University Gallery

Who are you?

In addition to the records contained in the WAM archival collection, there are other records related to the museum that can be found in other collections at the University Archives. Archives staff shared with us photographs from the Photograph Collection related to the University Gallery. The only problem was, a few of the photographs did not have captions, thus, we could not determine who was captured within the image.

Who are you?

UA_Photos_Installation.jpg UA_Photos_Sculpture.jpg

It is not until I came across an article in The Minnesotan, 1967-1968 on the Digital Conservancy that I found an answer. These very photos were published alongside a feature article about the gallery titled, “The Place Upstairs” (referring to the gallery – located upstairs in Northrop Auditorium). Pages 6 and 7 of the issue of this publication featured the two photographs from the Photograph Collection at the Archives, and also provided captions…

Left Image: “Museum Director Charles C. Savage, Museum Assistant Helen M. Thian, Art Gallery Technician Larry L. Grunewald.

Right Image: “Mrs. Harold W. Smith and Mrs. Robert L. Summers chat at the opening of the Faculty Women’s Club exhibition at the Gallery.

Thank you again Digital Conservancy!


And the Oscar goes to…

This upcoming Sunday, February 26th, millions of people worldwide will turn their televisions on to catch a glimpse of the glitz and glamour of Hollywood on the broadcast of the 84th annual Academy Awards.

Who will take home the Oscar?

In May of 1936, staff of the University Gallery wondered, “who would take home our Oscar?

Press book clippings reveal a story that could surely rival any award-nominated screenplay – a plotline of crime and betrayal in a gallery caper that went unsolved. The leading role in this gallery mystery was in fact not an award… but a cat.

Oscar2_1936.png Oscar1_1936.png

Assistant to the President, Malcolm Willey, who served as chairman of the Fine Arts Committee, was none too pleased about the theft, and penned a letter to the MN Daily that articulated his disappointment in the incident:

It is perhaps appropriate to claim some of the space in a column called ‘Over the Back Fence’ to talk about cats. Seriously, may I call to attention the implications that are attached to the theft from the Fine Arts Room last week of the wood carving of a kitten. The value of the piece is not the fact of major importance – $12.00 or $15.00, although it is surprising that anyone would steel a mere decorative object worth even this amount. The disappearance of the carving would be easier to understand if it did have more value. I can only assume that some thoughtless person, intrigued by the whimsicality of the piece, carried it off for display elsewhere. The University has tried in the Fine Arts Room to make available to the students a beautiful room that could be enjoyed with informality in moments of leisure. There have been large numbers of students enjoying the room as shown by its use. They have enjoyed the room freely and without anyone standing over them. If things are stolen, it is necessary to have the room supervised constantly. This defeats part of its purpose and violates the spirit under which it has been operated. Someone’s thoughtlessness or disregard of the fact that this carving was after all the property of the University, destroys the privileges that the many students have been given. The only hope is that the carving will be returned. It is an amusing piece and belongs in the room where all students can see and enjoy it. My hope in writing is that someone who did not think of the really serious aspects of a seemingly harmless prank, will read this letter and on second thought, realize how unfair he has been to the students – and then that Oscar will thereupon find his way back to the Fine Arts Room.”

As a result of the incident, a hostess system was implemented wherein volunteers from the Faculty Womens club staffed the Fine Arts Room.


WAM Urban Myth Buster

For many years, it has been known, as the story goes, that one of WAM’s Georgia O’Keeffe paintings, Oriental Poppies, “may have been selected for purchase by popular vote.” So reads the label that describes this painting, currently on display in WAM’s Woodhouse Gallery.

The story, told by WAM tour guides, and believed by staff and visitors for many years, unfolds simply like this: An exhibition of the work of artists represented by gallery owner and dealer Alfred Stieglitz was held at the gallery in 1937. Visitors to the exhibit voted for their favorite work. Oriental Poppies won.

This story… however… is a myth.

Pressbook_1934-1937_Stieglitz.jpgIn February of 1937, the Gallery did exhibit a Stieglitz show, which showcased the “famous five” from his gallery at An American Place – Georgia O’Keeffe, John Marin, Charles Demuth, Arthur Dove, and Marsden Hartley. Amongst the 40 or so canvases in the exhibit was Oriental Poppies by O’Keeffe. There was, however, no popular vote of the visitors to select a piece to be purchased by the University.

A vote did take place, however, amongst the members of the Fine Arts Committee, a body on campus that oversaw the gallery and other issues related to the arts on campus. Their unanimous vote was an agreement to make a formal request to President Lotus Coffman to purchase Oriental Poppies. Correspondence found within the folder titled, “Fine Arts Committee” in Box 110 of the WAM collection reveals the details behind the acquisition of the painting upon the insistence of the Committee.

In a February 19, 1937 correspondence from Malcolm Willey to President Coffman, Willey outlines a meeting of the Fine Arts Committee:

The Fine Arts Committee held a meeting this noon to discuss, among other matters, the purchase of fine arts material. The Committee believes the University should choose its purchases carefully, especially those that involve any considerable sum of money. The members present were unanimous in urging that the University acquire one painting from the collection sent here for exhibition recently by Mr. Alfred Stieglitz. The artists represented in the group of five are all of outstanding distinction. There were several canvasses that would be an asset to any gallery, anywhere. The committee, after careful discussion, voted unanimously to recommend the purchase, if at all possible, of Poppies by Georgia O’Keeffe. The one argument raised against this during the discussion is the fact that the University does own one painting by her. However, the two are of different periods; moreover, her place in contemporary art is such that there is little risk in buying her work. The list price (for insurance purchases) of this canvas is $4,000. It can be had for 33 1/3 per cent discount, or $2666.67. This is a greater sum than we have ever spent for a painting, yet good work by distinguished artists command high prices. Those who favored this acquisition are: Professor Burton, Professor Minnich, Professor Harriet Goldstein, Professor R. C. Jones, and Professor David Robb. I, personally, have no doubt in my mind concerning the value to be received in this picture at the quoted price. It is a powerful painting and exceedingly decorative. It has nothing of the abstract or any other qualities that make it difficult to understand and enjoy. It is only because there is, potentially, some possibility of criticism of the University in purchasing a painting at this price that I raise the question at all with you. If you feel there is no reason for hesitating, I would instantly join the others in their recommendation.”

Coffman replies to Willey on February 20th, 1937 and indicated that he agreed that the University should have the painting “but as cheaply as possible.

Willey wrote back to Coffman on February 24th, 1937, “Mrs. Lawrence is to see if this can be had for $2500 flat.

On February 25th, 1937, Willey wrote to Ruth Lawrence, “With the approval of President Coffman, I am asking Mr. Middlebrook to make available the sum of $2500 to be placed in the budget of the University Art Gallery for the purchase of one or more original works of art.

(Middlebrook was the University’s comptroller.)

Pressbook_1934-1937_Vote3.jpgIn February of 1936, one year prior to the mythologized 1937 Stieglitz show, the gallery mounted an exhibit titled, “The Twentieth Century,” which contained representative examples of contemporary works loaned to the gallery, some of which included artworks lent by Stieglitz.

It is in conjunction with this February 1936 twentieth century exhibit that there was a vote, “planned to discover student taste.” As the clipped MN Daily articles contained in the University Gallery press books indicated, “Each day a new vote is taken in the gallery on the Twentieth Century exhibit and at the conclusion of the show votes will be tabulated. Anyone who visits the gallery is eligible to vote and may do so on the card beside each painting.

O’Keeffe’s piece, New Mexico Landscape won first place in the three-week contest.

Pressbook_1934-1937_Vote1.jpg Pressbook_1934-1937_Vote2.jpg

While there is partial truth to this myth – that a vote was involved in selection and purchase of Georgia O’Keeffe’s Oriental Poppies – it was a unanimous recommendation of the Fine Arts Committee in 1937, and not a democratic visitor vote, that resulted in the acquisition of the painting.

Regardless of the specifics, what these two February exhibits clearly show is the popp-ularity of Georgia O’Keeffe at the University of Minnesota.


Don’t Open Boxes

Don’t open boxes.” This was the dry reaction of a WAM staff member after I had shared my find of a large box full of 13 binders in a storage room at the museum. The binders were each titled, “press book” and were dated by academic year. As I wiped away a few centimeters of dust off of the cover of the first binder, I was hopeful yet hesitant at what I would find.

Web_Pressbook3.jpgIt was more than I expected. Newspaper clippings, photographs, press releases, posters, opening invitations…. oh my! Each binder contained an explosion of ephemera covering exhibits and programming at the University Gallery from approximately 1957-1969. Each piece was neatly placed on pages and covered with clear plastic sheets.

This find came at an interesting time, as it happened just one day before I finished processing and documenting the last box, #218, of the WAM Collection at the University Archives (more on this later).

But although I have reached the last box at the Archives, through the simple act of opening boxes at WAM, I realized, as long as there is a WAM, there will always be more boxes to open.

I must now in good faith scan the pages of the press books to create digital versions, and then dutifully prepare the press books to be transferred to the Archives to be preserved in future “last” boxes… 219… 220… and so on.

But until I am finished with this latest discovery, I will likely heed sound advice, and refrain from opening any more boxes for the moment. I have a lot of scanning… and reading… to do:

Web_PressBook1.jpg Web_Pressbooks2.jpg Web_Pressbook4.jpg


Paul Klee, Little Tree

From January 7 to February 8, 1960 the University Gallery exhibited paintings, drawings and prints by the artist Paul Klee from the Galka E. Scheyer Collection at the Pasadena Art Museum, California.

An invitation to the opening:

Web_Cats_083_WinterQuarterInvite_PaulKlee_1960.jpg Web_Cats_084_WinterQuarterInvite_PaulKlee2_1960.jpg

A photograph was found within the exhibition folder in Box 7 of the WAM collection:

Web_Klee.jpg

In the January 12, 1960 edition of the MN Daily, Thomas Olson reviews the exhibition in the article, “Klee’s Art is Sophisticated,”

… There is a strong element of whimsy and design for design’s sake in his work, but the essential content of his prints, drawings and paintings is the nature of the world and man. In an exhibit of his work now at the University Gallery, Klee sees man as a victim of his environment (“Swamp-Water Sprite“) and his desires (“The Lover“), and by nature a vulgar, grotesque and foolish creature.

Even the artist’s rather sympathetic depiction of the human situation in “Tightrope Walker” shows man as somewhat of a clown, moving intrepidly onward simply because there is nowhere else to go….

… This savage portrayal of man is considerably softened by Klee’s great wit and charm and his exquisite handling of line, contrast and color. He shows us what we are in such a way that we can’t help laughing at ourselves.”

I, personally, can’t help laughing at the lonely little tree unassumingly part of Klee’s exhibition…


Campus Landscapes

In the summer of 1934 (following the official opening of the Little Gallery), President Lotus Coffman initiated the idea for the University to employ the services of artists in the soon-to-be terminated federal Public Works of Art Project (PWAP) program, to capture landscapes of the University campus through brushes and canvas.

PWAP was created in 1933 and was funded by the US Civil Works Administration. In Minnesota, the project was administered by the Minneapolis Institute of Arts under the direction of Russell Plimpton. After the conclusion of the PWAP program in 1934, individual states assumed responsibility for projects still in existence.

On November 5, 1934, Plimpton wrote to Malcolm Willey, Assistant to President Coffman, requesting a description of the work that the artists had completed for the University, stating, “So far as I know, the University of Minnesota was the only one to undertake any continuance of the government’s P.W.A. plan, and I believe that a brief record of it would be especially interesting…

On November 14, 1934, Willey sent a formal report of the University’s involvement in PWA projects to Plimpton, indicating that, “We now have on exhibition at the Little Gallery all of the works that were done by the group of artists last spring. I hope that you will be able to come over to see them before they are taken down. There is, of course, wide variation in the merit of these pictures, but considering the purpose that we had in mind in inviting the men to campus, I feel that the results are highly satisfactory.

I would summarize the University’s involvement in the employment of PWA artists, but I feel that Willey’s formal report to Plimpton is… highly satisfactory…

University Art Project Employing PWA

The University of Minnesota has during the past few months been attempting in a quiet way to arouse interest in the fine arts.

There is, to be sure, adequate class work which students may take, but the interest of which we speak is that extending beyond the class room.

President L.D. Coffman early this spring (1934) had raised the question informally of whether or not there were some local artists who might be brought to the campus to paint scenes associated with the University. He had three ideas in mind:

(1) To attract the attention of students by allowing them to see artists at work and dealing with subject matter that was familiar.

(2) To obtain for hanging in various University rooms where students assemble some colorful pictures that would serve to enhance the attractiveness of these rooms.

(3) To stimulate an interest in the work of local artists and lend whatever support he could to their development and local appreciation.

When the PWA art projects were terminating, President Coffman directed a member of his staff to raise with the local committee the possibility of continuing a small group of the artists who would be employed on the federal project by bringing them to the campus at the same rates of pay they had been receiving under PWA.

It was found that this was not only feasible, but that the artists themselves were eager for the chance to continue employment, especially to work on the campus of the University with the assurance that their paintings would be hung.

Accordingly, a sum of money which was available at the University was put aside to employ a small group of local artists. Altogether, seven were brought to the campus for various periods. These were:

Mr. Cameron Booth
Mr. Dewey Albinson
Mr. Elof Wedin
Mr. Erle Loran
Mr. Sydney G. Fossum
Mr. Arnold N. Klagstad
Mr. Stanford Fenelle.

It was agreed with the artists that they should receive compensation at approximately the same rate as the PWA had paid them, and that there should be no restrictions as to subject matter other than that they should center in the district in which the University is located – that is, southeast Minneapolis.

Because it was intended to use the work submitted by the artists for decoration of University lounge rooms, assembly rooms, class room corridors, and so forth, it was decided to limit the artists to those working in oil and water color, thus assuring more colorful results.

To supervise the project on the campus, the President appointed a committee of four – Dean Malcolm M. Willey of the University, Mr. Russell Plimpton of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Mr. Cameron Booth of the St. Paul School of Art, and Mr. Hudson Walker, curator of the Little Gallery, University of Minnesota. Mr. Booth had given valuable assistance to the PWA work through his technical advice to the artists that had been employed. Mr. Plimpton and Mr. Walker had also been associated with the PWA project, and their membership on the University Committee constituted a continuing link between the two projects.

The committee met one afternoon each week, at which time the artists brought in their work of the preceding seven days. At these meetings it was determined which sketches should be worked up and other matters of a similar nature were discussed.

As a result of the program which extended altogether over six weeks the University acquired 43 water colors of various sizes, 24 small oils chiefly in the nature of sketches, and 14 larger-sized oils. President Coffman then made available sufficient money to frame the entire collection. The watercolors were framed by a commercial gallery in downtown Minneapolis. Frames for the oils were made at the University carpenter shop, following patterns found satisfactory by the PWA committee. The basic costing of whiting the glue was applied in the University paint shop, after which the artists themselves were invited back to finish the frames. For this they were paid at the rate of $1.00 an hour.

The entire collection is now on exhibition at the University of Minnesota Little Gallery, and is attracting a large number of visitors. Already a request has come from the St. Paul Public Library to borrow the collection for a brief showing there.

The Little Gallery at the University of Minnesota is open each week-day and also each evening and Sunday when Symphony concerts are given in Northrop Memorial Auditorium, in which building the Little Gallery is located. The management of the Symphony and the University Artists’s Course has generously donated space in the printed program to call attention to the fact that Symphony patrons are invited during intermission and following the concerts to attend the exhibition. In this way interest in the collection extends beyond the student body on the campus.

Mrs. Ruth Lawrence who is now curator of the Little Gallery has already begun her plans for distribution of the collection among the various University buildings. The largest number of items will go to Pioneer Hall, Sanford Hall, and the College Women’s Dormitory on the farm campus. These are the University residence halls. None of the pictures will be used for office decorations, but will be hung so that students may have contact with them. It is our intention to change the pictures from building to building now and then.”

(from the WAM Collection, Box 109, General Gallery Correspondence)

Web_WAMEntrance2.jpgToday, WAM proudly exhibits two of the campus landscapes in the entrance to the museum. Because the shadows in this photograph (taken with full effect of the late afternoon sun) block the landscapes from view, you will just have to stop in to the museum to see them for yourself!


The purchase… and Murder of Edith Cavell.

Visitors often ask the museum visitor services staff, “How does the museum get art?

Today, thanks to the generosity of individuals who have donated either works of art or have donated money that has gone to set up funds for the purchase of art, the museum is able to add works to the collection. When the gallery first started in the 1930’s, however, art was also purchased with funds that came straight out of the University budget (no longer the case today!).

As the infant gallery had just reached the first full year of existence, Malcolm Willey, Assistant to President Coffman (instrumental in the development of the gallery) appealed to Coffman to make available additional funds with which to purchase prints to develop the gallery collection. Coffman granted the request with approval and allocated an additional $1500 for the purchase and framing of prints (May 3, 1935 correspondence, University Archives).

One of the purchases made from this allotment was of a lithograph by artist George Bellows titled “The Murder of Edith Cavell.

Ruth Lawrence wrote to Malcolm Willey after she and S. Chatwood Burton (Architecture faculty and member of the Fine Arts Committee) met with the dealer. In a correspondence dated May 11, 1935 (WAM 109, University Gallery Correspondence, 1935-1950) Ruth referenced the work and also described the circumstances under which it could be acquired:

Mr. Burton and I went to see the George Bellows lithographs yesterday. The picture is of Edith Cavell’s execution. Do you remember? It is of her coming down the stairway in the prison. The print was a bit mussed and needed restretching. This originally does not harm a print, but we asked that this be done before we went further, because we wanted it perfect before we accepted it. The print is signed by Bellows and the title is written underneath, in what looks like his handwriting. We will compare it to be sure, when it comes out to the campus. It is Mr. Burton’s opinion that it is a good print, and that it is an exceptional opportunity to get it at a low price. He says Mr. Young, the dealer, is accurate in his statement that in the New York market, we would have to pay $350. The price is $300 regularly in Chicago. Mr. Young is offering it to us at $150. There were 100 prints made of this lithograph, and this is number 93. I shall ask Mr. Young to bring the print to the campus, when it is ready. We can then go over it again. This dealer is a well known one, and I believe he is perfectly honest, but we will make sure.


Art in Wartime

Radio Broadcast

Station W.L.B.

Wednesday, December 10, 1941

Topic: Art in Wartime
Speaker: Mary Jesness

Introduction: The University Gallery presents its regular Wednesday art broadcast. The other day your Gallery Commentator, Mary Jesness, came to me and said, “What is going to happen to our world? What is going to happen to the art that we know as well as the other things?” She felt that you too might be wondering about it so she would like to tell you about her answer and how she got it. And now here she is… Mary…

ArtWar1.jpg 1 ArtWar2.jpg 2 ArtWar3.jpg 3
ArtWar4.jpg 4 ArtWar5.jpg 5 ArtWar6.jpg 6

(click on image for larger view)

Close: You have been listening to the regular Wednesday art broadcast of the University Gallery. Next Saturday at 11:15 your Gallery Commentator, Mary Jesness, will be back at the microphone to tell you of some of the interesting news of the exhibitions now being shown for you. Meanwhile come to the University Gallery on the third and fourth floors of Northrop Auditorium on the University Campus and see the many fine exhibitions being shown for your pleasure. There is never an admission charge at the University Gallery.


Baltzley Binder Bounty

According to Wikipedia, in 1910, Louis Baltzley invented the binder clip, Patent # 1,139,627, so that his father Edwin no longer had to bind his manuscripts by sewing the pages together through holes punched in the pages (which was the standard method in the day).

Web_LastClips.jpgIn more recent times, the binder clip is commonly used in offices of all types to bind large volumes of paper together. In the case of the WAM Files – the working administrative records kept and contained by Gallery/Museum/WAM employees – binder clips were used to organize and contain such items as lengthy grant applications, full sets of label text for exhibits, duplicate copies of press releases, sets of photographs, etc…

In our pursuit of minimal-level processing, binder clips were removed from the files, resulting in a growing bounty of fasteners.

As I began to encounter CDs, DVDs, and disks of all shapes and sizes during processing, I pondered over the fate of binder clips as offices adopt digital processes and searched for possible additional uses for the clips. To my surprise, some very ingenious do-it-yourselfers have recorded videos on how to make an iPhone Binder Clip Dock to fasten-bind-clip their digital devices in place.

If only I had an iPhone… imagine what I could do with all of these binder clips!


Ooky Google Doodle

They’re creepy and they’re kooky, mysterious and spooky…

They’re all together ooky, the Addams Family…”

While thinking of this theme song, the urge to snap my fingers is suppressed as I instead navigate to today’s “Google Doodle” which features an inspired illustration by Charles Addams, the cartoonist and creator of the Addams Family, on what would have been his 100th birthday.

Long before Addams formally introduced the world to Morticia, Gomez, et. all, his “creepy” cartoons regularly graced the pages of The New Yorker. A 1998 feature titled The Addams Trove, described the artist’s contribution to the publication.

In 1958, an exhibition of Addams illustrations was held at the University Gallery. A promotional poster was found within the files:

Web_WAM_006_CharlesAddamsPoster.jpg