A very large and comprehensive article written by Marilyn Hagberg was published in the San Diego Magazine in October 1966. This article gives us an excellent overview of the entire situation:

GUILD FIGHT

     "Artists are touchy people, and sometimes they touch each other and it hurts. An attempt by a group of area artists to strengthen the San Diego Art Guilds, a committee of the Fine Arts Society, by restricting membership to serious, working, exhibiting artists, has led instead to what appears at this point to be a considerably weaker organization. A recent controversy within the Guild has resulted in the resignation from the Guild of nineteen of the artists in a letter dated July 18, to Evan Jones, president of the Fine Arts Society since this spring…
     The affixed names belong to some of the finest artists in San Diego, and to people who previously were among the liveliest members of the 51 year old Guild… The loss of these men and women to the Guild leaves a hole in the organization that might never be filled, except by great and good deeds, which may now be less likely to occur.
     The unwitting villain in the controversy is the Fine Arts Society's Board of Trustees. The real villains are more abstract, and therefore less easy to accuse. They are: misrepresentation, misinterpretation, ignorance, indifference, emotionalism, short-circuits in communication and problems of semantics. I accuse each of these groups involved in the conflict (the small majority, the smaller minority, the large non-voting Guild membership, the Board of Trustees) of harboring one or more of these.
     The immediate facts concern a new set of by-laws calling for a complete reorganization of the Guild, which until the resignations had about 240 members. These were approved by a vote of 69 to 48, following long and vigorous discussion, at the Guild's annual meeting on June 23. A group of the minority continued to challenge certain conditions in the new document, and the method of their presentation to the membership, and appealed for help to the parent organization, the Fine Arts Society, to which all Art Guilders automatically belong. The FAS Board, unaware up to this point that there was trouble in the family, and concerned that some of its members should be 'unhappy,' called for another election, which led to the mass resignation ('Whatever happened to the democratic process?' asked one abdicator.) During the summer a new Guild board succeeded the old, changed certain of the proposals, and on September 15 the Guild approved an altered set of rules and regulations which allow its members to enjoy a status quo, for three years at least. Most things move fast these days, even in San Diego. Three years is a long time.
     But Art Guild is as Art Guild does… When youthful, enthusiastic, hard-working Jim Sheets and his vigorous board took the Guild reins last spring, they immediately set out to see what they could do to pep up the organization and the Gallery. In the end they didn't do very much for themselves except come up with a plan for reorganization that they hoped would turn the Guild into a vital do-something group…
     Earlier the FAS Board had asked the Guild to re-write its by-laws, or rules and regulations, to bring them more into line with the by-laws of the Society. As nearly as I can discover, this was because of taxation technicalities: the FAS is a non-profit cultural institution and the Guild has long raised money for its shows. Last fall president Sheets appointed Marj Hyde (serving her fourth term on the Guild board) to head a committee to revise the 1963 by-laws under which the Guild had been functioning. Revision turned into reorganization after Miss Hyde and her helpers investigated the nature and conduct of other art groups belonging to major museums across the country. They pointed out that the Art Guild has a large membership of non-producing and non-professional artists and suggested new by-laws and new criteria for membership. They felt that by making the Guild a tight, 'professional' organization of working artists, they would bring greater status to the Guild and its exhibitions and would 'thereby strengthen the Fine Arts Society.'
     A draft of new rules and regulations was written by Marj Hyde. Then Sheets picked another committee to study, revise and re-write (many times) her proposals. For more than six months, the Guild board met--monthly until March, later bi-monthly--to discuss the constant revisions. In addition to the others and board members and either both the Gallery's director Warren Beach and assistant director Rudy Turk, fourteen past presidents of the Guild were invited to attend these discussion meetings.
     A new copy of the new rules and regulations was sent, in April, to Michael Ibs Gonzales, legal advisor for the Fine Arts Society and a trustee…Gonzalez returned it with some suggestions. Sheets brought the final version to the Society's Executive board. Lawyer Gonzalez and president Jones agreed that the new rules and regulations were now legally OK and in no way in conflict with FAS by-laws. They told Sheets he could present them to the Guild membership for voting.
     The following day, Sheets sent a copy of the new by-laws to each Guild member, with a letter indicating something of the reason for the changes and stating the availability of absentee ballots to those who couldn't make the meeting he was calling on June 23. This was the first time the membership had been notified of the reorganization, except by rumor. Herein was found fuel for the fire that was to rage past election night.
     Besides increasing the number of general meetings (from bi-annually to quarterly), there were two significant by-law changes. In the past, Guild business was transacted by the president elected yearly, and fourteen board members, seven of them elected each year. The president chose his own vice-president and secretary, and he sat on the FAS Board of Trustees. The new proposal eliminated the board and called for the election of a chairman, secretary, recording secretary and committee representative to the FAS Board. All would be chosen yearly, except the representative, who would serve the full, three-year trustee term on the Board--thereby allowing the Guild a stronger voice and greater continuity of expression within the Society. This change was not challenged.
     The requirements for membership were something else. According to the old by-laws, anyone could become a member of the Guild if three major works and one or more drawings were approved by a Credentials Committee. This 'jury' of three was selected by each year's president and the jurors were unknown to each other and the aspirant. They secretly and separately reviewed his works and submitted written recommendations to the president. With a different president and jury each year, this method naturally lacked consistency. Jim Sheets ended the cloak-and-dagger aspect of this era by announcing the names of his Credentials Committee. In drawing up new rules, his regime hoped to eliminate subjective selection altogether, and limit membership to 'serious, working, exhibiting' artists. The proposed requirement was: 'proof of acceptance into at least two competitive or invitational major exhibitions (local, regional, national or international), or one-man shows presented at accredited galleries, museums or institutions within the previous three years.' Membership would be maintained by submitting an exhibition record every three years; before, once a member always a member as long as one paid one's dues.
     Obviously, this would eliminate the amateurs and the non-artists from the Guild, and a lot of people who were long-standing members. Understandably this would cause the shedding of many tears of sentiment. The spokesmen for the minority--who incidentally, are exhibiting artists and could meet the standards--wanted 'to protect' those members who, for one reason or another, were no longer painting or exhibiting.
     But the minority caught up the Sheets regime and captured the attention of the Fine Arts Society Board on a technicality. They did not, they insisted, have enough notice of the June 23 meeting or enough time to consider properly the new proposals. They claimed the members had to have fifteen days notice of a general meeting, according to the 1963 by-laws (fact: the 1963 by-laws say nothing about how many days; the new by-laws say fifteen). Sheets and his board believed that they could, according to the old by-laws, do business without the membership, but that an election would be 'the honorable thing to do.' The opposition did not consider reorganization business, and neither do I. 'Any change so important should not have been clouded,' they felt. There were reasons for the seeming haste, however; the annual meeting already had been delayed two months because of the West Wing hold-up.
     In addition to feeling rushed by the short time element, the minority believed the members were being 'railroaded' into accepting the new proposals because of certain vague, inaccurate--and unfortunate--word choices in Jim Sheets' June 14 letter. In this letter he stated that '…a special committee, the board, the last fourteen presidents, the director of the Gallery and myself have been working to perfect this proposal,' and that 'the executive committee, the director (Jones) and the attorney for the Fine Arts Society have approved these new rules and will recommend that the Board of the Fine Arts Society approve them.' Said a spokesman for the minority: 'We got the impression that the matter was already decided. Therefore many of the members felt there would be no reason to attend the meeting and vote.'
     The FAS trustees have neither approved nor disapproved the new rules and regulations. Until he received several letters and phone calls from the distressed minority right after the June 23 meeting, Evan Jones didn't even know what was going on within the Guild. 'We'd keep a hands-off policy,' he says. 'I felt, as did the Board, that although it is a committee of the Fine Arts Society, the guild should run itself.' Still ignorant of the details, and on no side, concerned that a Guild decision was being contested by some members on a time technicality, and wanting to see a peaceful solution, Mr. Jones asked trustee Fielder Lutes to mediate a meeting between Jim Sheets and Marj Hyde of the majority and Margaret (Mrs. Hubert) Price and Eve (Mrs., Byron) Gilchrist of the minority. The purpose of this meeting, held on July 11, was 'to see what kind of compromise could be reached.' Unfortunately, Sheets and Miss Hyde felt, because a review was ordered after the election, that the Board was taking a stand against their new by-laws and that the cards were stacked against them. Weary and demoralized, they conceded to the minority spokesmen that they had given the membership too little notice of the proposed changes in the Guild. They agreed to another election--then went home and resigned from the Guild and the Fine Arts Society. Hot on their heels were the other seventeen artists. They believed that the majority had wanted a change but, erroneously, that the power structure didn't.
     After receiving a report of the July 11 review meeting, the Board of Trustees wrote to the Guild that it disapproved of the action (many Guilders wrongly interpreted 'action' to mean 'by-laws') taken at the June 23 meeting, and recommended that the Guild meet in September to vote again on 'the proposed new, modified, rules and regulations.'
     In August the Guild voted into office, by mail, the slate Jim Sheets and his nominating committee had had 'waiting in the wings' at the June meeting in case the new proposals were defeated. New president Maurice McClees Brown, vice-president Bill Bowne and a board minus three of the resigned artists drew up a revised set of rules and regulations. These were voted upon by fifty Guild members on September 15 and were passed, 36 to 14. There are only two significant changes. The Sheets regime's requirements for membership remain essentially the same--except that they won't go into effect for three years, which gives members plenty of time to exhibit; and they will not apply to those who joined the Guild before 1942 (the year the Fine Arts Gallery closed for World War II). 'Well, we won,' said a former minority, now a majority-voter, immediately after the re-election. Did they indeed?
     It seems to me that a great deal has been lost--and not just the nineteen artists, who, as even Evan Jones says, 'are the kind of artists the Art Guild and the Fine Arts Society most need today.' I don't mean to pooh-pooh sentiment (it helps keep us human) and I can understand, and do privately soften to, the argument that it would be cruel to turn the artistically less active Guilders out into the cold. (They would incidentally, remain members of the Fine Arts Society, which should, after all, be greater than any of its parts.) However, there must be a new Art Guild, if there is to be one at all. The old Art Guild may have outlived is usefulness. The Fine Arts Gallery is now a professional art museum with an international reputation. It has no room for the amateur in its committee of artists.
     Granted, the communications were poor. Reorganization of the Guild was too important to be kept from the membership until the last minute. The Board of Trustees should have made its neutral position clearer, to both sides. More Guild members should have studied what they were given to read. Maybe, then, the childish squabbling over semantics would have been replaced by mature discussions of goals and how best to achieve them--and maybe the nineteen artists would still be in the Guild, still slugging it out for a 'professional' organization. Maybe Marj Hyde and Jim Sheets shouldn't have given up at the July 11 meeting--I think they worked too hard and too long and too honorably, despite some mistakes, for that.
     For good or ill, the events are history. What now? Will the old/new Guild admirably serve the artist and strengthen the Fine Arts Gallery? Will it exert a powerful voice in the Fine Arts Society? Will it work closely with the Gallery's directors, influence the temporary exhibition program and help the Gallery show the artists and the public what's happening in art today? Will it be able, by future deeds, to woo back some of the artists who quit, not in anger but 'because the Guild is no longer in accord with our goals'? If it cannot do these things, and do them well within three years, then, I would say, this committee should not continue to exist. Whipping a dead horse is pointless."

     Kay Whitcomb provided much documentary evidence and spoke at length with me about this episode in Guild history. She wrote:
     "The real trouble is that artists are non-readers and trusting… Rudy Turk was the curator and advisor to the Art Guild in 1965.... He was the villain! … The Art Guild had always had to raise funds to support its exhibitions at the Gallery, and he (Rudy Turk) promoted the idea that the Contemporary Arts (Committee) would now raise these funds for the Art Guild's exhibitions, so they rewrote the By-Laws and railroaded them thru which would destroy the Art Guild in three years. The Museum Director had other directions for the use of the Contemporary Arts energy! … It was not logical for the Art Guild to believe they would get preferential treatment."
     The furor created by the 1966 event left a bad taste in the mouths of most of the Gallery's benefactors and alienated much of the art community from the organization. Never again, despite valiant efforts, was the Guild to be held in the high esteem it had earned over the previous half century, because time and time again the artists met in conflict, instead of cooperation, with each other and the museum, and soon the Guild's once proud heritage, reputation in the community, and most of its membership was lost.

back to top