tion for a more intensive Federal program in support of the arts? It is most courteous of your to give me your attention and I appreciate it, not only on my own account but on behalf of the millions of American citizens who share my concern and for whom, in small measure, I shall try to speak. I have already given earnest of my sincerity in this important matter by introducing appropriate legislation for Federal stimulation and responsibility in our cultural life. On February 19 I introduced H.R. 4427-as companion legislation with U.S. Senator Javits, establishing a $10-million-a-year U.S. Arts Foundation, to provide financial assistance to nonprofit groups engaged in the performing arts, including theatrical, musical, opera, dance, ballet, and choral recitals. I felt and still feel that if our Government can subsidize American artistic performances behind the Iron Curtain, it can also afford to subsidize first-rate American artistic performances in the many American communities which have never seen a first-class play or heard a first-class orchestra. In short, I think that culture-like charity begins at home. On April 19, I also introduced H.R. 6484, to establish a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This Council would be composed of 21 outstanding private citizens widely recognized for their knowledge of, or experience and interest in, one or more of such arts as music, drama, dance, literature, architecture, painting and sculpture, as well as photography, graphic and craft arts, motion pictures, radio, and television. The members would be named by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, and the President would designate one member of the Council to serve as its Chairman. Members would serve for 6 years and shall receive compensation not exceeding $50 per diem, as well as appropriate travel and subsistence. This second measure is not confined to the performing arts but extends to the creative arts as well. Such a bill provides long overdue and basic recognition of the role of the arts as a vital factor in our national life, and as a medium for correlating and drawing together in a continuing relationship the numerous separate efforts throughout the Nation in the development of the arts. The Council would help to promote creative activity and stimulate the creative forces of a free society. It would act as a potent weapon in our struggle against atheistic, materialistic communism. Through studies and recommendations, such a Council would propose 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. I would not pretend that these two bills cover the entire range of measures required to place a firm Federal policy behind the burgeoning growth of our Nation's vigorous cultural activity. Other bills have been introduced and are before your committee. They seek the same general objectives that I do and so I propose to use the time which you have graciously accorded to me to speak on the general purport of this proposed legislation. Ours is almost the only great nation which has no national policy for the encouragement of the creative and performing arts. Many governments have long established Ministries of Fine Arts and in tensive cultural programs which have become a source of national strength and prestige. Italy and France spring to mind as nations whose cultural life has in a very real sense assured their national survival again and again. And we all recognize the highly effective use the Soviet Union makes of the Russian ballet and other traditional Russian art forms, as Communist propaganda. The British Government, so like our own in its traditional suspicion of anything artistic, since the war has extended direct subsidy and assistance to the performing arts, enabling us to enjoy the Old Vic and the Sadler's Wells Ballet, among other things. Here in Washington we have the Fine Arts Commission, which passes on the esthetics of various purely Federal construction, and the National Cultural Center, which is heroically struggling to raise private funds to establish a center for the performing arts here in the Nation's Capital. During the depression, there were Federal workrelief projects for writers, theatrical performers, and artists and they were among the most popular programs of the entire New Deal. Frankly, as an amateur artist myself, I reserve judgment on some of the bulging Rivera-and-branchwater frescoes inflicted on various post offices and Federal courthouses in this period. Nevertheless, the 1930's were the only period in our history when creative and performing artists were regarded as a national asset and not a group of rather peculiar citizens who were neither necessary nor inevitable. I would not ask this committee to believe that America is a howling desert when it comes to the arts. In the last two generations, there has been tremendous vitality, particularly in music and symphony orchestras, ballet and the so-called Little Theater movement. While in my judgment we have yet to equal the great surge of creative writing in the 1920's, our literary life continues to flourish and not all of our young writers are beatniks or pornographers, though they have yet to equal Sinclair Lewis, Theodore Dreiser, or Stephen Vincent Benet. In my judgment, the very vitality of the cultural upsurge which has followed the war calls for an equally vital awareness and a positive cultural program on the part of the Federal Government. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars on scientific and technological training, research, and development, to a degree which threatens to make our entire cultural life somewhat mathematical and musclebound. The contribution of creative art to the spiritual side of our civilization can keep our society in balance. We do not want to breed a race of engineers and mechanics at the cost of depriving us of the sensitive and esthetic intelligence which can use our tremendous scientific powers with wisdom and humanity. Moreover, since the war, certain blindspots have developed in our cultural progress. The theater in particular has been threatened by an unwholesome concentration on Broadway, with rising costs that today almost threatens the American theatrical tradition with extinction. The rising costs of book publication have narrowed the opportunities for new writers and are compelling smaller and adventurous publishers to combine with larger firms and play it safe. I will not discuss television or recent American films, except to point out that the most successful recent TV entertainment program was "The Age of Kings," prepared by British Broadcasting Co. and that English films have measurably replaced the Hollywood product in our traditional field of high and low comedy. It seems clear to me that instead of a hard-and-fast Federal program for the arts, we need the kind of selective approach to the various fields of art, in order to redress the balance where it has been artificially disturbed and to provide encouragement to rather than impose regimentation on the creative and performing artist. It also seems clear to me that the original purpose of our copyright laws, to assure to the individual artist an equity in the value of his own work, have been largely superceded by the progressive income tax. A writer, musician, artist, or performer may be successful for only a very few years, yet the income tax penalizes him just as though he possessed a talent-such as skill in medicine, engineering, or the law-which could last a lifetime. I do not propose to discuss this aspect of the problem, but I think this committee should be aware that it exists and is a real and serious one so far as the creative artist's career is concerned. This problem is in part responsible for the rising demand that the Federal Government embark on a program of subsidy for artists as well as for the arts. I suggest that in subsidizing the arts we shall also help to subsidize the artists on the basis of their achievement in this most competitive of all human activities. Let me add one note of caution before I conclude this statement. One of the things to guard against in any such program as this is the danger that a group of artistic connivers and promoters shall bureaucratize the arts and set up cliques of insiders to the detriment of the entire artistic life of the Nation. This could happen here as well as it has in Moscow where the great Russian novel "Dr. Zhivago" was banned because it did not conform to the official cultural line of the Soviet Union. My proposals for an Advisory Council on the Arts include a provision that on the expiration of a member's 6-year term he shall not be eligible for renomination until after an interval of 2 years has passed. This would counteract the self-perpuating impulse which, as we all know, is responsible for so much bureaucratic empire building and administrative cross-purposes in Washington. Nothing could be more fatal to American creativeness than to permit a group of Federal officials to dictate the form and content of our esthetic development in order to protect their own jobs. This is a very real danger and I mention it because I submit that it is outweighed by these considerations which I have already outlined in my declaration of policy in H.R. 6484: (1) That the growth and flourishing of the arts depend upon freedom, imagination, and individual initiative; (2) That the encouragement of creative activity in the performance and practice of the arts, and of a widespread participation in and appreciation of the arts, is essential to the general welfare and the national interest; (3) That as workdays shorten and life expectancy lengthens, the arts will play an evermore important role in the lives of our citizens; and (4) That the encouragement of the arts, while primarily a matter for private and local initiative, is an appropriate matter of concern to the U.S. Government. Mr. THOMPSON. The record will be kept open until Monday next for additional statements and for letters of support or opposition to the legislation. The subcommittee will now adjourn. (The following communications were received for the record:) Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., HUNTINGTON HARTFORD FOUNDATION, DEAR MR. THOMPSON: I understand you are endeavoring to rectify our lack as a nation in respect to encouragement in the field of arts. This is commendable and timely. On April 25, I wrote to Pierre Salinger, sending him information which I believe pertinent to any governmental consideration. Let me quote: "May I suggest that efforts be expended toward all the creative arts, since the creative artist is the source of each production, and is on the tail end of any remuneration. I am in a special position to observe this, since I am a creative painter and printmaker myself, and since I am serving, and have served the last 7 years, as resident manager and assistant director of an art colony. "Consider for a moment the effect on world thinking about our land when it is realized that we are the only civilized nation which does nothing for its creative persons. A feeble excuse is that "we are young"-for the sake of God and country, how long does it take to grow up? "France has a 'Direction General des Arts et des Letters' which sends her art abroad to embassies over the world. Regular acquisitions are made to the tune of 100 million francs annually for her Museum of Modern Art. In 1951 a bill enabled 1 percent of the total sum spent on buildings such as schools and national institutions to be spent toward decorating those buildings. This amounts to 250 million francs annually. One hundred and forty million is devoted to the educational side of contemporary art, the state paying the salaries of art teachers and professors. France grants an annual prize of one-half million francs to an artist who has "honored" her. She has set up 3,600,000 francs to help artists stricken "dans la misere," and two parks are set aside for residence for older artists, so they may paint and make a contribution to France after age 65 for the rest of their lives. And in the face of this, what does the richest nation on earth do? "Let's take another look at an aspect no one is facing up to. The cost to the artist has increased in dimensions that reach martyrdom. In 1958, the American Federation of Arts published statistics attesting that only a few artists in this great country are able to live on income from their creative works. This report further reveals an economically smitten member of our society to be shouldered with the subsidy of the culture for which he is held responsible. The artist contributes millions of dollars annually for minute returns and little thanks. Using a minor example, it is estimated that 2,000 printmakers mat pictures and ship to 10 shows at a cost to the artist of $12 per show. Here is an outlay of $240,000-add to this the average fee of $4 and we have nearly one-quarter of a million dollars, simply to support printmaking as an art. Oil and sculpture exhibits would easily be $3 million expense, not counting the time spent in crating, preparing the shipment, etc. "Let us not allow this condition to persist. Let's do something about it. Mexico has demonstrated results, the Scandinavian countries care about their artist-so, too, the Russians. ***" May I ask you to consider the creative artist for what he is, the source of all the arts, and to nurture this aspect of our culture? Thanking you for the kind attention. Very truly yours, Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., CHARLES B. ROGERS. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. THOMPSON: Thank you for your letter of April 28 and the enclosure from Mr. Marvin Cox in which the USIA says it can do nothing along the lines of my proposal for the creation of a Government-sponsored publishing house to disseminate in English the works of Latin American writers. I cannot say that I did not expect this. But I also say that this will have to be done sooner than later. It is just as important to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate the Latin American masses as it is to do the same for the minorities who write, think, and create esthetic values. The Soviet Union has realized this and is already doing something about it; we cannot afford to be too far behind. It was heartening, however, to know that the idea of a yearly prize in literature interested our correspondents. This is good because it will-would-have an immediate effect in stimulating writing and publication in English of the best in each genre produced every year in Latin America. I am sure that this would be a fine way to begin. I am wondering now if you could cause the wheels of the machinery that would bring this about to turn fast enough to make possible its most opportune and effective announcement? This would be at the 10th Congress of the International Institute of Ibero-American Literature. The congress will hold its biennial meeting under the auspices of the National University of Mexico and the University of Oaxaca next August 30, 31, and September 1. The most important writers, critics, and professors in the Americas are members, and many of them will be present at those meetings. The announcement would be, I am sure, a singular coup. Dr. Francisco Monterde, president of the institute and president of the Mexican Academy of the Language, is my personal friend. Moreover, he is one of the few pro-Yankee intellectuals still left there. I feel sure that he would be happy to invite anyone authorized to make the announcement to do so, you for instance. I am, of course, getting ahead of the story through sheer optimism. I do think that the prize is a natural during Mr. Kennedy's administration since he is a man of letters himself and a recipient of the Pulitzer. Sincerely yours, Congressman FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., House Education and Labor Committee, Old House Office Building, Washington, D.C. JOSÉ VAZQUEZ AMARAL. NEW YORK, N.Y., May 15, 1961. DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: I regret that the scheduled hearings for Tuesday, May 16, at which I was scheduled to testify, have now been canceled, and therefore I won't be able to testify in person on H.R. 4172 and H.R. 4174. The American Guild of Musical Artists (AFL-CIO), which represents solo singers, chroisters, stage directors, stage managers, choreographers, and dancers in the field of opera, concert, and the dance, is wholeheartedly in support of these two bills and the purposes of the legislation. We believe that H.R. 4172 is an important beginning toward a greater role on the part of the U.S. Government in the growth and development of all the arts in our country and that H.R. 4174 is a practical implemention toward this development and toward giving assistance in this field. It is becoming more and more obvious that the arts will not flower and realize the great potentialities which have thus far been shown by the American artists unless the Federal Government takes positive and concrete steps to aid and assist them. Sincerely, HY FAINE, National Executive Secretary, American Guild of Musical Artists. NEW YORK, N.Y., May 15, 1961. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Cultural Activities, On behalf of the 15,000 members of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, representing performers in the fields of radio, television, phonograph recordings, and transcriptions, we heartily endorse H.R. 4172, which would establish a consultative body of specialists in the arts to advise Congress and the administration. DONALD F. CONAWAY, National Executive Secretary, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. |