The following was reported in the November 1990 newsletter:
     "Though the Artists Guild and the San Diego Museum of Art have been allied since the inception of the museum, members of the Guild know little about the staff and supporters of the museum. Because of this, our president, Edwin Wordell, asked me to write a series of brief articles for our newsletter. These articles, which will appear from time to time, will acquaint you with the individuals who work behind-the-scenes. Their efforts make it possible for the museum to provide an important cultural service to the community. This is a modest invitation to learn along with me as I probe the less public regions of the museum." Angela Kosta

     The first interview was with Martin Petersen. Here are a few excerpts from that interview:

"A.K.: How long have you worked here?
M.P.: Thirty-three years.
A.K.: It's a different ballgame now, isn't it?
M.P.: It's very different. When I first came here, there was a staff of six and the building was just the center façade. It was intimate. Then the west wing went up in 1966 and the east wing in 1974. Now it's all business…in order to survive…
A.K.: When did things start to change?
M.P.: In the 1950's…
If you were given 'carte blanche' to put on any kind of exhibition, what would it be?
M.P.: It would be idealistic…impossible by today's standards. I'd put together a show of the world's most famous paintings… 'The Mona Lisa', 'The Night Watch', etc.
A.K.: Now that would be a mind-boggling show!
M.P.: Yes!"

     As reported in the December 1990 newsletter, the Guild sponsored a lecture by Mary Stofflet, Curator of Modern Art on January 31, 1991. They published a transfer and resale "TAR" agreement for the artists to help them in protecting their work.

     In the January 1991 newsletter Angela Kosta interviewed Sung Yu, Curator of Asian Art, the first Asian Art curator for he museum.
     In the March 1991 newsletter, Angela Kosta interviewed Malcolm Warner, Curator of Prints and Drawings. Here is an excerpt form that interview:

"A.K.: Any opinions about this museum compared to other museums?
M.W.: Yes, I do. It is unheard of to find two museums such as the Timken Gallery and the San Diego Museum of Art right next to each other.
A.K.: Why?
M.W.: Because both museums suffer from showing their collections in separate buildings. They compete rather than support each other. If the collections of those museums were combined, San Diego would have a world-class museum as opposed to the 'split-personality' these two institutions have now.
A.K.: Can't something be done about this?
M.W. Political and historical reasons keep these two institutions apart." (Note: The origin of this split can be traced back to 1950, when the Putnam sisters were upset with the museums direction toward modern art and bequeathed the remainder of their collection to the Timken.)

     The President's Message by Edwin Wordell from the April 1991 newsletter:
     "At Trustee meetings it becomes evident that in this current economic climate we are in, the museum also suffers somewhat. I met with Steve Brezzo on March 4, 1991. He has requested that all functions of the museum operate within a smaller budget, and he is looking for additional support from the various committees of the museum, including the Guild… With this in mind, our board voted to donate $2,500.00 to the museum to be dedicated to the purchase of California art."

     In the May 1991 newsletter, Angela Kosta interviewed Nora Desloge, Curator of European Art
     During the Board meeting on July 16, 1991, Ed Wordell reported on the Trustee retreat.

     The following appeared in the August 1991 newsletter:
     The Guild and the Contemporaries of the SDMA co-sponsored a three part series of panel discussions on "The Art of Collecting Art". Part I, "The Art of the Collector was held on July 25, Part II, "The Art of the Print", on August 29, and Part II, "The Art of the Deal", on September 26, 1991

     In his President's message from the September 1991 newsletter, Michael Peter Ross mentioned, "Only seven board members showed up for the August meeting. I hope that this will only be a phenomenon of the summer."

     In the October 1991 newsletter, Angela Kosta interviewed Mary Stofflet, Curator of Modern Art.

     This was recorded in the October 15, 1991 minutes:
     "Elaine Harvey reported on the recent lecture series. The first and second lectures were very successful - the third, less so. Many Guild members attended the series and were most enthusiastic."

     During 1991 a series of informal get-togethers was arranged for Guild members to socialize and talk about art.

     In the minutes of February 18, 1992, "Beverly Pearson reported that 120 members have paid their dues… There is a definite need for new members as we have had five resignations and two deaths." By April 127 members had paid their dues. This looked like the lowest number of members since the very beginning.

     On April 21, 1992, the board arranged for a picnic supper to be held in Presidio Park at the Grotto Picnic Ground for the place to hold their annual meeting of the year on Sunday May17, 1992 at 4:00.

     Ruth Holmes wrote this note in March/April, 1992:
     "In reference to the origin of the museum by the guild, the by-laws state 'the museum is administrator the guild arts advisors.'
     All functions have been taken over by the administrators.
     Why should this 'due space' continually be cut back and become a begging ritual every few years for the guild to have to suffer?
     Who says that the administrators' staff is more qualified to jury current artists' works than a highly qualified artist juror, one who is involved in the art of today and possibly stepping toward the next decade?
     Error of the Sdmin. Too tight a rein and poor publicity. The All CA Juried Show has to be a prestigious show to attract prestigious artists….
     The artist expects some kind of remuneration;
the prestigious showplace,
               "      juror,
               "      publicity,
               "      hand-outs….
     The All CA or any other show should be in the newspaper every week until its ending…."

     John Dirks juried the Lyceum membership show June 10 - July 1992.
     Guild celebrated 75th anniversary and 85th anniversary with T-Shirts.
     In the August 18, 1992 minutes the following was recorded:
     The board arranged networking suppers as monthly diner meetings. They met at Sheldon's Restaurant. The Gala was held at Bob and Blaze Perine's home.

     Ruth Holmes, acting secretary wrote:
     "Problem The Guild's immediate problem is the museum board of trustees' and Steve Brezzo's disenchantment with the Artists' Guild to the point of allowing no museum space for the 1993 All California Show, in its present form. After much discussion it was decided to have Beverly Pearson write a brief summary of the Guild's accomplishments in the past and ask what the trustees complaints are about. It was also suggested that we call several past presidents and board members to ask them to attend our Sept. meeting with possible re-definitions of the Guild's 'reason for being' at the museum and/or ideas for a new and more acceptable format for our show."

     Here is Beverly Pearson's summary:
     "The following suggestions are offered for discussion as a possible approach to the challenge confronting the Guild.
     Steve Brezzo has questioned whether Guild shows, at least in their present format, are of sufficient quality, relevance and importance for continuing museum sponsorship. He has not scheduled an annual show for the fall of 1992… There may be a slot in July 1993, for an All California Show, but he will not make this available unless a new formula for this show acceptable to him (and the Museum Board?) can be negotiated. He says the shows of the last three years have been 'flat', that the critics will no longer review them, and sites a letter to him from Robert Pincus in 1990 stating that 'the city and museum have reached a point where such a show is no longer important.' Since the Guild has relied on the income raised by the All California show ($11,000) in 1990 as compared with $1304 for the 1992 dues), cutting off the Guild shows would effectively eliminate the Guild.
     The primary purpose of the Guild in recent years has been to provide an opportunity for Guild members to appear in the museum via a juried show. I agree that the All California show of 1990 hit a new low, especially in the prize winners selected, but that may have been the fault of the juror. Other shows in the museum have been uneven quality, without assistance form the Guild.
     But I think Mr. Brezzo has a point. The San Diego Art Museum should swim with the sharks and play the art game as other major museums in cities the size of San Diego do. It is futile to argue that the artists of the Guild deserve a museum show because they are just as good as any other artists and each community should make an effort to promote its own. One persons delight is another person's schlock. Artspeak can be used to pump up or down the product. Art is a commodity and its success in the current market, above a certain minimum competency, depends on how it is packaged, presented, and presented to the public, by whom and where.
     Like Steve Brezzo, I question whether the resources of the museum should be devoted to this kind of show at this time. But I feel it is still essential for the museum to present some currently producing local artists, city, regional and state, as part of its total annual program. But the curatorial expertise of the museum should not be made available for this task in a way that cannot be done by SDAI, alternative exhibition spaces, or commercial galleries. I am aware that curators and critics often knowingly play games of hype of certain artists, with the intention of engendering certain types of art, and enhancing the value of the work. Like everyone else, they are highly subjective, and much of the public is gullible. But that's the way the art market works, so we might as well work with it. A good curator also contributes to the art education and enjoyment of the public and enhances art when it is well presented.
     Recognizing that curating is also a creative art form in its own right, I suggest that we propose an experimental approach to an All California show in July 1993 along the following lines:
     1) Work with one of the museum curators to develop a concept which would give a focus to the project.
     2) Decide who to approach, or find artists who will be shown. Should some be specially featured? Should some be invited to show? Should an application accompanied by a fee be used? Should a small number of artists be featured, or should the show also include others to be selected by a juror (curator) on the basis of slides submitted? Should 6-8 slides and resumes be submitted so the curator can get some idea of the body of work of the artists applying?
     3) Decide on the amount of space to be reserved for the show.
     4) Decide on the kind and amount of publicity to be provided.
     5) Apportion tasks between the museum staff and guild show committee.
     If this general approach is acceptable, the curator undoubtedly would have considerable input to these decisions. However the input of a group of local artists should be valuable in suggesting artists, trends and concerns that might otherwise be overlooked by museum staff. The result might well be an exhibition that is not 'flat' but enlightening and stimulating to the public, and a service to a number of currently producing artists.
     The question of whether any all-guild member shows would take place at the museum or elsewhere, what other functions the Guild would have for its members or the museum, and its future financing might well be considered during the course of the year."

back to top