Mahalia Knight

Prospectus

On February 17, 1913 the International Exhibition of American and European art opened at the 69^th Regiment Armory in New York; approximately some 1,300 modern works of Art both American and European origin were shown, establishing the show as the most prominent if not largest American exhibition by that time. The importance of the show, however, rests not necessarily in the project’s scale but the pieces that were put on display. Although a modern tradition of art theory and work had begun to be established, exemplified by the “Ashcan School” or “The Eight”, even the most conservative estimates place American art sensibilities at least twenty years behind European modern art.

The art show had been put on with the pure intention of introducing Americans to the discoveries and trends taking place in modern European art. Although contemporary art movements, such as the loosely associated “Ashcan” school of artists or infamous group of “Eight” had, in their investigation of non-classical subjects via a photorealistic sensibility, begun to experiment on the fridge of modern art, even the most modern of American artistic rhetoric did not attempt the level of abstraction or intellectualism associated with European modern art. An article printed by the Daily Chicago Tribune, posing the question “When is art art? When wicked?” in response to the recent impoundment of reproduction of Chabas’ “September Morn” from a Chicago store window under the pretext of the work’s lack of “good morals” only further influenced the Association of American Artists and Painters to hold an education exhibition in order to higher the American standard of acceptable art.

The International Exhibition, which would ultimately become to be known as the Armory Show, was an artistic feat in itself; approximately some 1,300 works of art, both painting and sculpture, were put on exhibition, of both American and European origins. However, although the show inspired a new dialogue on the state of modern art in America, it was not necessarily the learned, intellectual forum anticipated by the collaborators of the show. Despite initial congratulatory— if at least fair— reviews, as the show wore on in time, popular opinion quickly devolved into a maddening riot of offended sensibilities that manifested itself into crude humor and incendiary rhetoric.

The presence of advanced modern that art so conflicted with pre-existing American sensibilities inspired different forms of action manifested in the forms of protest. A Chicago high school art teacher petitioned to ban school children from viewing “lewd and demoralizing” art; newspapers printed caricatures of and critical attacks on the works on display; art students demanded the “trial” and “execution” of Matisse and other artists on present at the show. Thus, the question is begged that, if an art exhibit that was meant and intended for the public was rejected by the public, is it a success? Furthermore, how are the organizers of said exhibit expected to respond to a public that so staunchly ridicules their efforts? In the case of the Armory Show, the responses varied, sometimes offensively, as in case of the school teacher, or apologetically, as exemplified by a letter of regret written by the secretary of the Chicago Institute of Art..

On the final day of the Armory Show’s stay at the Chicago Institute, a crowd of art students gathered out on the steps of the museum in order to hold a protest against the art of the show; costumed and arranged in a “funeral procession”, the students proceeded to burn prints of Matisse’s work. Similar lampoons against the Armory Show had already been staged, including the printing of caricatures of the works in newspapers and competitions held between Academic artists in order to produce the next, best “modern” work of art (all of the subsequent entries would later be revealed as too conservative, as only the “maddest” of men could successfully paint “genuine” “cubis[m]”). “Futurism” had even already been already reported as “dead” by the Architectural League a month prior.

What is unique of the congregation of the students outside the Art Institute is the extent the students took to resist the art they had confronted them. As opposed to the majority of conversations and debates that been inspired by the show, the students chose to actively bring their issues to the physical location of the art in question, rather than passively criticizing the show from afar or engaging in the popular printed forum. Furthermore, the students chose to burn both the prints and effigy of Matisse; a destructive act that symbolized the highest level of contempt the students could possibly hold for the art on display. What I am most interested in is the mock “trial” the held, in which Matisse was both accused “guilty” and sentenced to “death”.

I argue that the student’s protest and subsequent “trial” can act as a microcosm of the overall state of relations between the public and the art of the show. The public, like the art students, were confused and dismayed by the European advancements in art and, in their collective confusion as to how to react against art that contradicted Academic values of art, staged similar motley demonstrations against the art. Just as the students placed Matisse on trial and convicted him without a proper defense, so too did the American public place Modern Art on trial and sentence it to mediocrity without listening to the counterargument.

I find it interesting that it would be art students who would lead the most voracious protest against the art of the Armory Show; I wish to explore and discuss what it was about the art that offended so, in hopes of understanding the source of the public apprehension. I intend to conduct a close study of Matisse’s Les Capucines (La Danse II) and discuss what of the European sensibility that celebrated the “spark of life” so perturbed the public and would motivate the art students to call for its death.

I hope to discuss public interaction with art and explore what it means to reject art and it subsequent implications. Primarily, I will be reading and making sense of newspaper articles, letters, pamphlets, and art contemporary to the show in order to best understand its nature. I also am interested in the, sometimes conflicting, historical arguments written on the Armory Show, also attempting to deduce the essence and impact of the show. Therefore, my intensions of this research paper are not to settle the final debate of how important the Armory Show was or even its necessary place in art history. Does public acceptance of art redeem and secure its value? If the nature of public forum is not favorable, would the art exhibition be considered one of non-success? Is there a correct place of art within the social context?

.