The Springfield Republican

ESTABLISHED IN 1824 BY SAMUEL BOWLES

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

January 20, 1932

Dear Mr. Stieglitz:

This morning I sent you under separate cover tear sheets of the article based on Marin's letters and of the roto reproductions of more of O'Keeffe's paintings. I also mailed to Marin tear sheets of the former, trusting that Cliffside was sufficient address.

I'm glad the notice of O'Keeffe's exhibition pleased you. It was kind of you to write to say so and I appreciate the generous thought. Now I am looking forward to seeing your exhibition. Carelessly I mislaid the announcement which gave the dates for that. Will it open the very first part of February? I expect to be in New York the weekend of the 31st of this month and am hoping the exhibition of your photographs will be on view then, rather perhaps I should say on the Monday after. If not, possibly I could defer my visit till the time of the opening of your show. I spoke to our roto editor about it, and he was interested in the possibility of using photographs in our February 7 issue. I do not know what your feeling is about newspaper reproductions of your work; but if you are not totally opposed to them, we should be happy to be permitted to print some of your photographs. In that case we should have them early next week, Monday or Tuesday, as our roto is sent to New York to be engraved and the whole process takes about

two weeks. I should be happy indeed if The Republican
should be privileged to show, even in so unsatisfactory
a way, something of your work to a public which I'm sure
is all too ignorant and blind.

In the Marin article I contemplated mentioning the museums
in which his water colors are to be found; that was where
I had recourse to Kootz. The omission wasn't vital, as long
as the letters were left in!

With cordial regards

Faithfully yours

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

May 8, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

It was swell seeing the Marins et al. Friday; and I was
only sorry that the exigencies of travel en masse com-
pelled me to leave so soon.

The photographs came safely. In regard to using one of
Paul's photographs reproduced in *Camera Work*, lix-1, are
any of those there shown included in the collection you
gave the Metropolitan? I want a photograph from that col-
lection because of the news interest. If not, would it
be possible for me to have one?

I got involved in an argument Saturday and to settle it
(?) suggested that a question be submitted to you for
expert judgment. Here it is, not mine but my opponent's:

Do you think that color photography can
ever be an art? If not, why not? Does
it violate any of the fundamental esthet-
ic principles of the photographer? If
so, what?

Please give me an exhaustive technical answer. I don't
know whether I am educating the public or epatering the
bourgeois.

Faithfully yours

New York

May 9 1933

My dear Miss McCausland

I have your letter. Strand's photograph of "Blind" has been sent to the museum. You might use that. It's of amusing significance incidentally.

As for color photography as an art expression that's a squeamish matter. I have seen about all that's been done in that line and I myself experimented with color photography for many years and as far as I'm concerned I do not see that any advance in color photography has been made since I first saw it nearly forty years ago. It is true that there have been technical improvements for commercial purposes, simplified processes, etc., but I still have not seen a photograph in color which has given me the slightest real pleasure.

When it comes to art there are but few photographs in black and white that I can accept as art, but I must here add that most of the paintings that are made and called art are not art to me either. There are photographs in black and white which to me have more color than any photograph in realistic colors that I have seen. As far as I can see color photography as art seems taboo. I won't say that it will remain so forever. Forever is a long time. Color photography to me is the perpetual motion problem in another form. Color is a world in itself, that is as I see it, and so far photography knows nothing of this world.

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

May 9, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

Our letters seemed to have crossed. My story is going to be used as a magazine feature instead of on the art page; so I need pictures today and am planning to use Paul's picket fence one with the two you sent.

I wonder if you would be so kind as to address XX the enclosed letter to Dove and send it on. I have his address at home but am anxious to get an answer as soon as possible. I plan to print a story May 21 about the gift of the water color to the new museum and want to have biographical data to go with it. Have you three or four photographs of good typical Doves which would yet reproduce fairly well, that you would let me use? I'm afraid the water color would not reproduce at all; and there is no sense in using it if all its meaning is lost.

Incidentally I am to have the water color till fall, as the museum is not to open till then, owing to financial stringency. I love having the two Doves on my faded Victorian wall.

I hope to come down some Sunday soon and see some more Marins, also the O'Keeffes. It does my soul good to see them.

With thanks for your kindness and best wishes,

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

May 15, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

thanks for your kind letter. I have only been at my printing
for about seven weeks; but I love it and am hoping to be able
to get a press installed in my Victorian home. Then no matter
what storms rage about these New England coasts I shall be safe
in my typographical tower. I don't mean that as cynically as
it sounds; really I think it may turn out to be the avenue I
have been hunting for.

I am sending you under separate cover copies of the article
about you and photography which came out yesterday. I told
the layout man to make the Marin three-columns; but he was
stubborn and I was not here when the layout went to the cut-
maker's. I'm sorry about that.

I had a fine letter from Dove. Will you send me the photo-
graphs, please, as well as a reference or two to some bio-
graphical articles?

I'm glad the "junk heap" is so successful. I hope to come
on one of those blasted Sunday excursions soon with a young
friend in tow and shall plan to devote most of the afternoon
to it. Edward Landon was terrifically moved by the Marins.

Faithfully yours
Elizabeth W. Causland

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

May 22, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

Thanks for your kind letter. I can't remember offhand where I got that $1200, but I should imagine perhaps from the article I wrote about you a year ago. Sorry to have gotten it wrong. I passed on the order for 25 copies to the circulation department; if they don't come in a day or two, let me know and I'll jack'em up.

Under separate cover I'm sending along copies of the article about, for your use; I've also sent him some copies and can get more if needed. The photographs are EXACTLY being returned also. Many thanks for everything.

So far my printing outfit is nebulous. I am attending the New England Printing School (note well the formality) run by the newspapers for the typographical union apprentices; since it is designed to train linotype operators etc. for the newspaper composing room, it has almost no equipment for hand setting. The type particularly is bad, both as to style, condition and amount. But I am getting a lot of experience and love it. I hope perhaps by next fall to be able to get a second hand press and set it up in the midst of the faded elegance of my Victorian paneled oak library and then fall to work with a vengeance as well as a composing stock and a line gauge. At present I go down to the school before coming to work in the

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

morning and frequently go after work in the evening; while
my days off are devoted to the same labor. I love to work
with my hands and think printing may be my salvation.

I hope O'Keeffe stood the journey to Lake George well. In the
pressure of life I haven't written her; but my thoughts have
often been of her. I do hope she will continue to improve.
There is nothing I should like better than to drive up to see
her if and when she wants to see me. I had such a happy week-
end there last Memorial Day; then too works of art, whether
people or paintings, give me great happiness.

My young friend, Edward Landon, is planning to drive down
to New York sometime this week and means to come inX to see
you. He is at a turning point in his life now, I think. He
is very young, barely old enough to vote, married to a woman
almost ten years older who has rather conventional ideas about
the duty of a husband to support his wife. Edward is so dis-
couraged that he is thinking of giving up painting entirely
and going about earning bread and butter for his wife. He was
tremendously moved by the morning at the Place and said after-
wards to me that he would keep on painting for a year and then
if he decided he was not the real thing he would stop. After-
wards he said your opinion would count more with him than any
one's else. Don't let me him know that I have written about
this; but knowing your interest in young growing things I thought

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

you might like to know these facts. He has many admirable qualities, his gentleness, his modesty, his humility. For instance, after seeing the Marins he came home and took all his own paintings down. He is a child and shy and repressed but I believe worthy of his chance. A word from you might be what he needs to resist the disintegrating influence of his wife.

I myself hope to come down next Sunday on the excursion with a young girl who is interested in art but has been among rather conservative influences. My little Dove was her first glimpse of what American painters can really do; and she wants to see more of his work as well as Marin's and O'Keeffe's. Our coming down is rather indefinite; but I shall hope that we do; for I always come away from my visits to you ready to keep on fighting in the best Kansas-wheat-farmer-Populist tradition. The plains are said to breed fanatics; I know of at least one.

My best wishes for O'Keeffe and for you also.

Faithfully yours,

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

July 1, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

I have been trying all week to write to tell you that finally I did get to New York (last Sunday) only to find the bird flown. Lots of things prevented my coming down when I wanted to; and when I did get there the cupboard was bare. I'm glad, though, for your sake that you have flown. As a matter of fact knowing that you are at Lake George (from the desk clerk at the Shelton) I almost flew up there this weekend myself. Alas, it is hard to leave the office just now as one of our department members is ill and another has arbitrarily extended her vacation from one month to two, leaving us rather in a lurch. So you will be spared a Fourth of July invasion.

I'm sorry O'Keeffe is still hors de combat. But it is something that you can note signs of improvement. I haven't yet written her though I have so often wanted to; for my part I feel so empty and dead that my letters don't at all convey the real warmth and friendliness of my feeling. Then too O'Keeffe lives in such a remote and distant land that I am never sure of making my faint signals of communication observed. I do, though, add my most faithful wishes to those of all her friends.

At present printing is rather at a standstill, for xxx several reasons, my own spiritual listlessness, the heat wave, and the American Type Founders Company. The latter has taken years off my life by sending me two or three orders of type incorrectly

filled, by failing to send type ordered, and by sending everything
months after it was ordered. However my enthusiasm is as great as
ever I believe; and the possibilities seem to unfold endlessly. If
I ever get my type and if the composing room here ever makes some
mats I want and casts them for me, I have two or three little "pro-
jects" (page Dewey) to carry out. Since the materials are wanting,
I am marking time, not I hope, murdering it.

I had a fine letter from Dove and suppose that by now he is estab-
lished at Geneva. I/pleased that he had sold some pictures.

With affectionate remembrances and greetings,

Always faithfully

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

September 23, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

Soon you will be back in New York and I shall be seeing you at the Place. Before then I want to say that it was fine to see you at Lake George. I wonder how all the intensification and new prints came along. More splendidly than you will admit, I am sure, and I shall hope to see them later.

What a strange vacation it was. That Manchester business, then the surcharged Stieglitz-O'Keeffe atmosphere, after that Strindberg a la Geneva. Storms, tempests, gales, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, eruptions. To be obliging Nature came across with a four-day northeaster at Nantucket and the side-swipe of a hurricane. Now, back at work, I feel tired and depressed. Too many things happen in the world, too many cruel and ruthless and bad things. And I hate being helpless and useless. When I left here, I needed a change, and I got one. But I don't know that I feel better able to cope with life. In fact I feel as if the tractor that I ran at Geneva had been operating on me. It is well to stir up the soil, but if the plow cuts down to the sub-soil and brings it to the top, where is the fertile earth from which crops grow?

I do wish that Dove need not have to be in Geneva. It is horrible that his energy should be so diverted and wasted. Aren't there any acts of God which are benevolent not destructive? I wish that he could be taken out of that dreadful environment and let alone, supplied with his materials and his material wants and then left free to work and live. Can you work any miracles?

It is dull here; but I suppose I myself have made the dullness. At any rate the Marin exhibition is something to live for.

Till I see you, warmest regards and greetings.

Affectionately

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

September 28, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

I have been asked to transmit a request to you. Young Edward Landon to whom I told a little of Dove's story has been working on his brother-in-law to buy a Dove water-color. Edward called me today to say that he had had a letter from the b.i.l. who lives in Boston. He is interested and might buy but would like to see three or four of the water colors to make a choice. Edward wanted to know if there is any chance that you would be willing to send three or four up for him to look at. I offered to bring up some from New York when I next see you and personally take them to Boston. But Edward still wanted me to make the request. The man wants to get one to give his wife as a birthday present; her birthday is the 30th. But Edward seemed to think that if the present were a little late, that would be all right.

I had a note from Cary Ross which I have not yet had time to answer. I shall soon. If you see him, please tell him that I mean to write. I have been up to the museum almost every day and the pictures you lent are all right so far. I am burning candles day and night. I understand how you feel about museums etc. and agree; yet I am glad that you let the pictures come. The Marins are swell; I'd love to have the Taos water color. The O'Keeffes are not the ones I'd like to have for myself; but they certainly are a million times cleaner and purer than the runof the XXXX paintings at the museum. The Dove is one I liked very much when I first saw it; couldn't place it by the title; I should like to have it. In fact I am trying to figure out ways and means to buy an oil of his. But it is hard on a newspaper salary. Sooner or later I shall. Of course I want desperately to think of some way to buy an O'Keeffe; but I suppose that will be impossible.

Life has been very rapid here. The opening of the museum is keeping me busy. I have had to work hard to get enough data to write an article to be used a week before the opening. I don't feel as melancholy as I did because I haven't had time to feel. But I am sorry that you are going back to New York dispirited. The Marin retrospective sounds swell; and I'll be down to see it—and you.

I can't understand about Dove. Why doesn't he take? His work (whether or not it comes off as often as O'Keeffe would like) is so honest and straightforward. Compared with most contemporary American Americans he is a great master. It is damnable. I have been going around to all my friends here and telling them that they must buy Dove water colors. But they don't respond as they should.

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

October 16, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

I hope to get down this Sunday to see the 25 years of Marin.
And of course to see you. It will be like old times.

Enclosed is the piece I printed for O'Keeffe, a copy of which
I have sent off to her at Lake George.

I wish I really could print. It is hard to get the result as
true and honest as one sees it in the mind. So too with writ-
ing, I wonder if I will ever say what is hidden deep in me.

Affectionate regards

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

October 18, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

Trying to strike a blow for something, that's me. The enclosed will interest you, I think. I told the museum that I didn't see why they didn't buy the Dove for $350 instead of the milk and water Schnakenberg. I don't expect them to buy Marin or O'Keeffe; that is understandable. But I did think that they might be seduced by price, even if they couldn't be won by quality. I also told them that they would have done better to buy one good picture, such as the Eilshemius instead of three just so-so ones. But, alas, I am a voice crying in the wilderness. I guess the honeymoon period is over now.

Dove and the O'Keeffe jack in the pulpit shared a single wall with a punk Stuart Davis. Marin was reasonably well placed, the oil on a main wall, the water color in a little space by itself. I haven't yet had an opportunity to tell the powers that be that they could have made a fine wall by throwing out the Stuart Davis and putting Marin with his friends and spiritual peers. Don't I make myself liked?

Affectionate regards

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

November 10, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

The Doves have been seen by quite a few people here, who all loved them. Edward Landon and his wife selected "Wednesday: Snow" and expect to send the money for it soon. It was marked $18 on the back, so I told them $12 as you said. I am hoping to show them often enough to sell at least another one. Several people are interested. Marvel of the museum was interested to know that I had them and immediately had a brain storm, which was to this effect: Could they be kept here and shown as a little one-man show in themselves in connection with the exhibition of water colors from Cleveland and the exhibition of work by children which will be shown here early in December? With the museum's watercolor, mine, the Landons and the others, there would be a round dozen, all dating from 1930 on. The unframed ones would be hung by means of those chromium plated brackets so popular with museums now, covered with glass and backed up with some sort of card-board. He said the Doves would be kept together as one unit, though hung in the same large gallery with the two exhibitions above mentioned. I said I would write you, relaying his proposition.

The Marin photo got crowded out this week; but I plan to print it next Sunday. I am so eager to see his new oils.

Best wishes and regards to you,

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

November 17, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

I'm glad you trust me, but what a responsibility you put on me!
My personal reaction would be to tell the museum to go jump in
the lake. But after all to show the water colors would give me
a chance to write some more about Dove and also would give the
PEOPLE of Springfield a chance to see some good water colors, as
in contradistinction to those promulgated by Cleveland. I have
decided that if the museum will let me select a place to hang
them and let me supervise the hanging, I'll say O.K. Should I
write Dove, or is he bored and disgusted with all this?

I'm enclosing a check for the Dove the Landons bought. Wish I
could sell some more. Give me time.

It's splendid that the news from Lake George is encouraging.
Give my love to O'Keeffe when you write, please. Yes, they
are swell, all three. I love them and hate to think of them
as at the mercy of an indifferent and corrupt world. It will
be great to see Marin's new work, though I love the XXXX retro-
spective and have finally written about it.

I am printing a little, something which you will see when it
is done. Not good technically, but a project I have to carry
through for what it will clarify in my mind. The printing
school is going to close up, however, after the New Year and
I shall be out on the streets, with no equipment to use. I'm

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

November 27, 1933

Dear Stieglitz:

Just a little publicity for a swell painter who should be a
million times better known than he is. I persuaded the roto
editor to use a reproduction next Sunday, the day the exhibit-
ion formally opens. I mean to write something more, some time
while the water colors are up. It would be nice if some one
would care to buy one or two or even half a dozen.

Incidentally the young man who is shown here says he knows
you, is a friend of Biberman. Quite a nice guy, but blind
where Dove is concerned. After all you were right to put
the adjective before "Place;" there is something about the
American soil like nothing else under the skies.

I hope to get down to New York soon. When will the Marin
oils be up? For diversion (or it may be for life's sake)
I have heard some chamber music, a piano recital, and saw
Martha Graham and Angna Enters dance on consecutive even-
ings.

Hope all is well with you. Many many good wishes and my love.

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

June 16, 1934

Dear Stieglitz:

I am enclosing a check for $17.50, the balance of $10 due on the "Seneca Lake" and $7.50 for the little "Pencil Sharpener." I am holding the other water colors for a little while in the hopes of persuading some one to buy "Done XXX from a Dog." The pencil sharpener one I gave to some very nice friends of mine, the Baermanns, who say they have met you when they came to the Place either with X Biberman or Kisler, I forget which.

Walter is German and Ada Viennese, and I am trying to teach them all about AMERICA! Any way it will be good for them to have a little Dove in their home. I loved the little sketch so much I wanted it to be with people I love. And they do love it, even to the point of wanting to paint a wall over, so that it will show off to the best advantage.

The Smith college people seemed to be glad to get the Dove, and I have XX had a beautiful letter of thanks from the president and all. I told Abbott that I hoped the water color would soon have the company of an oil, bought by the college.

Are you well and rested? Best wishes and love for the summer.

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

November 30, 1934

Dear Stieglitz:

I think the book looks lovely and I am terribly happy about it. My review copy came Wednesday morning; and I have written something for use this Sunday. I did not feel that I should try to write about it critically but rather in a way that might possibly persuade people to read the book. As a matter of fact I could not have formed any opinion in the short time that I had access to the book; and I am rather glad that my job does not include this serious responsibility. I am hoping that the book will get intelligent reviews. Rogers of the Union here will do an interested and sympathetic review if he ever gets a review copy, which seems a little dubious in view of everything. My personal feeling was that the publishers were not showing very sound business sense by failing to provide the press with review copies in time so that the appearance of reviews would be close to the publication of the book. However

I am glad you like the Marin article. Seeing his pictures, I was bewildered at the lack of appreciation his work is met with. I felt that I rather floundered, trying to express this wonder. Yet I do not know how to write about paintings so that they will seem as clear to the reader as to me. It really seems like a silly performance trying to explain things that are so clear.

Enclosed is something I wrote about the art museum business here. I don't have any idea of what you would want to print or what should printed, except that the foolishness of men in power needs to be put on record. If this is not the sort of thing you had in mind, throw it away; and then if you wish, I'll try again. I don't like using another name than my own; but it seems to be necessary. It is my great grandmother's; and I inherited her nose. She was said to be a pretty X X M X M X M imperious grande dame-Tartar person; so perhaps I inherited something else.

I am looking forward to seeing your exhibition and writing about it. I don't know quite when I shall be able to get down to New York. But one of these Sundays I'll appear.

Till then all good wishes and my love

p.s. I reproduced Dorothy's photograph from "Wings" so that there would be a picture to go with my report of the book. I didn't have time to write her for permission but hope she will understand.

MODERN FABLE

Once upon a time there was an art museum.

The art museum built a new building; it cost $225,000.

When the building was done, the museum had a formal opening, with receptions, cocktails and critics.

So the museum started life. It had some money, and it bought four 18th century portraits at auction two 19th century French paintings, several contemporary American pictures, in all $80,000 worth of canvas and paint. Besides these, it had inherited at least a gross of mid-19th century American works.

The museum's first year came to an end. It had done some good things and some bad things. But on the whole it had tried to do right by art.

The trustees, however, were not happy. They wanted the Hudson River School instead of the School of Paris. So the director left because he was tired of it all. But the trustees remained.

Rather one trustee remained. A trustee with a passion for Daubigny,---and for power. He moved in to the museum, and the Hudson River School moved in. With him moved in, also, a man hired for a thousand dollars to "clean and restore" the museum's recently purchased $80,000 worth of paintings and its square mile of 19th century Americans.

"Cleaning and restoring" went on, and the museum slept through the warm summer days. Everything was comfortable,---except the pictures being "cleaned and restored."

There was a Romney, not a masterpiece, not even a first-rate Romney, but still a Romney, a Romney for which the museum had paid $8000 at auction. It was a three-quarters length portrait of a British general in uniform; it measured 60 by 48 inches; and (not including the frame) it covered 2880 square inches of wall space. Moreover it pleased a popular taste which had forgotten how New England fought the Tories and only remembered that 18th century portraits are safe and respectable properties to buy.

A little "cleaning" and a little "restoring" and the Romney was no longer a property in the sense that any one would want to buy it on the auction block or elsewhere. It was a

piece of canvas with a great deal of the original paint re-
moved. Then it was a less large piece of canvas; for when
paint is removed, clearly (by museum reasoning) the next step
is to remove the canvas also. The picture had shrunk, by the
scissors method, to 40 by 30 inches. In dollars and cents how
much it had shrunk, who can say? Museum authorities will not.

The museum still continues to operate as an art museum. (At least its legal name has "art" in it.) There still hangs on its wall a piece of canvas labeled "Romney." Nobody looks at this object for sheer joy. Nevertheless it is a welcome change to hear hearty laughter in an art museum.

Isabelle Cooper

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

December 13, 1934

Dear Stieglitz:

I found the photograph here this morning when I came to work.

Thank you so much for getting it to me; I do appreciate your effort when you are so overworked and besieged.

Enclosed are clippings of what Bill Rogers wrote about the book and what I wrote about Stein. He honestly, quite apart from our friendship, thinks the book is extremely important; and I think he has said so plainly and very sincerely. No thanks to the publicity department of D-D.

I have one or two nibbles at the Doves and am hoping that some thing materializes. The people who have seen them like them very much.

I am working very hard and feeling rather tired out; have an a cold that hangs on. Also I never seem to get to bed. But at least the work, or some of it, seems worth while.

Many thanks again for sending me the photograph so promptly.
Love to O'Keeffe. Love to Stieglitz.

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

December 20, 1934

Dear Stieglitz:

Many many thanks for your unfailing appreciation and praise. If I got one-hundredth as much here, my life would be much easier. Any way when the bastards around this office are their most hellish I think of my "public" in New York and feel a little better. In fact a great deal better. Thank you.

I have been a door to door canvasser with the Doves and succeeded in selling three, besides the one the Rogers have already paid for. Mildred and I finally selected the water color of the boats lying together. And young Edward Landon is framing it. He was over yesterday to use my press to print some Christmas cards; and he said "I love to frame Dove."

I enclose a check for one Dove, the early morning Geneva one. Edward is framing that too. It went to a woman who has bought four copies of the book to give away for Christmas presents. She may give the Dove as a Christmas present too. So you see bit by bit we get him and you out into the world.

John Lee Clarke, director of the local art museum, took the one of the gas house. It was marked on the back in your writing "12.50," so I thought it was all right to let him have it for that. Otherwise I should have tried to get more. He will send you a check after the first.

Elisabeth Knedler, who is on the museum staff at the munificent MX salary of $75 a month, took the small abstraction mounted on a pebbled paper. I told her $15, and she will send a check as soon as she can borrow the money from her brother. Then she'll pay him back in installments. She worked out this system, because she wanted Dove to have the money as soon as possible.

Elizabeth McCausland, who is on the staff of the Springfield Republican at an MX salary only slightly more munificent, expects to get some cash for Christmas and will send it along immediately. Then the balance very soon.

Hope this doesn't drive you nuts. I need an Alice B Toklas.

I sent you off in the mail a day or so ago a copy of my latest piece of printing. I think it is better, technically, than the little book I did last year. I cut the block for the print myself and printed it on my proof press. Hope it reaches you safely.

And I do hope that you are resisting fatigue, arctic temperatures and the world.

much love Ξ

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

December 26, 1934

Dear Stieglitz:

Enclosed is a little bit for Dove. After I get out of the clutches of the federal government, which is pursuing me about oneX thing and another, owing to my getting stubborn and refusing to pay an income tax when Morgan and Mellon don't, I'll send you some more.

Bill Rogers loves his little Dove.

I love my little Dove.

Oh yes, I ordered 20 copies of the book on December 11. December 20 I wrote and asked where they were. December 21 I got a wire back saying they were sending them the quickest way. December 22 the books arrived, so badly packed that the box they were in had fallen to pieces. Luckily none of the books were lost. Then I got a bill, charging me transportation charges which seemed a little strange, because usually delivery is included in these big business dealings. Certainly I won't pay for the special delivery fee, which their own dilatoriness made necessary. Strange they did not charge me for the telegram too. The enclosed may amuse you, the latter part. Did I tell you I am doing a mid-week column too? It has to be rather non-committal for one reason and another.

However I seem to be conquering some of the office difficulties. The Republican is broadcasting a resume of the year from WBZ at 9.30 p.m. Sunday; and the old gent who is called art critic on KNX

this paper doesn't want to talk about art, so I am permitted to.
Great favor. Christ, some day the dead will not rule the living.
Any way he requested me not to be too radical etc. From the point
of view of a newspaper broadcast I suppose the thing has to be new
conventional. However I mean to mention the book, unless a censor
steps in and gags me. Perhaps Stieglitz is like syphilis to radio
authorities and newspaper editors.

Some friends of mine may come down to New York next Sunday on the
excursion to see your photographs. I hope so.

Love to you and to O'Keeffe

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

January 7, 1935

Dear Stieglitz:

No you did not; but now you have. And thank you very much. I have plans to print more books, my more recent things, now that I can do a fairly decent job of the printing end of it. But it pleases me if what I have done goes out into the world in this small way and does not seem too bad.

I have seen one or two of the reviews. I can't help minding them a little; for most of them sound as if the writers had not taken the trouble to think about the book at all. I'll get over that naivete, of course. Clearly they are paying you off for being such a disturber of the peace of a New York critic's mind. Only I am still foolish enough to like to think that one's critical judgments need not be used as weapons in personal warfare.

The enclosed will be clear, I think. In October I happened to see photographs of New York city by Berenice Abbott at the Museum of the City of New York and wrote something about them in the Republican. Soon after I had a letter from Landgren, asking me if I would write an article about her work for the magazine, Trend; I wrote back that I didn't know anything about her work, except what I had seen at the museum. But that if I could do a good job, I would. So the day I came down to see your exhibition, I went over to see her too and talk about her work. Then I saw her again, and we talked about her work and ideas some more. She came up here for New Year's and told me that Landgren was going to write an article about you in the same issue in which he planned to print my article about her. I didn't like the idea at all and meant to write him to say so. Only apparently she told him that I didn't like the idea; so he wrote me first. The enclosed is my answer. Which I hope speaks for itself.

I want to see your photographs again and will try to get in to see them this weekend, though I shall be flitting about like mad, looking at exhibitions here and there.

When will O'Keeffe's exhibition begin? I don't want to miss that.

Much love to you both

January 7, 1935

Dear Mr. Landgren:

Thank you for your letter. I am sorry that Berenice said anything to you; for I fully intended to write you myself and explain my scruples.

For my part there is no reason why Stieglitz and Abbott should not be between the same covers. My problem has entirely to do with McCausland. Stieglitz is a dear friend of mine; and I do not share your estimate of his contribution to American life. Therefore I do not like to seem, in any way, to be giving my moral support to an attack on him. If your article is not an attack, that is well. For I feel that Stieglitz is much too an important a force in American life to deserve less than the most complete and serious effort at understanding. I feel also as I wrote in my chapter in "Americax and Alfred Stieglitz" and as I have suggested in several articles printed in The Republican that the premises from which he has proceeded will have to be revised for future creative workers to live successfully and happily. That, however, does not invalidate his work and effort in the past. Especially it does not invalidate the very real and warm feeling I have for him personally. My own emotion, as I understand it, is certainly not hero-worship. It is, however, friendship; and I believe in being loyal to my friends, also to the essential truth of their life's endeavor. Personalities and even dogmas do not seem to me as important as the essence of a life's work. And from my association with museums etc. I turn to Stieglitz as to an honest man. If you personally believe that he in a mistaken man, that is your right. I do not feel that he has been mistaken, considering the soil from which he sprang and the tradition he inherited. I should feel very sad indeed if the future were to contain only miniature copies of Stieglitz. That, however, is an eventuality which events will control, not an act of the will.

I meant to write you to say all this another way. Something like this: That Stieglitz is my friend and that I do not want to be a party, even in a very incidental and innocent way, to an attack on him. I was going to ask if you could possible hold out my article on Berenice until a later issue and then leave that to you. Because after all I had promised to do an article for you by the 15th; and one has a loyalty to one's promises as well as to one's friends. All this is rather academic in view of your very friendly and candid letter, which I

appreciate more than I can say. I shall send a carbon of this
letter to Stieglitz and one to Berenice.

The article is half written. I mean to finish it in a day or
two and send it to Berenice first. After I have had it back
from her, I'll copy it off neatly and send it to you. One
point is essential from my point of view. It is not a tribute
in any sense that I can see, unless to admire an honest and
objective point of view in a creative worker is a tribute.
The Stieglitz book has been very much attacked as a tribute.
I feel that I wrote that book is not a tribute, but a just
statement. I feel that what I wrote about Berenice's photo-
graphs in October was a just statement of what I saw in them.
And I think that what I am writing now is still a just state-
ment. So that is that.

As for the Newman exhibition, I do want to see it; and I was
very much interested in what you wrote of your labors. I do
not think that I can possibly stay over till the 15th; I am
very much a wage slave. However, it should be perfectly easy
to see the pictures the 14th. I am always seeing exhibitions
while the pictures are still in packing cases or on their way
from Paris or at best standing against the wall, preparatory
to being hung. So the day before the preview seems a much
better date than many. Usually I am a month ahead.

I'll come down the afternoon of the 11th and stay till Monday evening. So there will time, sometime, to talk to you about Newman. I spoke to my Sunday editor about doing a feature article on your research; and she thought it would be all right. You see, I am always faced with the necessity of bringing back trophies of the chase from these expeditions to the MKE metropolis. I thought the question of how you traced these pictures and your adventures finding them and authenticating might be rather interesting even to a lay reader. So be prepared for the worst, an interview with McCausland.

Thanks again for your letter. I hope mine has made my position
clear.

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

January 15, 1935

Dear Stieglitz:

It was nice seeing you for a minute yesterday. I loved
seeing the Benton correspondence; and it was especially
fun to see O'Keeffe again, and at work. I may write a
little something about her frames for my midweek column.

How long will your photographs remain up? A friend of
mine planned to come down last Sunday on the excursion
but couldn't because her small son was ill. If they'll
be on view through the middle of next week, she may be
able to get down then. She is very anxious to see your
work. Will the O'Keeffe exhibition definitely open the
27th? I probably won't manage to get down till about
February 10. But that will give me some time to write
about it. I liked very much the pictures I saw yesterday.

Much love and all good wishes

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

January 18, 1935

Dear Stieglitz:

A little more cash for Dove. The enclosed, check and communication, was received by me this morning. I thought the note might amuse you.

This is to pay for the small abstraction which the nice kid at the museum took. I hope Clarke has been in to pay his widow's mite too.

Did you get the piece I wrote about O'Keeffe? I hope she didn't think I was exploiting a friendly call. Only to write about those things fitted in with some thinking I had been doing lately, also some arguing.

The enclosed is causing a furor about here. For my part I don't mind Stein's not knowing any better. There is no particular reason why she should know anything about American painting. But I do mind Bill's being such a sap and swallowing everything she says as gospel. I can't do anything especial about it, for various reasons, one of which is that I don't like vulgar brawls on matters which should be outside painting. I don't see how Stein can laugh off authentic Americans like Homer and Eakins and Ryder and Eilshemius and Newman, not to mention Marin. I just fancy she has never seen them.

Regards and love to you and O'Keeffe

from your embattled

McCausland

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

March 15, 1935

Dear Stieglitz:

No you hadn't told me about the Grosz exhibition. I
shall be interested to see it, probably a week from
Sunday.

Enclosed is the last instalment on the Dove. Confronted
with temptation in the form of a royalty check from the
book, McCausland succumbed, being very poor and broke.
The check just about covers the picture, which she never
should have bought in the first place, in the precarious
state of her finances. So you see the wreck of noble in-
tentions. This is a lesson to me. But I know you will
understand.

At this moment I am feeling particularly oppressed by my
wage slavery, just having battled with the income tax
guys. They would not allow an exemption on the pictures
which I have bought and given to art museums. I am not
a Mellon: that is the reason.

Yours for art

The Springfield Republican

DAILY — SUNDAY — WEEKLY

SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

April 24, 1935

Dear Stieglitz:

I have been meaning to write for a long time. But I hate
writing letters. Probably I shall leave no immortal res-
due to posterity because I do hate letter-writing. Any
way I hope you got the papers.

The enclosed aren't very important. But you may like to have
them. I have written for next Sunday something about flower
paintings as flower paintings. I think my idea is good; but
I don't know how much of my idea I got into what I wrote.
I'll send you copies when it appears.

Enclosed also is the carbon copy of my broadcast. "N" is a
young man who works on the SR and has this weekly 15 min-
utes that he calls his "Journal." I tried to keep the thing
gay enough that the radio audience would not turn the
~~MIX~~ dial on us.

Last Sunday morning I dropped around, in the hope of find-
ing you at the Place. But no luck. However I expect to be
in New York this weekend and shall come around when I can be
sure of getting in. I am eager to see the Doves and to write
about them.

Incidentally are there any small water colors that a friend
of mine might look at? Perhaps I could bring back a half

1

N---E! How did did you get into my journal?

M---Oh, I just crept in. You can't keep your door locked all
the time. But this isn't sheer love of the chase. I happened
(happened is the word) to hear you mention me the other night.
So I thought I ought to get into radio too.

N---I mention you! E dear, much as I love, admire and respect you---

E---(That sounds like holy matrimony)

N--- why should I mention you?

E---I admit I was a little surprised myself. But you did just
the same.

N---When, how and why?

E---Why I wouldn't know. But the night you and Edward settled
modern art for all time. Probably you thought a wage-slave needed
a boost. You referred to Stieglitz and the new biography on him
and very sweetly spoke of me, too.

N---Perhaps I did. I don't remember. We diarists, journalists
perhaps I should say rather, any way Pepys and I can't remember
all the things we mention.

E---Now, N, I can't let you off like that'---

N---Well, who is this guy Stieglitz any way . . . if you must be
in my journal?

E---N, I am surprised at you. I always thought you were in the
vanguard of art, politics, science, music and Martian (no, not
martial) astronomy. Stieglitz is a great guy, to use your vulcan
word. He is a great photographer. He is a great American. In
fact if you had read "America and Alfred Stieglitz" (by the way,
can you redd? Or only talk?) you'd know all about him.

PRESERVATION PHOTOCOPY: ORIGINAL MATERIAL RESTRICTED

2

N---Well, if you had given me an author's copy I might have.
But who is Stieglitz--- since you can both read and write as
well as talk?

E---A guy who lives up in a skyscraper. Makes photographs.
Helps some fine contemporary American painters to reach their
public. And talks. Talks incessantly. Talks more than even
you and I.

N---But what does he talk about?

E---Oh, life and art and the indifference of America to its crea-
tive workers.

N---Why does that make him such a big shot? We talk about those
things too. But no one writes any books about us.

E---Give 'em time, baby; they will --- I explained all that,
as I thought, in my chapter in the biography, "Stieglitz and the
American Tradition." The American tradition I defined as an
essentially romantic one and Stieglitz as one of its last great
figures, perhaps its last ---

N---Just a minute. Not too fast, E. Remember you are MAKING
speaking to one who can talk but not (according to you) read.
What do you mean by "romantic," Clark Gable?

E--- Good God, no! I! N, romanticism is a perfectly simple
word, and well understood in literate circles. Do learn your
alphabet, dear.

N---What does it mean? If it's as simple as all that perhaps
you can explain.

E---Romanticism, my radio Pepys, is that form of art (in all
mediums) in which emotion in a subjective sense is the ruling

3

element. It is a form for esthetic energy in which the emphasis is
personal and individual primarily. Great works of art have been
produced during the ages of romanticism ---

N--- Yes, yes, professor. But to come back to Stieglitz. Who is
he in words of one letter?

E--- An American of German ancestry, born 71 years ago. A great
pioneer in the field of photography as a medium for the artist.
The John the Baptist of modern art in America.

N---Thank God I can't write if that is the way it makes one talk.

E, you can talk simply when you are sore. May I pinch your leg?

E---No, indeed. Benji has a monopoly on leg-XXXXXXXX pinching.

X All right, I'll start again. Stieglitz began making photographs
over 50 years ago. In his lifetime he has made over 6000 plates.
His demonstration of the camera as a medium has made it possible
for the artist today to work in this MAXIMUM medium without too great
a handicap from popular lack of understanding and appreciation.

N---That sounds more like it. But what about all this talk you say
Stieglitz indulges in? I didn't know I had a rival.

E---(You haven't in my affections.) Over a quarter of a century
ago Stieglitz started a little gallery. A room 15 feet square at
291 Fifth avenue. He showed Cezanne and X Picasso, Matisse, Bran-
cousi and a dozen others, long before the "Armory Show" in 1913 had
been dreamed of.

4

N---What has an armory got to do with art? I thought you were
a pacifist.

E---I were and am. The Armory show, my lamb, was the turning
point, according to some, of art in America. Before that we had
wandered in the wilderness, feeding on the Hudson river school
and chromos. At that moment we all got art and were converted
to a number of things. Things you talked about with Edward the
other night, so I won't repeat.

N---Well, if you won't repeat, what are you repeating for?

E---This is prelude, preface, introduction, intermezzo, dear.
Craven and such are fond of saying that modern art dawned on
this m rude continent with the Armory show. Not so, not so.
Stieglitz is the guy who let loose all the trambles from Pan-
dora's box.

N--- You are so learned. Remember, words of one letter.

E--- Oke. If you happen to strike Stieglitz on a good day,
when you visit that 17th floor gallery at 509 Madison avenue,
New York city, he may condescend to show/clippings from those
early days. If he doesn't feel good, he may kick you out.

N--- Is that nice?

E--- Oh, no, not at all. Genius quite often isn't nice;
in fact it is apt to be very difficult. It's practically like
liquor, take it or leave it, but take it as it is.

N--- It seems to me that we are digrossing.

E--- Back to the beaten path, then. Stieglitz started out by
being a pioneer in the field of photography. He was a pioneer
in the introduction of the important figures of late 19th and
early 20th century art to America. Then having started these

5

things and having seen other people take them up and carry on
the work, he turned to something new.

N--- (Just a three-ring circus.)

E--- Sure, a three-ring circus. That is very American o
tainly.
As a matter of fact, Stieglitz can put any number of poodles
through a hoop. You ought to watch him some-day laying down the
law to a lot of Park-avenue ladies in kolinsky coats. They love it.

N--- E, you have a mind like a labyrinth---if it is a mind. What
did he turn to next, in those days when I was still rolling hoops?

G--- Dear, I am not quite your mother. I resent the distinction.
Stieglitz began showing the work of young American artists, Marin,
Dove, Demuth, Marsden Hartley, Max Weber, Walkowitz, MacDonald
Wright, Charles, and a little later, O'Keeffe, whom he subsequently
married.

M--- What does that prove? A lot of people show the work of a lot of artists. Art museums show the work of artists. Art dealers show the work of artists.

E--- Of course, but did you ever go into an art museum into an
art dealer's? What kind of work do they show? Usually just that
Hudson river-chromo thing that prevailed before Stieglitz set up
shop at 291. Or a curious paradox, one thing art dealers do today
is to harp on that imported art which Stieglitz was showing 25 and
30 years ago, the thing that was new and revolutionary then, which
is the vogue now. What Stieglitz has done has been to fight for
what he considers the living thing at all times. The living thing
is not necessarily always the same thing, you know

M--- That sounds lovely, E. But what does it mean?

E--- MM Oh, if you will be blase, it means the difference between
life and death. The difference between a man's being able to buy

pa,nts and oanvas and his not having any materials to work with.
The difference between peddling his pictures from door to door
and knowing that he has a friend who believes in him and will do
the salesman act for him. And remember this, my camerado, unlike
the tailored gentlemen who line,x both sides of Fifth avenue and
57th street, Stieglitz has never taken a nickel of commission,
probably not even a nickel chocolate bar, from his artists. He
has been lucky enough (and no one denies-that this is lucky) to
have had a small private income on which he could live. He has
had friends who have rallied to the support of his galleries with
donations of cash and an occasional Liberty Bond.

N--- Would that some one would rally to my support with an ice
cream coneX. I am still a bit uncertain what this is all about.

XXXXXXXIXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX It seems to me what you are implying is
that these are great and unappreciated artists and that Stieglitz
has been heaving out life preservatives.

E--- Exactly.

N--- But why if they are great artists, are they unappreciated?

E--- I don't know. Why does any new idea have a hard time
wining acceptance? Why do they outlaw the EMMOXXGall Galileos,
the Newtons, even the gentle Einsteins. Why does a painter like
Greco have to wait 300 years after his death to be admired, let
alone understood? You tell me why human beings put chains on
the mind, and on the creative spirit; and I'll answer your question.

N--- That sounds grand too. It seems to me I remember reading
in your chapter on Stieglitz something about "splendid rhetoric."
Is this some of that?

E--- Sure, splendid rhetoric is in the American blood. It is in

7

Stieglitz's blood. And I don't see why I shouldn't use a style
appropriate to my subject. Let alone the fact that I was born
under a soapbox myself.

I--- If you must, you must. And thank God, no journal goes on
forever. Tell me something else, then? You think Stieglitz is
a great man. Why has this book been so severely attacked by the
New York press?

E--- That's easy. In logic one of the first chapters is on argu-
ment. The simplest method of retorting to an unpopular or diff-
icult adversary is the argument ad hominem. If you can't answer
a man's arguments, you divert attention by calling him a thief or
a liar or a fool. Politicians do it all the time; so do critics.

N--- But why is Stieglitz unpopular? From what you say he ought
to have a gold star on his report card.

E--- Why was Soorates unpopular? He made a lot of people uncomfortable. Probably nobody will ever write dialogs in which Stieglitz is the hero. Luckily, aside from radio journals, the day of dialogs has gone by. But Stieglitz has gone B about the world making a lot of people squirm.

M--- But why should he want to make a lot of people squirm?

E--- Perhaps he shouldn't. But he did want to, and he has. After
all, I dear, when you see injustice in the world, it makes you an-
gry and you slash out at the cause of the injustice, or what you
believe to be the cause. Same way with Stieglitz. Only he has been
able in 71 years to MIMAX slash MIMAX more and hit more people. When
you are a patriarch, dear, the papers may print mean pieces about you
too.

N--- They print mean pieces by me now.

8

E-- Yes, dear. But this is about Stieglitz, not about Shrdlu.

N--- What I want to know is what is so important about these artists Stieglitz discovered and has patronized?

E--- Probably the most important thing about them, the three whom in his later years Stieglitz has concentrated on, Marin, Dove and O'Keeffe, is their honesty. I don't mean that they wouldn't rob a penny-bank or that they would. I mean that they see XXXXXXXXXXXX life through their own eyes and not through a pair of synthetic spectacles.

N--- Again that sounds very nice. But what does it mean?

E--- Well, darling, if you have a couple of hands and a few dollars to buy supplies, you can set up an easel and after a few years you will be painting pictures that any XXX body can recognize as pictures. That is they will look like a composite portrait of the 1860-1890 gallery of the Louvre, say. Or they will look like a composite portrait of the annual summer exhibitions of the North Shore Art association from 1930 to 1930. Or they will look like a composite portrait of the Carnegie International. That is, they will, unless you are an extraordinary person ...

N--- Well, perhaps I am ... yes - yes -

E--- Yes, dear, I know you are. I should have said painter. What I mean is this. One person in a million achieves a personal view of life. Almost etched on his mental retina is the memory of how millions of other people have seen life. Assume that one is lucky enough to achieve this unique vision, what then?

N--- I am breathless. What then?

E--- Then comes the long and arduous effort to coin a language
as unique and personal as the inner vision. When we say of a
creative worker that he is like some one else, we imply that he
has achieved this complete integration of subject matter and form.
Few artists in any medium ever do. You only have to wander through
even the best display of contemporary American painting to know this.

N--- What has this got to do with Stieglitz?

E--- Only that Stieglitz knows the importance of this unique and-
personal vision, of this unique and personal voice. When he recog-
nizes such a vision and voice, he seeks to aid it. In Marin and
Dove and O'Keeffe he believes there is this quality of personality
and uniqueness.

N--- What bothers me is why you who hate chauvinism and jingoism
make such a todo about Americanism?

E--- I don't mean to make a todo about Americanism. I happen to
be an American, and I love America. I could not have been born
anywhere except in America in this age. I believe in America as
a soil for art, in the sense that art is a form of life. I don't
believe any people is happy if it tears up its roots. I don't be-
lieve an American is happy trying to be a European. (And if I see
the work of a man whose rhythm and whose cadence feels the same
to me as I feel when I ride over the ZEBETHWEXMEXMEX New Mexican meas
or the Kansas prairies, I feel that it is something which speaks to me
and which I need.)

N--- Bravo, my American. What is so American about these painters?

E--- All of them, to my eye, represent that same tradition of
which I spoke, romanticism, of which I said that Stieglitz might

10

well be the last great figure. All are in love with Nature, all
are in love with the revelations of life of their own psyches.
They live in a world which sensitive Americans for a century have
been forced to live in, the subjective world. Ryder, the newly
discovered 19th century painter, Newman, Eilshemius, these men were
poets of Nature in their time, as Marin and Dove and O'Keeffe are
in theirs.

N--- Yes, but is Nature all there is to life?

E--- By no means. It is however an ultimate source of art, a
final energy. Just as Man (with a capital) is another ultimate
source and energy. The very greatest creative workers manage
sometimes to combine the two in the work. On the other hand,
a great artist may confine himself to Nature or to Man, and that
is no criticism of his significance, it is merely a definition
of his subject matter.

N--- That sounds reasonable. But tell me, E, what do you think
of the charge some people maketh that these artists are "precious"?

E--- I personally do not think they are. Of course, to settle
that point is very complicated. What does "precious" mean, for
an individual instance? You tell me that.

N--- Something more than mannered, I think. Perhaps lacking in
reality or vitality because it is not closely related to life.
Overemphasis on surface and technical perfection at the expense
of human significance.

E--- Yes, I could agree to that. On the basis of that definition
I think I would still answer your first question the same way. I
do not feel that the painters are precious. They are not what is
called realists; they do not concentrate on what is popularly called