Archives Scrapbooks

The image is a page from "The Art Digest" dated December 15, 1932, featuring an article titled "Vitriol for Murals" by Thomas Craven. The article critiques the state of American mural painting, particularly focusing on the influence of Thomas Hart Benton and the general degradation of American painting. Craven argues that American artists have been content to produce minor works, lacking the ambition and vitality seen in European art. He criticizes the academic and institutional support for mural painting, suggesting that it has led to a stifling of creativity and a focus on minor, unambitious works.

Craven highlights the role of politicians and academics in promoting mural art, which he sees as a form of social control rather than genuine artistic expression. He mentions specific examples, such as the murals in Rockefeller Center and the ELM Memorial Hall in Chicago, to illustrate his points. The article also discusses the Prix de Rome competition and the influence of European artists like Dr. Alexander.

Craven's main argument is that American mural painting has become a tool for political and social agendas rather than a medium for true artistic expression. He concludes by expressing his disdain for the current state of mural art and its impact on the broader artistic landscape in America.

The image is a page from the December 15, 1932 issue of The Art Digest. The main article is titled "Vitrol for Murals" and critiques the American muralist movement and its current state. The author, Thomas Craven, argues that the American muralist movement is experiencing a crisis of identity and direction. He expresses concern over the lack of originality and the overemphasis on political and social commentary in the murals.

Key points in the article include:

• The decline of American muralism's traditional ideals and its growing reliance on political and social messages.
• The article mentions specific artists and their works, such as Dr. Alexander and his murals, which Craven finds lacking in originality and depth.
• Craven criticizes the current state of the American muralist movement, suggesting that it has become too dependent on contemporary social issues and lacks the intellectual and artistic integrity of its early years.
• He also touches on the historical context of the American muralist movement, highlighting the competition and political intrigue surrounding it.

The article reflects on the broader implications of the state of American art and the need for a revival of artistic vision and originality.

The Art Digest, 15th December, 1932

Vitriol for Murals

Vitriol is poured upon the American artist and also upon Rockefeller Center by Thomas Craven in an article entitled "Politics and the Painter" in the December number of The American Mercury. The magazine sent reprints to the press, but evidently it has not thought the article too shocking for its own readers. The Art Digest, however, has no choice in the matter. It is its business to present to its readers the news of the art world, and opinion of art, and it here takes the privilege of quoting in full the length of the original article.

"From time to time," writes Craven, "it has been my unpleasant duty to review the general degradation of American painting, and to call the attention of the American artist to the aimlessness and triviality of his performances. Grovelling in the emulated mediocrity of the French modernists, our painters, as a whole, have been content to cover their canvases with a pattern of colour without still-life distortions and mutilated figures in order to express their so-called 'modern' ideas.

"This habit of picture-making is a form of self-expression common to failures and outsiders, and is not to be confused with the serious and more exalted sphere of creative art. The latter is the product of a great civilization, and is not the handiwork of the individual, but of the race. The modern American painter is a victim of a bohemian corruption that confuses individualism with originality. Disdainful of the past, he has no point of view, no scholarship of the past, no little knowledge of the present, and no conception of the future. He is a mere doodler, and his work is doomed to perish. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"But during the last two years there has been a hopeful sign in American art: a return to the sound and sane traditions of the past. This is due to the increasing interest in the decoration of public buildings. Let us consider the case of the artist by those who are in a position to give him the opportunity to express himself in a worthy manner. The most conspicuous example of this is the work of Diego Rivera, the Mexican mural painter, who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the American Stock Exchange in New York. The result is a series of panels, which, for the first time in America, are truly monumental in scale and design. In the hands of a great artist like Rivera, the muralist is a public benefactor, and not a mere playmate of fashion.

"The case of Rockefeller Center is different. It is not a question of the artist, but of the public. The public has been asked to accept the work of a man who is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been commissioned to decorate the walls of the new Center is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion. He is not a creator, but a destroyer. He is not a leader, but a follower. He is not an artist, but a mere playmate of fashion.

"The result is a series of panels which, for the most part, are not even good as decoration. They are not even good as propaganda. They are not even good as art.

"The artist who has been

The image is a page from an issue of The Art Digest dated December 15, 1932. The article titled "Vitriol for Murals" discusses the state of mural painting in America, particularly critiquing the opinions expressed by Thomas Craven in his essay titled "Politics and the Painting Business" from The American Mercury.

Key points from the article include:

1. Critique of Thomas Craven’s Views:

   • The author of the article in The Art Digest strongly disagrees with Craven’s negative assessment of American mural art.
   • Craven’s essay is described as vitriolic and overly harsh, dismissing the work of contemporary muralists as lacking in artistic merit.

2. Defense of American Muralists:

   • The author argues that Craven's perspective is outdated and fails to recognize the modern developments and ambitions in mural painting.
   • It is suggested that Craven prefers an academic style, which is not in tune with the progressive spirit of modern muralists.

3. Historical Context and Trends:

   • The article notes a historical agitation in American art, pointing to a significant interest and investment in murals, especially during the early 1930s.
   • Murals are seen as a public art form meant to engage with societal themes and to embellish public spaces, a trend that Craven apparently overlooks.

4. Mural Competitions and Recognition:

   • The Rockefeller Center mural competition is cited as a pivotal event that aimed to bring contemporary muralists into the public eye.
   • The author mentions that muralists like Barry Faulkner have received prestigious awards, indicating a level of recognition and respect within the art community.

5. Artistic Vision and Public Engagement:

   • The article praises the ambitions of modern muralists to address social issues and integrate art into public spaces.
   • It emphasizes the role of murals in reflecting and influencing the cultural and political climate of the time.

6. Craven’s Misunderstanding:

   • The author contends that Craven’s critique is based on a narrow, outdated view of what art should be, missing the broader social and artistic potential of murals.
   • The critique extends to Craven’s perceived ignorance of the technical and conceptual advancements in mural art.

Overall, the article in The Art Digest is a robust defense of contemporary mural painting in America, arguing against Craven’s dismissive stance and highlighting the cultural and social relevance of the muralist movement.

The image is a page from The Art Digest, dated 15th December, 1932, featuring an article titled "Vitriol for Murals" by Thomas Craven. The article critiques the American mural movement, particularly the murals commissioned for the Rockefeller Center in New York.

Key points from the article include:

1. Critique of American Art:

   • Craven criticizes the American art scene, highlighting a lack of depth and originality in contemporary American art.
   • He compares the superficiality of American art to the depth and sophistication of European art, particularly French art.

2. Murals at Rockefeller Center:

   • The article discusses the murals commissioned for the Rockefeller Center, which were intended to be a celebration of American life and culture.
   • Craven argues that these murals lack the intellectual and artistic rigor found in the works of European masters.

3. Artists' Lack of Preparation:

   • The article mentions that the artists commissioned for these murals were not adequately prepared for the monumental task.
   • It notes that these artists were more accustomed to smaller, less ambitious works, and lacked the technical and conceptual skills needed for such large-scale projects.

4. Cultural and Political Context:

   • Craven points out that the murals were intended to reflect American culture and history but failed to do so effectively.
   • He suggests that the murals are more concerned with political propaganda and social messages rather than artistic merit.

5. Examples of Poor Execution:

   • The article lists several artists and their works, highlighting the flaws in their murals, such as Barry Faulkner’s "Awakening Mankind" and Boardman Robinson's "Survivors."
   • It critiques the murals for being too literal, didactic, and lacking in artistic depth.

6. The Need for Better Art:

   • Craven concludes by advocating for a more thoughtful and skillful approach to mural art in America, emphasizing the need for artists who are well-versed in both traditional and contemporary artistic techniques.

The overall tone of the article is critical and disparaging, suggesting that the mural projects at Rockefeller Center were poorly conceived and executed.

The image is a page from The Art Digest, dated 15th December, 1932. The article is titled "Vitrol for Murals" and is written by Thomas Craven. The article critiques the state of mural painting in the United States at that time.

Craven begins by discussing the French artist Vitrol, who is known for his politically charged and socially conscious murals. He contrasts Vitrol's work with the American muralists, whom he criticizes for their lack of intellectual depth and originality. Craven argues that American murals often fall into the hands of academic numskulls and are not truly contemporary or innovative.

He mentions several American muralists and their works, such as Thomas Hart Benton, Barry Faulkner, and John Steuart Curry, but ultimately finds their work wanting in terms of intellectual substance and artistic innovation. Craven expresses concern that American muralists are not addressing significant social issues or contributing new ideas to the field of art.

The article concludes with a call for American muralists to raise their standards and engage more deeply with contemporary issues, similar to the French artist Vitrol, who Craven praises for his bold and politically relevant murals.

This image shows a scanned page from a publication titled "The Art Digest, 15th December, 1932." The page contains an article with the headline "Vitriol for Murals," which discusses murals and public opinion in the context of American art. It is a text-heavy page with three columns of dense typeface and no images or illustrations.

The article appears to be a critique or commentary on murals, the public perception of them, and perhaps a specific event or exhibit relating to American art. Keywords such as "Rockefeller Center," "Mexican artist," and "modern American art" can be seen within the columns, suggesting the content pertains to a spirited discussion on art and its reception in society.

It's important to note that the content of this article reflects the time it was written, and the views expressed may not align with contemporary perspectives on art or cultural discourse.

The image depicts a page from a publication titled "The Art Digest," dated 15th December, 1932. The article on this page is titled "Vitriol for Murals." It discusses the criticism, specifically by Thomas Craven in his published piece "Politics and the Painting Business" in The American Mercury. The article is a critique of recent trends in American painting, particularly focusing on the degradation of public art murals. It addresses Craven's concerns and perspectives on the influence of institutions and modern artistic practices on mural art. The text is densely packed with small print, organized into three columns. The page is slightly yellowed, suggesting it is archival material.

The image shows a page from "The Art Digest" dated 15th December 1932. The article is titled "Vitriol for Murals."

The text discusses the criticism and challenges faced by American artists involved in mural painting, specifically focusing on those commissioned for work at the Rockefeller Center. It critiques the art scene, mentioning how some painters are seen as lacking genuine artistic talent or being influenced by social and political pressures. The article references various artists and murals, including a panel by Ezra Winter and works by Barry Faulkner and Boardman Robinson.

The article expresses disappointment with the quality and sincerity of murals produced in that era, lamenting the influence of commercial and political forces on art. It calls for art that transcends superficial decorative purposes and aims for a more meaningful and honest expression. The overall tone is critical of the direction contemporary mural art was taking, urging a revival of genuine artistic principles. The page includes detailed critiques and reflections on the social role and artistic integrity of mural painting in America.

The image shows a page from a printed publication titled "The Art Digest," dated 15th December, 1932. The page is open to an article titled "Vitriol for Murals", which discusses the topic of American mural painting and its controversies. The text is formatted in a classic newspaper or magazine style, with dense paragraphs and a serif typeface typical of early 20th-century print media.

Key Observations:

1. Title and Date:

   • The publication is clearly labeled as "The Art Digest" at the top, with the date "15th December, 1932" prominently displayed.

2. Article Title:

   • The main article is titled "Vitriol for Murals", indicating a critical or polemical tone regarding mural art.

3. Content Overview:

   • The article discusses the state of American mural painting, referencing notable figures such as Thomas Craven, an art critic, and Rockwell Kent, an artist.
   • It critiques the Rockefeller Center and the American Artists' Professional League, highlighting tensions between traditional and modern art forms.
   • The article mentions Barry Faulkner, who won a mural competition, and discusses the Rockefeller Center mural competition of 1932, which was controversial due to political and aesthetic disagreements.

4. Visual Layout:

   • The page is filled with dense text, typical of editorial or critical essays.
   • There are no visible images, illustrations, or photographs on this page—only text.
   • The text is divided into paragraphs, with some highlighted or emphasized sections, likely for emphasis or to draw attention to key points.

5. Themes and Tone:

   • The article appears to be critical of certain trends in American mural art, particularly those influenced by modern or avant-garde movements.
   • It discusses the tension between academic traditions and contemporary artistic practices, referencing figures like Dr. Alexander Alexander and Dr. Alfred Craven.
   • The tone is analytical and somewhat polemical, as suggested by the title "Vitriol for Murals."

6. Historical Context:

   • The article reflects the artistic and cultural debates of the early 1930s, a period marked by significant shifts in art movements, the rise of modernism, and the influence of political ideologies on public art projects.

In summary, the image depicts a page from The Art Digest from December 15, 1932, featuring an article titled "Vitriol for Murals" that critically examines the state of American mural painting, focusing on controversies surrounding modern art, academic traditions, and specific events like the Rockefeller Center mural competition. The page is text-heavy, with no accompanying visuals.