This title was digitized by the Museum of Contemporary Art of Georgia (MOCA GA).
About Art papers. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1981-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 1, 1981)
what she considers one of the film’s assets. In one sense, Franklin is right. Traditionally, Black filmmakers and their films are rare. However, when they are able to surface, why must the work inevitably reflect the perspective and predilection of the system that made it a “rare opportunity” in the first place? The message of Clarence and Angel—if you try hard enough the system will work for you—is the same self-serving message that has been expounded since before the days of “emancipation” in order to placate the vital demands of deprived citizens. Rather than reveling in the rhymes and games of children “as they are,” Gardner and Franklin would better serve their community by promoting the changes necessary to prevent the injustice perpetrated upon Clarence and his pal, Angel, both victims of the innocent politics and attitudes of adults as they are. Douglass DeLoach Atlanta, Georgia To The Editor: In reply to Sidney Guberman’s let ter to the editor printed in the July/August 1981 issue, we have yet to see final floor plans for the new High Museum, therefore it is indeed difficult to say that the new Museum “works” totally. However, the ax- onometric and perspective drawings that have been released show us an ar chitecture which appears to be responding to a very complex pro gram in a very direct manner. Both Richard Meier and Gudmund Vigtel have made extensive efforts to collect, absorb and apply as much informa tion and input as possible from their own staffs, artists, architects, other museums, etc. Clearly, the new High Museum is not an “envelope” type facility into which the various func tions are forced to fit, but a structure that accepts, accomodates and ex presses its many functions. One of the museum’s primary func tions is to display art to large crowds. The use of ramps allows this to take place on several levels making the movement from one level to another part of the viewing experience in a way that elevators and stairs can not. This should help minimize “museum fatigue” which has proven to be a considerable problem in larger museums. I cannot defend the new museum’s architecture from an aesthetic point of view. Only Mr. Meier can speak to that issue, but I certainly do not find Meier’s architecture “an embarass- ment of Le Corbusier cliches,” although the great French master’s in fluence on Meier, indeed on many ar chitects, cannot be denied. As for the human figures in Meier’s drawing, I am not sure of their origin. I would like to point out that in Meier’s drawings for the Frankfurt Museum for the Decorative Arts, he used trees from Schinkel’s collected engravings and human figures copied from a 1913 rendering by Otto Wagner. Meier executed the Frank furt project just prior to the High Museum project, and the approach seems to have been carried over. In conclusion I would like to con gratulate Mr. Guberman on his in credible ability to take a “long look” at a set of drawings and then rip them apart four weeks later from memory. Stephen G. Somogy, Cooper, Carry and Associates. Atlanta, Georgia To the Editors: I want to extend my very sincere feelings of appreciation and con gratulations for the continuing and growing excellence of Art Papers. The July/August issue was from front to back a stimulating, comprehensive series of well written articles, thought- provoking interviews and infor mative surveys of a creative environ ment of which, with your help, I feel proud and fortunate to be at least a small part. Currently I subscribe to James Hampton, Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nation’s Millenium General Assembly, mixed media, 32 ' X 9', 1950-1964 (photo: courtesy of the National Museum of American Art, The Smithsonian Institute). Corrections Due to errors in the transcription of our interview with Jim Roche (Vol. 5, No. 4), two artists were incorrectly identified—Neil Jenney and James Hampton. Hampton’s Throne (pic tured above) is a masterpiece of folk art now permanently installed in the Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of American Art. When the monumental sculpture was shown at the Whitney Museum in New York in 1976, Robert Hughes wrote that this creation by the South Carolina-born janitor “may well be the finest work of visionary religious work produced by an American.” In the edited version of the 1981 Arts Festival Symposium, “Regional Influences on Contemporary and Traditional Crafts” (Vol. 5, No. 4), panelist and fiber artist Gary Trentham’s name was spelled incor rectly. In Eric Bookhardt’s article, “Crafts in Louisiana” (Vol. 5, No. 4), the third sentence of the opening paragraph should read: “The pro blem is particularly complex in this area, since the more populous, southern half of the state is, after all, the non-Anglo South for the most part.” Our apologies to the artists and writers. Art Week and the New Art Examiner, and in the past I’ve received Avalan che, Flash Art and the Village Voice. In my estimation, Art Papers is the best publication of its kind around. Nevermind that your pur pose is to cover arts of the Southeast. The newspaper’s material extends beyond regional issues and surely should be of interest to anyone involved with art anywhere. Your range, unpretentious, un-biased and in-depth coverage of relevant issues provide us with a sense of identity and critical climate indispensible to anyone seriously involved in the per sonal search for meaning. 1 was particularly impressed with Albert Stewart’s candid and percep tive thoughts of William Wiley who is, in my opinion, one of America’s truly great artists. Mitchell Feldman’s article on World Music is remarkable in its candid but knowledgeable review of a concert series I now very much regret not having heard. Since I was part of the Regional Crafts Exhibition in Piedmont Park, I was pleased with your review. I want to personally thank Amy Landesberg and Susan Loftin for their sense of adventure, freshness and variety of the work they chose for this show. I admire their courage to take the kind of chances they did and present us with such a wide range of sensibilities found in regional craft artists. Con sidering the incredible amount of work (entirely on a volunteer basis), and extreme difficulty in installing a show in such an awkward space, I feel that the criticism of their position was unnecessary. The fact in my mind that their work does deserve recognition, is the issue, and the purchase awards they received must in fairness be assumed to have been given in an at titude of impartiality. Their fortune in getting some positive feedback could hardly offset what I know from experience is just a whole lot of volunteer work and I think they should be congratulated on their effort and their vision, especially in light of the stimulating discourse the show generated in the Festival Symposium. Sincerely, Andy Nasisse Professor, Department of Art, University of Georgia Athens, Georgia To the editors: Keep up the good work. Richard Hill Instructor, Atlanta College of Art . Marietta, Georgia To the Editors: In the review of the Southeastern Regional Crafts Exhibition in the July-August issue, the piece by Chris Yarbrough is not Point of No Return, but Fan with Circle, Fan with Pink and Tan. One other critical point about the Arts Festival of Atlanta, I always think it important to remember the in herent limitations to a carnival-like, outdoor show. Cordially, Banks Godfrey Director, Piedmont Craftsmen, Inc. Winston-Salem, North Carolina Editors Laura C. Lieberman Dan R. Talley Associate Editor Gail Whatley Contributing Editors Jan Avgikos Victoria Bugbee Douglass DeLoach Linda Dubler Judy Henson Min-Jae Laws Valerie McKenzie Taffy Martin Information Section Editor Alison Somogy Typography Collier Composition, Inc. Printing Walton Press, Inc. Distribution Guild News Agency Atlanta, Georgia L-S Distributors San Francisco, California ART PAPERS (ISSN 0271-2083) is published six times a year by Atlanta Art Papers, Inc. Contents in whole or part may not be reproduced without the written permission of Atlanta Art Papers', Inc. The opinions expressed are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of Atlanta Art Papers, Inc. Correspondence should be sent to Art Papers, 28 Sixteenth St., N.W., Atlanta, GA 30309. All copy to be considered for inclusion should be typed double-spaced and be accom panied by a stamped self-addressed envelope. Subscriptions to Art Papers are $6.00 per year for individuals and $8.00 per year for institutions. Back issues are available of most issues at $2.00 per single copy. The United States Postal Service will not forward copies of Art Papers to a new address. When you move, please send your old mailing label and your new address to Art Papers, 28 Sixteenth St., N.W., Atlanta, GA 30309. Art Pa pers is funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Georgia Council for the Arts and Humanities, and the City of Atlanta Department of Cultural Affairs. ©1981 by Atlanta Art Papers, Inc. Non-Profit Org. U.S. POSTAGE PAID ATLANTA, GA. Permit No. 2147 PUBLISHED BY ATLANTA ART PAPERS, INC. 28 Sixteenth St. NW. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 885-1273 Art Papers September-October 1981 32
