Evening star., 1949-09-06
Fine Arts Commission

Commission for more than seventeen
years and chairman for the past twelve,
there is no particular reason why Gilmore
d. Clarke should be reappointed. His term
expired in March. But there are three
other members of the commission whose
terms also have expired and the Presi-
dents failure to reappoint any of them
or make any reference to his future plans
naturally suggests that he Is thus getting
back at the commission for its opposition
to his White House balcony.
There is no question of the Presidents
right thus to exercise one of the small
prerogatives of his Office. But If inferences
as to his motives are correct, 1t does not
offer much hope for the commissions
future. The natural Interpretation would
be that the President wishes a rubber
stamp sort of agency, insofar as any
thing which affects him is concerned. And
) that sort of agency would be worse than
none at all.
Such an idea, in relation to the Fine
Arts Commission function, is not new.
More than fifty years ago-in 1895-the
Public Art League of the United States,
brought into being by art societies In
Washington, sponsored legislation for
creation Of Fine Arts Commission. The
legislation failed, principally because 1t
would have given the commission veto
powers.
At the turn of the century, when the
Mcmillan Park Commission began work
on plans for development OF Washington,
legislation was introduced for an Advisory
Commission of Fine Arts. But that idea
languished for nearly ten years. 1t be-
came effective in modified form in 1909
when committee of the American 1nsti-
tute of Architects persuaded President
Theodore Roosevelt to create, by executive
order, Council of Fine Arts. Later,
during President Taft's administration,
Congress having refused to support the
council with any appropriations, it was
abolished. In its place, however, the
present Commission OF Fine Arts was
created by legislation, with advisory powers
only. These powers subsequently were
strengthened by succession OF executive
orders and by the Luce -Shipstead Act OF
1880, requiring commission approval of
private buildings erected contiguous to
Government structures In certain areas of
Washington.
The Fine Arts Commission has always
had to walk a tightrope in using Its ad-
visory powers. Too much insistent opposi-
ton would invite retaliation, as in the
balcony incident. Too little would bring
the commission into disrepute with the
professional bodies whose esthetic opin-
ions it is supposed to represent To his
everlasting credit, Mr.. Clarke has never
been willing to compromise his own self
respect or the prestige of the commission
by easy compliance with cockeyed schemes
A gift for forceful expression, together with
his high professional standing, made him
an excellent chairman.
It will be too bad if the commission
suffers permanently because of the balcony
incident. It is true that since the war
there has been little work by the Govern
ment in resumption Of the Washington
plan, in the execution of which the COM
missions counsels have been most valu-
able. It has been wholly ignored in
reconstruction of the White House. But
It has an important role in Washington.
Such agencies as the American Institute
OF Architects should work to see that it is
continued and Is controlled by strong
hands.