Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists

The Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists: Origins, Evolution, and Legacy

The Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists emerged in the early 1920s as a bold counterstatement to traditional artistic gatekeeping, jury-selected exhibitions, and institutional conservatism. Its story reflects both the tensions and the vitality within Chicago’s artistic community as it navigated the rapidly shifting terrain of modern American art. By rejecting juried exhibition practices and embracing inclusive, artist-centered ideals, the Society played a unique—if at times contentious—role in shaping modernist reception in the Midwest. Drawing upon the provided document, including footnotes, this essay traces the Society’s founding, evolution, controversies, and eventual disappearance, illustrating how its trajectory mirrored larger cultural debates about artistic freedom, professionalism, and the democratization of art.

Founding Conditions: Chicago’s Early No-Jury Experiments

The Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists was officially formed in May 1922, but its roots extend further into the city’s cultural history.[1] Its immediate inspiration came from a highly successful no-jury exhibition held in 1921: the Salon des Refusés at Rothschild’s Department Store and an exhibit of 150 paintings during the Pageant of Progress at Municipal Pier.[2] These events revealed substantial public appetite for unconventional, democratic exhibitions in which artists—not juries—determined what was worthy of display.

Such exhibitions were not entirely unprecedented in Chicago. A precursor occurred in 1903, when the Society of Associated Arts mounted an exhibition that likewise broke from jury-centered norms. This continuity demonstrates that Chicago had long harbored an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with traditional artistic adjudication, and that the 1921 show crystallized an existing impulse toward artistic self-determination.

Against this backdrop, three artists—Carl Hoeckner, Raymond Jonson, and Rudolph Weisenborn—resolved to institutionalize the no-jury principle. Weisenborn served as the Society’s first president, while the label “No-Jury” itself was later attributed (nine years after its founding) to artist Helen West Heller, who is credited with coining the group’s memorable name.[3] 

Ideological Commitments: Breaking the “Chains” of Tradition

The Society’s inaugural catalogue articulated its philosophical mission in sharply anti-traditionalist terms. It declared that “standards of the past...are chains by which the free development of art is hampered,” a statement that directly confronted the conventional criteria of artistic worth. Technique, often a central focus of academic training and juried exhibitions, was deliberately deprioritized in favor of “honest, spiritual content.” Such rhetoric aligned the Society with broader modernist currents in American art, particularly those that emphasized expressive authenticity over technical conformity.

The Society’s early exhibitions were held at the Marshall Field & Co. gallery, accommodating roughly 200 artists. Department stores at this time were beginning to recognize the commercial and cultural appeal of modern art. Marshall Field & Co. seized the opportunity after witnessing the impressive crowds at Rothschild’s the previous year.[4] In this way, the Society’s anti-establishment ethos coexisted with—indeed depended upon—the commercial ambitions of major retail institutions eager to attract customers through cultural spectacle.

Membership, Participation, and National Reach

One of the No-Jury Society’s distinguishing characteristics was its open-door policy. Artists from around the United States exhibited alongside Chicago locals, including notable figures such as John Sloan, whose participation lent prestige and a sense of nationwide relevance. This broadened participation introduced an element of competition, as Chicago artists were judged informally against their peers from other regions, even in the absence of an official jury.[5] 

The costs of entry were modest and designed to maximize accessibility. Initially, anyone could exhibit by paying $2 per painting, with an optional additional $2 fee for catalogue illustration. Later, the Society simplified this structure, charging $4 total—$2 of which functioned as a membership fee—and permitting artists to exhibit two works up to forty inches in height or width. This democratic fee structure was central to the Society’s ethos.

Despite its ambitions, the Society struggled to secure permanent exhibition space, a goal that remained unrealized. This inability to institutionalize itself physically foreshadowed later instability.[6] 

Rivalry with the Art Institute and Internal Tensions

By 1924, the Art Institute of Chicago—whose conservative juries had long motivated the Society’s creation — responded to changing artistic attitudes and liberalized its jury practices. This shift weakened the No-Jury Society’s appeal, as modern-leaning artists found greater acceptance within traditional institutions.[7]

The following year, critic Samuel Putnam issued a provocative challenge to artists: choose either the Art Institute or the No-Jury Society, but not both. His dualistic framing underscored growing tensions regarding artistic allegiance and identity. While Putnam offered impassioned support for the Society, his urging pointed to deepening fractures in Chicago’s modern art community.[8] 

Compounding these challenges, critics increasingly noted the uneven quality of No-Jury exhibitions—a foreseeable consequence of abandoning juried selection. A 1926 article lamented the presence of numerous works by untrained amateurs “dabbling away with paint in the privacy of their attics,” as well as works by artists “hanging on the fringe of real art.” Such criticisms underscored the tension between inclusivity and artistic rigor.[9] 

Even the influential critic C. J. Bulliet, initially dismissive of the 1928 show as “tame” and little different from the Art Institute’s exhibitions — “as similar as tweedle dee and tweedle dum”—later revised his position.[10] He praised the 1928-1929 exhibition as reinvigorated and filled with “newness,” illustrating the Society’s capacity for renewal despite recurrent controversy.[11] At this time Anyone could enter the shows by paying a $2 fee per painting. If an artist wanted an illustration in the catalogue, that could be had for another $2 fee.[12] The charge was later changed to $4, which included a two-dollar membership fee and entitled the exhibitor to show two works not more than forty inches in height or width.[13] The 1930 show was considered by art critic Eleanor Jewett to be rather conservative in comparison to past shows of modern art.[14]

The Great Depression and a Crisis of Survival

Economic turmoil dealt the Society one of its most serious blows. In 1933, under the presidency of V. M. S. Hannell, the board opted to suspend the annual show. Members questioned the show’s continued viability, especially given the popularity of the open-air Art Mart, which offered artists alternative exhibition opportunities.[15] 

Shortly thereafter, the Society suffered a catastrophic loss when all accumulated funds were wiped out by a bank failure, a fate shared by countless organizations during the Depression. At this juncture, it appeared the Society might dissolve completely.

However, sculptor and woodcarver Tud Kempf intervened, revitalizing the group in late 1933. His leadership led to the resumption of exhibitions, beginning with the “eleventh annual” show held on July 9, 1934, marking an unexpected resurgence.[16] 

Radicalization, Controversy, and Later Developments

The Society’s revived stability was short-lived. By fall of 1934, a faction affiliated with the John Reed Club, a left-leaning political art collective, seized control by organizing votes for new directors. This internal coup signaled sharp ideological divisions within the Society and shifted its trajectory.[17]

During the mid- to late-1930s, controversy remained a defining feature. The 1936 exhibition intended for the Fair Store was abruptly withdrawn when management objected to the inclusion of nudes, highlighting persistent cultural battles over artistic propriety.[18] The Society nevertheless pushed forward, eventually offering sketch classes to its members following a successful thirteenth show.[19] Beginning in 1942, these classes became annual summer activities, signaling a shift toward member services alongside exhibitions.[20] 

Exhibitions became biennial for a time, continuing throughout World War II, which itself reshaped artistic production nationwide.[21] 

The year 1957 marked a surprising high point: an exhibition featuring 1,525 artists, the largest in the Society’s history. Remarkably, it was organized under the auspices of both the City of Chicago and the Art Institute of Chicago—the very institution whose jury system had originally inspired the Society’s creation.[22] This ironic convergence illustrates how dramatically the artistic landscape had shifted since the early 1920s. A final exhibition appears to have been held in 1958; its catalogue is the last surviving record and possibly marks the Society’s ultimate conclusion.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Experimentation and Artistic Democracy

The Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists was an unconventional and often contradictory institution. Its embrace of radical openness fostered creativity, community, and experimentation, drawing hundreds of artists from across the nation. At the same time, its refusal to impose standards sometimes undermined its reputation, creating tensions over quality and professionalism. Financial crises, ideological conflicts, and the evolving policies of more established institutions further complicated its history.

Yet despite these challenges, the Society’s legacy endures as a testament to artistic democracy. It challenged entrenched cultural gatekeepers, championed freedom of expression, and carved out a vital space for modernist innovation during a dynamic period in Chicago’s cultural development. Its story reminds us that artistic progress often arises not from institutions, but from the boldness of those who choose to redefine them.

[1] Marguerite B. Williams, “Art Notes,” Chicago Daily News, 5/17/1922 in Art Institute of Chicago scrapbooks, vol. 43. For a thorough discussion of the entire “independent” movement in Chicago, one which gives an accurate chronology, see Samuel Putnam, “Whooping It For Chicago And Independent Art,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 8/3/1926, pp.1, 3. The article was one of a three part series continued on 8/10, “No-Jury Idea Born from Spirit Urge,” pp.1, 3 and 8/17 “Of Flaming Hearts and Naughty Bulbs,” pp.1, 3. Another full account on the founding and history of the organization is Clarence J. Bulliet, “How Modern Art Came to Town: IV. No-Jury: its Rise, Rage and Decline,” The Chicagoan, Vol. 12, November 1931, pp.47-49, 64, 66.

[2] C. J. Bulliet, “Artless Comment,” “Chicago Art Revolt Flying Down the Wind,” Chicago Evening Post, 2/9/1932, Art Section, p.6. Eleanor Jewett, “Gurley Memorial Collection on View at Art Institute,” Chicago Tribune, 9/3/1922, part 6, p.8. “‘Chicago’s Own’ Art Shown At Pageant,” Chicago Daily News, 8/2/1922 in Art Institute of Chicago scrapbooks, vol. 43.

[3] Op. cit., Bulliet, The Chicagoan, November 1931, p.47.

[4] Op. cit., Bulliet, The Chicagoan, November 1931, p.49.

[5] “Forward,” No-Jury Exhibition, First Annual Exhibition of the Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists Held in the Galleries of Marshall Field & Company, 10/2/1922. See also: Lena M. McCauley, “No-Jury Exhibit Is Nation-Wide,” in “News of the Art World,” supplement, Chicago Evening Post, 10/3/1922, p.9.

[6] At their “Cubist” ball held in the Trianon ballroom earlier in the year, the government imposed a ten percent amusement tax on the receipts which had a further negative impact on the development of funds. Art Institute director Robert Harshe wrote a letter to the then Internal Revenue Service protesting on the Society’s behalf. For complete details see: “Tax Hardship On No-Jury Receipts,” no source, in Art Institute of Chicago scrapbooks, vol.48, vol. 3, p.111. Their plans for permanent space were made more clear in “No Jury Society Starts Drive to Establish Own Gallery,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 7/27/1926, p.1.

[7] As a means of generating publicity, to which art critic Lena M. McCauley was sympathetic, a general letter to the public was published in “No-Jury Society,” in “News of the Art World,” supplement, Chicago Evening Post, 9/2/1924. See also: Marguerite B. Williams, “Activity In Artist Circles Beginning,” Chicago Daily News, 9/11/1924 in Art Institute of Chicago scrapbooks, vol. 48. See also: “ ‘No-Jury’ Philanthropy,” in “News of the Art World,” supplement, Chicago Evening Post, 9/23/1924. They secured John Sloan as an exhibitor for the third annual show in 1924 and this event was heralded by critic Sam Putnam in “ ‘No Jury’ Forward,” in “News of the Art World,” supplement, Chicago Evening Post, 9/30/1924.

[8] “Pleads at No-Jury Rally for Genuinely Independent Art,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 12/22/1925, pp.1, 12.

[9] “Free-For-All Show at Marshall Fields,” Art News, Vol. 24, 2/6/1926, p.3. Samuel Putnam, “Holding A Wistful Wake For Juried Painting. Our Independents Invade Cabarets,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 11/16/1926, pp.4-5.

[10] C. J. Bulliet, “No-Jury, Told Art Has Grown Tame, Believes It,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 2/28/1928, p.1 and “Artless Comment,” in the 4/3/1928 issue, p.8.

[11] C. J. Bulliet, “No-Jury Kicks Up, Runs Away, Cuts Coltish Capers,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 11/27/1928, pp.1, 6. The show was also praised by critic Inez Cunningham, “No-Jury Show Truly Eclectic This Year,” in the 12/4/1928 issue, pp.1, 3.

[12]This policy was somewhat changed from the initial call for membership at four dollars, see: Lena M. McCauley, “Chicago No-Jury Show Is National in Scope,” Christian Science Monitor, 10/18/1922.

[13]“Sixth No-Jury Show Will Open Feb. 27,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 9/6/1927, p.2. For further analysis of their success to date see William T. Biesel, “No-Jury Getting Ready 1928 Show,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 10/4/1927, p.8.

[14] “No-Jury Exhibit Turns Conservative: Solid Worth of Present Show Wins Respect,” Chicago Tribune, 1/19/1930, part 6, p.6.

[15] C. J. Bulliet, “Artless Comment,” Chicago Daily News, 7/8/1933, Art and Artists section, p.17.

[16] C. J. Bulliet, “Artless Comment: Tud Kempf Wakes Up No Jury,” Chicago Daily News, 11/25/1933, Art and Artists section, p.24. C. J. Bulliet, “Around the Galleries: No-Jury Revived,” Chicago Daily News, 6/2/1934, Art Section, p.21.

[17] C. J. Bulliet, “Artless Comment,” Chicago Daily News, 11/17/1934, Art and Artists, p.8.

[18] C. J. Bulliet, “Around the Galleries: No-Jury Show Shortly,” Chicago Daily News, 5/23/1936, Art, Antiques and The Artists section, p.4R. The show was hung the next week at the three storey apartment residence of Misses  Miriam Bard and Claire Kellogg at 1418 Lake Shore Drive. C. J. Bulliet, “Around the Galleries: No-Jury Show June 13,” Chicago Daily News, 6/6/1936, Art, Antiques and The Artists section, p.4R.

[19] C. J. Bulliet, “Around the Galleries: No-Jury Sketch Class,” Chicago Daily News, 4/9/1938, Art and Music Section, p.15.

[20] Eleanor Jewett, “No-Jury Artists Summer Exhibit Unusually Fine,” Chicago Tribune, 7/15/1950 in Art Institute of Chicago Scrapbooks, vol. 85.

[21] The 1936 show was announced in C. J. Bulliet, “Around the Galleries: No Jury May 16,” Chicago Daily News, 3/28/1936, Art, Antiques and The Artists section, p.4R. A much larger and all-encompassing no-jury style exhibit was held at Navy Pier for all artists celebrating Chicago’s Charter jubilee. The catalogue is in the Ryerson Library, Art Institute of Chicago: Chicago’s Charter Jubilee Art Exhibit By Chicago Artists, (Chicago: Chicago’s Charter Jubilee, 1937).

[22] Edith Weigle, “Modern Art for you, the Jury,” Chicago Tribune, 2/17/1957, magazine section, p.24.