Art: Pittsburgh Revisited

Not all the fireworks connected with the latest Carnegie International art show (TIME, Oct. 24) were confined to the exhibition itself. Juror G. David Thompson, a Pittsburgh steelman and art collector, complained vehemently to the press that his foreign colleagues on the jury were unduly prejudiced in favor of entries from their native lands, brushing off U.S. contributors with two honorable mentions. Other partisans of U.S. art muttered that Carnegie Director Gordon Washburn himself was to blame for the poor U.S. showing, that he had ignored some of the most promising young U.S. painters. But the most baffled reaction of all came from gallerygoers who were left frankly bewildered by the preponderantly abstract show. Last week Director Washburn tried to set at least the gallerygoers straight. Said he to a Pittsburgh Press reporter:

“The custom of painting sweet and simple pictures has dropped out of fashion. Styles in art keep changing just as they do in architecture, wallpaper and automobiles.” Even with the most grotesque abstractions “one sometimes begins to like these paintings, just as someone may learn to appreciate a homely woman because of her fine spirit. A modern abstract artist no longer paints his mother from a particular spot in the kitchen, at a particular hour in the afternoon when the light falls on her face with a certain glow. Instead, he paints a composite idea of his mother to show how he has felt toward her during her lifetime. He prefers to paint her not as a model but as an idea. Therefore, an abstract work of art is a projection of the mind of an artist, and the painting is an image of a mental process. A person in a gallery should try to understand the artist’s motive. There is no hope for him if he fails to do so.”