by Bailey Dolenc

International Exhibition
March 24-April 16, 1913
Chicago, Illinois

With the International Exhibition of Modern Art over one hundred years behind us, now is the perfect time to recollect the controversy and chaos that surrounded the modernist artworks. The rejection of Chicago news reporters and faculty of the Art Institute of Chicago resulted in a general apprehension by American art museums of modern art, restricting most of the country from viewing the exciting progression of art making for at least a decade. Modern artworks, such as Pablo Picasso’s Woman with Mustard Pot (1910) and Marcel Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase (1912), have greatly influenced artists and graphic designers for over one hundred years; why did these artists receive such strong opposition at the time of the International Exhibition in Chicago? It is important to consider the multiple sides of this exhibition and from which it spawned.

The Association of American Painters and Sculptors came up with the idea to host an exhibition of international artists in an American city. Surprisingly, the bulk of the show was made up of the most eccentric European Modernists. This fact alone could have been the reason for the exhibit beginning its tour in New York. Originally, the Art Institute of Chicago had been asked to host the exhibit, but their proposal was denied. The Institute, clinging to the conventions of academic art, taught their students the importance of preserving “Truth” and “Beauty,” a far cry from the standards of the Modernists.

Soon after the Armory Show opened in New York, trustees and patrons of the Art Institute of Chicago schemed about bringing the artworks to Chicago. Arthur Aldis, a governing member of the Institute, was one of them. Aldis had spent time in Europe and was accustomed to modern European artworks. Due to his high esteem towards modern art, Aldis knew the show must come to Chicago. Without consulting his fellow trustees, and most importantly William M. R. French, the Institute’s director, Aldis closed the deal while living in Paris, persuading French much later.

Hostility grew with reports from Chicago journalists covering the show in New York. Dramatic headlines and false facts caused the exhibit to appear grotesque in the eyes of Chicago citizens whom were anticipating its arrival. Harriet Monroe, the art critic for the Chicago Daily Tribune, came up with headlines like “Art Show Open to Freaks” and “American Exhibition in New York Teems with the Bizarre.” Coverage such as this created an atmosphere of unease prior to the opening at the Institute in Chicago.

On March 24, opening day of the exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago, attendance was in the thousands despite bad reviews of the New York show. Perhaps to attract attention and gain readers, reporters continued to give false information on specific pieces, frequently adding a cynical spin. Undeniably, reporters solidified a negative attitude towards modern art. In addition to the opinions of reporters, the people of Chicago found modern artworks difficult to grasp and questioned their morality.

Grade school teachers and Institute professors actively dissuaded their students from viewing the exhibit based on beliefs of morality; a high school teacher went as far as to petition the Board of Education to ban school children from visiting. By closing day, April 16, some students had adopted the contemptuous attitude that had been fed to them in newspapers and class rooms during the span of the show. Two hundred Art Institute students were so offended by the artworks that on closing day were screaming curses while others even acted out in violence.

Today when we view artworks from the International Exhibition of Modern Art we can understand how the foundations of morality and realism in American art were disrupted, and in which ways artists have since deviated from traditional art making. Works by Cezanne, Gauguin, Van Gogh, Duchamp, Picasso, Manet and many others have given way to new art forms and styles, forever altering the way Americans think and see art.

Henri Matisse

Van Gogh

Paul Gauguin

Sources
Martinez, Andrew. “A Mixed Reception for Modernism: The 1913 Armory Show at the Art Institute of Chicago.” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1, One Hundred Years at the Art Institute: A Centennial Celebration (1993), pp. 30-57+102-105.

A True Short Story

The ever-mystifying painting entitled Night Watch was completed in 1642 by the prolific Dutch painter Rembrandt van Rijn. It was commisioned by the Amsterdam militia to be hung along with seven other group portraits in Kloveniersdoelen, the headquarters of various musketeer companies. Its open composition is a united conglomeration of seventeenth-century watchmen whom are standing in no particular order, suggesting a realistic and believable scene. The figures themselves, thirty-four of them, are life-size. Rembrandt earned 1600 guilders to paint the prominent life-size men, and was offered even more contribution from certain men depending on their prominence in the composition.

Fooled by layers of varnish that had covered and disguised the painting over time, nineteenth-century art historians gave Rembrandt’s painting the title Night Watch. The painting’s original seventeenth-century title, The Militia Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq and Lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch, identifies the two men in the foreground. A contemporary inscription states that Cocq is ordering lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch, in white, to lead the company out; it is believed by many historians that the watchmen are preparing for an excursion, perhaps for the visit to the city of the French Queen Mother Marie de Medicis in 1638.

Through centuries of wear-and-tear, including moves to different locales, the painting lost certain areas of the original composition. In 1715, a large section of about 60cm/2ft sq was cut off from the left side when it was moved to Amsterdam’s Town Hall. Almost a century later in 1808, the painting was moved to its current location in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The right hand side and bottom of the painting have been cut out as well; fortunately, painter Gerrit Lundens created a smaller copy of the complete original, now hanging in the London National Gallery. This recreation reveals the beginnings of a bridge which would have been in the foreground.

After several cleanings, Night Watch has been restored to Day Watch. The original composition is known and Rembrandt’s vision is more clearly identified. The purpose of the figures is revealed, entirely altering the initial nineteenth-century perception of Rembrandt’s Night Watch.

By Bailey Dolenc