tm.

© 2007

ART AND SOCIETY (an address delivered to the Southbridge (Massachusetts) Art
Association probably sometime in 1955)

One would be hard-pressed to define art in a way that would be universally

satisfactory. Yet, there seems to be a growing interest among our various societies in
an activity we call art. One needs only to witness groups of individuals similar to
this one, which have banded together for the sole purpose of establishing a kinship.
These are people of dissimilar backgrounds attempting communication in a mute
vocabulary.

At present, in the so called “art world” groups such as this one do not, as the saying
goes “shake a stick”, or, “amount to a row of pins”, yet, I venture to say that out of
such sincerely interested groups will rise a painter who though his greater sensitivity
to artistic considerations will re-establish a form of aesthetic and intellectual
balance no longer greatly in evidence in the majority of contemporary masters.

At present, we painters are an intelligent but confused lot. We experiment with

techniques and discard old values. We are like children throwing ourselves into an
emotional frenzy just to discover what it feels like and to see how far we can go.

Experimentation is not building, and discovery is of no value unless that discovery is

put to use. Although America was discovered before the time of Christopher
Columbus by a man called Leif Ericksson, that discovery was not followed up to any
great advantage, and therefore the value of that discovery was lost until Columbus
put it to work.

The genius of da Vinci anticipated the airplane but the Wright brothers brought
their conception to fruition and others after them contributed their efforts, still
building on the original premise that man could fly, until today, we are able to break
what is known as the sound barrier. Still, the Hindenberg was a great, if costly,
experiment, a holocaustal failure, but have we not learned something from that
experiment?

So, with art today, with its varied experimental aspects, tangents to the main core of
artistic creation, in themselves failures, perhaps. failures because we have been
unable to build upon their results. Yet these failures, these high-flying experiments
have added new blood, as it were, to artistic creation. Unhappily, maybe, this new
blood was added by transfusion rather than as a result of natural propagation.
These experiments were made in defiance of certain artistic mores, in a kind of
adolescent reaction to adult authority. But, in the long run is it not better to
experiment if we can eventually make profitable use of those experiments than to
remain stagnant and unchanging artistically and intellectually? These experiments
have much to offer us, much to teach us, if we but evaluate them and use them
properly.

It sometimes appears that the art worlds of New York and Paris are in a whirl of
many-sided experiments, never settling, never in repose, always after the new
approach, in truth, that is not merely the way it “appears”. That is the way it is ,
and much to my personal horror and sorrow, dear old conservative Boston has been
caught up in it and I greatly fear that the pace may be too much for her.

Creation is accomplished in solitude, in quiet, and after much introspective

reflection. Man, we’ve been told, was the last of God’s creations and we believe him
to be the greatest. The bud, the germ of a creation must be first conceived, then
mulled over, a sort of thoughtful gestation period, before it flowers as a true
offspring of the intellect. “Inspiration” would be a better word. Frenzied
experimentation is not thoughtful, it is not “mulled over”, it, therefore, does not
come to proper fruition, is still born, aborted (normally, but not always), early on.

These metaphors apply not only to he individual artist but also to whole eras of
artistic activity. For half a century, a conservative estimate, we have been witnessing
a hurried and anxious world. Is there any doubt that artists, if they were the
sensitive beings they are reputed to be, would reflect the times? Such has been the
situation in art history in relation to political history before now. Most birds find
difficulty in guiding their course in high winds, and, I imagine, that new water
plants would have a great deal of trouble in rooting themselves if they were
continually being tossed about. But when some succeed they are richer and stronger
as a result of this adversity, of this experience. I believe that some of this hectic
artistic activity will result in a creative richness beyond our expectations, and that
we, and those after us, will be stronger for it.

But all of this is but the larger view of the situation. It would, for us now, be nothing
but an empty satisfaction to wait for its coming, for it would be another half century
before this creative millennium begins to show itself properly. In the meantime,
what is to be done?

If we re not going to share directly in the coming artistic richness why do we, and
there are many of us, hundreds of thousands of us, persist in any creative effort at
all? Perhaps the most potent answer at all would be that it ha taken thousands of
years for man to gain control over his environment and to develop his highest and
noblest faculty, the intellect, to the point where it stands today.

This intellectual revolution is still going on now, with the promise of atomic power to
further its aims. The creative revolution is also still in progress, and the poor
creature who is neither artist nor industrialist stands between these giants, unable to
grasp the significance of all these changes and developments. An art association such
as he Southbridge Art Association is an expression of a need felt by each and every
one of us to reach out toward an understanding of these phenomena. It is a natural
desire on the part of man to try to understand man, to once again establish a feeling
of mastery of the world, which he has created around himself. In this case, the
world was created by man himself. Man no longer lives in direct contact with
nature, nature has been placed in captivity, and it is subdued. The loss of its
freedom, the loss of the greater part of his power over man maybe the reason for its
visiting its wrath upon us in the form of hurricanes, a sort of last ditch stand against
the human upstarts who, unreservedly, call them by their first names.

There are new horizons opening up to us, there has already been a legion of new
ideas implanted in our subconscious, and a host of strange images attack our vision.
What can the Southbridge Art Association do in the midst of gargantuan
uncertainties? The Association can do what it has already done, and is now doing;
that is, laying the fertile ground open for creative advancements.

You are n organization of intelligent individuals, although small, still capable, and
perhaps because of your smallness, better able to maneuver with greater
effectiveness within the community, and, thereby, manifest your influence in the
creative fields.

To cite an example of what I mean, let me tell you what a number of the Tantasqua
students have done. In a trial period of about three months these children have
contributed their pennies, dimes and quarters toward the purchase of original art
works. These works will become part of a permanent Tantasqua Regional High
School Art Collection. The educational possibilities of such an endeavor are many.
The children would not be able to put into words, perhaps, just why they feel this to
be important to themselves, to those coming after them and to the communities in
which they live, but their feelings are sincere and he response gratifying. They are
now quite anxious to break ground for the gallery they feel certain will be needed.

Thank you for the opportunity of addressing you, and thank you all for listening
with interest.