[From the Washington Post, Jan. 16, 1961]

STILL FAVORS WILDLIFE SANCTUARY-CULTURAL CENTER AS MEMORIAL TO T.R. REJECTED EMPHATICALLY BY DAUGHTER

(By Constance Feeley)

A new proposal for a Theodore Roosevelt memorial came to light yesterday, but it got a shadowy reception from T.R.'s daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth. The proposal was made by Neill Phillips, chairman of the influential Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City, who thinks part of Washington's planned $75 million cultural center could be dedicated as a living memorial to the late President..

Informed of the idea, Mrs. Longworth, 76, indicated she has scant interest in massive cultural projects.

"The hell with the cultural center as a memorial," she said. "I flee from thinking about things like that. It has nothing to do with a memorial to my father."

By act of Congress, the surviving children of Theodore Roosevelt have the right to approve any design for a memorial.

The act was passed last year when Congress killed a proposal for a huge celestial sphere on Roosevelt Island in the Potomac. It died a day after Mrs.. Longworth called it, with characteristic verve, a globular jungle gym.

She thinks Roosevelt Island should be preserved as a wildlife sanctuary, with only a modest type of memorial to her father.

Phillips, a retired rear admiral, agrees that parks and open spaces in Washington have reached the saturation point in monuments, and he said as much in a recent letter to conservationist Horace M. Albright, member of the Theodore Roosevelt Association which is considering designs for the memorial.

Noting that living memorials are becoming more and more popular, Phillips pointed to the cultural center as a most important example of a living memorial and suggested one of the center's units be named in honor of T.R.

In his letter, Phillips made passing reference to a proposed memorial for another Roosevelt, the late President Franklin D. That structure would consist of 8 concrete tablets ranging up to 165 feet in height. Phillips said it has caused widespread consternation.

Mrs. Longworth said she had nothing particular to say about the F.D.R. monument, because she is not involved in approving it.

"It's a strange and curious thing," she remarked. "Enormous, isn't it?"

[From the Sunday Star, Washington, D.C., May 14, 1961]

CITIES AND PEOPLE-MORE OR FEWER WORKS OF ART?

(By Robert J. Lewis)

Two thousand years ago, the debate over monuments and memorials was a hot one, too.

Long before Secretary Udall, the philosophers were wondering whether such reminders of men and events had any value.

Some of the loftiest commentators pretended to scorn the whole idea.

"I would rather have men ask, after I am dead, why I have no monument, than why I have one," said Marcus Cato.

A couple of hundred years later, Pliny the Younger called monuments "superfluous."

"If our lives deserve it, our memories will endure," said he.

Euripedes agreed.

"The monuments of noble men are their virtues," he said.

Such views have a plausible ring. But they all come from writers who hoped their works would live, be read, and serve as memorials, on paper, to their lives and thought.

"The most lasting monuments are the paper monuments," Thomas Fuller said. Writers, especially, seem to think this.

One writer who felt differently was William Shakespeare.

It was his opinion that a man should think about arranging his own memorial. 70259-61-24

Otherwise, he said, “he shall live no longer than the bell rings and the widow weeps."

But the bard was a bit wrong, surely.

He did not reckon with mankind's gratitude. Nor with civilization's compulsion to pay its debt.

People do want reminders of men who have led them in thought and action. They do not want to forget.

This is where art comes in.

It is part of mankind's memory.

Life is short, but art is long, as the Latin phrase book says.

Art lasts. Civilized man can express deep convictions in this way and be long remembered.

"Art," said Aristotle, "is a higher type of knowledge than experience."

The issues Mr. Udall has raised about art and its place in cities are important. The debate should help quell some of the confusion that has arisen over whether, in the future, we should confine ourselves only to "living memorials" for use, as against the art that can be used for nothing except to look at, be inspired by, and to symbolize goals for the good life.

The Lincoln Memorial is not a "living memorial."

It is art for art's sake.

It represents a man. But it does more than that. For within this sculpture are enshrined some of the most important ideas by which Americans organize their democratic behavior.

Could Washington ever be the same place without it?

Cities throughout the world are filled with monuments, sculpture, and paintings that help bind one age to another.

If art is desirable, as men in all centuries have seemed to believe it is, perhaps the problem is not that there is too much of it here but that what does exist appears to claim too much space.

One of the most understanding of all students of city design had a most perceptive comment on this.

He was Camillo Sitte, a Viennese who wrote a book called "The Art of Building Cities." It was translated from the German over 15 years ago by Charles T. Stewart, a Washingtonian, and is now, unfortunately, out of print.

On this point, Mr. Sitte wrote:

"The fundamental difference between the procedures of former times and those of today rests in the fact that we constantly seek the largest possible space for each little statue."

The early Greeks and Romans, Mr. Sitte explained, “erected their monuments by the sides of public places," instead of in the center.

Thus were ancient cities able to accommodate the many sculptured treasures that still testify to their everlasting glory.

Mr. THOMPSON. We will now hear from the Honorable Frances P. Bolton of Ohio.

STATEMENT BY HON. FRANCES P. BOLTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me an opportunity to register my wholehearted support of the legislation to provide for the establishment of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts to assist in the growth and development of the fine arts in the United States. My own bill toward this objective is H.R. 3640.

This legislation was originally proposed in the 1955 state of the Union message of President Eisenhower. He said at that time that: "In the advancement of the various activities which will make our civilization endure and flourish the Federal Government should do more to give official recognition to the importance of the arts and other cultural activities." He said at that time that he would recommend the establishment of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts "to advise the Federal Government on ways to encourage artistic

and cultural endeavor and appreciation." Since then bills to implement this proposal have been introduced in each Congress on a bipartisan basis.

The Council which is proposed would be established in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and would be composed of 21 outstanding private citizens widely recognized for their knowledge or experience or interest in one or more arts such as music, drama, dance, literature, et cetera. Members would be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for 6-year terms. The function of the Council would be to act as a clearing house for ideas and recommendations and to make studies and proposals on methods to encourage private initiative in the arts and promote cooperation with local, State, and Federal departments or agencies to foster artistic and cultural endeavors. The creation of such a council would involve no expenditures save those of a modest per diem allowance for the Council Members and staff expenses. The Council would administer no subsidies. It would give away no funds, but it would provide a significant national impetus to the systematic exchange of views on artistic matters.

There is a profound national interest in the encouragement and development of both the practice and appreciation of the arts by our citizens. Not only does art enrich the lives of individual citizens, but our national life and the impact of our country abroad is enhanced by cultural development. In a variety of ways, activities of the Federal Government have an effect upon artistic and cultural development. However, there is today no means for coordinating these activities. The enactment of this proposal to establish a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts would therefore meet a long-recognized need.

I hope the Select Subcommittee on Education will act favorably on this legislation and that early action will follow in the House and Senate.

Mr. THOMPSON. Our next witness is the Honorable John V. Lindsay, a Congressman from the State of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN V. LINDSAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to speak on arts legislation in general and to register my wholehearted support of the bills to provide for the establishment of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts now before you for consideration. I have myself introduced H.R. 5408 to establish such a Council.

It is my privilege to represent the district in New York City which includes what is undoubtedly America's premier art center. The bounds of my congressional district include the Metropolitan Opera, the Broadway theaters, the Metropolitan Museum, the Museum of Modern Art, Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum, the New York City Ballet, most of Greenwich Village, Rockefeller Center, and Madison Avenue with their television and radio broadcasting systems. The growth and development of the fine arts in the United States are certainly in the national interest. Beyond the preservation of our national freedom and of our constitutional rights, what greater con

cern can we as individuals possibly have than to enhance and strengthen the cultural aspects of our civilization. We are engaged in a great effort to strengthen our security. Surely it is also in the national interest to strengthen the arts. A country is not strong if its culture is neglected while other areas of human endeavor advance.

The extent to which we advance culturally directly bears on our international posture. The universal langauage of the arts knows no national boundaries and cultural exchanges between countries can establish a very healthy rapport between peoples.

The underlying question before this subcommittee is to what extent should government be concerned with the cultural well-being of its citizenry? In the United States, if you search through the pages of the Congressional Record back through the decades, you will not find a ready answer to this question. Since the 1870's, thousands of pages of hearings and floor discussions have been printed, debating the question of direct Federal subsidies to the arts. In the process, little by little, without the guidance of any master plan or general philosophy, the Congress has put the Federal Government in the art business. It has been a perfectly natural development. But it has not been systematic. Let's see how it happened.

In 1910, Congress created the Commission of Fine Arts as guardian of the L'Enfant plan for development of the District of Columbia. It deals with specific construction and decorative proposals. Long before, in 1846, the Smithsonian Institution was created to take advantage of a bequest of James Smithson to the United States. The Institution has expanded over the years and now includes no less than 10 bureaus, 4 of which are directly concerned with the arts: The U.S. National Museum, the National Collection of Fine Arts, the Freer Gallery (which operates only partly on Federal funds), and the wellknown National Gallery of Art. The operation of the National Gallery, which came into existence as the result of the private generosity of Andrew W. Mellon and others, now requires an annual expense from the Federal funds in excess of $1,500,000.

The Department of State has engaged in cultural enterprises, particularly since World War II. One such enterprise is the foreign building program under the Foreign Service Building Act of 1926, as amended, pursuant to which $185 million has been appropriated. Twenty major facilities are presently under construction. Two of the best known as the magnificient Embassies in India, designed by Edward D. Stone, and in London, designed by Eero Saarinen. The Department is currently obligated to pay in architectural fees more than $1,400,000 to more than 30 different architectural firms.

Under the National Cultural Exchange and Trade Fair Participation Act, programs were established to send to remote corners of the world, such distinguished representatives of our culture as Marian Anderson, the Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia Symphony Orchestras, Jose Limon, the cast of "Long Day's Journey Into Night, and the New York City Center Ballet Corps. Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman, and other jazz greats have given renditions of unique Americana in areas where most of the population rarely hears the English language. Funds have been budgeted to the State Department for foreign information and exchange activities. Of this, more than $23 million is being devoted to educational exchanges, of which a substantial part directly concerns the creative arts.

State is not the only agency of Government concerned, even modestly, with the arts. The Library of Congress operates a music division which not only collects material relating to music, but also conducts a performance program. While the program is financed by private gifts, the aegis of a Federal agency gives it a special impulse. The General Services Administration, a little known but vastly important branch of the Federal Government, is charged, among other things, with the responsibility of design and construction of all buildings of the Federal Government. Its annual payments to architects, muralists, sculptors, and painters are quoted in astronomical figures. Strange as it may seem, the Department of Defense carries on its payroll more than 3,000 employees categorized by the Civil Service Commission as being concerned with the "fine and applied arts." This is more than one-half the total number of such employees in the entire Federal Government. One would not consciously select the Defense Department as a vehicle for stimulating the arts.

You will recall the surge of patronage of the arts-painting particularly-initiated during the depression by the Federal Government. These programs were intended primarily to provide jobs for unemployed artists.

The proposals now pending in the Senate and House have turned the eyes of Congress and the country squarely on the fundamental question: What should we do for the arts?

To such a question most of us respond with three more: What is the need? Can we do it? What will it cost?

There doesn't seem to be much doubt about the need to do something. Our Federal dealings with the arts are chaotic. Innumerable subdivisions of offices, of bureaus, of departments are struggling with problems of vast significance. They are operating programs dispensing millions annually, and they have done, all things considered, a remarkably good job.

But duplication, lack of direction, lack of integration have been the byproduct. There appears to be a crying need for coordination, for a study of objectives, for a systematic and informed review of results. The proposal of Representative Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, embodied in H.R. 4172, and my proposal embodied in H.R. 5408 are directed toward this need. The proposals would authorize the formation of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts. The Council, to be a branch of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, would be composed of 21 members, all of whom would be private citizens appointed by the President. They would represent in approximate proportions the major art fields, which the bill describes as

music, drama, dance, literature, architecture and allied arts, photography, graphic and craft arts, motion pictures, radio, and television.

The Council would have the power to undertake studies and make recommendations toward maintaining and increasing the cultural resources of the United States; to propose methods to encourage private initiative in the arts; and to foster artistic and cultural endeavors and the use of the arts both nationally and internationally in the best interests of our country.

In my opinion, this proposal is a sound and logical step which the Federal Government can and should take. A strong Council would make itself felt throughout Government. It would introduce an ele