alston, Henry Bannarn,
Gwendolyn Bennet, and Augusta Savage (Meltzer 86-87). During the Harlem
Art Center’s sixteen month existence, seventy thousand five hundred and ninety-two
people came to the art center. Not only did visitors such as Eleanor
Roosevelt and Albert Einstein stop by the art center, but it attracted people
from Europe and Asia as well (O’Connor 214).
Despite the fact that by 1938, the Federal Art Project existed in all forty-eight
states and forty-one percent of its employees were women, it faced many problems
and obstacles (DeNoon 14). In trying to appease the “politically appointed
administrator” in each state and making artists comply with the Works Progress
Administration’s regulations, the Federal Art Project was being deterred
from its original goals. Although, the Federal Art Project existed
in all the states, it was found that artists were heavily concentrated in
the cities. New York alone had forty-four and a half percent of all
Federal Art Project workers (Weisberger 21).
One year into its conception, the Works Progress Administration
began mass layoffs. Eight thousand workers on Federal Project Number
One were given pink slips. Hopkins accounted for this by stating that
the funds needed to be used for the drought emergency that summer.
Also, Roosevelt wanted to limit the government’s domestic deficit financing.
By the spring of 1937, Congress had reduced the Works Progress Administration’s
funds by twenty-five percent, and now eleven thousand Federal Project Number
One workers were unemployed (Meltzer 134-135).
Due to disgust with Roosevelt, many newspapers and magazines had belittled
the Federal Art Project from the beginning. They said the art projects
were wasteful and “boondoggling,” (Laning 41). Many politicians also
shared the media’s sentiments. By the late 1930's, Roosevelt was growing
increasingly busy with foreign affairs, and the Republicans and conservative
Democrats controlled Congress. One woman, angry about the modern art
at community art centers wrote her senator saying, “Look at the stuff.
See if it’s worth it...green men with purple heads, Mexican women, nude,
with not a thing human about them,” (Bustard 123). In
1936, congressional opposition to the Federal Art Project was rampant. Rumors
circulated that Federal Project Number One would end and that twenty five
percent of the personnel from the Federal Art Project would be cut.
In response to these cuts and to the order that the Works Progress Administration
could no longer employ non-citizens, demonstrations and sit-ins were staged
by those on Federal Project Number One (DeNoon 26).
In the spring of 1938, the Federal Art Project faced another blow.
A bill to make the Federal Art Project permanent, failed to pass in Congress.
The program was put down by a devastating vote of three hundred and twenty-one
to twenty-three. The sub-committee of the House Committee on Appropriations
justified this by saying that the projects were, “...wasteful and unproductive,”
(Weisberger 21).
Also in 1938, Congress created the House Committee on Un-American Activities
with Martin Dies as the chairman. The Dies committee believed that
a “conspiracy led by Communists” had caused the 1930’s American crisis.
That summer, the committee began their hearings and charged people with being
Communists (Meltzer 137). In April 1939, Dies questioned Federal Art
Project workers about any union and political activities they were involved
in. He inquired about artists’ involvement in political demonstrations,
the organization of unions, and any artist who seemed to be a “leftist.”
The Dies committee eerily foreshadowed the McCarthyism to come in the 1950's
(DeNoon 26-27).
Another ruling brought down in 1938, was that Federal Project Number One
had to be supported with at least twenty five percent of their operating
budget from local sources. In effect, this decreased the number of
community art centers (DeNoon 30-31). A year later, an eighteen
month rule was enforced. All workers on relief projects longer than
eighteen months had to be fired, and an oath of loyalty had to be signed
by new workers (Meltzer 140). In New York City, this cut the number
of artists on the Works Progress Administration by seventy percent (DeNoon
30-31).
By mid-1940, the art projects saw themselves being transferred to the
War Department. Artists now built training aids, made posters for military
bases, decorated servicemen’s clubs, and used the art centers to teach classes
about camouflage. The nation was preparing to enter the Second World
War and the national focus was shifting from the Great Depression to the
approaching war. The number of artists had been steadily decreasing,
and by 1943, the Federal Art Project, along with the other Work Progress
Administration’s ventures, had been phased out (Meltzer 141)
The artwork from this time period reveals so much about society, people,
and the adversity and triumphs that they faced. Regrettably, many of
these works are pieces of lost art. Regulations stipulated that works
by artists on the Works Progress Administration could not be sold, so works
that were not distributed to institutions and museums were either thrown
out, forgotten about, or given to salvage dealers (DeNoon 32). Although
two million copies of art posters were made from 1935-1943, only two thousand
examples from thirty-five thousand designs exist today (DeNoon 7).
Joyce Johnson, the curator of an art show entitled “WPA Artists” in Provincetown,
Massachusetts, found great difficulty while trying to compile the art show.
She faced many complications because there is no one who has a list of all
the artists who worked for the Works Progress Administration. Johnson
also had problems verifying the art work and had to rely upon oral histories
and any existing records that could be located (Molyneux 1-2).
Some of these existing records were the ones of Vernon Smith. Smith
was one of the few who kept such detailed records of what artwork was done
and photographed all of his own artwork before it was distributed.
Smith did many paintings of Orleans, Massachusetts, and his daughter, Sara
Joy, believes that the paintings would be a wonderful asset for the town.
Unfortunately, none of them can be located except through photographs.
Although much of Smith’s artwork is lost today, the photographs remain as
evidence of his prolific work, while the Smithsonian Institution holds his
records (Sara Joy).
During its existence, the New Deal art projects churned out four thousand
eighty-nine murals, one hundred twenty-four thousand eight hundred easel
works, eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifteen sculptures, and over thirty-five
thousand prints (Laning 88). These impressive numbers helped mark a
time when artists were equally viewed with other workers. Artists were no
longer seen as the stereotypical self-absorbed, free-spirited, indulgent
bohemian (Johnson 3). They were accepted as workers who could equally
contribute to society’s needs.
The federal government would not sponsor the arts again until the 1960's,
and when they did, it would be with considerably less funding (Bustard 128).
Hence, the artists did not fail to realize how special these federally funded
art projects were. In retrospect, Jackson Pollock, who would go on
to be one of the most celebrated abstract expressionists, credited the Federal
Art Project for his survival when he said, “I’m grateful to the WPA for keeping
me alive during the Thirties,” (Meltzer 64). Eugene Trentham, an artist,
paid the highest compliment to the Federal Art Project by stating:
...Whatever progress I have made during the past few years is directly traceable
to the economic security and understanding which the Project has offered
me...talent...flowers considerably faster in the soil of government patronage.
(O’Connor 132-133)
Clearly, the New Deal art projects were not a waste. Despite constant
opposition and ridicule, these federally funded art programs awakened the
American public to art and its benefits. The Federal Art Project proved
to be a link between art and daily life, and in the process, enriched American
culture. Historically, the arts had come after science and education,
but during the Great Depression, the government set outstanding precedents.
Art was no longer fronted by an exclusive image for the elite and did not
seem so remote and distant. It expanded its domain by appealing to
the masses and marked a monumental partnership between the federal government
and the arts.
Works Cited
Baigell, Matthew. The American Scene: American Painting in the
1930’s. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1974.
Bustard, Bruce I. A New Deal for the Arts. Seattle: University
of Washington Press, 1997.
Blum, John M., ed. The National Experience: A History of the
United States. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers,
1993.
DeNoon, Christopher. Posters of the WPA. Los Angeles: The
Wheatley Press, 1987.
Johnson, Joyce. “Artist-Craftsman, Vernon Smith Left His Mark on Cape
Cod.” Cape Cod Antiques and Arts June 1997: 11, 17.
Johnson, Joyce. “The WPA Program: When Art Went Public.”
Cape Cod Antiques and Arts June 1997: 3,8.
Joy, Sara. Interview. 14 November 2000.
Laning, Edward. “Memoirs of a WPA Painter.” American Heritage
October 1970: 38-57, 86-89.
Link, Arthur S., and William B. Catton. American Epoch: A History
of the United States Since 1900, Volume I. New York: Alfred Knopf,
Inc., 1980.
Meltzer, Milton. Violins and Shovels. New York: Delacorte
Press, 1976.
Molyneux, Jacod. “WPA Show Recalls Art as a Public Priority.”
Provincetown Banner. 22 May 1997: 1-2.
A New Deal for the Arts. [Online] Available http://www.nara.gov/exhall/newdeal/newdeal.html,
27 March 1997.
O’Connor, Francis V., ed. Art for the Millions. Greenwich, Connecticut:
New York Graphic Society Ltd., 1973.
Plagens, Peter. “Every Picture Tells.” Newsweek 24 June 1991:
62.
Schraff, Anne E. The Great Depression and the New Deal. New York:
Franklin Watts, 1990.
Smithsonian Institution: Oral History Interviews. [Online] Available
http://artarchives.si.edu/oralhist.html, 15 November 2000.
Weisberger, Bernard A. “Federal Art for Whose Sake?” American Heritage
December 1992: 20-21.
Zeigler, Joseph Wesley. Arts in Crisis: The National Endowment
for the Arts Versus America. Chicago: A Cappella Books, 1994.
Return to HHJ Menu