# The Arts/Volume 1/Issue 2/The Forum

Layout 2
THE FORUM
To the Editor:
I welcome The Arts because I believe that you are personally above conducting a propaganda for any clique of artists. When Rainbow appeared I welcomed it because I had faith that anything with Walt Kuhn and Davies back of it would be above such propaganda. I have been welcoming magazines for years and each has soon shown that it was controlled by a clique or was merely a reflection of the automobile interests or the decorators' trust or something.
The mask has dropped and Rainbow is shown as being merely a sheet to boom Kuhn, Davies, Brodzky & Co. Davies being the silent partner in the corporation.
In all art movements there are certain pioneers whom we must respect because they have wandered from the narrow path where convention feeds. The pioneers in the movement of which Walt Kuhn is a part are Picasso, Nadelmann, Pascin and Matisse. I said that Kuhn had a part in the movement. He is rather a hanger on, a follower. The follower who is out for self and not for the sake of art tries to discredit the pioneers in order to advance himself. Had we none of us ever seen a Picasso, a Nadelmann, a Pascin or a Matisse we would rejoice in the art of Walt Kuhn. But unfortunately we know the plumage is borrowed. Now lest we cry "stop thief!" Walt Kuhn, speaking through "H. B." (presumably Brodzky), attacks one of the pioneers, Nadelmann, as follows: "Elie Nadelmann still plays with the eggs and sometimes it comes to life with the addition of a nose or some other feature—and sometimes it doesn't. He contributes four items. They are a sausage seated, two other sausages, and an egg."
Now if the Rainbow was a conservative, academic magazine such criticism would be in good taste and quite in keeping. But when a magazine definitely modernistic attacks a pioneer of the movement in such language its object is clearly that of advancing a follower or a clique of followers at the expense of the leaders. Personally, save as a clever bit of vaudeville performance, I have little interest in ultra-modern work. That is hardly true; it interests me to follow out the evolution of the thing and I know the successive steps well. The movement interests me just as a clever vaudeville stunt interests me.
The movement interests you, Mr. Field, because you met Picasso at Fantin-Latour's studio and it is all a part of your student days in Paris. Were you not a master in the use of the English language we would be laughing at the sentimentality of your recollections of those same student days.
S. S. B.—December 29, 1920.
[This is a sample of many anonymous letters which I receive, either unsigned or signed, as the above letter, with initials which are purposely misleading. Nine out of ten such letters have back of them a personal grievance, a personal spite. If Brodzky did not notice the paintings of S. S. B., S. S. B. feeling slighted takes it out on Brodzky by attacking Rainbow's criticism of Elie Nadelman. The motive back of a few such letters is a sincere desire to put matters straight. A fear of being drawn into a controversy which would make life harder for the writer keeps him from signing the letter. Any one who wishes to write letters for publication in The Arts should give name and address and, if a desire is expressed that its authorship should not be divulged it will not be.] Let me ask S. S. B., if when he starts a fire on the beach does he not use the driftwood close at hand? Rainbow does not pretend to be impartial. It stands for something very definite in art. Brodzky, as art editor, used the material nearest to hand, drawings by Davies, paintings by Kuhn, It was the natural thing to do. What will be interesting is to see what Brodzky will do when the supply of driftwood close at hand is used up. In the meanwhile he is making the fire burn right merrily.
As to the attack on Brodzky's criticism of Nadelman, let me tell S. S. B. that I accepted the criticism as aimed at the New Society as a body and not directed against the individual attacked. I feel that if we are to have an atmosphere favorable to the creation of art, America should have a strong body of conservative artists working together as a society like the National Academy which, on the whole, is a fairly satisfactory institution of its kind. It should have a Society of Independent Artists where conservatives and radicals may meet on an equal footing. It should have a group of all the strong radical artists bound closely together in a society. The radicals must disregard all questions of personality. They must work side by side for the advancement of art, not for the advancement of the individual artist.
​Brodzky feels, perhaps unconsciously, that in joining the New Society, Nadelman and certain other radicals were untrue to the radical cause. Hence, I believe, the attack, harmless enough except to the fanatic without humor.
A Zurich picture dealer asked me why it was that America had so little appreciation of modern art. "Why in Zurich, a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, there are more collectors owning paintings by Renoir I should suppose than in all America. We have no multi-millionaire who collects 'Renoirs' as a boy collects stamps, but we have a broad appreciation of his work."
I believe it comes from the fact that those artists who believe in the art of such men as Renoir and Cezanne are not organized into a working body or guild. We must have an organization which will include all the stronger radical artists, an organization which will ignore personalities and work for art.
If it be any satisfaction to S. S. B., I shall plead guilty to the charge of sentimentality, but there are attenuating circumstances. As to the accusation of my being a master of the English language that is merely the sugar with which S. S. B. coated the pill. [Editor.]