Carl Johnson, wrote this letter to Steve Brezzo dated April 15, 1980:
     "The Artist Guild board would like to share with you our concerns about the upcoming exhibit 'Sculpture in California.'
     As a committee of this museum which was founded by local artists, our reason for being is to foster close ties between the museum and local living artists. We were pleased by the way in which Steve Brezzo and Dennis Komac began the selection process for a major show of living California Sculptors. They both demonstrated a desire to look closely at San Diego artists as at the stars from the established cultural centers to the north.
     This is the way a community with pride goes about selecting artists: namely, to assume that its own are as worthy as those from other communities. New York features its own local artists, as does Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is a lingering provincial spirit that makes the San Diego Museum of Art and its trustees assume that no artists of significance live in the San Diego area. This could have been altered by the inclusion in the exhibition of San Diego sculptors, many of whom we believe to be of sufficient merit for such an exhibit.
     After the change in staff at the Museum, when a new juror was needed, the selection of Richard Armstrong was awkward at best. He is a man who has had a difficult time in the San Diego art world, and it should have been anticipated that he would almost totally ignore local artists. The judgment of art is not an exact science and always involves personal taste. Some local artists were rudely mistreated with verbal commitments not kept. This represents a greater problem, namely the lack of strong interest and support of our talented San Diego artists."

     This was a review of that controversy, as published in the San Diego Evening Tribune on April 18, 1980 by Andrea Hoffman:
Exclusion from May show miffs many local sculptors
     "Long before its scheduled May 18 opening, the upcoming San Diego Museum of Art's 'Sculpture in California 1975-80' exhibition has been generating as much controversy as curiosity.
     Questions like 'Who is curator of the show?' and 'Who is invited to participate?' are usually the simplest to answer. Usually, but not this time.
This time, respected artists are questioning how the exhibit and the selection of work have been handled. Their questions are causing a stir in the art community here that would seem potentially discomforting for the new leadership at the museum.
     The affected artists believe the museum has broken oral commitments made to them last spring to include their work in the invitational sculpture exhibit. Just four months before the show, the work was excluded from the final selection. Therein lies the controversy, bringing up concerns about administration procedures at the museum and the museum's relationship to its art community.
     Museum officials see the controversy as unfortunate but unavoidable because of a change in curators for this exhibit and the need for the new curator to be able to maintain his integrity in making his own choice of works to be shown in an exhibit.
     But San Diego sculptor Russell Baldwin, one of the artists involved, wonders aloud whether 'the artist is just a necessary evil to the museum.'
     Baldwin and John Rogers, another sculptor whose work was excluded from the show after early oral acceptance, are among San Diego's best-known artists. Others who have been affected include two board members of the Artists Guild, John Pendleton and Carl Johnson…. (Note: John Rogers never joined the Guild. He told the author that he did not feel it was appropriate to be juried in by other artists and felt it was an indignity. The author concurred.)
     Also controversial is the size of the show. It will include less than 50 percent of the works originally intended under the funding applications made last spring and granted by the California Art Council and the National Endowment for the Arts.
     To Steve Brezzo, director of the Balboa Park museum, it's all perfectly clear. According to Brezzo, the artists who 'felt that they had received a commitment' to be in the show have since been spoken to, and 'There is no problem.'
     Since the quality of the show promises to be a reflection of the exceptionally varied sculptural activity in the State of California during the last five years, many members of the art community feel that the representation of only one sculptor from the San Diego area is discriminatory, and not reflecting of the current art activity here. Selection of work began a year ago. When Brezzo became acting director in June 1979, he and Dennis Komac, then curator of exhibitions at the museum, had already been making the rounds of dozens of sculptors' studios…. Baldwin and Rogers…. were told by Komac last spring that they would be in the show. Others like Pendleton and Johnson were included by Komac in conversations with the sculptors, as though their participation was assumed.
     In August, Komac took on the directorship of San Diego State University Gallery. The displeased artists now say that, because such exhibitions usually take one to two years to organize, they expected that neither Komac's new role at SDSU nor Brezzo's later appointment in March as art museum director would preclude their continuing as curators of the sculpture exhibit. In October, however, Brezzo officially appointed Richard Armstrong, former curator of the La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art, to curate the sculpture exhibition just eight months before it was to begin.
     Brezzo gave Armstrong the list of sculptors who had been previously selected to be in the show by Komac and Brezzo, but the new curator was not told that these artists must be included, according to Brezzo. At the same time mo written notification was given to the artist to alert them to the change.
     But in January, four months before the show Baldwin and Rogers received written rejections. The rejections surprised the artists, who had already invested time and work in pieces they expected to have exhibited.
     Brezzo feels this problem was unavoidable in light of the need for a curator to have autonomy in selecting work to be shown in an exhibit….
     Johnson and Pendleton, respectively president and board member of the Artists Guild - an organization allied with the museum with 250 professional artists as members, say they do not wish to criticize the exclusion from the show of their own work, which they had previously thought would be included.
     However as spokesman for the Artists Guild which had drafted a letter stating dissatisfaction with the events surrounding the show, Johnson says:
     'This has been brought up extensively before the board, and it is the feeling that in curating the exhibit, there were numerous instances of bad communications which were unfortunate for the relations between the museum and the artists. There is no question that the change of curator in midstream further contributed to this poor communication.'
     According to Rogers, an SDSU sculpture professor…. Komac twice visited Rogers' studio last summer. He feels Komac gave a clearly affirmative response to his work and says he was told by Brezzo, 'It looks good for you.' Armstrong later came to see the work and excluded it from the show. A surprised Rogers wrote to Brezzo, who apologized, but made no change.
     'To change curators in the middle of a show is very unusual,' says Rogers. 'I'm concerned that this helps neither Brezzo nor the museum.'
     For Baldwin…. director of the Boehm Gallery at Palomar College, the shift in curators was a jarring creative blow, since the fabrication of Baldwin's work involved detailed planning begun during the summer after acceptance by Komac. He, moreover, had intended to make a gift of the work, an expensive and large pedestal piece, to the museum after the exhibition.
     Baldwin recalls that Armstrong did not visit his studio but spoke with Baldwin on the telephone about the projected work. Armstrong had no further contact with Baldwin until the sculptor received the written notice that he was not in the show….
     'This is the first time anything like this has happened to me…. someone made a mistake,' he says. 'Especially when you're dealing with hometown, you keep your feet dry.'….
     The one San Diego sculptor selected by Armstrong to be in the show is Italo Scanga, a UCSD professor. Two of the sculptors selected, Ken Capps and Wade Saunders, are former UCSD graduate students."

     The following was recorded in the June 17 minutes:
     "Considerable discussion evolved from Sue Osborn's report on the Board of Trustee's meeting about the Museum bylaw change. (Removal of SDMA membership voting rights.) Although a straw poll indicated that the Guild Board was unanimously opposed to the change, the Board decided not to take an official stand. A couple of Board members favored sending a letter to the Tribune thanking it for its thorough and unbiased coverage of the Museum situation. Because many of the Museum staff and trustees regard the media coverage as negative, the Board decided not to place any undue strain on the Museum/Guild relationship by sending an official letter that might be published. However, Board members were urged to send individual letters as his or her conscience dictated."

     On June 22, 1980 the membership of the SDMA voted out the "Membership Vote" by 1654 to 1266. This was a 388 vote margin. Dr. Charles Cutter filed a lawsuit and headed a "Save our Vote" campaign. It ultimately failed and the voting rights, such as the right to choose members of the Board of Trustees at the Museum, were officially eliminated. One of the reasons behind this move by the SDMA, was that for years every time the nominees for the Board of Trustees came up for a vote they were overwhelmingly approved and the SDMA went to great expense, approximately $4,000, each time to assemble the membership in the auditorium for the vote.
     A Guild representative attended Museum Coordinating Council meetings with the chairs of all the other museum committees throughout the early 1980's. These council meetings were later abandoned and communication between the various committees became rare and there is little communication between the various committees to this day.

     The following was recorded in the minutes of the July 15, 1980 meeting of the Guild Board:
     "The Board voted unanimously to approve the sending of a letter to City Librarian William W. Sannwald. The letter, drafted by Mark-Elliot Lugo, protested censorship of Lugo's photography exhibit at the Downtown Library and offered Guild services, in an advisory capacity, to help formulate a more liberal policy."

     Recorded in the August 19, 1980 minutes was:
     "John Pendleton reported on the Museum's Board of Trustee's meeting for July. They are on the threshold of setting up procedures for deaccessioning some of the Museum's collection." (Note: This was very significant as vast numbers of historic paintings, notably by dozens of early members of the Guild, such as most of the Elliot Bouton Torrey seascape collection, were de-accessioned at this time and at other times at pennies to the dollar value of them today. The SDMA lost a small fortune in this untimely removal of its local art.)

     This was recorded in the minutes of the September 16, 1980 meeting:
     "Sue Osborn received some objection from Steve Brezzo over the recent mailing of a letter from the Guild to the City Librarian concerning Mark Elliot-Lugo's censored library exhibit. Among other things, Brezzo felt that because the letter was on Museum stationary, the letter should have been approved by him before it was sent…
Sue also reported that the Museum will not de-accession some of its collection as originally planned." (Note: Many works of art, including numerous oil paintings by Guild members were de-accessioned from the Museum collection and their whereabouts today are unknown.)

     On October 25, 1980 the San Diego chapter if Artists Equity held a "Survival Skills in the Marketplace" seminar co-sponsored by the Guild.
On January 23, 1981 Susan J. Osborn, Chairperson, wrote this letter to the SDMA Volunteer Council c/o Mrs. Kelley:
     "Upon receiving the Jan. Committee Reports from the Museum, I was pleased to see that you are planning an Adult Art Festival. However, the Artists Guild Board was surprised to see 'The Artists Guild will procure artist-instructors in ten creative areas' since none of the Board had been notified of this event.
     As you know, the Artists Guild is composed of over 200 professional and working artists. For many it is their livelihood and sole income to teach and make art. We on the Artists Guild Board insist that any member artists be paid an appropriate fee when sharing his/her professional knowledge to lecture or demonstrate art. The Artists Guild strongly supports the undertakings of the Volunteer Council to produce an Adult Art Festival. We would like to be involved with the condition that each artist procured for the ten areas, be paid for his/her knowledge and time. If not, it is the personal choice of each artist whether or not to volunteer the time and expertise and we would ask that the Artists Guild name not be used in connection with this event."

back to top