"What have you done also to bring new blood and new ideas and new organizations into existence?"

I understand that that is, of course, the objective of the bill, not only to stimulate further and enlarged expanded effort on the part of existing organizations but also to stimulate new. I should think that some study of that scheme might prove extremely profitable to the proponents of this bill.

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Tibbett.

Mr. BOSCH. Mr. Young?

Mr. YOUNG. Do you have any idea how much the English spend to promote this?

Mr. TIBBETT. I am sorry to say I have not. That information could be made readily available, however, and I am sorry to say, at the moment, I have not any such information.

Mr. HOWELL. Some of the other witnesses have said about $21 million.

Mr. YOUNG. A year?

Mr. HOWELL. Yes.

Mr. TIBBETT. How much of that money is, of course, coming from the American taxpayer we do not know; but it seems to me that while that may be a perfectly worthy thing, it seems to me that some such effort and a direct, openly, and frankly admitted effort on our own part, and for our own cultural and artistic benefit, would be indicated. Mr. YOUNG. As long as we are spending the money for that we ought to spend it over here; is that right?

Mr. TIBBETT. And spend it on ourselves.

Mr. YOUNG. That is all of the questions I have.

Mr. MCCABE. Mr. Tibbett, I would like to have you elaborate one phase of your testimony, if you will.

You cited the struggling young music student, unable to devote full time to qualifying himself for his vocation. Now, there are many struggling law and medical students who pay their tuition by driving a taxicab, and many other occupations not related to the field where they intend to spend their lives.

Ďo you conceive this proposal to involve preferential treatment for the arts which might not be justified in the light of Federal treatment, or lack of it, of others?

Mr. TIBBETT. I would merely-I don't like the word, sir, "preferential." But I rather like to put it this way: that the importance of culture, the respective and comparative importance of culture, is a thing which has not been adequately, as yet, recognized by this young and vigorous Nation. That is in comparison to the others.

Now, in the field of, I know but little about the field of law and those opportunities. But, mind you, I did not mean to infer that music and artistic students should be deprived of the privilege of driving taxicabs or whatever other means they might have to further their education. I believe that rather too much time is spent during the formative years on the part of many musical students in having to do those things. I cannot tell you.

But in my own case, I had to borrow money from a wealthy friend who had confidence in me for a great number of years. I had to mortgage my future in order to secure my musical education and to further it. I was doing all I could in those formative years to supplement my meager income by work in the musical field; and I took other jobs as

well. I did not happen to drive a taxicab, but other jobs that are of like relationship to artistic expression or lack of relationship.

I do not know. But I think it would be far better. And as I see the basic idea in this bill it is that with Government aid there would be opportunities for less expensive tuition.

And I think the idea encompasses the idea of education and bringing the young unknown artists along, as well as engaging the services of known and established artists and reputations.

I merely believe that, comparatively speaking, and this is what this bill is aiming at, that the relative importance of the field of culture and art and music and theater and literature, and of the other arts, relatively speaking, are not recognized to the extent as law.

Its uses are a little less obvious and seemingly less practical, and its benefits are sometimes infused into the souls and minds of human beings less obviously and less clearly. It is difficult to put the worth of art in terms of dollars and cents.

Mr. McCARE. In other words, the lack of public acceptance and recognition of the arts' importance makes it necessary to foster and promote them in some way, while you feel that is not necessary in the other professions we have alluded to?

Mr. TIBBETT. Comparatively speaking, yes, I would agree with you. Mr. Boscн. Mr. Tibbett, you heard the discussion a few moments ago with regard to the question of continuing Federal aid to a project of this type. In your considered opinion, and in view of your many years of experience, do you believe that a pump-priming proposition of this type would induce private enterprise and assistance on a State level so that eventually this problem could be handled by the local propositions rather than putting it into the Government agencies?

Mr. TIBBETT. I do, sir. I feel, as a beginning, the usual expression, the pump-priming business is absolutely necessary. In many aspects of certainly musical expression, it is impossible if we are to maintain the present level, let us say, of artistic excellence, of grand opera, of the symphony orchestra, they cannot pay their own way. It is simply an impossibility.

Am I missing the point, Mr. Chairman, of your question?

Mr. BOSCH. I think that you have answered it very well to my satisfaction, anyway.

Mr. HOWELL. Of course, I would think that personally, and I am not sure that I am right, that after this thing got going, there could perhaps be a lessening, and there might still be need for some funds to maintain the Arts Commission, and some things of that sort. But if it once got going over a period of several years or a number of years, perhaps the need would not be as great and whatever funds were devoted to it could be in theory, at least, cut back.

Mr. TIBBETT. Mr. Congressman, I do feel, in further answering the chairman's question, as I understand it, one of the basic concepts behind the bill is that the various facilities furnished by such an operation would serve as more or less an experimental, an artistically experimental basis, which would in turn, let us say, feed the existing professional, purely professional, activities. It is a very great thing to do so.

I cannot see that such activities would ever, and in all respects, completely pay for themselves. It would be a difficult bookkeeping job to find out, however, in what indirect way they might pay for them

selves, by such a feeding of the already existing professional operations. It would be impossible in dollars and cents to figure as to how far and how much such a thing would contribute toward that other thing which is known as purely professional activities.

This would serve, perhaps, to balance the whole picture. Mind you, the playwrights and the composers and the musicians, performing musicians, sir, too often compromise purely artistic ideals simply because they must sell. And here is an opportunity where it seems to me that, under such a scheme, the salability of the experiments would not be the primary consideration, not that things salable, salable people, and personalities would not be developed from such a scheme, of course. And that surely is your objective, Mr. Howell.

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you.

Mr. Boscн. Mr. Graham, do you have any questions?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Tibbett, in line with your answer just now as to the dollars-and-cents value, do you think that perhaps the subsidization of people in various fields, such as music, might tend to dull rather than to sharpen their talent in that they are to a great extent in it as a commercial operation? If they feel that, regardless of how hard they work, they are sure of subsidization anyway, might it not lead to sort of a suspended status in some instances?

Mr. TIBBETT. I see what you mean, sir. I think that there are such dangers, and I think that, however, in a fine administrative setup, such dangers could be avoided. Now mind you, such dangers have appeared in those countries, in some of those countries, where there is governmental subsidization. In others, they have not.

Where the setup is one that is purely political and rapidly changeable even, it has not proven a success and has served to perhaps entrench the mediocre. That is perhaps what you are leading to. Certainly, it is a danger which we should attempt to avoid. That has happened. It does not matter to name certain nations where that has happened.

But that has happened less often than the opposite has happened. The benefits by and large have been more salutary than not, that is, of governmental help in those nations where there has been such. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BOSCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Tibbett. We deeply appreciate your taking the time to come down here and to give us the benefit of your many years of experience in this field.

Mr. TIBBETT. It is a pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

We

Mr. Boscн. The Chair would like to recognize a delegation of 4-H girls from Arlington, Va. They are in the back of the room. sincerely hope that they enjoyed the few moments that they have spent with us.

The Chair would like to announce that while Mr. Tibbett was officially to be the last speaker on this morning's program, in behalf of the legislature, another gentleman has asked permission.

And in view of the time allotted and still available to us, may I ask Mr. Stuyvesant Van Veen if he will proceed.

STATEMENT OF STUYVESANT VAN VEEN, MEMBER OF THE ART DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK, NEW

YORK

Mr. VAN VEEN. Mr. Chairman and distinguished gentlemen: My name is Stuyvesant Van Veen, and I am by profession a mural painter and an easel painter. I am a member of the art faculty of the City College of New York, the art department, with which to some extent I support my profession. I am a member of the advisory council of the New York City Art Center Gallery and a member of the national board of directors and cochairman of the government and art committee of the Artists Equity Association.

I am very grateful that you have given me this opportunity. There are a few things that I would like to read first concerning the bills that are before us.

Before I do, if I may say so, having listened to the testimony of Professor Tunnard, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Parker, and Congressman Javits, I found myself in complete agreement, complete and enthusiastic agreement. I did not find myself so much in agreement with the testimony of Mr. Lloyd Goodrich.

I have a few notes here, regarding the concern expressed by a great many American painters and sculptors with respect to the interest in the amateur artists in our society, officially recognized in H. R. 9111. There are some things that I feel must be said.

First may I quote from an address given before the National Art Education Association by Mr. G. Ott Bromley, Chief of Community Services Branch of Special Services Division of the Department of the Army.

The quotation is:

Recreation is not designed to kill time, but to make time live.

As the rising tide of the amateur became more and more evident, I at first felt consternation at the possible innundation of a professional artist. Subsequent consideration has produced these thoughts:

1. That the definitions of amateur and professional are still vague, that is, in the visual art field.

2. There may be many amateurs who have retained their status because, under present economic conditions, they are wiser than some professionals in that they have found more abundant means of sustenance outside of the art profession.

3. The levels of art rise through usage, as a mountain stream deepens; with greater opportunities for artists, professional and amateur as conceived by the National War Memorial Arts Commission bill, quality and consequence will increase. Since we are a democratic Nation, so our art must be. Not that I espouse a common denominator, but I believe that dissemination must bring enrichment both to the arts and to the audiences or viewers.

Thinking in terms of generations, rather than decades, it is reasonable to assume that the public of 50 years hence, having borne with "numbered nonsense" and other types of noncreative mediocrity, will seek finer fare in public buildings, galleries and museums, with and without walls, to paraphrase Andre Malroux, in the same way the people seek the symphony, although at home the heir apparent beleaguers the pianoforte.

Suppose it does start as a national therapy or arts program, art must inevitably emerge as an esthetic force. I am inclined to think that few of the craftsmen of Chartres thought as highly of their efforts as we do today.

It is necessary to consider that H. R. 9111 deals with all of the fine arts. When mention is made of support of both amateur and professional activities, tremendously important, for small theater groups, orchestras and ballet companies throughout our land, the professional painter or sculptor, not realizing this breadth, may remonstrate about the fusion of amateur and professional interests, when he thinks in a limited way of the "hand-painted picture," framed, and hanging on the wall of the Smith family, painted by Aunt Tillie.

When Government implementation is indicated, there is so often an unjustified fear of mediocrity. It is a vague and savage term colored by the spectacles of the viewer. In a land needing it and supporting it, art will grow. As in the middle ages, where the craftsman-artist was constantly in demand, his quality and standards burgeoned.

Optimist that I am, I believe that, if there were a usage approaching the Byzantine and Romanesque eras, many of our artists, who today speak to a limited chosen critical coterie, would easily find idiom to reach a whole society. Some of our most nonobjective artists could easily transmute their skills to wider uses. Conversely, a knowledge and appreciation of the arts, having reached a greater number of people, the artist would find less requirement to dilute his message.

One might recall that while the Federal arts projects were created essentially as a welfare measure, many of our top figures today emerged from under its meager sheltering wings. Great art need not be planned; it emerges of its own power of purpose.

On the subject of the Howell bill, there is one suggested change that I would like to make. There is a need of more representation by the creative artist in its administrative setup. No matter how well-meaning, efficient, and energetic the director of a museum might be, he cannot handle a nationwide building decoration program as well as his own bailiwick. It is suggested, being specific, that title 306 of H. R. 9111, page 53, be made an activity of the Division of Painting and Sculpture, established under section 207, page 26, of the bill.

The Division of Architecture and the Division of Painting and Sculpture should have a clear working liaison.

I would like to say that care must be taken not to beat the unborn child to death. No bill can be all things to all men, nor will two artists agree completely. Nevertheless, it is far better to bring forth the initial structure with a sufficient appropriation for it to take foothold and amend it if necessary, than to crush it before birth, with anticipated misgivings.

I would like to say on the subject of a fear of subsidization that was expressed by Mr. Goodrich that it is the nature of a fine artist, the creative artist, especially in the visual arts, to seek as quickly as possible to have the freedom of his own field of expression without any kind of supervision or implementation.

The potential of a continuation of the artists, who might be involved in the program, and their desire to remain under its wings for a lifetime, are unlikely. The majority of artists do try to find that realm of their own studio in which to express themselves completely.