"San Francisco '34 Waterfront Strike" by Anton Refregier (1905-1979), 1949 Screen print Courtesy of M. Lee Stone Fine Prints, San Jose, CA

Last weekend, I checked out Hobos to Street People: Artists’ Responses to Homelessness from the New Deal to the Present while visiting San Francisco. The traveling exhibition, currently housed at the California Historical Society, contrasts depictions of poverty by New Deal-era artists with those by contemporary artists. Photographic prints, paintings, woodcut prints and poster art reveal various faces of 1930s and contemporary poverty: breadlines, shantytowns and shopping carts; sleeping on the streets of Skid Row and burning-garbage during a snowy winter’s night for warmth.  The collection does something else; it shows poverty’s persistence throughout United States history, and how different government reactions to poverty have helped and harmed the poor.  I wondered about the differences between the 1930s and today.  Beyond form and subject, what is the difference in how artists have depicted poverty? What is the temporal difference in government reactions to poverty? How was in art in the New Deal era and how has art in the contemporary era been used to impact policy, politics and politicians dealing with homelessness?

For answers, I talked with the exhibition’s curator, Art Hazelwood, whose visual art we feature in the Exhibition section of TAP’s inaugural issue. Hazelwood is a visual artist who creates posters, paintings, and—what I find most incredible—woodcut prints.  Last year, Hazelwood organized Art of Democracy, a “national coalition of political art exhibitions all taking place in the Fall of 2008,” which rallied artists from across the United States to create posters about political issues during election season. Hazelwood continues to be involved in finding ways to use art to make effective, lasting social and political change.

I found many of Art Hazelwood’s ideas and information powerful. That poverty should be an issue that we all care about, that national policy on poverty directly impacts local homelessness, that 1930s visual art was used to advocate for federal policy to relieve the poor, and that an art exhibit is probably one of the easiest ways for policymakers—some of whom have not accepted his invitation to the show—to digest issues of poverty. Check out images from the exhibition here, and read our conversation below.

***

"The Lord Provides" by Jacob Burck, (1907-1982), 1934 Lithograph Courtesy of M. Lee Stone Fine Prints, San Jose, CA

JASMINE: Where did the idea to create this exhibition come from?

ART: I’ve been working with homeless rights organizations for close to fifteen years now. I started when I moved to San Francisco. I came across Street Sheet, which is a street publication by the Coalition of Homelessness. It was the first homeless street paper [in] the country. Homeless people sell it. It has news on issues that affect homeless people, and it has some art in it, so I started working with them, doing art with them. So I’ve been involved since that time with different groups.

One of the founders of the organization that I work with named Paul Boden organizes different homeless rights groups around the city and regionally. He was talking to a historian about the [exhibit’s] parallels with the New Deal. Hearing his conversations about the Depression and the present, it struck me that a really good way to bring into focus the parallels was to do an exhibit about them. So that was the initial inspiration.

JASMINE: Describe some of those parallels from the New Deal era to our contemporary period?

ART: The amazing thing in the history of this country is the repetition of anger towards homeless people. Like with [Former Mayor] Giuliani in New York [City], there were the exact same policies towards homelessness in the 1890s. Homeless people are seen as somehow deranged, needing to be fixed in some way—so policies [are in place] to punish them. Those kind of polices have been ongoing.

But the parallels between the Depression and now: first off, the [vast] numbers of people being affected, you haven’t seen these numbers of people affected by homelessness [as much in other eras]. Following the Depression there was a long period when there weren’t those kinds of numbers. The other parallel is artists working during the Depression because of the WPA, because of the leftist ideas in the air—they made art about issues of poverty.  Artists since the 1980s have started to make art about issues of poverty. So the two parallels [are] one, the reality, and two, the artistic response to it.

JASMINE: What are the marked differences between artists of the 1930s and contemporary artists? What differences became apparent when you were putting together this exhibition? Or were there few differences?

ART: Oh there’s huge differences. One of the big differences was this: during the Depression there was a huge effort to ally organizations like the photographic division of the government’s Farm Security Administration, which was run by Roy Stryker, who organized photographers like Dorothea Lange. He really wanted people to portray the poor being photographed as not just victims. He wanted them portrayed as, in some way, noble. He wanted art that was ennobling. And a lot of artists from that era—even if they weren’t working for the WPA—had an idea of portraying the poor person not as a victim, but as somebody who has a certain amount of power on their own.

You don’t see that as much today. There are some images in the show that are contemporary that show some kind of militancy. It’s militancy directed against the government. Obviously that wasn’t the case when people were working directly for the government during the Depression.

"Third Street Corridor" by Christine Hanlon, (1954 - ), 1998 Oil on canvas, Courtesy of the artist

JASMINE: For me, that was a great learning point from your show—that some Depression-era artists depicted the poor and the homeless in an ennobling way. Why do you think homeless people today are portrayed without that noble element?

ART: A lot of it is just the fact that there was a government response then. The artists since the 1980s have seen the government as being a big part of the problem. The difference in wealth in this country has been driven by government policies. The attitudes towards poor people have been driven by government policies—the sort of “welfare queen” vilification by [President] Reagan, and so on. So artists have portrayed militancy, but they haven’t really embraced this idea of the identity of poor people being the identity that they share. And I think that comes from the fact that during the Depression there was a real strong sense that a lot of people were living in [poverty]. And in the more recent years there’s been more of the division, so homelessness has been seen as off in the corner, as a separate issue, as something that affects some people but not a part of the bigger picture in a way that it was during the Depression.

JASMINE: You make a really good point in the show about how the shopping cart, which is in many ways the symbol of American abundance, is also the symbol of homelessness.

ART: Yeah that was amazing to me. It was a real lesson to me putting the show together. I’m struggling with this right now, I’m trying to do a logo for a group on homelessness. How do you represent homelessness?

The shopping cart is this icon that has become symbolic of homelessness. Some homeless groups don’t like the use of the icon because they don’t think it’s a very empowering image. But it is something that a lot of people use. I hadn’t really thought of the basket of plenty that represents the American dream, being inverted—it’s basically a tool of work for people with nothing else. It’s their recycling basket. It is how they move their things around.

JASMINE: That’s an image that comes from what we see on the streets, but it is also an image that comes from media representations of homelessness. How do you think recent media representations influence contemporary artists and their representations of homeless populations?

ART: Well you know if you were to google homeless images, almost 95% of those images would be extremely pathetic pictures. Most representations of homelessness come from either a point of view of pity, or a point of view of “these people are leaving their needles and feces around my neighborhood.” I think the vilification by the press, particularly in San Francisco, has been extremely strong. There was a brief burst of “gosh this is just like the Depression and maybe there are some homeless people who have lost their homes and we should search for them.” But that was a very quick flurry that seems to have died down after the Sacramento camp was closed. The camp in Sacramento got national attention for a few weeks but then [California] Gov. Schwarzenegger closed the camp down, and that was the end of it.

JASMINE: Not only are homeless people criminalized and often made invisible, they are also often spoken for.  We just don’t hear them, or hear from them—in any close to robust way. How did you navigate that fact—that the homeless rarely speak for themselves—while putting together a show that portrays the homeless? I noticed the outsider art by a woman who was formerly homeless. How important was the first-person inclusion of homeless voices in your exhibition?

ART: Good question. The Depression era artists in many cases were living lives on the edge of poverty. In order to qualify for the WPA Federal Arts Project, proof of poverty was needed. There were exceptions made so that people who had certain skills, but were not broke, could also work for the WPA. One example in this show: Paul Weller left Massachusetts and rode the rails finding odd jobs, including working on the Hoover Dam and [doing] agricultural work until he got back to the East Coast [and] was hired by the WPA and made prints of his experiences.

For contemporary artists there is a difficulty in announcing that “so and so” is homeless. Jane In Vain Winkleman is very direct about her personal experiences of homelessness. Her work is autobiographical. But other artists in the show would prefer not to be named as having been homeless. So that is one aspect of the question. I am not trying to out people about their personal experiences. But the majority of contemporary artists have not been homeless, and yet they try to speak for homeless people.

This is part of the reason why I focused on artwork that was not only made about homelessness but that had some use: street posters, street papers, or photo journalism. Many of the artists in this show work closely with groups that are involved in the struggles of homeless people. As an example I would say that my experience of working with these groups and spending time getting to know the people and the issues on a more intimate level has deepened my own knowledge of homelessness. That is not the same as speaking from personal experience but it gives an understanding to the work that is deeper than otherwise.

However the exhibition also features artists who have neither the personal experience nor the activist connections. And much of that work is also powerful. It speaks powerfully to an audience. Interestingly, when a journalist working with the local street papers invited homeless people in to see the show and ask them what pieces they responded to, they often were drawn to pieces by artists who (as far as I am aware) had neither personal experience nor activist connections. This is not by any means a scientific survey but I think it speaks to the fact that by having artists with a broad range of personal experiences the show is strengthened.

JASMINE: Have you invited any policymakers or public officials or urban developers to the show, and what has been their response?

ART: One of our goals in organizing political discussion is not to get into the local politics of it because the local politics of it become mostly about: “I don’t want those people sleeping in my doorway.” Really, one of the main political points of the show is to say: “this was an issue dealt with by the central government, it could be again.” We’re trying to approach it from more of the point of view that this isn’t an issue that just affects people locally; it’s a national problem. To that end, we’ve tried to have some of [U.S. Speaker] Nancy Pelosi’s people come in to the show. You might have noticed that the stairwell [in the California Historical Society, where the exhibition is housed] was named after Nancy Pelosi. That’s because when she was named Speaker [of the U.S. House of Representatives], they had her party in the building to celebrate her being named the first female Speaker.

Maybe she understandably shies away from associating [with] anything political with her stairway. She wouldn’t respond. So we weren’t able to get any kind of political heavyweights involved in the show.

JASMINE: Do you think the lack of politicians who have seen the exhibit has to deal with the fact that yours was an art exhibition? Do you think that any other form could present ideas of homelessness in a way that is more appealing to policymakers? Or do you think that the topic of homelessness scares policymakers away?

ART: I think it is the topic. I think this is probably the easiest way for policymakers to come see it. It’s an art and history show. One of the advantages of the show: when people come in with their ideas of what homelessness is, what it is today, a lot [of] people come in with romantic ideas about the Depression, “we were all in it together and we all struggled.” They look at the parallels and it can alter their perception of the reality today and [question] why they have a romantic view of poverty in the past, and why they are disgusted with it now. I think it could be a good way for people to comfortably come in and talk about issues of poverty. I don’t think that many politicians are quite comfortable talking about poverty in any case.

JASMINE: What was the visibility of the art from the 1930s and how does that compare to visibility of the contemporary art featured in your show?

ART: In the historical section there are photographs and prints primarily from the depression. One of the things I wanted to show is how these different media were used. Not only then but also now. The idea that an artist makes a piece about homelessness and poverty is interesting in itself, but [also]: how is that piece used? Dorothea Lange went out and photographed the conditions of migrant workers coming from the Midwest out to California. Those photographs were used before Congress to try to get funding for programs. They were also, to some extent, used in the press. Although in the show there’s a Life magazine [piece] which has the work of Dorothea Lange. It was the only time her work was ever used in Life magazine. There was one image, it was not credited to her, and it follows the story of how wonderful technology will save us from future dust bowls. That didn’t really work that well. But the image is quite powerful.

A lot of artists during the Depression were really involved in organizing. There were several groups in New York who organized all kinds of shows. There was an exhibition called “a million roofs,” it was at Rockefeller Center of all places, and it was an art show by WPA artists about housing shortages. The Federal Theatre Project, which was also a WPA project, did a play around the country called “One-third of a Nation,” which was inspired by FDR’s second inaugural speech in which he talked about one-third of the nation being ill-housed. That was an incredible text—the text of this play—it’s basically talking about how the speculators caused tenement housing and the roots of despicable housing in New York City. It was a play that was produced in cities around the country. There were different ways that artists worked to try to get out those messages.

JASMINE: What was the reaction to Eric Drooker’s 1995 New Yorker cover that depicted homelessness?

ART: He was saying that the editors were a little bit concerned about it at first. I don’t know what the reaction was after it was published. There is a recording; you can hear his recording on the website – talking about that piece. [LINK]

JASMINE: What are your upcoming projects and how has this show influenced those projects? I saw some of your artwork in the show, and I’m curious about whether or not you will continue to make artwork that has depictions of homeless populations.

ART: I’m actually working on a project right now with the Western Regional Advocacy Project. They are putting on an event on January 20, 2010—the one year of the anniversary on Obama’s inauguration—to draw attention to what he has done about poverty issues. They are going to have a camp out at the federal building in San Francisco. I am working on a poster campaign for that.  Basically how to visualize that coming together and demanding that attention be brought to the people.

JASMINE: So far what are your reactions to what President Obama has done—or has not done—on issues of poverty?

ART: He has made some good appointments, but so far nothing good has happened. A lot of the same policies are continuing.  On July 1st, HUD rescinded vouchers for housing in the Northwest; HUD decided there were some problems in the way the vouchers were issued, so they withdrew vouchers and they kicked people out on the street. There might be hope as to what the policies might be in the future but the housing Secretary hasn’t enacted to change any of the policies.

JASMINE: [Art Hazelwood told me how after the show ends its run—through August 15, 2009 at the California Historical Society—it will tour across California, and in particular, tour in the California Central Valley in cities like Merced and Bakersfield.] Are there any plans to do some activism work around the touring show?

ART: We are encouraging all the venues to do educational events. For a lot of venues it’s a very difficult show. A lot of the places taking the show are small town libraries or museums in the park or in the city center—a lot of places where homeless people are using their facilities or sleeping outside their door. In many places they have a kind of adversarial relationship. They are nervous about doing the show. For people taking the show it’s quite good to directly address the issue of homelessness.

JASMINE: I left this show so energized with a new image of homelessness. I also left wanting to do something more to improve conditions of homeless people.  Do you have any advice for what the spectator can do after leaving the show as far improving government’s relationship with homeless populations?

ART: One of the things is to realize that there have been programs in the past, there have been efforts in the past—when the government was much worse off—to address issues of poverty. And there have been very clear policies to make things worse for people. Educationally that’s important for people to realize that it’s not just a local issue, it’s a national issue and to get involved in demanding rights for people. It’s not just “I have to help those poor people,” but rather that we have all had our rights taken away, we have had our benefits taken away. We should be living in a society that cares about everybody instead of one that cares about the bankers. In terms of immediate tangible things, I would say: I’ll send you a link to the website and we have a list of actions you can take: [LINK].

***

Hobos to Street People: Artists’ Responses to Homelessness from the New Deal to the Present will be on display at the California Historical Society in San Francisco through August 15, 2009. Thereafter, the show will tour in California. For more information, click here.