people are so interested and they want to know so much of what is going on in America because all that they hear about, all that they know about, are refrigerators and Ford cars, and all of the material things that we are exporting.

I, and some artists like myself, have been a cultural export to these countries and they can understand it a great deal better but because they don't have the electricity for the refrigerators and they don't have enough money to even buy bicycles, let alone Ford cars, but why and how is it possible for the Russians to develop and spread their propaganda into the rest of the world that the Americans are culturally barbarians? It is a very sad commentary, believe me, and it has been a shocking thing to me on this past tour of mine that the only music which is widespread throughout the Communist-influenced lands and the Middle and Far East as being of American origin is rock and roll with Elvis Presley as its disciple. And our modern jazz music, while it is a perfectly natural dance form and medium here, and in itself one of our true compositional factors, is heard only in its most lurid forms abroad.

You know, no matter how hard they have tried, the Soviets and the Titoist Yugoslavia, have tried to ban the American dance forms, jazz, and rock and roll, they can't do it. It catches on. There is no doubt about it and there is nothing the matter with it, believe me, Senator Murray, but the thing is that it is not really a criterion upon which to base our American artistic expression abroad. It is no wonder that they really call us musical barbarians.

I would like to interpolate a little note here for one of my colleagues and for myself, too, and I mention in particular Jan Peerce, who had the chance to go into Russia to sing last year, and I sang 2 years ago in Yugoslavia and just was back there this year to sing again for these people. All of these artists, musicians, singers, dramatists, and all the people everywhere were amazed and intensely interested in the fact that there were artists here from America who could sing with such a high type of vocal culture. They had been led to believe that we had no vocal culture at all.

We are only just starting an exchange program of artistic mediums and I would like to say here that I think that one of our best exports is the American personality, the American freedom, which has been my right and the right of every one of our artists, to find our way through our own initiative and through our own efforts even in spite of the fact that we haven't had the recognition that we should have, if I may say so, from our Federal Government, as a cultural medium.

However, we are just only starting on this as an artistic medium, that is, the exchange program, and it is not soon enough to combat the impression that the struggling countries of the East have been given by a planned and concentrated plan which the Russians have been carrying on extensively for the past 5 or 6 years at least. The Boston Symphony itself was a stupendous revelation to the people in Russia when they performed there a couple of years ago. We weren't supposed to have any orchestras.

There are many other examples of ballet, the Porgy and Bess Co., Isaac Stern, the Lisz, and others, but why was the story able to get started in the first place? Because our Federal Government has not heretofore been interested in stressing or backing our cultural activities, not even recognizing such a medium as the arts as a necessary part of our American way of life. Note well that the Communist-dominated countries are encouraged in their cultural life, for the Commies believe that to fully support these creative and interpretative forms is the best way to keep their people contented and feeling that they are far superior to other countries. They are culturally, philosophically, and intellectually ahead of the other countries in the world. This is the best way that they can keep their people content. They can't give them anything else, but they make them feel that they are far superior and that the communistic way is the kind of thing that promotes this type of a medium.

I think that a Federal Advisory Council can and should be able to put us on the world map along with the 38 other countries of the world whose governments have been encouraging, sponsoring, and supporting their artists for many years to greater creative, re-creative, and interpretative efforts.

This will be a step which will provide one more way to close the holes in our dikes, which make it possible for the communistic system to point the finger of derision and criticism at our American way of life, at the democratic principle, the way of freedom and free enterprise, and individual initiative.

Thank you very much.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much for the very interesting statement you have given us. I am sure that it will meet with great pleasure for our com

9491358-5

mittee to study it very carefully. That is your complete statement? You have nothing else?

Miss STEBER. No, sir. If you want to ask any questions, I will be glad to try to answer them.

Senator ALLOTT. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MURRAY. We are very pleased with your statement, which has been very interesting and the points will be given very careful consideration.

The next witness will be Lloyd Goodrich, Chairman of the Committee on Government and Art.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD GOODRICH, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AND ART

Mr. GOODRICH. Mr. Chairman, my name is Lloyd Goodrich. I am Chairman of the Committee on Government and Art, and associate director of the Whitney Museum of American Art.

The Committee on Government and Art, established in 1948, consists of representatives of 12 leading national art organizations in the fields of architecture, painting, sculpture, design, art education, and museums. These 12 organizations are as follows:

American Association of Museums

American Federation of Arts

American Institute of Architects

American Institute of Decorators

Artists Equity Association

Association of Art Museum Directors

College Art Association of America

National Academy of Design

National Association of Women Artists

National Institute of Arts and Letters
National Society of Mural Painters
Sculptors Guild

On behalf of the committee, I wish to express support of the bill S. 1716, to establish a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the committee this would be one of the most important steps ever taken by the Federal Government to recognize the vital role which the arts play in our national life. In recent years there has been a growing realization that the United States is the only major nation which gives practically no place to the arts in its governmental structure. Many nations far smaller have for years done this.

Several factors in the last decade have affected our thinking on this question. The international situation and our leading role in world affairs have taught us the importance of the arts as an international language and a means of promot ing undertsanding among nations.

The shortening workday, the lengthening life span, and growing leisure time are giving the arts an ever increasing value in the lives of all of us, and making them part of that humanizing and civilizing influence which is also given by religion and by science.

Economic conditions in certain fields of the arts, as contrasted with the prosperity of our Nation as a whole, have emphasized the need for broader thinking about welfare of the arts. While there is no question that their chief financial support will continue, as in our past, to some from local, State, and private sources (using the word "private" to include institutions based on private capital), there is nevertheless a growing belief that the arts deserve the kind of recognition which our Federal Government has long given to science, education, and public health and welfare.

This legislation, by establishing in the executive branch an advisory body representing all the arts, would make available to our Government the best knowledge and experience in all fields of the arts. Such an Advisory Council would, for the first time in our national life, provide a body which could consider on a broad basis the position of the arts in our America today and the problems which face them.

This Council would also make available to other branches and other agencies of the Federal Government the best professional advice in the administration of the arts programs which already exist in many of these agencies, but which could not help but profit by such a body and its special committees.

This legislation involves no administrative organization nor any large appropriation. I want to echo Mr. Lindsay's words that this is a bargain. Its modest scale is no measure of its public importance. It has bipartisan backing in both Houses of the Congress, and wide, growing support in all fields of the arts and education. The chief opposition comes from a small but vocal group, particularly in the field of sculpture. In judging the merit of this opposition, certain factors should be considered. The artists in question, who in my opinion-and I believe we can prove it with statistics-represent a minority of the art works, are extreme conservatives, bitterly opposed to any art outside their own viewpoint. For years they have carried on a campaign of attacking most of their fellow artists, other artists' organizations and museums. They have consistently fought any legislation in the arts, or any move to improve governmental art activities. It is not perhaps a coincidence that almost every important governmental sculpture commission for the past 15 years has been awarded to members of the society which is in the forefront of this campaign. I respectfully submit to this committee the question whether this opposition has not been a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and whether their opposition can be considered disinterested. As I believe that most of the testimony today has been.

In the hearing on the corresponding Senate bill last year, S. 3419, and in subsequent public statements, this opposition has misrepresented the legislation in several serious respects. One: that it is a conspiracy by museum directors to control the art world. Mr. Leo Friedlander, former president of the National Sculpture Society, was quoted recently by the New York Times as stating publicly, in a symposium in Washington: "Under the provisions of most of these bills, the practitioners of the fine arts could become essentially the awards of museum directors, art historians and critics, patrons of the arts, teachers and so-called experts."

I do not need to point out to this committee that of course there is no provision in the bill remotely resembling such a provision; on the contrary, it provides expressly that the President in appointing members of the Council is requested to give consideration to recommendations submitted by leading national organizations in the various fields, which would of course include all leading artist organizations. In the fields of painting, sculpture, and architecture, artists' organizations heavily outnumber those of the professions whose domination Mr. Friedlander fears. The Committee on Government and Art, for example, includes 9 organizations of practitioners as against 3 others.

The opposition also objects to including sculpture and painting with the other arts. "Speaking as a sculptor," the New York Times reported, "Mr. Friedlander said he would oppose having even representatives of other art fields sit in judgment on sculpture."

This to my mind shows a complete incomprehension of the provisions of this bill and disregard of the provisions which provide that special committees on the arts should carry on the studies in various fields and that these should be made up of "persons expert in the field of art involved," to quote the bill.

The opposition has charged that the legislation is a move to subsidize the arts and to "pamper" artists. But the proposed Council is purely advisory, not administrative, and has neither the authority nor the funds to subsidize anybody or anything.

The most fantastic charge is that the legislation would stifle artistic freedom by setting up bureaucratic control of the arts. How this could be accomplished by a purely advisory body, without authority over any other governmental agency, let alone over any private institutions or individuals, is not made clear. In this connection, may I quote the basic statement with which the bill begins: "That the growth and flourishing of the arts depend upon freedom, imagination, and individual initiative;" and the statement in committee Report No. 2409 which accompanied S. 3419 as approved by the Senate: "It is the intention of this committee that the Advisory Council, in carrying out its functions, shall not, directly or indirectly, infringe or attempt to infringe in any way, shape or manner upon the freedom of expression in the arts or impose or attempt to impose any form of censorship or governmental control or direction of the arts."

May I say that these statements represent the viewpoint of the Committee on Government and Art, its 12 participating organizations, and the art world in general. The principle of artistic freedom has governed the growth of the arts in America since colonial times, and must continue to govern the arts in a free society. The Committee on Government and Art and its participating

organizations would be unalterably opposed to any legislation which could possibly curtail such freedom.

There is one provision in S. 1716 on which I should like to express the attitude of the Committee on Government and Art. The bill provides that the President, in appointing members of the Council, is requested to give consideration to recommendations submitted to him by leading national organizations in the various fields of the arts a provision which our committee feels is essential to assure the appointment of fully qualified persons, on a nonpolitical basis. However, the bill contains no such provision regarding the special committees. Such a provision was included in S. 3419. We strongly urge that this provision be added to the current bill. We believe that this would assist to answer some of the objections voiced by the opposition.

The other version of this legislation, S. 930, in our opinion has a serious drawback in completely omitting the special committee in the various fields. We be lieve that these special committees are absolutely essential for the Council's functioning, and that without them it would be unable to operate.

In order not to take too much of your committee's time, I omitted a number of points covered in a prepared written statement. With your kind permission I should like to have the privilege of submitting this written statement for the record of the hearing.

In conclusion, may I thank your committee for arranging this hearing in New York and for your courtesy in inviting me to testify.

Senator MURRAY. We thank you very much for your statement and, of course, any additional statements which you wish to present will be carried in the record in full.

Thank you very much.

Miss Celeste Holm has arrived and we will hear from her at this time.

STATEMENT OF CELESTE HOLM, TELEVISION AND MUSIC

Miss HOLM. Thank you very much. I must say I can't help but say that I feel slightly at a disadvantage in having arrived so late, because I am sure that it would have been quite important for me to hear what everyone else that has preceded me has said.

Senator MURRAY. Better late than never.

Miss HOLM. I can only say that in my experience I was exceedingly privileged to be in a play called Oklahoma, which, as you know, seemed to have made a very definite imprint upon the minds and hearts and spirit of a great many people for quite a long time. It came at a time in our history when we were involved in the war and so many people saw it as the last play before they left for overseas or the first play which welcomed them as they came back, and so it is tied up very deeply in many people's minds with perhaps the most distressing part of their entire lives.

As a result of this and certainly there can be no better example of the kind of individual and specifically American achievement in the field of the theater than this play-I was asked to go to Berlin for the State Department to show the German people our American culture in the form of Oklahoma and when we got there I remember wondering just before it started how much they would understand and appreciate what we were doing, and it was magnificently received. Three nights later I had the occasion to be taken to a German nightclub. I am not just telling an anecdote. This has a point. Seated across from meit was the kind of nightclub where they have long tables where you sit with other people was a younger man, a boy about 16, I would say, in a perfectly magnificent red corduroy jacket. The color of the jacket was so beautiful, and I knew that we should try to make as many friends as possible, I dared to say in the most terrible German accompanied by those little tiny dictionaries, "The color of your jacket is beautiful."

He said, "Danke schön." Then I asked him whether he spoke English and he said, "Nein."

So 20 minutes later with enormous effort I managed to squeeze out the question, "Where did you purchase this jacket?" and he said, "In the east sector of Berlin," only he answered me in English.

So I said, "Excuse me. You told me that you didn't speak English." He said "I said that because you Americans seem to expect us to, but you tried to speak my language first."

I said, "Well, you see, I am a comedienne and so I don't mind being laughed at. That is why I dared to try, and you must admit the result was pretty funny." He said, "Yes, but I understood you."

"However," I said, "most Americans don't like to be laughed at. In fact, most people don't like to be laughed at. That is perhaps why some Americans are hesitant about trying to speak German."

Then he said, "You are a comedienne," and asked me what I was doing. Of course I was delighted to tell him because this was exactly the audience we wanted to reach, and he said that he would be most happy to come to the play, but he couldn't afford it. It was only 3 marks, in either currency, so I said I thought maybe I could arrange to see to it that they would come in as guests, high-school students.

The first Saturday he brought six friends and I got them into the play. The following Wednesday he brought 24. The following Saturday something like 197 arrived, and they were all from the east sector, which was exactly the specific group we were trying to reach. They kept coming back; so they must have enjoyed it.

In other words, the point that I am trying to make is that no one can estimate the result of an idea when presented in its best possible form, artistically speaking; and I have the privilege of witnessing this and experiencing it, and I feel that, if anything, this bill can further produce an effect upon people which is needful and important to their spiritual growth and happiness.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you.

Any questions, Senator?

Senator ALLOTT. No questions.

We

Senator MURRAY. We thank you for your very fine statement, Miss Holm. appreciate your presence here. I am sure that the statement you have given will be given careful consideration by the committee.

Miss HOLM. Thank you very much.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you.

The next witness will be Hyman R. Faine. He is representing the Actors Equity and the American Guild of Musical Artists.

STATEMENT OF HYMAN R. FAINE, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN GUILD OF MUSICAL ARTISTS

Mr. FAINE. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Allott, before I read a short statement which I have prepared on behalf of the American Guild of Musical Artists, of which I am the national executive secretary, I would like to know whether this subcommittee has before it the bill which was introduced by Senator Javits and Senator Clark; and, if so, may I just add a few words about that bill as well as other bills.

Senator MURRAY. That is Senate bill 2081.

Mr. FAINE. Yes. Particularly on behalf of the Actors Equity Association, I am going to speak mainly on the second bill.

Senator ALLOTT. May I inquire what you mean by the second bill? S. 2081? Mr. FAINE. Yes, sir.

That is the bill of Senator Javits and Senator Clark.

The reason, may I just explain on behalf of the Equity, is that they have, as an organization, taken a position in such support of the second bill and at the moment have not on the first; therefore, I am not empowered to speak for them on that bill. On behalf of the American Guild of Musical Artists, may I first say how sorry Mr. Brownlee, our president, was that he was not able to come and speak at the invitation of Senator Murray, to present the views of AGMA, and he was unable to do so because of prior commitments. Mr. Brownlee did speak on behalf of the American Guild of Musical Artists last year in support of a similar proposal which was passed by the Senate.

The American Guild of Musical Artists, better known as AGMA, believes that the establishment of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts is a most encouraging step in the direction of recognition by the Government of the United States of the extremely important and vital role which the performing arts have, and are currently playing, in the life of our country.

The American Guild of Musical Artists represents singers, dancers, stage directors, and stage managers in the field of opera, the solo artists in the concert field, and dancers and choristers and stage managers in the field of ballet and dance and, consequently, has a vital interest and stake in the continued expansion of the performing arts in the United States.

We have on many previous occasions expressed our support for the efforts of many legislators, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, for greater recognition by the Federal Government of its responsibilities toward the performing arts and the need for a positive program of assistance and aid