THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
|
| Most people who have any interest in art know of the destruction of Diego Rivera's mural "Man at the Crossroads" at the Rockefeller Center in New York [1934], yet few are aware of the crisis that galvanized the Los Angeles art world with the obliteration of Maxine Albro's murals at the Ebell Clubhouse in 1935. What was so important about this incident was the question of whether or not a patron could censor the work of an artist. The battle was over who actually controlled the artwork--the artist or the patron. This became a critical issue for artists working under the Federal Art Programs, and is one that remains unresolved today. The theme of this Greek tragedy was summed up best by the famous English painter, J.M.W. Turner, who said, "It takes two persons to create a picture: one to do the painting, the other to stop him when it is completed." Maxine Albro was an important California artist whose murals graced the homes of some of the Bay Area's leading citizens. Her fresco, "Agriculture," was one of a series of murals commissioned by the Public Works of Art Project for Coit Tower in San Francisco. Unfortunately, in a scenario that was to be repeated in the Southland, the artist ran afoul of conservative tastes and refused to change her mural to satisfy the demands of the Women's Club. As the artist stated, "I have met a lot of those women and liked them. But they are not all modern in their spirit. They don't know what's going on in art." Albro chose what must have seemed a safe subject to place in this Women's Club in Los Angeles. Because the building was Mediterranean in style, the artist decided to decorate the Club's patio with a series of murals of four Sibyls in what was called a "primitive Italian manner." Between the arched doorways of the garden patio she placed two life-sized figures, the Erythraean and Roman Sibyls. Delphian and Cumean Sibyls were located over the doors at either end of the loggia. Over seven feet in height, the frescoes were noted for their brilliant color, which seemed to one critic's eye to transform the patio into a scene from Old Mexico. Unfortunately, the leaders at the Ebell were not impressed. The murals were referred to as "circus posters" and were considered undignified for the "staid elegance" of the Club. The ladies of the Club were questioned for their understanding of the artistic merit of the murals, as the press called Albro "one of the great mural painters of this generation." San Francisco papers were even more critical with "barely restrained guffaws," as they watched the affair in total disbelief. They pointed out the fact that Albro, a celebrated muralist, commanded thousands of dollars for her frescoes. She had literally donated these murals to the Club, as she had asked only for expenses, and not her usual fee. Reaction from the critics was surprising. While most agreed with Alma May Cook, who called them "an important contribution to the art of the city," almost all local art critics sided with the Club's right to do with the artwork what it wanted. Harry Kurtzworth, critic for Saturday Night, was more forceful in chiding the leaders of the Ebell for their timidity in not acting more decisively. "It is not the artists who lack the courage. It is the patrons who falter most in the arduous task of thus learning to be patrons," he wrote. When the murals were finally painted over, the critic for the Los Angeles Examiner noted, "What the able, modern brush of the San Francisco artist, Maxine Albro, failed to accomplish was finally achieved by the slap-dash strokes of an unfeeling house painter." However, the Club was not done with their desecration of the mural. The Los Angeles Examiner wrote, "Not content with the usual whitewashing process of removal, Ebell authorities urged immediate work to begin on chipping away both the murals and the plaster covering of the walls." Arthur Millier, the insightful art critic for the Los Angeles Times, while acknowledging their right to paint over the mural, decried the Club's desire to chip away the plaster. " And I, as one whose very job it is to foster art, could not hold up my head again unless I had tried to save this beautiful, living thing, this springtime promise to a land which is destined to bloom with unnumerable flowers of art," wrote Millier. The battle continues today to save these "living things" from destruction by you, the good people who support organizations such as the Mural Conservancy. Thank you for caring! |
A CONSERVATOR'S VIEW
|
by Nathan Zakheim
| MURALS AS ART: There is ample evidence that murals of various types are not only works of art, but even temporary works such as the murals in the caves of Lascaux, Native American petroglyphs, desert sand paintings etc., can be classified as fine art. It is surprising to discover today that there are some views that would exclude outdoor murals from the realm of fine art. We have personally seen many fine frescoes in the Braja district of Uttar Pradesh that have been exposed to the very inclement Indian weather for over five hundred years. Pompeii also contains many murals that have survived burial in volcanic ash as well as the ravages of weather and time. Certainly, any archaeologist would react in horror if it were suggested that the outdoor murals of his/her discovery were to be considered "temporary" works to be repainted as soon as a few chips would appear lost from the surface. The “Last Supper” of Leonardo Da Vinci was painted using a concoction of ill-considered paints and mediums created by the artist himself. Within sixty years this masterpiece had begun to deteriorate, and a long series of "restorers" began their sequential multi-century work of "restoring" Leonardo's work. It has taken many times longer to remove the work of these "restorers" than it did to paint the mural in the first place! Yet no one claims that the “Last Supper” should be painted over simply because it was a mural exposed to the elements. In Los Angeles, the J.Paul Getty Museum has developed an extremely costly plan to restore the mural on Olvera Street painted by David Alfaro Siqueiros, the noted Mexican muralist. Not only is the mural outside, but the L.A. City government saw fit to promptly whitewash it over due to its controversial radical political content shortly after its creation. The name Siquieros is enough to cause a quick intake of breath by any art professional today, but that name was not enough to prevent the attempt at the mural's destruction over 60 years ago. Today's troublemaking artist may in some cases become a great master of 20th century art. Although such masters are few and far between, we cannot act on the assumption that all outdoor works by contemporary artists are temporary and meant to be painted over after a lifetime of five to ten years. Art is art, and only the test of time can separate the inspired works from the dross. In a nation where it is supposed to be "self evident that all men are created equal," we must give history a chance to choose our masters from our hacks. Until that distant time, it is wise for us to adopt the view that if it was good enough art to be painted in the first place, then it is good enough to be given suitable respect as well as conscientious preservation. LONGEVITY OF OUTDOOR MURALS: An outdoor mural is generally made from the same kind of paint as easel paintings. Whatever conditions can be expected from those paintings, can also be expected from the mural. The modern materials used to paint murals are generally light-fast, made of high quality ingredients, and composed of a strong integrated film with a longer life expectancy than typical house paint, which is meant to be repainted every ten to twenty years. More important to the longevity of a mural is the preparation of the wall on which it is painted. Many murals using fine quality mural paints will prematurely deteriorate due to separation from the wall on which they are painted because of a lack of wall preparation. When it is found that a mural has become deteriorated or "faded" due to a lack of wall preparation or lack of protective coatings, conservation techniques perfected over the last half century can be applied to such murals to revive them within the parameters of the artist's original intent. Once consolidated and re-attached to their wall, they can be expected to remain in fine condition for many years to come. A properly prepared or conserved mural using artist quality paints can be expected to last one hundred years or longer, as long as a minimal maintenance program is observed. This projection has been established by the manufacturers of mural paints, and results have been obtained using artificial aging techniques in special laboratories. |
