c/o Georgia O'Keeffe
Abiquiu, New Mexico
October 14, 1949

Mr. Lester Markel
Sunday Editor
The New York Times
Times Square
New York 18, New York

Dear Mr. Markel:

Thank you for your letters.

Enclosed are letters from Miss O'Keeffe, captions by her for
photographs, and the revised manuscript.

I am also enclosing a copy of the publicity release for the
distribution of the Stieglitz Collection, in case you should wish it
for an editorial note. If you need to mention the connection between
Miss O'Keeffe and the disposition of the Collection in your editorial
note you could refer to her as "Executrix of the Estate of Alfred
Stieglitz."

I have checked all dates but two, which I cannot easily check
out here.

1. I have not the date of Hartley's last exhibition at An American Place, which belongs on the page with the captions for photographs. This could be secured from Miss Rosalind Irvine at the Whitney Museum of American Art (Spring 7-0770).

2. I am not sure whether or not the 1912 exhibition of children's art was the first in the world (mss. p. 3). It was definitely the first in America. Mr. Monroe Wheeler or Mr. Alfred Barr, at the Museum of Modern Art, in reading an earlier form of his manuscript, questioned the statement, but I have been unable to find out anything about it. Perhaps you could check with them. (Circle 5-8900).

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Captions for Photographs

Charles Demuth was often shown but not entirely supported by Stieglitz' interest.

Arthur G. Dove changed from a successful commercial artist to probably America's best abstract painter. Stieglitz' interest encouraged him for thirty-six years.

Marsden Hartley visited Stieglitz daily when in New York. Stieglitz' interest made his working possible from 1909 to 1918.

Stieglitz' interest supported and furthered the painting of John Marin for thirty-seven years. He visited Stieglitz every Saturday afternoon and evening during the winter season.

Alfred Stieglitz' interest and yearly showing encouraged and widely publicized the work of Georgia O'Keeffe for thirty years.

I would prefer not to mention the fact that I was married to Stieglitz. I have always considered that a personal affair and have never seen any point to publicizing it. I think my achievement as a worker can stand without it, and I have always preferred it that way if possible.

Georgia O'Keeffe

Dear Mr. Schwarz:

I have just received your note of Nov. 15 with the proofs of Miss
O'Keeffe's *mn* article, and have gone over the proofs with the original mss.

I can only say I am startled at what you have done.

As the article originally stood it said something specific in a way that no
one else could say it. I understand that I could well
understand when I first submitted it to the NY Times that *that* you would
not be interested in printing it, as its style was so far from your usual one. At the
same time I thought it might be of interest because of the importance of the Collection,
as well as the *because* both the names of Stieglitz and O'Keeffe have been
good public material have been of interest to the general public over a long period
of years.

If you follow the *mn* grammatical rules of the English language and sentence
structure you would have to change most of the structure of the article. If you wish
it to sound like the style followed by NY Times writers you would also have to change it.

radical
I assume that this is why you have made the/changes you have. But what has resulted,
to my notion, is simply some sort of bastard style with no meaning or inner logic
whatsoever. It is neither the NY Times nor the grammar books nor O'Keeffe. Therefore
why print it? You might as well repaint some of the OK paintings, because they represent
a way of her own that is different from ways taught in the schools.

2

As the article originally stood it had a logic it no longer has with the changes you have made. Naturally it is your privilege not to care for that logic, and to reject it. But it seems foolish to weaken it and then print it.

I quote a few examples:

Original MSS, pp. 6,7F: "He didn't know what to do with the Collection. Wouldn't do what he could do with it. So he left it for me to decide. He would not have done what I have done with it. In the opinion of many of his friends and acquaintances I know that no matter what I did I could not be right, but I think he would not object too much to what I have done. He would not mind my doing what it was impossible for him to do. Today it is impossible for me to give the Collection to any one institution and expect his idea to be housed. The Collection had grown too large. As it is mostly contemporary work, public opinion concerning it is still being made. If the material is not seen, opinion is not being formed. Having in mind that the pictures should be hung, I had to divide it, as I always told him. I saw no other way."

Galley 50

Your Version: / "The more the Collection grew the less Stieglitz knew what to do with it. So he left it for me to decide. I am sure he would not have done exactly what I have done with it. In the opinion of many of his friends and acquaintances, no matter what I did could not be right. But I think he would not have objected too much to what I have done, which was impossible for him to do -- select, sift and dispose of a lifetime's collection of art."

the rest of this you have transposed to galley #46 in the first paragraph, as follows:

"I had no choice but to give it to the public. But it was impossible for me to consign so large a collection to any one institution and still expect his idea -- that a broad public share the collection -- to be carried out. Since it is mostly contemporary work, public opinion concerning it is still being made, and if the material could not be widely seen, no opinion could be formed. So, having in mind that the pictures should be hung, I had to divide it, as I always told him."

If you will also notice, you have repeated in your second paragraph on galley 46 nearly everything in the first paragraph. This certainly does not make very good sense.

p. 3 original mss. "These exhibitions were shown to an annoyed, scoffing, and sometimes angry public. They helped the young to find their way."

Your version, galley #48: "All the exhibitbobs were seen by an annoyed, scoffing, and sometimes angry public. But they helped the young to find their way."

Standing virtually alone, as in the original mss., this has a force which is completely lost as you have transposed it.

You have also made two other types of consistent changes which make the article *something* stylistically meaningless as *something* written by OK First, you have qualified almost every definite sentence. e.g.:

4

galley 49. He didn't want literally to throw away his collection of photographs, but he was fed up with the difficulty of housing it, with payin storage bills on it for years, and with the general lack of interest that there was in this work. Throwing it away was a <u>gasketax</u> spectacular gesture, <u>xijustxixxexax</u> for the way he felt at that moment. It did not mean that he wanted to throw away that specific material, necessarily.

on galley 50 paragraph 4, you have omitted the Library of Congress.
on galley 50, paragraph 6, you have omitted the Metropolitan Museum.

What this all amounts to is whether you wish to print the article <u>maxx</u> in its original form with minor editorial changes that preserve the original style and meaning, or not. <u>ifxixdxxx</u> To change it as you have done seems to me comparable to adding a few lines to a painting which seems <u>me</u> oversimple to your personal taste. Why <u>maxx</u> have the painting to begin with, if you do not care for it as it is?

and when
You ask in your telegram about <u>showing this Stieglitz</u> where/the Stieglitz Collection will be on view. I did not get your telegram until Nov. 10, as I was in Nashville with Miss O'K, where she was hanging the part of the Collection which went to Fisk University. Fisk has remodeled <u>an</u> <u> building</u> to house the collection and make it available to the general public, as well as its own student body.

It was the intention of the Philadelphia Museum to hang their portion immediately upon receipt, last <u>hexx</u> spring. <u>Yexxxen</u>

I believe the Metropolitan Museum intends to show some of the Stieglitz things next spring.

The Art Institute of Chicago planned to hang two galleries in conjunction with their current exhibitio n of the Arensberg Collection.

I doubt that the National Gallery or Library of Congress have completed their <u>making</u> preparations for making the photographs available to the public.

Nor do I know about the paintings which went to the National Gallery.

You might check with each of these institutions to be sure.

As for your editorial note, the objects going to Fisk were sent at the same time as to the other institutions. For legal reasons I think it would be well if you could make this clear in your comments.

11/18/49

For Mr. Daniel Schwarz:

We do not know how many photographs were in the Stieglitz Collection, as they
were never counted, nor did we wish to.

The portion of the Collection going to Fisk University was shipped and sent to
them at the same time as shipments to the other institutions.

In answer to your telegram, asking where and when the Stieglitz Collection will
be on view. I'm sorry not to have answered it sooner, but I did not get it until Nov.
10, as I was in Nashville with Miss O'Keeffe, where she was getting the Collection hung
for the opening at Fisk November 4. Fisk has remodeled a building to house its portion
of the Collection and make it available to the general public.

It was the intention of the Philadelphia Museum of Art to hang their portion
immediately upon receipt, last spring. Whether or not this has been done I do not know.

I believe the Metropolitan Museum intends to show some of the Stieglitz things
next spring. You could probably check with Robert Hale, at the Metropolitan.

The Art Institute of Chicago planned to hang two calleries with things from the
Stieglitz Collection in conjunction with their current exhibition of the Arensberg
Collection. Whether or not this was done I do not know. You could check with Daniel
Catton Rich, Director.

I doubt that the National Gallery of Art or the Library of Congress have
completed their preparations for making the photographs available to the public.

Nor do I know about the paintings which went to the National Gallery. I would
imagine these are on view.

You had probably better check with each institution to be sure.

Doris Bry

<table><tr><td>CLASS OF SERVICE</td></tr><tr><td>This is a full-rate Telegram or Cablegram unless its deferred character is indicated by a suitable symbol above or preceding the address.</td></tr></table>

WESTERN
UNION

W. P. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT

1201

<table><tr><td>SYMBOLS</td></tr><tr><td>DL = Day Letter</td></tr><tr><td>NL = Night Letter</td></tr><tr><td>LC = Deferred Cable</td></tr><tr><td>NLT = Cable Night Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Ship Radiogram</td></tr></table>

The filing time shown in the date line on telegrams and day letters is STANDARD TIME at point of origin. Time of receipt is STANDARD TIME at point of destination

SNA010 DL PD=MO NEWYORK NY 19 103P=

GEORGIA OKEEFE=
ABIQUI NMEX

DONT WORRY WE WONT PRINT ARTICLE UNTIL YOU HAVE APPROVED IT.

CONFIDENTIALLY I DONT WONDER THAT YOU ARE BOTHERED. I DIDNT KNOW UNTIL YESTERDAY WHAT COPYREADING HAD BEEN DONE AND I AGREE MUCH OF FLAVOR HAS BEEN LOST. SO REVISE IT AS MUCH AS YOU WANT AND GO AS FAR BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AS YOU DESIRE. I SEND MY REGRETS AND REGARDS:

LESTER MARKEL.

THE COMPANY WILL APPRECIATE SUGGESTIONS FROM ITS PATRONS CONCERNING ITS SERVICE

WESTERN
UNION

1201

19 NOV

LA35

L.CDU216 DL PD=MO NEWYORK NY 18 1152A=

GEORGIA OKEEFE=
ABIQUI NMEX=

WILL NOT OF COURSE PRINT YOUR ARTICLE WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL STOP LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING YOUR LETTER STOP SURE THERE CANT BE TOO MUCH DIFFICULTY=

SCHWARZ=

PRESERVATION PHOTOCOPY: ORIGINAL MATERIAL RESTRICTED

Abiquiu, New Mexico

January 16, 1950

Miss Royce Moch
Department of State
250 West 57th Street
New York, New York

Dear Miss Moch:

Thank you for your letter of January 4.

I would very much rather have you use my article from the December 11 issue of the New York Times Magazine uncut, as it was printed. It does not make the same sort of sense if it is cut.

Will you consider this letter as my permission to use the article uncut? If you wish to condense it I would wish to see the manuscript in the cut form before approving its use and distribution.

I wonder whether you plan to reprint it with or without the plates. I also wonder whether there is any fee for the use of the article.

I will be interested in knowing what you decide and where the article is distributed if you use it.

Abiquiu, New Mexico

January 21, 1950

Mr. Lester Markel
The New York Times
Times Square
New York, New York

Dear Mr. Markel:

I have received a request from the Department of State to distribute my article in the New York Times Magazine of Dec. 11, 1949, in Japan and Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Far East, and Africa, "for translation and possible re-publication in local periodicals." They tell me they have your permission, but I thought I should check with you.

I have also been asked by U.S. Camera if they
would use the article in a special 32-page section
on Stieglitz next year.

I do not know whether the article belongs to you
or to me, as far as permissions are concerned, and so
write you to ask. Naturally I would in any such case
give credit to the New York Times. Have you any
special form which is used to acknowledge re-publication?

Lymee Adkins' New York
New York Lymee McEuen
WL·PEAFEL WELKEJ

qunune1A SJ' JO2O
VPIgknj' new Mexico

18

January 27, 1950

Dear Miss O'Keeffe:

Your letter to Mr. Markel has been referred
to me.

We did give the State Department permission
to reprint your article, provided that they
also obtained your permission. And it is
perfectly all right for "U. S. Camera" to
reprint it, provided they give full credit
to The New York Times.

The Times buys only first rights to the
article, and henceforth it is yours to do
with as you will. However, as you say,
credit should always be given to The Times.

AES:far

Miss Georgia O'Keeffe
Abiquiu
New Mexico

ADDRESS OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS TO
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.

In reply refer to
INP

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WASHINGTON

February 15, 1950

Dear Miss O'Keeffe:

This office is interested in obtaining a photograph of the self-portrait of Alfred Stieglitz, which illustrated page 24 of your article published in the December 11, 1949 edition of The New York Times Magazine.

The photograph is needed for the Department's overseas information program, designed to give the people of other countries a better understanding of the United States, and the workings of the democratic system.

Such pictures are distributed in every part of the world through approximately 100 Department of State information offices in more than 70 countries. They are presented to newspapers and magazines for publication, and to schools, libraries and other foreign outlets for display and visual education purposes.

It will be sincerely appreciated if you will either provide us with the above-mentioned photograph or advise us of a source from which it may be obtained. The photograph, if available, should be sent to the undersigned at Room 2405 Auditors Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, S. W., Washington, D. C.

Miss Georgia O'Keeffe
Abiquin, New Mexico

Tuesday, Aug. ??

Dear Miss O'Keeffe,

Although your letters reached me yesterday morning, the mss. didn't until
the afternoon late, so I couldn't type it till today. I am seeing the Tiges man
Thursday.

Now I do feel you should not just jump in so fast when we have waited over a
year with this thing. Though I probably shouldn't say this to you, you should decide,
perhaps you have thought about it.

Your article is unique, no one else could have written it. It says a great many
things at once, all of which are important. including the ones which are between
the lines.

I think it really is important that it be read in New York as well as
Chicago. More so in NY than Chicago because the so-called art world centers in New York,
and as those are the people who will say most of the negative things, those are the
people who should read this article, which says something very positive.

It shows and tells as much as we can publicly at this time why you had to do
as you did. That is very important.

I don't see why Rich couldn't use it even if it is published in New York.
Why don't you ask him how he feels about that?

I cannot tell whether or not the Times man will publish it till Thursday.
But it seems to me that if he doesn't that the Saturday Review or the New Yorker would
reach a good audience, and be worth considering. I wrote you about the New Yorker
before, don't know if I mentioned Sat. Review, and you did not answer. I think the
Sat. Review has a circulation between 100,000 and 150,000. New Yorker I don't know.
The Art magazines are worth thinking about, if you wish me to.

I do think it should primarily be seen in some non-art publication, by as many
people as possible.

I write all this to mail tonight because the mails are so much faster this year
that if you read it and drop me a line I would probably still get it this week.

2

I'm sending you a crabon of the MSS with this mail for you to read. A few facts I must still check tomorrow. I made a few minor changes, with much hesitation.

On page 7 I changed tenses. You mark wrote as if the things were still to go to institutions. Actually they have gone.

I put in the phrase "Print Department" a couple of times on page 8, as that is important, and we tend to take it for granted.

I left out the Boston Museum and the MMA, as it seems to me that this may make trouble with the lawyers, etc., but if you want me to put it back I can.

I put in the word "eventually" after the 35 mm. record at the National Gallery, because it is true. If I don't get the Rockefeller money or something similar it will be a long time before anyone gets that record, as it will not be done quickly if I do it at my odd moments wrapped around another job. If you want me to remove the word I will.

I think that is all.

The article reads well, in its odd way. I think a few things could be better, but not much, and it is not what should occupy your mind.

I plow on here. My dreams get smarter. Last night I simply was in Abiquiu, having assumed my work was finished. And one day when I was in Abiquiu I suddenly remembered that the back vault, office, north room, and big room were still full of things I hadn't done. I had to laugh when I mark woke up, it was so simple and direct.

I suppose because of Frances' preparations, and thinking she'll be there Saturday. It will be good for her, she is very tired. I wanted to send some ginger with her but just didn't have the hour it would have taken to get it, so will get some soon and mail it. The noodles went off today, as Carol didn't come for a week and didn't call either.

I haven't read the MSS for typographical errors, but will before anyone sees it.

Must get this off so will stop.