On April 2, 1958 the Guild held its Annual Dinner Party for the first time in the Fine Arts Gallery. The theme was "New Directions". It featured a lavish buffet with a performance by three actors from the Old Globe re-creating highlights of their performances in "Caught in the Act", as well as some new original material. Mr. And Mrs. Michael Ibs Gonzales, President of the Fine Arts Society and Mr. And Mrs. Warren Beach, Gallery Director were the guests of honor.
     On May 7, 1958 the Guild held a Panel Discussion, "The Artist and You", in the auditorium of the San Diego Public Library. Jim Gibbs, Guild past-president was the moderator and the panel featured John Dirks, professor of art at San Diego State College, Don Brewer, curator of art at La Jolla Art Center, both Guild members, and Reverend Laurence Pearson, pastor of All Souls Episcopal Church, Point Loma. An exhibit of prints and drawings by local Guild members were on view in the corridor leading to the auditorium.
     Bill Munson had a memorial exhibition held after he died in a car accident in 1958.

     The ongoing debate about the selection of art and artists continues to the present day and it looks like no one has ever been satisfied. Throughout our history it resurfaced again and again without resolution. During the fifties, sixties, and beyond, this debate took on many forms, some about the selection of art for exhibition and collection, others for the selection of the artists themselves for inclusion. The following letter, its reply, and another internal Guild note about this situation were written from different points of view.
     Walter Bock, Assistant Professor of Art at San Diego State College wrote this note to the Members of the Credentials Committee on September 2, 1958.
     "In reference to your appraisal of my work submitted for membership approval of he 28th of August:
     'Superficially clever but lacking in substance. Surely This person must have more mature examples of his work that these. The figure sketches are expressive and facile, but these little prints and watercolors are rather elementary.
     There is not enough originality--artist's self not reflected in work. Needs more study. Name not covered on work.'
     I am indeed flattered by such high and well meaning praise of my work, since, for a moment, I felt sure that in submitting my work to an organization of such accomplished persons my work was in comparison perhaps vulgar and trite, devoid of ideas and lifeless, mechanical and badly produced, pedantic, of an uninspired artist indeed. But with this decidedly encouraging view, I cannot see why I was not accepted into the guild; there must be some hitch."

     Phyllis Wallen, Chairman of the Credentials Committee wrote this note to the Guild Board in response on October 4, 1958.
     "Your President, Mrs. Eve Gilchrist, has informed me of the discussion in your last meeting regarding a recent applicant to the Guild, who had been rejected by the Evaluating Committee and who had reacted by writing a bitterly sarcastic letter to the Board…
     First of all, the Evaluating Committee wishes to state that it agrees with the Board that this whole incident is regrettable in many ways. It is unfortunate, to begin with, that this applicant chose to submit the type of material which he did, when it now seems probable that he has produced more serious works of art then those which the Committee saw. It is regrettable that there was not more careful editing of the jurors' very candid comments before they were incorporated in to the form letter of rejection sent out by the Gallery staff. It also seems most unfortunate to us that this applicant should respond with such a sarcastic outburst and that it should be heard by so many to the embarrassment of all concerned. Evaluating Committees are never happy about rejections, and try never to make them without the most careful weighing of evidence. When, in an occasional case open resentment and bitterness results, we are more than ever aware of the burden of responsibility inherent in trying to judge our fellow man…
     The members voted separately, as is customary, by secret ballot, and without previous discussion or knowledge of the identity of the applicant. None of us were hampered in judging by haste, distractions, pressure, influence or prejudice. There was a clear majority vote of two 'no's, with reasons given, and one 'yes'. Two out of three votes has always been considered decisive by Guild ruling.
     To those who may wonder why a man who does huge oil paintings and has held one man shows should receive two 'no' votes, we can only say that we saw no oil paintings and no evidence of any…
     In case you wonder why comments are required on ballots and passed on to the applicant, it is because experience has shown that most rejectees wish to know why they did not qualify; ask for reasons and for suggestions as to how they may prepare for another try. Many people feel that the negative inference of rejection with no comment is the cruelest and most frustrating of all…
     The present procedure has evolved through a long history of trial and error. In the early days when the Guild was small, the whole membership looked over the works of new applicants and passed judgment by majority vote. As the organization grew larger this system proved cumbersome and not very effective, since practically all comers garnered a majority vote. It began to look as if a more selective method were needed else the Guild might find on its hands a large non-participating membership, inactive and unhappy because of consistent rejections from shows. Screening committees were then set up and minimum standards were discussed. The present three member committee plan, with minor yearly revisions, has been in operation for the past seven or eight years…
     But to return to the specific case in question… an irregularity has been discovered during the course of this investigation. It now comes to light that there was actually more available evidence upon which to judge the applicant than we knew about at the time. This comes as a surprise to all Committee members and is the cause of some concern… When the applicant brought his work to the Gallery he had included some slides of his paintings. He omitted filling out the questionnaire, whereupon the gallery official mailed one to him, and set aside his folder until such time as the questionnaire should be returned, meanwhile placing the slides in the vault for safekeeping. In the vault they remained during the eventual judging of the folder--and may be there still. Whether we could have discerned much from these small slides, and whether the work illustrated would have altered our decision--we cannot say…
     Under the present ruling a rejectee must wait a year before re-submitting… If the Board feels that an exception should be made in this case because of the above irregularity, it may so rule…
     As far as we know there is no ruling against the use of slides in judging, although we can think of several reasons why they might involve problems, such a lack of viewing equipment, difficulty of discerning true color and quality of work, lack of artist's identification, etc….
     It, therefore, seems right to us that this applicant should have a second chance to be judged before the usual wait…
     Possibly some word of explanation or apology is due this person, regarding the oversight of the slides. Such might accompany an invitation to re-submit.
     There is one disagreeable possibility which we should all be prepared to face, in this matter, and that is the chance of a second rejection. That would be adding insult to injury. Such things often happen, even after a year's wait.
     With all of these thoughts in mind, we of the Evaluation Committee conclude our report, apologize for its length, and await your instruction."

     Ruth Rowe, Guild Secretary, wrote a reply to Mrs. Phyllis Wallen on October 15, 1958.
     "Your committee report on the regrettable Walter Bock incident was read to the Art Guild Board at its October meeting. This report, so excellently prepared, has clarified the matter to us so that we feel that the next step can now be taken…We also wish to reassure you that we have confidence in your evaluations, and that we stand back of your decisions…
     The reading of your report was the first description most members of the Board had heard of your committee's methods. Consequently, while the Board has power to legislate, it does not feel as qualified as you or your committee to suggest changes…
In the matter of Mr. Bock we wish to accept your recommendation that he have a second chance to submit…
     The by-laws state in Article III, section 2, that only 'original' work may be submitted, which can be construed to mean that no reproductions are acceptable. At any rate the board ruled that slides can not be used for a bona fida evaluation, although no amendments have been made to the by-laws yet…
     Please realize that we are well aware of the responsibility your committee carries, and of the delicacy of the task of phrasing rejections… We realize too, that this has been a disturbing and time consuming incident for you as it has been for us, and wish to thank you for your diligent and serious attention to it."
     (To my knowledge Walter Bock never became a member of the Guild.)

     On January 8, 1959 it was announced that the Board of Trustees approved the Permanent Guild Exhibit project on a one-year trial period. The show would consist of 4 paintings and one craft selected by a jury of three and changed monthly. It would go into effect on the first of March. This project became the Guild Corner and later evolved into the Sales and Rental Gallery. It was resurrected as Artists Guild Presents in the late 1990's.
     The Guild's Art Guild Corner was widely publicized in the local media. These monthly shows were started in spring of 1959 and all of the works were for sale and/or rental.
     The Guild corner was usually shown in the museum's foyer, but sometimes it was held in the small gallery to the left. These shows were juried with a new one held every month.

     Naomi Baker wrote this article about this new exhibit in the Evening Tribune on March 17, 1959.
Art Guild Corner Scores
     "The San Diego Art Guild Corner, a series of small group exhibitions by guild members, has an auspicious start. The current show is worthy of its place as a public attraction in the Fine Arts Gallery.
     Guild officers and Mina Pulsifer, project chairman, have announced their intention of keeping these strictly selected shows on a level of quality consistent with gallery policy.
Small though this show is, it is of immense encouragement to local artists.
A placard in the show explains: 'By this device, the trustees of the Fine Arts Society hope to encourage knowledge and ownership of works of art by our many fine living artists of this area.'…"

     On May 21, 1959 the Guild Board decided to replace the Spring Show with an All County Show with non-Guild members paying an entry fee.
     In 1959 Ivan Messenger lent to the museum prints from his collection for an exhibition.
     On November 13, 1959, the first Art Guild Auction, then called the "5 to 50 Auction," was held. This idea was repeated for five years as a money-raising event for the Fine Arts Society. The funds were used for prize moneys, exhibitions, and for the Guild's Christmas parties, which were given free and were open to the public. Large attendances were drawn, as the parties were "gay and colorful".

     This article was written about it in the Independent on November 12, 1959:
Art Guild Plans Annual Auction
     "Friday night is the date of the San Diego Art guild's 'Auction Part.' With Everett Gee Jackson, head of the San Diego State College art department as auctioneer, the party will be held at the Fine Arts Gallery.
     Leading artists in the area have contributed their work to be auctioned off at a minimum price of $5 and a maximum of $50.
     Proceeds from the sales will go to provide funds to obtain the services of more prominent jurors for Art Guild shows, present catalogs of higher quality and to award prizes equal to the caliber of Guild shows.
     Fred Holle, artist, and Art Guild board member, is chairman for the party. He announces that there will be a preview of the work at the Gallery from 7:30 p.m., to 8:30, during which time guests are invited to listen to music, have refreshments and browse. The auction will start at 8:30, with music and entertainment to follow.
     A coffee-house atmosphere will prevail…progressive jazz…dramatic readings…a mime and folk singing and classical guitar….
     For each sale made; a number will be set aside and after the auction a lucky number will be drawn, the holder to have the purchase price of his piece refunded…"

     Naomi Baker wrote this article in the Evening Tribune on December 1, 1959:
     "DECEMBER SHOWS - Two group shows by the San Diego Art Guild will be in progress all this month.
     The larger will be a Christmas exhibition of watercolors, original prints and drawings in the corridor gallery on the second floor of the main San Diego Public Library.
     The Guild Corner in the San Diego Fines Arts Gallery foyer has an eight-member show, including a mosaic, watercolors, oils and drawings.
     Both displays were arranged by Mina Pulsifer, chairman.
     Such exhibitions, although small, are important to the guild, which in previous years was limited to three large group shows in the Fine Arts Gallery.
     It is encouraging to the artists to have to have their work, strictly selected as to quality, shown more often. The plan serves to acquaint the public with the various types of work being produced by local artists."

back to top