On the Ideals of Art

May 14, 2014May 20, 2014 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

In observance of our 400th post here, together with the anniversary this week of Calvin Coolidge’s 1928 Address before the 400 delegates gathered together from the American Federation of Arts and the American Association of Museums, we will offer some especially cogent highlights from the speech. These excerpts illustrate what Coolidge thought of art and that what gave it value and meaning resides in its revelation of reality, truth, and beauty. Here are some of my favorite gems from a little known, oft overlooked but insightful message from President Calvin Coolidge:

“While we have been devoted to the development of our material resources, as a nation ought to be which heeds the admonition to be diligent at business, we have not been neglectful of the higher things of life. In fact, I believe it can be demonstrated that the intellectual and moral awakening which characterized our people in their early experiences was the fore-runner and foundation of the remarkable era of development in which we now live. But in the midst of all the swift-moving events, we have an increasing need for inspiration. Men and women become conscious that they must seek for satisfaction in something more than worldly success. They are moved with a desire to rise above themselves. It is but natural, therefore, that we should turn to the field of art…

“…[I]n a wider sense, the arts include all those manifestations of beauty created by man which broaden and enrich life. It is an attempt to transfer to others the highest and best thoughts which the race has experienced. The self-expression which it makes possible rises into the realm of the divine.” Not everything is art or artistic, Coolidge knew, and though beauty may be in the eye of the beholder it is real art to conceive and design something that broadens and enriches life, that serves as a vessel to bequeath the “highest and best thoughts” mankind has known. That inspiring standard is simply missing from much of what is now sponsored as great, modern art.

A night snapshot of "White City" with its famous tower, a landmark visible up to fifteen miles away. In his mention of this turn-of-the-century amusement park, Coolidge lauds one very specific quality of that site: the inspiration it fostered in those "who had the good fortune to visit it" of a desire to beautify surroundings nation-wide. Coolidge was keenly aware that many had never been there and yet, as with so many things, Coolidge appealed to ideals, to what could and should be, not merely settling for what is.

A night snapshot of “White City” with its famous tower. The tower was a landmark visible up to fifteen miles away. In his mention of this turn-of-the-century amusement park, Coolidge lauds one very specific quality of that site: the inspiration it fostered in those “who had the good fortune to visit it” of a desire to beautify surroundings nation-wide. Coolidge was keenly aware that circumstances had not always been peaceful in and around White City and many had never been there — yet, as with so many things, Coolidge appealed to higher ideals, to what could and should be, to the potential each individual possesses instead of an acceptance of what is now.

Emerging out of the struggle to survive during the first half of the nineteenth century and then to build the country, America turned to the mastery of architecture. Coolidge recounts the great names whose mark remains in the lines and form of Henry H. Richardson’s work, Trinity Church in Boston, the labors of Stanford White and Augustus Saint-Gaudens, the resplendence of the White City in south Chicago, the ornate grandeur of the murals at the Library of Congress and the majestic redesign of Washington’s public buildings making it, as even Coolidge envisioned, “the most beautiful capital in the world.”

Trinity Church, Boston, as it appears today.

Born in Louisiana, Henry H. Richardson would become a legendary designer of Northern landmarks, ushering in his own Romanesque style to what he created and standing as one of the foremost influences on American architectural designs.

Born in Louisiana, Henry H. Richardson would become a legendary designer of many a Northern landmark, ushering in his own Romanesque style and standing as one of the foremost influences on American architectural designs.

It was not only in creating great art, however, that service to nobler principles is rendered, it is also in the preservation and availability afforded by museums that people can find “the development of an artistic sense” as well as “the love of the beautiful.” Coolidge ushers us to the expansive outdoors in full appreciation for the unsurpassed natural canvas within our reach. “Encouragement and aid have been given in the establishment of new museums, particularly those of the small-community type. To furnish facilities for nature study and to enhance the enjoyment of life out of doors, museums have been started in our National and State parks. Whatever may be done to increase museum facilities and to render their collections of more use to mankind as a most valuable service…deserves every encouragement.”

The profile of Stanford White’s Madison Square Garden stand against the skyline, left of the Clock Tower (at right), in this photograph from 1923. It was the second tallest building in New York City in its time.

Here is the very controversial statue of Diana the huntress at the pinnacle of the Madison Square Gardens' tower. It was designed by none other than the great Augustus Saint-Gaudens. Concerns over the modesty (or lack thereof) of the design caused quite an uproar for many years. A cloth was manufactured to cover the statue but it soon blew away. Interestingly, Diana now resides with the Philadelphia Museum of Art, given in 1932 by the owners of the old Garden location, New York Life Insurance Company.

Here is the very controversial statue of Diana the huntress standing at the pinnacle of the Madison Square Gardens’ tower. It was designed by none other than the great Augustus Saint-Gaudens. Concerns over the modesty (or lack thereof) of the design caused quite an uproar for many years. A cloth was actually manufactured to cover the statue but it soon blew away. Interestingly, Diana now resides with the Philadelphia Museum of Art, given in 1932 by the owners of the old Garden location, New York Life Insurance Company.

For Coolidge, the importance of art was not merely its aesthetic qualities but its practical role in improving our lives and the places around us. It meant getting out of the stifling office and back to the woods, the hills and plains, steams and lakes of our country. It meant getting back outside, reconnecting with reality and regaining the unique perspective time in nature can alone provide. “If clothes make the man – and certainly good dress gives one a sense of self-respect and poise – how much more is it true that clean, beautiful surroundings lend a moral tone to a community.” Consequently, without a single government program or legislative package, the “squalor of the slums of our big cities and…the oppressive ugliness of some of the small towns” began going away during the 1920s, a point Coolidge praised. Economic growth encouraged by Coolidge’s tax and budgetary cutting helped, of course, but so did his repeated admonitions to take stock of spiritual things, cultivating our moral power above and beyond our material success. After all, it was the strength of the soul and the resilience of the family that made the home stand, not the steel and concrete or bricks and mortar of a building, however impressive on the outside.

A view up the stairs in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress

Looking up at the Dome of the Library of Congress, featuring the “Evolution of Civilizations” mural

Senator James McMillan

Envisioned by Mcmillan to convey the dignity and grandeur of our Republic, embodied in its traditions and institutions, what became known as the "Federal Triangle" had been advocated for many years before the 1920s. It would be largely through the vision and persistence of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (including no insignificant part by Coolidge himself) who would see it realized in the 1930s.

Envisioned by Mcmillan and his commission to convey the dignity and grandeur of our Republic, as embodied in its traditions and institutions, the “Federal Triangle” project had been advocated for many years before the 1920s. It would be largely through the sacrifice and persistence of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (including no insignificant part by Coolidge himself) that it would finally see completion in 1938.

The incomparable Frederick L. Olmstead left a profound mark on landscape architecture in America, from New York’s Central Park to the design of the Capitol grounds in Washington and, through sons John and Frederick Jr., from the Chicago World’s Fair to the Bok Tower and Gardens in Lake Wales, Florida. He, more than any other designer of his time, underscored the enduring importance of what Coolidge emphasizes in this speech: renewing again our appreciation for and connection to America’s natural beauty.

Art was something more to him than a mere abstraction, it was a reflection of the soul, a diagnosis of the spirit, nationally and individually. This is why caring about genuine beauty and truth had a larger significance than the artifacts in a museum gallery. “It is especially the practical side of art that requires more emphasis. We need to put more effort into translating art into the daily life of the people. If we could surround ourselves with forms of beauty, the evil things of life would tend to disappear and our moral standards would be raised. Through our contact with the beautiful we see more of the truth and are brought into closer harmony with the infinite.”

Coolidge present for the bi-annual meeting of the American Antiquarian Society, this time held outside Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28 Newbury Street, April 15, 1931.

On the Death of American Exceptionalism

May 10, 2014May 10, 2014 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

The assertion that America has unfairly led the rest of the world is not a new claim. For decades the argument has been pushed forth that it is incumbent on the United States to lower its standards around the globe, share its power, scale back its presence and a fairer, more equitable world would rise. We are led to believe that for civilization to advance it must all be in the direction of less individual freedom and more bureaucratic control. It is unjust, they insist, for America to realize such unprecedented prosperity, success and progress while the rest of the nations live in poverty, decay and oppression. Meanwhile, the denial of individual liberty and government by men instead of laws — notions irreconcilable with America’s ideals — are never recognized as central causes to all the suffering. It is as if the subordination of America’s ideals is something over which to rejoice and hasten. Such attitudes are like condemning the victim for the crime rate.

Why America is different is only impugned and criticized, never understood. After all, they assume, Americans took all this wealth, opportunity and its historic living standards from everyone else. Containing far more envy of America’s power than reality warrants, it is conveniently omitted that America is the exception to the rule because of a voluntarily agreed upon set of principles. These ideas, including government by consent, freedom of conscience, the sanctity of individual life, liberty and one’s pursuit of happiness, do not originate from the tyranny and injustice that have defined normal human existence since the beginning.

The rule of a few on the backs of the many has been tried, weighed and found wanting. It makes no difference whether it be called absolute monarchy, democracy, socialism or liberalism, it is the same prevalent, recurring weed that releases the same toxins upon society every time. America, founded as a refuge from suppression of conscience, denial of political choice and refusal of economic opportunity, applied the years of practical experience gleaned since ancient time to forge a government that served a sovereign people, not the people enslaved to government. Authority would reside not in personalities and social classes but in duly enacted laws through representatives delegated with specific responsibilities from the sovereign people. Endowed with the infusion of freedom, restrained by virtue and directed by sound education, America worked beyond the highest expectations of our visionary and audacious founding men and women. Preserved by the duty and service of each generation to those proven ideals, America demonstrated the exception not only succeeds, it perpetuates a very real good at home and for the rest of the world.

Simply because America is no more perfect than any other nation does not disprove that goodness and righteousness are either unattainable in her future or altogether absent from her past. In less than two and a half centuries, America has empowered millions with unprecedented upward mobility, withstood dictators, toppled regimes wedded to personal power rather than the might of its ideals, ventured into every corner of the globe not to dominate and conquer but to defend the weak, build trade and goodwill with all, share with those in distress and serve those in need. Where there has been need for improvement, our constitutional system affords remedy through amendment and circumspect legislation insofar as it follows reform in the people themselves. America has soberly embraced what Coolidge understood so well: With great blessings come greater responsibilities.

America has done all these things because at one time or another, no one else in the “room” stood up when the occasion demanded. The world has been and will continue to be far better off as long as moral power triumphs over material power. While the few redistribute wealth and call it “fairness,” the only commodity being equalized is misery and its attendant restriction of opportunity for everyone. The only ones who gain from this denial of eternal truths are those who already hold political power, and seek to extort more from the rest of us.

America’s ideals, as the exception to the ancient “might makes right” governance of world affairs, will prevail only if the original sovereigns — we, the people — reclaim our governance. The world will not rise simply by our descent. The vacuum will not be filled by some other equally legitimate set of lofty standards. We will do nothing for the world by relinquishing moral leadership now, expecting that fairness comes by descending to the lowest common denominator. The world will simply be less equal, less just, less free and less morally coherent.

As Calvin Coolidge said, “Some say we cannot go on maintaining a higher standard of living for our people than that enjoyed in other nations. We have done so for generations. That is the fact. The theory that it cannot continue may be no better than the theory that it will last indefinitely. Some nation always has taken the lead. But supposing we shall finally reach the same position as others that is no reason why we should now relinquish our supremacy and descend to their level. It is our business to make our conditions the best as long as we can. We would not be justified in tamely surrendering our treasure now because at some time it may be exhausted. To become equal to others we must go down or they must go up. For us to go down would not in itself raise others. Our example of a free and prosperous people has been the sovereign remedy for world oppression. The truth is our trade regulations are more fair to others than theirs are to us. And what is of chief importance is the great service we render by giving credits and furnishing markets. The higher our standards, the greater our progress, the more we do for the world.”

Coolidge once put it even more concisely, “Do not expect to build up the weak by tearing down the strong.” Those who advocate ultimate liberation on the wings of America’s departure from exceptionalism expect more than reality can give. As with so many observations on government and human nature, however, Coolidge could not be more correct. It is a wisdom that can never be escaped, however much nations or individuals wish to jettison the obligations of righteousness or the constraints of moral standards.

On Pan-American Trade

May 4, 2014May 10, 2014 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

The Coolidges and Ambassador Dwight W. Morrow attend the International Conference of American States, December 1928

The Twenties were a decade for Pan-American, or otherwise international, conferences. Coolidge took part in no less than eight during his service in Washington. The issues of international commerce, Pan-American relations, the roll back of “dollar diplomacy” and question of tariff policy revision seemed to attract him to a degree not unlike his commitment to government economy. No one can credibly argue that the Coolidge years were isolationist in outlook or activity. He took every opportunity to personally address those gatherings of private individuals who met to discuss a host of topics from standardization, sanitation, journalism, radio, highways, trade, aviation and many more concerns. As Vice President, Coolidge spoke before the Pan-American Conference of Women sponsored by the League of Women Voters in April 1922. As President he would address the First Pan American Congress of Journalists (April 8, 1926), the Third Pan American Commercial Conference (May 3, 1927), the First International Congress of Soil Science (June 13, 1927), the opening day of the International Radiotelegraph Conference (October 4, 1927), the Sixth Pan-American Conference held in Havana, Cuba (January 16, 1928), the Pan-American Conference on Arbitration and Conciliation (December 10, 1928) and the International Civil Aeronautics Conference (December 12, 1928).

When it concerned America’s connection to the sovereign nations to our south, Coolidge was there at every turn. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff signed by President Harding in 1922, sought to return a higher ad valorem rate to the tariff system, where American-made goods were protected for their value to the markets beyond merely their quantity, size, weight or other factors. The vast majority of goods on the market, no less than sixty percent, were completely free of duties. The Tariff protected American manufacturing while keeping rates low for agricultural products and raw goods. An average 14% increase in rates protected manufacturers from inferior-quality goods flooding the markets and thereby harming both the producer, who has to raise prices to meet higher costs against a cheaper, higher quantity of products, and the consumer, who is left spending more money in the end to replace inferior goods with ones that last. The protective rates, working together with both a large decrease in taxes and reduction in Federal spending, fueled the recovery that brought America out of the 1921 depression and continued (thanks to the Coolidge insistence on economy and tax cuts of 1924, 1926 and 1928) to encourage the spread of prosperity throughout all economic tiers through the rest of the decade. Rather than remaining on course, however, the next administration dismantled the delicate balance of tariff policy up for debate at the worst time. It was the discussion to raise rates even higher in 1929, leading to the passage of a new bill, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, that unleashed an average 20% increase on dutiable imports, a 60% tax increase on over 3,000 imported products and resulted in a destructive series of retaliatory tariff increases by our trading partners around the world. Despite the firm opposition of more than 1,000 economists to the looming increases, President Hoover signed the bill into law in June 1930. While initial figures seem to indicate it was working at first, trade had collapsed and depression only deepened as a result by the spring of 1932.

The Coolidges at the Pan American Conference of Women, Baltimore, April 28, 1922. Delegates from 21 nations took part in the gathering.

However, all this was in the future. As Coolidge took the podium to address the entrepreneurs and business men and women of North, Central and South America, imports in raw materials stood on mutually advantageous terms. As Coolidge will point out, this gathering was not a meeting of government bureaucrats and political operatives, it was a voluntary conference between private individuals exchanging ideas, seeking to better understand the needs, problems and market solutions of free peoples, sharing in the “civilizing influence of commerce.” It was not a forum of coercion presenting terms that benefited one at the expense of others with the aid of American money, military might or political deals. It was part of a the grander movement that “rests on the principle of mutual helpfulness,” which is free market capitalism as it naturally exists. Markets, free of state control, are not driven by Bentham’s mechanistic view of people as but utilitarian cogs in a system but rather fellow collaborators, willingly helping supply and be supplied with what each individual needs.

Coolidge commended this gathering of minds and talents from across our Hemisphere for its true merit which lay “in the fact that it represents not government but private industry.” After all, governments do not create, people engaged in commercial relationships do. “Governments do not have commercial relations. They can promote and encourage it, but it is distinctly the business of the people themselves. If this desirable activity is to grow and prosper, if it is to provide the different nations with the means of self-realization, of education, progress, and enlightenment, it must in general be the product of private initiative.” Keenly aware of the political discontent to the south coupled with a clearly harmonious relationship then existing between Pan-American suppliers and U.S. manufacturers, Coolidge continued, “Under free governments trade must be free, and to be of permanent value it ought to be independent. Under our standard we do not expect the Government to support trade; we expect trade to support the Government. An emergency or national defense may require some different treatment, but under normal conditions trade should rely on its own resources, and should therefore belong to the province of private enterprise.”

The Coolidges en route to Havana to attend the Sixth Pan American Conference, January 1928. They can be seen seated on the front row to the right on the deck of the USS Texas.

The Coolidges in worship services en route to Havana to attend the Sixth Pan American Conference, January 1928. They can be seen seated on the front row to the right on the deck of the USS Texas.

That policy, which lifted America out of depression in 1921 and since 1913 had raised it as the foremost market for Central and South American raw goods, from wood and copper to cane sugar, coffee and food stuffs, was yielding benefits overwhelmingly in favor of our neighbors to the south. If there was any dominant partner, it was South and Central America, who held nearly all of our money in unprocessed materials. The dependence on Europe for a market had decisively changed. Now the United States was buying more in the markets of Central and South America than it was selling. The clear beneficiary was the collection of American Republics south of the Rio Grande. This was not an unsettling or harmful development, in Coolidge’s judgment. It was a definitive good and a proof that markets, allowed freedom within marginal tariff rates on a small portion of goods, are mutually advantageous to all participants. “It is our conclusion that while government should encourage international trade and provide agencies for investigating and reporting conditions, those who are actually engaged in the transaction of business must necessarily make their own contacts and establish their own markets. There is scarcely any nation that is sufficient unto itself. The convenience and necessity of one people inevitably are served by the natural resources, climatic conditions, skill, and creative power of other peoples. This is the sound basis of international trade. This diversity of production makes it possible for one country to exchange its commodities for those of another country to the mutual advantage of both. It is this element that gives stability and permanence to foreign commerce. It contributes to satisfying wants and needs, and so becomes help to all who are engaged in it.”

Vice President Coolidge entertains South American delegates to the Chile-Peru conferences then in session at Washington, June 1, 1922.

Coolidge did not merely praise the broad outlines of growth and commercial collaboration between the Americas, he lauded the specific directions it was taking in the development of transportation, improving the speed the travel by ship, rail, road and air. Coolidge complimented the great network of exchange not only for its material improvement but especially for its conveyance of ideas, its sharing of information, education and communication, embodied in the cable and radio, the Pan American postal agreement, the opening of roads and the clearing of new commercial horizons that resulted. In short, this meant a “more abundant life for all concerned,” not only materially but spiritually.

As he closed his remarks to these market pioneers and creative adventurers from across the Western Hemisphere, Coolidge came back to the intangible importance of what this movement meant. “It is this mutual interdependence which justifies the whole Pan American movement. it is an ardent and sincere desire to do good, one to another. Our associates in the Pan American Union all stand on an absolute equality with us. It is the often declared and established policy of this Government to use its resources not to burden them but to assist them; not control them but to cooperate with them. It is the forces of sound thinking, sound government, and sound economics which hold the only hope of real progress, real freedom, and real prosperity for the masses of the people, that need the constantly combined efforts of all the enlightened forces of society. Our first duty is to secure these results at home, but an almost equal obligation requires us to exert our moral influence to assist all peoples of the Pan American Union to provide similar agencies for themselves. Our Pan American Union is creating a new civilization in these Western Republics, representative of all that is best in the history of the Old World. We must all cooperate in its advancement through mutual helpfulness, mutual confidence, and mutual forbearance.”

Calvin Coolidge and Charles Lindbergh, November 1927. Lindbergh was virtually conscripted as an ambassador of good will to Latin America, on an even grander scale than the pilots of the Pan-American Goodwill flight of 1926. The diplomatic campaign, on the “wings” of Lindbergh’s remarkable solo crossing of the Atlantic that summer, did much to advance Latin American relations. Lindbergh would also meet his future wife, Anne Morrow, as a result of his unwitting venture into diplomacy by airplane.