i-xxii Front matter.qxd - Brandeis Institutional Repository
i-xxii Front matter.qxd - Brandeis Institutional Repository i-xxii Front matter.qxd - Brandeis Institutional Repository
The Cold War Battles / 71drawings did not “advocate revolution” and her paintings had no audience. 17Anonymity had its advantages, for Neel did not have to go underground; shewas already there.The Cold War froze communist aesthetics into an equally unbendingdogma. The „exibility of the Popular Front years yielded in 1946 to the secretaryof the Central Committee Andrei Zhdanov’s renunciation of all experimentationand a call for a socialist realism that “was the Party,” marked bywhat Maxim Gorky had called “the humanism of the revolutionary proletariat...” 18 Reality for the socialist realist artist was the reality of what theproletariat would become, not what it was. The rigid deƒnition of socialist realismunder Zhdanov restricted its artistic production to idealized pictures ofParty leaders and workers capable of overcoming any obstacle. This lamentableideological position was given its American voice in June 1947 by V. J.Jerome, head the cultural commission of the Communist Party USA. 19 In hisaddress to the Marxist Cultural Conference in New York City (subsequentlypublished as Culture in a Changing World) Jerome ƒrst criticized the imperialistpolicies of the United Nations and the Truman doctrine. But he reservedhis most virulent language for the Trotskyite intellectuals who had „ed theParty during the war, whom he accused of “literary lynching.” 20To American Marxists he posed a familiar task: “the development of thecultural capacities of the working class, for whom culture is a matter of struggle,a matter of heroism.” 21 Although her expressed sympathies for Jerome hadto do with his imprisonment under the Smith Act, 22 Neel, who had attendedhis lectures at the Jefferson School, was in general agreement with his call forworking-class communist heroes. This Party line was reiterated, without seriousdebate, in Masses & Mainstream, to which Neel contributed throughoutthe Cold War. A result of the merger in 1948 of Joseph North’s New Massesand Samuel Sillen’s Mainstream, Masses & Mainstream was edited by Sillen,with the authority on Negro history Herbert Aptheker, the black novelist andpoet Lloyd Brown, and the former Art Front critic Charles Humboldt (a.k.a.Clarence Weinstock) serving as the associate editors. During the run of itspublication, from 1948 to 1956 (after which it continued for another six yearsas Mainstream), the magazine published drawings by the regulars from theNew Masses, including William Gropper, Robert Gwathmey, Ben-Zion, BenShahn, and Antonio Frasconi. Although its contribution to American culturalhistory is hardly as signiƒcant as the New Masses had been, it merits more seriousdiscussion than it has received to date. 23Masses & Mainstream is the voice of a defensive and embattled Party, strugglingunder systematic governmental persecution during the Cold War. TheSmith Act of 1940 was further strengthened by the Internal Security Act of1950, which required communists to register with the attorney general. How-
72 / Neel’s Social Realist Artever simplistic its argumentation, the magazine courageously refused to acceptwithout protest governmental censorship and denial of rights, the “redbaiting”of the McCarthy era. Its stated aim was tore-enter the arena in deƒance of those who would outlaw dissent and chain theAmerican people to a program of fascism and war . . . Our speciƒc intention is toƒght on the cultural front, in the battle of ideas. Our editorial viewpoint—thoughnot necessarily the viewpoint of every contributor—is Marxist. 24By Marxist Sillen meant Zhdanovist. 25 Several years later, in a two-partarticle “Communists in Novels,” Charles Humboldt centered the concept offorward progress in the new communist hero: “He must, ƒrst of all, be able tomaster the forces that overcome others, to resist oppression instead of beingcrushed by it...” 26 Yet the small cadre of communist writers and artists inNew York at the time were well aware of the weaknesses of Zhdanovism, despitewhat they said in print, and throughout the 1950s its members argued activelyabout alternative deƒnitions of a Marxist art. For instance, Neel occasionallyparticipated in the Writers and Critics group that met monthly at theUpper West Side apartment of Annette T. Rubinstein, a literary historian andteacher at the New York Marxist School. Neel was invited to join by CharlesHumboldt, and the Masses & Mainstream crowd attended regularly. Signiƒcantly,V. J. Jerome was not invited, as he was considered too dogmatic. 27 Thegroup wrestled with the relationship of literature to Marxist theory by readingand discussing the advocates for opposing viewpoints, such as Brecht andLukacs. 28 According to Rubinstein, within the CP literati, “there was no embraceof anything like Zhdanov’s debased and fraudulent ‘socialist realism.’” 29Although Neel did more listening than speaking, she was made aware of thecontradictions within Marxist cultural theory, and of the need to ƒnd her ownresolution to them.In a 1955 letter to the editor of Masses & Mainstream, Neel articulated herown alternative to Zhdanovist heroism. Her friend Phillip Bonosky, in reviewingLars Lawrence’s Morning, Noon and Night, had taken the author to taskfor an overly idealized depiction of the working class. In his ensuing editorialargument with Albert Maltz, Neel sided with Bonosky, whostands up for something to my mind much more important and ethical in the deepestsense: the relation of art to life and the responsibility of the writer to re„ect inthe most advanced and humanistic way any part of the life of his day . . . I think wehave all realized for many years now that the “hero” lives and has lived . . . [L]iterature,unless it re„ects truly, becomes only a pale and falsiƒed re„ection of life. 30
- Page 43 and 44: 20 / The Subjects of the Artistand
- Page 45 and 46: 22 / The Subjects of the Artistvent
- Page 47 and 48: 24 / The Subjects of the Artistspee
- Page 49 and 50: 26 / The Subjects of the Artistpher
- Page 51 and 52: 28 / The Subjects of the Artistzone
- Page 53 and 54: 30 / The Subjects of the Artistself
- Page 55 and 56: 32 / The Subjects of the Artistnect
- Page 57 and 58: 34 / The Subjects of the Artistcial
- Page 59 and 60: 36 / The Subjects of the Artistphia
- Page 61 and 62: 38 / The Subjects of the ArtistHowe
- Page 63 and 64: 40 / The Subjects of the Artistmist
- Page 66: Part IINeel’s Social Realist Art:
- Page 69 and 70: 46 / Neel’s Social Realist Artmor
- Page 71 and 72: 48 / Neel’s Social Realist Artalt
- Page 73 and 74: 50 / Neel’s Social Realist Artwas
- Page 75 and 76: 52 / Neel’s Social Realist Artdoc
- Page 77 and 78: 54 / Neel’s Social Realist Artten
- Page 79 and 80: 56 / Neel’s Social Realist Arting
- Page 81 and 82: 58 / Neel’s Social Realist Artmea
- Page 83 and 84: 60 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtJoe
- Page 85 and 86: 62 / Neel’s Social Realist Artwou
- Page 87 and 88: 64 / Neel’s Social Realist Artpai
- Page 89 and 90: 66 / Neel’s Social Realist Artsix
- Page 91 and 92: 68 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtDur
- Page 93: 70 / Neel’s Social Realist Artmir
- Page 97 and 98: 74 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtPer
- Page 99 and 100: 76 / Neel’s Social Realist Arthad
- Page 101 and 102: 78 / Neel’s Social Realist Artsis
- Page 103 and 104: 80 / Neel’s Social Realist Artpai
- Page 105 and 106: 82 / Neel’s Social Realist Artint
- Page 107 and 108: 84 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtFul
- Page 109 and 110: 86 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtDre
- Page 111 and 112: 88 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtIn
- Page 113 and 114: 6El Barrio:Portrait of Spanish Harl
- Page 115 and 116: 92 / Neel’s Social Realist Arttha
- Page 117 and 118: 94 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtSuc
- Page 119 and 120: 96 / Neel’s Social Realist Artwhe
- Page 121 and 122: 98 / Neel’s Social Realist Artcal
- Page 123 and 124: 100 / Neel’s Social Realist Artte
- Page 125 and 126: 102 / Neel’s Social Realist Artar
- Page 127 and 128: 104 / Neel’s Social Realist Artun
- Page 129 and 130: 106 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtPu
- Page 131 and 132: 108 / Neel’s Social Realist ArtWh
- Page 134 and 135: 7A Gallery of Players:Artist-Critic
- Page 136 and 137: A Gallery of Players / 113be lost a
- Page 138 and 139: A Gallery of Players / 115Campbell
- Page 140 and 141: A Gallery of Players / 117on Neel
- Page 142 and 143: A Gallery of Players / 119sidered b
The Cold War Battles / 71drawings did not “advocate revolution” and her paintings had no audience. 17Anonymity had its advantages, for Neel did not have to go underground; shewas already there.The Cold War froze communist aesthetics into an equally unbendingdogma. The „exibility of the Popular <strong>Front</strong> years yielded in 1946 to the secretaryof the Central Committee Andrei Zhdanov’s renunciation of all experimentationand a call for a socialist realism that “was the Party,” marked bywhat Maxim Gorky had called “the humanism of the revolutionary proletariat...” 18 Reality for the socialist realist artist was the reality of what theproletariat would become, not what it was. The rigid deƒnition of socialist realismunder Zhdanov restricted its artistic production to idealized pictures ofParty leaders and workers capable of overcoming any obstacle. This lamentableideological position was given its American voice in June 1947 by V. J.Jerome, head the cultural commission of the Communist Party USA. 19 In hisaddress to the Marxist Cultural Conference in New York City (subsequentlypublished as Culture in a Changing World) Jerome ƒrst criticized the imperialistpolicies of the United Nations and the Truman doctrine. But he reservedhis most virulent language for the Trotskyite intellectuals who had „ed theParty during the war, whom he accused of “literary lynching.” 20To American Marxists he posed a familiar task: “the development of thecultural capacities of the working class, for whom culture is a <strong>matter</strong> of struggle,a <strong>matter</strong> of heroism.” 21 Although her expressed sympathies for Jerome hadto do with his imprisonment under the Smith Act, 22 Neel, who had attendedhis lectures at the Jefferson School, was in general agreement with his call forworking-class communist heroes. This Party line was reiterated, without seriousdebate, in Masses & Mainstream, to which Neel contributed throughoutthe Cold War. A result of the merger in 1948 of Joseph North’s New Massesand Samuel Sillen’s Mainstream, Masses & Mainstream was edited by Sillen,with the authority on Negro history Herbert Aptheker, the black novelist andpoet Lloyd Brown, and the former Art <strong>Front</strong> critic Charles Humboldt (a.k.a.Clarence Weinstock) serving as the associate editors. During the run of itspublication, from 1948 to 1956 (after which it continued for another six yearsas Mainstream), the magazine published drawings by the regulars from theNew Masses, including William Gropper, Robert Gwathmey, Ben-Zion, BenShahn, and Antonio Frasconi. Although its contribution to American culturalhistory is hardly as signiƒcant as the New Masses had been, it merits more seriousdiscussion than it has received to date. 23Masses & Mainstream is the voice of a defensive and embattled Party, strugglingunder systematic governmental persecution during the Cold War. TheSmith Act of 1940 was further strengthened by the Internal Security Act of1950, which required communists to register with the attorney general. How-