Henry Dreyfuss, industrial designer. Quaintance Eaton, executive secretary, National Commission for the Musical Arts. Hy Faine, national executive secretary, American Guild of Musical Artists. Dave Garroway, TV personality. Lillian Gish, star of film and stage. Lloyd Goodrich, director, Whitney Museum of American Art, author. Dr. Alice Griffin, head, Department of Theater Arts, Hunter College, representative of American Educational Theater Association. Dr. Howard Hanson, composed, conductor, president, National Music Council. Alfred Harding, former assistant to president, Actors Equity Association. Edwin Hughes, pianist, executive secretary, National Music Council. Theodate Johnson, publisher, Musical America. Herman Kenin, president, American Federation of Musicians. Dan Kiley, landscape architect. Billie Kirpich, representative, Dance Teachers Guild. Mrs. Serge Koussevitsky, patron of musical arts. Leon Kroll, painter, president, U.S. Commission of International Association of Plastic Arts. William Lescaze, architect. Dorothy Liebes, textile designer. Howard Lindsay, playwright, actor, producer. Gertrude Macy, general manager, International Cultural Exchange Services, ANTA. Dick Moore, actor, representative, Actors Equity Association. Joseph Allen Patterson, representative, American Association of Museums. Theodore J. Roszak, sculptor. Robert C. Schnitzer, general manager, ANTA International Exchange Program. Gilbert Seldes, author, editor, educator. Seymour N. Siegel, director, Municipal Broadcasting System, New York. Dr. Carleton S. Smith, musicologist. W. Eugene Smith, photograph. Eleanor Steber, opera, concert artist. Edward D. Stone, architect. Rex Stout, author, former president, Author's League of America. Mrs. Helen Thompson, executive secretary, American Symphony Orchestra Lucia Victor, stage manager, representative Actors Equity Association. Harold Weston, painter, past president, Federation Modern Painters & Sculptors. William W. Wurster, architect, dean, Department of Architecture, UCLA. Dr. Edwin Ziegfeld, educator, Department of Art, Teachers College, representative National Art Education Associates. William Zorach, sculptor. DOCUMENT D NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE ARTS AND GOVERNMENT Columbia University-June 1962 Tentative budget Expenses: Speakers, chairmen of study groups, discussion leaders, per diem and travel costs____. Salary of conference coordinator (about 4 year of time spread over 9 months)--- $4,000 4,000 Salary of executive secretary (9 months) 4,500 1,000 Supplementary staff for 3 days of conference__ 500 Office supplies, telephone and telegraph, stamps, etc. (office space and Report of conference: 3,500 4,000 1,000 Miscellaneous___ (b) 1,500 copies report for free distribution (purchased by (a) Compensation for editor and his assistant (To condense 4,000 6,000 1,000 Total___ Income: 33, 500 Registration fee of $10 including free copy subsequent report, minimum estimate 300.. Grant required by Columbia University to enable conference to be held____ 3,000 30, 500 STATEMENT OF DAN LACY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS COUNCIL Mr. LACY. I appreciate this opportunity to appear in these hearings to present our views on the various bills before this subcommittee, bills which have as their purpose, by one means or another, the encouragement of literature and the arts by the Federal Government. The American Book Publishers Council is the trade and professional organization of the general book publishing industry in this country. Our 166 members include practically all the general commercial book publishing firms whose names are familiar to all of you-such houses as Doubleday, Harpers, Macmillan, Knopf, Viking, Harcourt Brace, Little Brown, and Bobbs-Merrill-about half of the university presses and several book clubs and publishers of popular priced paperbound editions. Rather than proceeding immediately into a discussion of the individual bills under consideration, I think it might be helpful to begin with a general statement of our views regarding the problem of the relationship of the Federal Government to the arts, and more particularly literature and the printed word generally. It is from this general philosophy that our views have developed on the individual measures under consideration. Let me say that these remarks do not apply to the separate subject of the relationship of State and local governments to the arts, which in some ways presents quite a different problem. There are in general two ways in which the activities of the Federal Government may affect literature and the arts. The first is what might be called the direct way-deliberate measures of encouragement or discouragement. Examples may be found in the practice of many European countries: a ministry or bureau of fine arts; prizes, medals, awards and honors; financial encouragement in the form of stipends or pensions; Government financial support for theaters, opera companies and orchestras. The second is what might be called the indirect method-the shaping of legislation, governmental policy and administrative activities which are directed to other major purposes so as to help or to hinder the development of literature and the arts. Examples are the tax laws, the postal system, foreign trade regulations, and copyright. These indirect influences are frequently overlooked in discussions of Government and the arts, but they are very important in their total effect. In the United States our historical philosophy and practice has been to keep the Federal Government out of the field of direct influences on the arts. So far as indirect influences are concerned, there has been a general disposition and willingness to shape legislation and administrative action so as to help rather than hinder the development and enjoyment of the arts, and in many ways our record has been better in this respect than that of many other countries. This record has not been entirely consistent, although it has by and large been more favorable in recent years than in some earlier periods. A few specific examples may help to illustrate this point. In the area of copyright, which is basic to the development of literature, the theater and music, the Constitution itself provided that Congress should have the power to enact legislation "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to all respective writings and discoveries." Despite this constitutional provision, throughout most of our national life we tended to lag somewhat behind European governments in our copyright legislation, especially in the important area of securing protection of the copyrighted works of Americans abroad by means of reciprocal international arrangements. Fortunately this era came to a close with the ratification of the Universal Coypright Convention by the United States in 1954. A number of important domestic copyright problems are, however, still outstanding. On postal laws-and the postal system is an indispensable means of distributing books, periodicals, and music-we have in some ways provided more encouragement within our boundaries than many European countries. Our international postal rates on published materials, including music, have on the other hand been distinctly less favorable; but this discrepancy, too, is in process of being reduced. Our import and export regulations have on the whole been liberal and have promoted the interchange of literature and artistic materials, although we have yet to implement the "Florence Agreement" approved by the Senate in February 1960. Protected by the first amendment, we have been reasonably free of Federal censorship of the printed word. Our income tax laws on the other hand have been distinctly more burdensome on the income from literature and artistic creation-income from copyrighted materials—than on income received from technical creation represented by patented inventions. I think that these examples, which by no means constitute a complete list, will suffice to illustrate that our national record on these indirect measures has been spotty but by no means bad on the whole and has been improving. Nevertheless, one of the bills before you, H.R. 4172, the proposed Federal Advisory Council on the Arts, would, we believe, be very helpful in improving the situation still further; and there are a number of important problems still outstanding. Such an advisory group would be able to identify and to point out those numerous areas in which Federal legislation and administrative action, often designed for quite different purposes, impinge unfavorably on literature and the arts. There is at present no Federal agency with an overall responsibility in this area, although in some respects existing agencies such as the Office of Education and the Library of Congress may be able to perform this function to some extent. But there is no specific watchdog for the arts comparable to the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce and many other departments and agencies which in a sense "represent" various industries and professions in the Federal Government. With respect to direct measures to encourage the arts, various of which are incorporated in some of the bills under consideration which have been introduced in this and earlier sessions, we would have serious reservations about taking any major steps in this direction without very careful further study and consideration. I can do no better in stating these reservations than to quote from a book which appeared a few years ago, "The Literary Situation," by Malcolm Cowley, the well-known poet, literary critic, teacher, editor, and lecturer. In a chapter on the relationship of the Federal Government to the arts Mr. Cowley sums up the pros and cons of direct Federal support as follows: That Congress should establish a bureau of fine arts, with money to spend for literary prizes and fellowships, is a much more tempting notion, but there are a few serious arguments against it. One is that such a bureau would be involved in politics, with its prizes going to writers whose opinions were politically correct at the time, and to another group of writers in the next administration. Another argument is the increased danger of Federal censorship; if Congress were spending money for literature, it would try to encourage some types of literature and might soon decide that other types should be penalized. Still another argument against such a bureau is that it might lead-the more influential it became, the more surely it would lead-to an official school of art and an official theory of writing that all Americans would be expected to follow, as all Russian writers are expected to be socialist realists. I am a pluralist in questions of literary doctrine as in theories of government. I don't like to see too much power concentrated in one man or place or party or institution. The Federal Government is our greatest institution, but I should like to see its power counterbalanced by that of smaller institutions, not only State and local governments, but also the churches, the schools, the universities, the newspapers, the magazines, the arts, and the different professions, each with its feeling of separate life, each with customs and standards that have the force of law in its separate domain. The literary profession is one of those domains, and I should like to see it enforce its own standards. In one sense the critics are its courts of law, but it is even more important for them to honor good writing than to condemn cheap and careless writing; also the standards they enforce should be those of quality, not those of method or doctrine or political opinion. There should be many theories of literature and many centers of literary activity. If writers need financial help to do their best work-and many of them do need such help, because the rewards for distinguished writing are not always enough to support them, and also because it takes a long time for a writer to become established-then the help should come from privately endowed institutions, at at present, rather than from the Federal Government. All that the writers can fairly ask of the Government is that it shouldn't discriminate against them. Notably, it shouldn't interfere with the institutions that have been helping them, nor should it try, as some congressional committees have been doing, to force universities and foundations into a great coordinated-gleichgeschaltet was Hitler's word-system of correct mass opinion. We would in general subscribe to these views of Mr. Cowley and specifically we would recommend that the several plans for direct encouragement of the arts incorporated in other bills be turned over for study and recommendation by the Federal Advisory Council on the Arts, which we believe should be established. In conclusion, our views may be briefly summarized as advocating the establishment of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts with a large measure of independence, and the referral of other proposals for direct support of the arts to such a commission for study and recommendation as a first priority in its work. STATEMENT OF MRS. HORTENSE AMRAM, WEAVER, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mrs. AMRAM. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Special Education, my name is Hortense Amram. I am a practicing weaver and I live at 431 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, D.C. It is there, in my home, that I have my looms and weave the cloth and various other items that provide a part of my income. As a practitioner of one of the handcrafts, I have a deep interest in Congressman Thompson's H.R. 4172, to provide for the establishment of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as recommended by President Eisenhower in several messages to the Congress in recent years. I wish to address myself to that portion of Congressman Thompson's bill which seeks to provide for recognition and encouragement of our American craft movement. I wish to commend Mr. Thompson for his insistence that the crafts be listed in the bill now before this committee. My own interest in this bill lies in its ability to increase the interest in, and recognition of, the importance of craft work among all our people. Creative work is well within the capacity of everyone, from kindergarten to old age. Witness the countless manifestations of this in the growing number of those practicing the many crafts now flourishing across the country. The strength of this urge to creativity is not only the deeply human one, but in our country it stems from a rich and varied tradition. The early Americans expressed their feeling for beauty in the crafts |