OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023)

170

BUILDING ART DIPLOMACY: THE CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ART

EXHIBITION IN LATIN AMERICA DURING 1941

ANDREA MATALLANA

amatallana@utdt.edu

Sociologist and Master in Social Research (UBA) and PhD in History (UTDT). She teaches in the

Department of Historical and Social Studies at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Argentina) and

at the Centro Cultural Ricardo Rojas (UBA). She has published several books and articles,

including "Nelson Rockefeller y la diplomacia del arte en América Latina" in Eudeba 2021.

Abstract

This article analyzes the visual narrative expressed in the exhibition Contemporary North

American Painting during 1941. It was an attempt by the U.S. government to build an image

of the United States as a modern and industrialized society on South Americans. Over the last

decades, concepts such as cultural diplomacy, soft power, and cultural imperialism have

become part of academic analysis. They were used to talk about the relationship between the

United States and Latin America. Cultural diplomacy has often been utilized to analyze the

United States foreign policy during Cold War, understanding it as a set of cultural strategies

that the American government introduced to align Latin American countries against

communism in the USSR. One issue that differs between the Second World War and the Cold

War is that cultural diplomacy was regarded as a cultural battle against communism and the

USSR. In contrast, the Good Neighbor Policy was conceptualized as a paternalistic position

from the United States, committed to avoiding intervening in the domestic policy of Latin

American countries. Authors such as Gisella Cramer (2012) researched the OCIAA and

Roosevelt Politics and revisited aspects and results from the office. Darlene Sadlier (2012), in

her book "American All," analyzed the different departments and the importance of Good Will

Tours from 1939 to 1945. Also, authors such as Ricardo Salvatore (2006; 2016), in his studies

on "Informal Empire," have helped understand the relationship with the representational

machinery of the U.S. government. From the art perspective, Olga Herrera's research (2017)

on Latin American Exhibition has enormous significance for my analysis. They do not delve

into constructing the visual narrative about Latin America as part of the Good Neighbor

exhibition complex. The article was based on reading, analyzing, and cataloging primary

sources. Likewise, the exhibited works of art were operationalized.

Keywords

Goodneighbor Policy; American Art; OCIAA; Nelson Rockefeller

Resumo

Este artigo analisa a narrativa visual expressa na exposição "Contemporary North American

Painting during 1941". Foi uma tentativa de o governo dos EUA construir uma imagem do país

como sociedade moderna e industrializada sobre os sul-americanos. Nas últimas décadas,

conceitos como diplomacia cultural, soft power, e imperialismo cultural tornara

m-se parte da análise académica. Foram utilizados para apresentar a relação entre os Estados

Unidos e a América Latina. A diplomacia cultural tem sido frequentemente utilizada para

analisar a política externa dos Estados Unidos durante a Guerra Fria, entendendo-a como um

conjunto de estratégias culturais que o governo americano introduziu para alinhar os países

latino-americanos contra o comunismo na URSS. Uma questão que difere entre a Segunda

Guerra Mundial e a Guerra Fria é que a diplomacia cultural foi considerada como uma batalha

cultural contra o comunismo e a URSS. Em contraste, a Política de Boa Vizinhança foi

conceptualizada como uma posição paternalista dos Estados Unidos, empenhada em evitar

intervir na política interna dos países latino-americanos. Autores como Gisella Cramer (2012)

pesquisaram a OCIAA e Roosevelt Politics e revisitaram aspectos do gabinete. Darlene Sadlier

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

171

(2012), no seu livro "American All", analisou os diferentes departamentos e a importância das

Visitas de Boa Vontade de 1939 a 1945. Além disso, autores como Ricardo Salvatore (2006;

2016), nos seus estudos sobre "Império Informal", ajudaram a compreender a relação com a

máquina representativa do governo dos EUA. Da perspectiva da arte, a pesquisa de Olga

Herrera (2017) sobre a exposição latino-americana tem um enorme significado para a análise,

não se aprofundam na construção da narrativa visual sobre a América Latina como parte do

complexo de exposições do Bom Vizinho. O artigo foi baseado na leitura, análise e catalogação

de fontes primárias e as obras de arte expostas foram operacionalizadas.

Palavras-chave

Política de Boa Vizinhança; Arte Americana; OCIAA; Nelson Rockefeller

How to cite this article

Matallana, Andrea (2022). Building Art diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition

in Latin America during 1941. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations, Vol13 N2,

November 2022-April 2023. Consulted [online] in date of last visit,

https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.13.2.6

Article received on 29 June 2022, accepted for publication on 6 October 2022

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

172

BUILDING ART DIPLOMACY: THE CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN

ART EXHIBITION IN LATIN AMERICA DURING 1941

ANDREA MATALLANA

Context

During 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Office of Inter-American Affairs

(OCIAA) to encourage cultural diplomacy in Latin America. At the head of this office was

Nelson Rockefeller, who steered the agency towards strategic and propaganda

objectives. The office purpose was developing two central strategies. The first to exhibit,

which involved constructing a complex of art, ballet, music, advertising, and films to

inform the idea of a culture common between the two Americas. The second was

collecting art from Latino America. Since the beginning of the 1940s, there has been an

increasing interest in completing the exhibition center to introduce Latin American art

through a series of exhibitions for Americans to appreciate South American Art.

When the risk of war was confirmed, the American government decided to send public

figures from the culture, mass media, and art fields to build a better relationship with

Latino America. Franklin Roosevelt's new policy also answered the private sector

philanthropists who thought a more inclusive approach was paramount for the United

States to be accepted. The political impact was double. On the one hand, due to the

widespread introduction of culture as a foreign policy tool and Roosevelt’s unique style,

which distanced itself from the realpolitik that argued that the government only had to

worry about taking care of the economy and military forces. According to Frederick Pike,

the Good Neighbor policy eventually became successful for both sides: “Latin Americans

probably got as many advantages from this bond as the Americans” (1995: XXV).

However, more than relying on accurate information about Nazism penetration, this

policy developed specific cultural imperialism strategies. Many authors argued that the

informal American empire worked through artistic or intellectual networks. Regional elites

joined it and became part of the informal empire process (Salvatore:1996). Cultural

diplomacy played an essential and complex role, even though some ideas on American

identity promoted by the government were not always accepted. The concept of American

culture for exports and Latino culture for domestic consumption in the United States was

developed through diverse interactions.

The U.S. government's purpose could be divided into two strategies. The first involved

assembling an exhibition center whose main goal was “showing.” In order to describe

this experience, we will focus on a critical exhibition of the cultural exchange experience

by the United States in South America, which is the “Contemporary North American

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

173

Painting” exhibition. It was held in 1941, and some of the most outstanding Fine Arts

academics participated.

We will also analyze the composition of the exhibition and the curatorial role of Grace

Morley. She was in charge of contacting South American museums that would participate

in the show. Also, we will discuss the ideas and meaning of the narrative of progress and

modernity as a central topic of the exposition.

Exhibiting the nation

From the OCIAA point of view, that art exchange was part of the defense of the Western

hemisphere. They believed that the exchanges based on culture, history, and art would

inevitably lead to a level of understanding and cooperation with the United States. As

was expressed in a memorandum, “in order to win this battle, more than political and

diplomatic cooperation between governments and more than the economic cooperation

between our industries and productive agencies, we need to feel that we are neighbors

closely and personally” (Rockefeller Family Archives, 1942).

The OCIAA's Art Committee was created. It was run by John Abbott, secretary of the

MoMA, who invited art representatives from museums such as the Whitney, Brooklyn

Museum, the MET, and the American Museum of Natural History. Grace Morley was the

only member of the Committee that belonged to an institution outside of New York. She

was the one that determined the feasibility of the exhibition and planned its circuit. As

she explained to Edward Dodd, the Committee chose her as "the only one in the museum

with expertise in Latin American art, who spoke the language and had the necessary

connections" (G. Morley to E. Dodd, 1941).

One of the primary purpose’s American art exhibition policy was to show that there was

no such thing as German or Italian cultural superiority. Rockefeller's cultural envoys knew

that much of the art produced in Latin America was based on a Eurocentric conception,

where the concept of the high culture was centered on Europe and was indifferent to North

American art.

The OCIAA influenced the American high culture network; consequently, many museums

began working on the government’s cultural projects. The American Alliance of Museums

decided to support hemispheric solidarity and cultural exchange initiatives. Moreover, it

tried to forge alliances with other institutions like the Pan- American Union and encourage

cooperation between museums in North, Central, and South America.

All the cultural exhibition apparatus arranged by the government mainly aimed to prove

that the United States could produce Fine Arts with refinement and their own personal

traits and had no need to copy European avant-gardes. The New World, as Rockefeller

claimed, had the vitality and the dynamism to shape the future. In his letter to Edward

Dodd, Morley stated that in Latin America, "everyone is convinced that we build

skyscrapers and cars too well to be able to produce any type of art" (Morley to Edward

Dodd, April 25, 1941). That is why arranging the exhibition posed a considerable

challenge since it was about revealing American art and forging long-lasting bonds with

the artists of other Americas.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

174

By the beginning of 1941, Morley’s project was approved. In Rockefeller’s political circle,

there was a substantial certainty that their chosen strategy was the right one, even though

some members of the academic elite were not so convinced. Alfred Barr asked her in a

letter if an exhibition on American painting had 'any real value.' She replied before the

Committee that she had reasons to believe that the exhibition would attain a key

geopolitical goal to ensure the United States' position since:

It is a very critical time in South America and there is great pressure from the

Axis countries which are spending tremendous sums to gain cultural as well

as economic and political ascendancy. When the 4th centenary of Santiago

was celebrated, Germany gave a huge collection of facsimiles of prints... Italy

did something important too, but all Britain did was to present a portrait of

an Englishman connected with the history of Chile (Morley, Minutes: 1941).

The report seemed to confirm Nelson Rockefeller’s suspicions and agree with his goal

that the exhibition was a propaganda tool that would tend to assimilate the Americas

culturally.

Grace Morley traveled for a second time to close cooperation agreements. Between

January and March of 1941, she visited the capitals and the main cities and arranged the

South American museums' itineraries to offer three series of painting exhibitions from

the United States. The project was based on the idea of showing "the kind of American

art that Latin Americans would be interested in seeing as part of the exhibition projects”

(Morley, Minutes: 1941). She also claimed to have analyzed all the options to get Latin

American art and spread it throughout the United States, and reached out to the leading

museums and collectors to present an exhibition on American contemporary painting that

would paint an accurate picture of the leading artists.

Grace Morley was an enthusiastic participant in the Latin American art exchange. From

the beginning of the Good Neighbor Policy, she showed great interest in fostering a

successful relationship. When she presented a Latin American art exhibition project

before the Art Committee, she said:

We are ready to undertake the organization of a contemporary artwork

exhibition. I am trying to get watercolors from Ecuador and Chile, and I hope

that, in time, my friends will support this initiative (Morley, Minutes: 1941).

She tried to bring some Latin American painters such as Luis Acuña, Oswaldo

Guayasamin, and others to an extensive exhibition. In Argentina, she met with

Argentinian senator Antonio Santamarina, the Fine Arts Commission president, who

asked her to include a historical section of North American art in the contemporary

exhibition. She argued that she could not go through with it for financial reasons but

assured him that "the contemporary exhibition had an extraordinary quality" (Morley,

1941d.). It is an example of how Morley efficiently combined her talent and political

correctness. She could be enthusiastic and, at the same time, deter her interlocutor from

specific ideas that would take her away from her central purpose.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

175

Morley was cautious in her relationship with the politicians and diplomats of the countries

she visited. Sometimes, she was also critical of the role the OCIAA intended to fulfill.

Morley disagreed with Rockefeller's point of view, who was confident that introducing art

as a weapon was the best way to do politics. However, she believed it was a long-term

process that entailed building a relationship between countries. Morley’s lifelong

commitment to Latin American art developed during her two-month trip on behalf of the

OCIAA and North American art (Morley, 1941e).

During her trip, she discovered a great interest in an exhibition on American painting, so

she informed the Art Committee. She was in charge of choosing the venues where the

exhibition would take place and the best settings to advertise it. In her opinion, they had

to avoid imposing an American point of view without clearly knowing each country's

conditions. She did not trust what she called "wholesale exhibitions," that is to say,

unique ones designed without considering the divergences of the areas and the cultural

and demographic characteristics. Nevertheless, this opinion was not considered when the

Committee planned the exhibition.

The showing was divided into three exhibitions, each with a representative that could be

with her and give explanatory interviews and conferences in different places. The

Western exhibition traveled to the Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City, the National

Museum of Fine Arts in Santiago, the National School of Fine Arts in Lima, and Universidad

Central del Ecuador in Quito. The Eastern exhibition was held at the National Museum

of Fine Arts of Buenos Aires, the Gallery of the Solís Theatre in Montevideo, and the

National Museum of Fine Arts of Rio de Janeiro. Finally, the Northern exhibition was

hosted at the National Library of Bogotá, the National Museum of Fine Arts of Caracas,

and the Salón de Pasos Perdidos of Havana’s National Capitol building. The Northern and

Eastern exhibitions started traveling overseas in July of 1941. In contrast, the Western

exhibition began a month before June, and the three exhibitions ended in December.

The aim is to simultaneously host the exhibition in three circuits, with a one-year limit.

When the “Contemporary North American Painting” exhibition started its tours in June of

1941, the United States had not entered the war yet. Morley was interested in developing

long-lasting relationships with art professionals in South America and the Caribbean.

From her standpoint, the project was “the beginning of an exchange,” the first step

towards “a constant communication with professionals from museums, artists, art critics

as well as institutions and organizations” (Morley, Minutes: 1941).

Due to the risk that the artistic and the political area went separate, Alfred Barr advised

Morley to cooperate with American ambassadors and colleagues during her trip so that

this rift drove a wedge between traditional diplomacy and the cultural envoys not grow.

Nevertheless, she insisted on working with local artists and art professionals and

explained her point of view to Abbott: “Barr’s idea was to work through Americans in

each place. Mine is not, but to put the whole responsibility on the professionals in charge.

It is much more dignified it seems to me, and I think it will get us farther” (Morley,

1941f). She firmly believed that the best way to advance an understanding through art

was to relate with the best-qualified people to find common ground and similar interests.

She aimed to build a cooperation network and not just devise export strategies: "rather

than simply to export culture through ambassadors and consuls (…) The cultural export,”

asserted Morley, “must be carefully avoided” (Morley, Preleminary Report, 1941). When

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

176

she returned from her trip to Latin America and had a meeting with the Art Committee

to voice her impressions and recommendations, the questions that the Committee asked

her about the continent and its population proved how little they knew about it. Helen

Appleton Read, a well-known critic, artist, and author, who would later write an art essay

on the exhibition, asked “if it would be possible for the South Americans to keep to the

schedule." this was a significant concern. Juliana Force (director of Whitney Museum)

asked: "how she thought [Latin Americans] would handle the pictures and whether they

would understand their value” (Potter, 2017, p. 152). All those questions revealed the

prejudice experts held about Latin America. There seemed to be some points of

disagreement in how the expert and the Committee regarded regional art. For the

Committee, Latin America was understood as having homogeneous geography and

culture.

In contrast, Morley believed they were different countries with various cultural traits and

could have diverse views on the exhibition. This is what she told Edward Dodd: “We say,

very glibly, South America or Latin America, but the one thing I know well from knowing

the countries to the South of us a little— probably a little better than anyone else in the

art field just now—is that each country is distinct, has its character, its own personality

and that there is as much difference between country and country as there is in Europe”

(Morley to Dodd, 1941b). She understood South America as a continent and not as an

artistic unit.

Stanton Catlin, in charge of West section, described the general lack of knowledge among

the museum professionals as follows: "we were so naive at that particular time that we

had no idea about the size of South America… some still are. I guess the majority of us

were like that back then” (1941).

In this first step of artistic connection between the United States and South America,

Grace Morley had an outstanding role in the tour organization and the data she could

gather on Latin America's artistic conditions. Subsequently, her participation on the

Committee faded as she started to get disappointed with its policy, even though she

honored her commitment to supporting Latin American artists and promoting the

knowledge of modern Latin American art in the United States. Consistent with her point

of view on the public’s diverse approaches to art, Morley used a strong title for the

conference she gave at the Montalvo Arts Center in Saratoga, California, in 1941, “Latin

America: a diversity, not a geographical unit, in terms of people and artistic background”

(Potter, 2017, p. 15).

The "Contemporary North American Painting Exhibition" was considered the first one of

a series hosted in South America. It sought to exhibit North American contemporary art

samples and express the country’s set of cultural ideals.

The exhibition consisted of two hundred and fifty-five paintings structured in three

different exhibitions. According to Helen Appleton Read, the exhibition had a double

purpose: it was mainly about presenting a general view of art, but it was also crucial to

understand “the political, social and spiritual forces that have created the American

Civilization of 20th century” (Preliminary Study, 1941, p. 5). Almost all of the paintings

belonged to living authors. It was a selection of 112 artists from different trends to

represent the country's regions, traversing Maine coasts, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. The

show sought a “national flavor” regarding the artists’ birthplace and topic selection.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

177

Contemporary North American Painting Exhibition

Even though we cannot reconstruct an accurate tour of the exhibitions, a catalog analysis

can give us clues about the type of art exhibited and the exhibition's aim. First, it should

be stressed that a significant number of the participating authors reflected modern life

experiences: bustling, sometimes puzzling, and challenging. Although they rested upon

this rich tradition, they chose to deal with something different from traditional European

painting topics. These artists sought a new visual language that could do justice to the

realities of their countries and cities.

In second place, the paintings featured in the different exhibitions told the history and the

fights of the United States as a country growing with its own traditions, communities,

and landscapes. The population painted in those figurative works mainly were poor

workers; in some cases, there was a sharp contrast between poverty and growing

prosperity. There was a certain glorification of its people’s hard work and industriousness

in this selection.

The corpus of the exhibition had to be composed very quickly, so many of the materials

came from east coast museums, with a decisive intervention of private galleries and

individual collections representing 38% of the works. The art galleries that intervened

were some of Manhattan’s most representative: Downtown Gallery (whose owner Edith

Halper was one of the leading contemporary North American art dealers), Kraushaar Art

Gallery, Grand Central Galleries, Weyhe Gallery Julie Levy, among many others. Except

for the first two that collaborated with 13 and 8 works, the rest moved from 2 to 5 pieces.

The Whitney Museum contributed 21% of the paintings, and the Metropolitan Museum of

Art and MoMA with 13%. A few museums sent materials: Cleveland, Pennsylvania,

Boston, and Chicago. The tendency of the exhibition was twofold: on the side, the works

mostly belonged to institutions in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and New Jersey, and another

bias of the exhibition was artistic composition.

Regarding the first bias, it is clear that Nelson Rockefeller’s social network was mobilized,

so in the world of art collectors and gallerists, the positive response was remarkable and

demonstrated the commitment of those who were part of Rockefeller’s office. Somehow,

everyone got to work to educate Latin American audiences. In 1941, the American

Museum Association offered a conference under the title “Museums of Art and

Emergency,” pointing out the active role in the contest as a cultural war.

The exhibition was filtered by assuming what Latin American audiences could appreciate

and understand. No country would see the whole because the corpus was divided into

three sections; the election was already fragmented.

The exhibition was one of the devices (or representational machine) that would attempt

to spread a coherent and civilizing image of North America in the southern region.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

178

Source: American Contemporary Art, Catalog (1941)

Artists represented a substantial part of the Ashcan School and The Eight. Pieces by

Henri, Pendergrast and other painters representing nineteenth-century local art were also

included. The aim was to exhibit art related to the direct experience of the typical

constant urban change in the United States. Therefore, many works portrayed the feeling

of haste and liveliness of New York workers. North American modernism brought about

a new visual sense. They were interested in new ways of seeing and being seen in modern

New York City: people walking in parks, hookers in the streets, fireworks in boxing

venues, and vaudeville reviews, a significant bloom of images due to advances in

publications and mass media.

The inclusion of these works provided a sense of report since they caught the scene of a

modern, expanding metropolis. These forms of realism expressed the fast and daring

changes in urban life, trade, and social transformations. Due to these artists, the

exhibition was highly vibrant. At the beginning of the twentieth century, this trend was

a challenge for its time. Far from thinking of the city as an elite, they introduced new

landscapes and urban and working-class characters of all ages and genders. For the

experts, not only did they re-conceptualize art but also the city in itself since they had

banished the golden girl in the garden, replacing her with urban realism (Slayton, 2017).

A group of works showed the urban environment, technological advances, and characters

from the working world as the central theme. Factories and skyscrapers were symbols of

Obras de arte;

MoMA; 30; 12%

; Whitney Museim ;

74; 28%

MET; 34; 13%

Obras de arte;

Brookyn Museum; 19;

¨Privates Galleries;

91; 35%

American Artist

Asocitaion; 13; 5%

Chart 1 - Works Contemporary North American Painting Exhibition

according to Museums

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

179

modern American identity. Paintings by Edward Hopper, one of the most influential XX

Century artists, produced seemingly worldly but mysterious and troubling images of

American life. His compositional style and emphasis on architectural structures about

human figures distinguished him from his contemporaries.

In the same way, George Bellows' works were included, which caught the city's energy

as epic forces in play. His oil paintings featured The Sand Cart (1917) and Dempsey and

Firpo (1924). Bellows was a renowned realist painter of modern urban life who depicted

New York City and its inhabitants in paintings, drawings, and engravings. The second oil

painting was the famous boxing fight between Jack Dempsey and Argentinian Miguel

Angel Firpo in New York Polo Grounds. He managed to show energy and dynamism

through a scene of the most famous sport of that time. It had a particular reference since

it was a famous fight with a local boxing idol in Argentina.

Another renowned painter was Ernest Lawson with High Bridge, who introduced human

presence in architecture and tools as the means to structure the world. The emphasis

was on the immediacy of the experience of the modern city insofar as intense and

demanding. Lawson focuses on the presence of bridges as symbols of American progress.

An example of this symbology is the Brooklyn bridge painting looking onto Manhattan,

where a group of buildings of the 1860s takes center stage, including the Fulton ferry

terminal. There were contradictions between the nostalgic footprints of the past that

faded and became the technological present.

In addition, there was Reginal Mash's artwork, known for his representation of Manhattan

as an ordinary, chaotic place. Mash was a renowned urban realist of the Great Depression,

creating vibrant images of the big city's most sordid aspects of life, often centering on

the worlds of entertainment and leisure. Gairy Burlesque –which framed these concepts-

was featured. Also, Raphael Soyer's Office Girl (1936) was included among those

portrayals of the world of work.

However, it was not just about the city. Some paintings told the history of the rural world.

The workforce in the countryside could be observed in Ogden Pleissner’s Railroad Ranch,

where farmers with cowboy hats build a vast and imposing hayloft. Thomas Hart

Benton’s painting, Roasting Ears, a pioneer mural artist known for his representation of

agriculture at a large scale, the industry, Western landscapes, and essential episodes

from U.S. history, was also included. Benton sold this work of art to the MoMA in 1939.

It is an example of American regionalism that shows the beauty of ordinary people’s work.

The image shows an Afro-American young man picking a corncob with a high and green

stem, an old tree in the background, and a small cabin further.

Images of the working world filled the exhibition: from the fishers on the pier of Zoltan

Sepeshy’s work to Joe Jones' farm scene. Probably, the most unmistakable evidence of

the effort to show progress was John Kane's oil painting Prosperity’s increase (1934),

which represents steel factories, industrial chimneys, and a towbar for riverboats called

"prosperity." and hills with tiny houses looking onto the river can be distinguished at the

back.

The glorification of industry, progress, and trade was typical in all the exhibitions, and

critical works were included, like The Millionaire (1938) and The Syndicate (1939),

painted by Jack Levine. At first glance, they look just like portraits of wealthy men or

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

180

high-class nightlife, but as we pause to observe closely, we can see how their bodies

wrinkle and melt as if they were deflated.

The only exception that showed the life of the upper class was William Glackens’ Girl in

black and white (1914). It was the portrait of an upper-class girl with a nonchalant

attitude sitting on a couch. Like the flower arrangements, her bright dress, a crystal vase,

and tablecloth with tassels point to her high social status.

The exhibition included just a few abstract compositions, such as My Egypt by Charles

Demuth (1927) or House and Street (1931) by Stuart Davis, which were part of the

Eastern circuit. Finally, two of the most daring artists featured in this exhibition were Paul

Cadmus and Jared French. Cadmus with Venus and Adonis (1936) was described in the

catalog as “a heartless and satirical observer of contemporary life. Flawless as an expert,

he leads the group of realist youngsters.” (Rainey, 1941,p. 14). By that time, Cadmus

had done some erotic representations of masculine figures with satirical and dramatic

elements, such as The Fleet’s In, where a group of sailors and prostitutes interacted with

homosexuals. In the case of the work included here, the author seems to have based

himself on Peter Paul Rubens’ work, on canvas, with the same topic, circa 1635- 1640. The

modern Adonis plays tennis and holds a racquet in his right hand and two balls in his left

hand while he rejects Venus and the crying baby.

Finally, one of Jared French’s oil paintings was included. Summer’s Ending showed a

group of youngsters at the beach. Two women were at the forefront, and a group of boys

and another woman were in the background. Against the bluebird sky, the sun was going

down, and the clouds heralded the end of the summer. The leftovers of a picnic (a bottle

of wine) could be seen on a side while the muscled men played, and the women started

to leave. By mid-1941, exhibitions began to be mounted in various countries.

The three-section gathered 119 painters and 290 works in total. The artist more

represented were the following:

Charles Burchfield

Edward Hopper

Reginald Marsh

Charles Demuth

John Marin

Maurice Prendergast

In the case of Burchfield paintings, two belong to the MET, and two to the Whitney

Museum. In the case of Edward Hopper arts, three belong to the Whitney, and one to

MOMA. Finally, the Reginald Marsh paintings belonging to Burchfield and Hopper depicted

the rural and urban vernacular architecture and the sense of loneliness. Hopper painted

American cityscapes and public and semi-public places where people gathered and

interacted. However, the sensation of loneliness and individualization remains. His empty

streets, storefronts, and isolated figures evoke a powerful sense of mystery and alliance

that seem to transcend their particular time and place.

Finally, Reginald Marsh had six works. The social spaces of Harlem represented the

possibility of interracial contact. Marsh's paintings depicted a city fundamentally altered

by the presence of black people that embody progressive modernity.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

181

Reception in Latin America

Generally speaking, criticism in South American countries seemed satisfied with the

exhibition. The reception confirmed the objective proposed by the OCIAA, which was to

"reveal the life and thought of the United States, reflected by the work of [its] painters”

and promote “an atmosphere of mutual understanding” (Catlin, 1941). However, there

were critical voices. In Montevideo, the response was cordial in arguing that the

exhibition had put modern painters at the center of cultural attention. However, the

Uruguayan painter Joaquín Torres García critically examined the sample's message. The

artist, who had lived for several years in New York, noted that the exhibition quality was

regular and that the poor quality of much of the work was due to the artists adopting

European criteria or reacting to the influence of Europe creating a false Indo-American

art. The new American man and the invention of abstract forms that reflect his moral

and intellectual character was not seen" (Ramirez, 2012, p. 525). At a conference,

Torres García affirmed:

[...] the collection includes unforgivable defects, and it is undoubtedly a shame that

the selection process has not insisted on a higher standard. We can see a wide

range of contemporary art produced by our northern friends, which we could not

have done if only the best examples of their work had been shown here.

Torres García pointed out the American artists that what some critics saw in Argentine

or Chilean sustaining works was insipid art that followed the modern trends in Europe.

He did not talk about a cultural convergence in American and European art: pointing out

the aesthetic similarities between U.S. and European painters but a lack of authenticity

and the idea of art with a national specificity.

From another perspective, poet Ernesto Pinto (1941) noted with joy the absence of

European themes in the exhibition:

Without foreign themes, without streets of Paris, without Roman landscape,

without Vienna coffee (...) instead, one finds that the whole theme arises from

the vital substance of the country. Even in the most abstract composition, we can

see the constructive elements that serve the people and machines of everyday

life in the United States.

He did not share the opinion of Torres Garcia, and he exalted the flexibility of the

American canon during this period. There were a variety of ‘streams’ of American

aesthetics: a little abstraction, there were examples of the variety of trends: surrealism,

realism, regionalism, personal work, social content, criticism, etc.

The Western Section contained 125 paintings (oil and guaches), traveled to Lima, Mexico,

Santiago de Chile, and Quito, and was accompanied by Stanton Caitlin. He reported many

newspaper clippings that accounted for their reaping praise. Newspapers in Peru

sustained that this was the “first step towards better Inter-American relations by the

United States, whose activities so far in this direction had been a mere exercise in

rhetoric” (El Tiempo: 1941). Although not all were praised, deeper analyses tended to

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

182

see too much European influence in the exhibition and too many impressionist works. In

Chile, the newspapers emphasized the value of the exhibition: "Paintings from all America

worth millions, will be exhibited in Santiago” or “A valuable exhibition of contemporary

art” were some of the titles (1941). However, some critics as Antonio Romera reported

acids opinions saying that, while in the National Gallery, Mr. Mellon had amassed works

by Giotto, Velázquez, and the Greco, which the Americans could appreciate; they sent

South America a clean painting aura, without pictorial tradition: "Artists seem disoriented

or subjected to the tyranny of multiple American life. Either thing is possible because

they both lead us to the same result." (El Nacional, 1941). The reasons for modernity,

industrialization and everyday life were seen as puerile, repetitive, and vain.

In Brazil, José Lins do Rego (1941) was satisfied because the industrial themes were the

central part of the exhibition: “[...] this expresses the realism of a people who are not

only masters of mass production but are excellent for their sensitivity and for their efforts

to express themselves as true creators.”

Generally speaking, critics celebrated that the paintings showed contrasts and not just

an optimistic and happy vision of American life. The exhibition fulfilled its purpose of

carrying a wide range of American pictorial models and influencing a judgment on artistic

merit. In some cases, it was judged that the quality was uneven. However, while some

flattered American artists for their conceptions of techniques and colors, others, as in

Cuba's case, had an adverse reaction to the show and judged, in many cases, as a

disappointment. The disparity in criticism was due to some essential factors in the context

of the sample. The North section was smaller because the spaces could not house more

than 39 paintings, while the southern countries (eastern and western sections) had the

capacity for more than a hundred paintings. The North traveled to La Habana, Caracas,

and Bogotá, and probably the small size involved a limited selection of artists and styles.

Lewis Riley, who traveled with the exhibition, felt that the show's unfavorable reception

in Havana was due to "some natural sense of competition influenced Cuban writers

towards a more critical than normal attitude." (Report, 1942). Cuban critics argued that

realistic and regionalist paintings in the United States are "more conventional and less

entrepreneurial" (Report, 1942).

The Eastern exhibition was supervised by Caroline Durieux, an American lithographer,

who also advised and helped with the exhibition's staging. Durieux had worked with

Siqueiros during the 30s and knew some Latin American art trends. The show traveled

to Río de Janeiro, Montevideo, and Buenos Aires. In Buenos Aires, the opening was

attended by Argentinean vice-president Castillo, the chargé d'affaires of the United

States, and the justice ministry, among other government officials. In the Museum of

Fine Arts of Buenos Aires, 123 works were exhibited, including Edward Hopper, Georgia

O'Keeffe, Stuart Davis, and Thomas Hart Benton. La Nación stated, "The New World tried

to find itself in the millennial experience it comes from, and it took rules and examples

from it, apart from other pragmatic elements of domestic and immediate use (…) North

America longed to be known. Together with a huge economic and industrial development,

it asserts other values by shedding a pleasant light derived from the spirit of its material

greatness" (1941). The president of the National Commission of Fine Arts, senator

Antonio Santamarina, started his speech with stressing that "a representative exhibition

of contemporary pictorial art in the United States held in our city at times when the

American brothers try to strengthen their natural sentimental bonds and turn into reality

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

183

their common feelings and longings of mutual understanding, which go far beyond the

limits of artistic events and make this ceremony extraordinarily moving" (La Nación,

1941). He seemed to make a correct political assessment of the exhibition, even though

no one knew if that would tilt the government balance to favor the United States.

If one of the purposes of the U.S. policies was to appear in the South American press

linked to culture, it had been achieved. All major national newspapers echoed the art

exhibition, regardless.

The exhibition was also a strategy of the U.S. government to improve the inter-American

relationship. The OCIAA also tried to obtain information on the political situation of the

countries in which it was carried out. Those in charge of the sections submitted reports

on the local political situation in this context. Thus, for example, Caroline Durieux

completed some ideological reports on the characters she met during her visit. In her

final report, she reported the political tendencies of the artists and art representatives

with whom she was associated. Grace Morley did not share the idea that the cultural

mission overlapped with political information assignments that many envoys fulfilled by

gathering information from sensitive sources.

Very different was the vision of Grace Morley on this subject. She wrote a letter to Mr.

Philip R. Adams, executive secretary of the Office of the National Defense Council

Coordinator, claiming that "one of the functions of the Office of the Coordinator is

fostering more Latin American artistic relationships in this country. It always has stroke

me as one of the most reliable means to lay future foundations and foster understanding

now".

In June 1942, the exhibition returned to the United States. The government estimated a

total had seen of 218,089 people in Latin America. The figures were considered

significant. Six presidents and 33 editorials had attended the inauguration. Furthermore,

454 articles on the exhibition were written. (NYT 1942). John Abbot pointed to the

success of the project and the importance of having installed American art in neighboring

countries. The criticisms that the exhibition had aroused had been left behind, and, with

renewed power, Nelson Rockefeller was preparing to redouble his commitment to culture

by sending to South American countries a man of his trust: Lincoln Kirstein, to lead the

task of collecting Latin American works of art to form a section at MoMA.

Conclusions

The Contemporary American Paintings had the intention to document the distinctive

qualities of American culture. Despite curators' ambitions for the exhibition, its inclusion

into a larger, still-forming canon of American painting, and its use as a political

instrument, the choice of works shows that this was an exhibition intended to visualize

the values and styles of lives and exceptionalism of American Society.

Morley was the only art specialist on Latin American art, a proper authority on the matter,

so her aesthetic decisions and recommendations helped construct a Latin American Art

canon.

Convinced of the value of these works and their potential for the future, she understood

Rockefeller's policies as an opportunity to create a bridge with the continent's art. It was

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

184

difficult for her to stick to the goals of the government's strategy, as it did not share the

idea of the direct political use of these projects. Despite some misunderstandings, her

collaboration on the good neighbor policy project was invaluable.

The political intent of locating cultural convergence in American and Latinoamerican art:

pointing out the aesthetic similarities between the Americas impulsed the discussion on

the internationalization of American art. Employed as diplomatic agents, the artworks

were part of the political strategies to build good relationships with others Americas.

In the following years, the U.S. government developed an integral program culture

destined for Europe where "the lifestyle American" and the associated cultural and

symbolic capital were prime signals.

References

Cramer, G. y Prutsch, U. (Eds.) (2012). ¡Américas unidas! Nelson A. Rockefeller's Office

of Inter-American Affairs (1940-46) Madrid, España/Frankfurt, Alemania:

Iberoamericana/Vervuert.

Herrera Ulloa, O. (2017). American Interventions and Modern Art in South America

Gainesville, Estados Unidos: University Press of Florida.

Joseph, G. et al. (1998). Close Encounters of Empire. Durham, Inglaterra: Duke

University Press.

La Nación (1941). La muestra de arte norteamericana. 14 de julio, p. 6.

Potter, B. (2017). Grace McCann Morley and the Dialectical Exchange of Modern Art in

the Americas, 1935-1958 (Thesis) Nueva York, Estados Unidos.

Rainey, A. (1941). Contemporary U.S. Art in interesting Exhibit Washington Post. March

22, p. 14.

Ramirez, M. C. (2012). Resisting Categories: Latin American and/or Latino?: Volume 1

(Critical Documents. Houston, Estados Unidos: Museum Fine Arts Houston.

Rockefeller Family Archives, RAC. «D.C., R.G. 4, NAR Personal» 1940-44. CIAA Bound

Volumes, Subseries 1: CIAA, 1940-1944, Series O: Washington, DC, R.G. 4, NAR

Personal, Rockefeller Family Archives, RAC. Washington, 25 de March de 1942.

Sadlier, D. (2012). Americans All: Good Neighbor Cultural DIplomacy in WorldWar II.

Austin, Estados Unidos: University of Texas Press.

Salvatore, R. (2006). Imagenes de un imperio. Estados Unidos y las formas de

representación de América Latina. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina:

Sudamericana.

Slayton, R. (2017). Beauty in the City. The Ashcan School. Nueva York, Estados Unidos:

State University of New York.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

185

Primary sources

Grace Morley to Edward Dodd, 8 Mayo de 1941, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Archives and Library, ARCH:ADM:001:40:11

G. Morley to Edward Dodd, March 24 1941, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Archives

and Library, ARCH:ADM:001:40:11

G. Morley to John Abbott, January 26, 1941, Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York,

EMH: II.26

G. Morley to John Abbott, April 26, 1941, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Archives

and Library, ARCH:ADM:001:39:

Minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Art Committee, March 19, 1941, Museum of

Modern Art Archives, New York, EMH II.26

Lincoln Kirstein to Nelson Rockefeller, August 3, 1942, Lincoln Kirstein Correspondence

and notes MoMA Archive, New York.

Morley to Edward Dodd, May 8, 1941, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Archives and

Library, ARCH: ADM 001:40:11.

Morley (1941. f) Morley to John Abbott, January 26, 1941, Museum of Modern Art

Archives, New York, EMH: II.26.

More (1941 c) Preliminary Report,” Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York, EMH:

II.21.b. Preliminary report," Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York, EMH: II.21.b.

Morley to Edward Dodd, April 25 1941, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Archives

and Library, ARCH:ADM:001:40:12.

La Nación, July 7, 1941. p. 4

G. Morley a Phillip Adams, November 10, 1941, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Archives and Library, ARCH: ADM:001:39:1

Philip Adams to G. Morley, November 23, 1941, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Archives and Library, ARCH: ADM:001:38:10.

B. Reston (Ernesto Pinto), El Bien Publico, Montevideo, August 19, 1941, reprinted in

"Report of the Exposición de Pintura Contemporánea Norteamericana," National Archives

and Records Administration, Group 229: Reports and Other Records, compiled 1940-

1942. Cited in Potter, B (2015), p. 99.

El Tiempo November 5, 1941 p.4. Stanton L. Catlin papers, 1911-1998. Bulk 1930-1994.

Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

El Nacional, September 12,1941 Stanton L. Catlin papers, 1911-1998. Bulk 1930-1994.

Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

José Lins de Rego, A Manhã, Rio de Janeiro, 12 de noviembre de 1941, re-printed in

“Report of the Exposición de Pintura Contemporánea Norteamericana…” National Archives

and Records Administration, Group 229: Reports and Other Records, compiled 1940-

1942.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 170-186

Building Art Diplomacy: the Contemporary American Art Exhibition in Latin America during 1941

Andrea Matallana

186

Morley to Alfred Barr, October 15, 1942, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Archives

and Library, ARCH:EXH.001.17:41 Some aspect referring to Morley interest in Latino

American arts could be find in the Fabiana Serviddio´s articles: “Intercambios culturales

panamericanos durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. El viaje de Pettoruti a los EE.UU” en

María García et alt: Arte Argentino y Latinoamericano del Siglo XX: sus interrelaciones

Buenos Aires; 2004; p. 55