The 1921 Exhibition by a Group of Introspective Artists

The May 6 - June 1, 1921, exhibition by the "Group of Introspective Artists" at The Arts Club of Chicago represented a pivotal, rebellious moment in Chicago's modern art history. It wasn't just a standard gallery show; it served as the direct philosophical precursor to the city's influential "no-jury" movement, and the founding of the Chicago No Jury Society of Artists.

A Rebellion at The Arts Club of Chicago

This group championed a radical departure from the traditional, academic art establishment. They espoused a strict "no-jury and no awards" philosophy, arguing that the standard practice of having established artists judge the work of their peers stifled creative freedom and prioritized technical conformity over genuine, spiritual expression. The forward to the digitally restored catalog specified their mission directly:

THE Introspective artist does not wish to be pigeonholed by its own name and his work is not limited to a certain formula. He sincerely strives for self-realization, hence the word Introspective. The seeking of one's inner self, and, through that, the realization of the material world within the imagination.

Whereas the academicians teach rules handed down by other men, the Introspective artist follows his own rules prompted by his inner consciousness. If he errs he is his own judge. If people have little faith in one's own punishment let them remind themselves of the sorrow of Him who would not accept man's laws and who died on the cross, listening to the word of his inner conscience.

There is an awakening now to real art which, in as short period, no doubt, will develop into a renaissance of art. Every support of the public is needed in this growth.

Some societies have done away with juries and prizes, but we will do away with the selling of works during the exhibition time. This is a challenge to have commercialism driven from exhibition rooms. Of course, we are not devoid of the knowledge of self-preservation. That will take care of itself in different environments outside of exhibitions.

Introspective art is freedom and, to gain even greater freedom, Introspective art seeks the medium by which life can be comprehended most fully. Let not the public look at our work with a biased mind. Above all, let anybody who enters these rooms leave the material world behind him. He will find both greater pleasure and newer visions; the mind will open to a purer aesthetic expression. Art is only in its pure element when it breathes an aesthetic conception of life and when it performs its activities with love and passion. It has no place for moral sermons or pedantic stories which are not prompted by an inner urge of creative energy.

Critical Response

Critic Eleanor Jewett, never a friend of Modernism, published the following critique of the organization in the Chicago Tribune, Art and Architecture section, May 15, 1921:

It strikes me forcefully that pretense and pedantry are often bedfellows in a shallow mind. A shallow mind need not necessarily be an ignorant mind, but it always is one where the rocks of fixed conceits refuse to be swept over by the ideas of other men. It is shallow inasmuch as it is removed from the deeps of the world's thought.

The introduction to the catalogue of the introspective artists' exhibit at the Arts club, an exhibit which will remain open until the first of June, gave rise to the foregoing paragraph. I quote the closing sentences--they are too good to miss: "Art is only in its pure element when it breathes an esthetic conception of life and when it performs its activities with love and passion. It has no place for moral sermons or pedantic stories which are not prompted by an inner urge of creative energy."

Also this: "Whereas the academicians teach rules handed down by other men, the introspective artist follows his own rules prompted by his inner consciousness. If he errs he is his own judge. If people have little faith in one's own punishment let them remind themselves of the sorrow of Him who would not accept man's laws and who died on the cross, listening to the word of His inner conscience." Pretense and pedantry? Rather.

The crux of the matter is this. Between this group of painters and the artists who are perhaps better known at our exhibitions there is a rivalry--but a rivalry entirely originated and nourished by the Introspective artists, as they call themselves. These men (most of the group are men) are splendid workers--for their own ends. They want notoriety. They disclaim all desires to sell their pictures, yet they demand appreciation from the public. (Riddle: How does the public express appreciation except in the purchase of an artist's work?)

They claim that the artists who are not with them are against them; they protest that those against them are conservative standpatters, sunk in the iniquity of commercialism, glutted with the gold from the money bags of the credulous business man; they vow that the artists of Chicago are in a conspiracy to keep them out, to deny them admittance to places of exhibition, to conceal the wonders of their work from strange eyes; they--but why continue? Like so many dissatisfied persons, these men work in a circle.

They want the things which they belittle. They want their pictures to be applauded. They want their pictures to be bought. They want their art to be introduced into the homes of the public. Of course they do--else why do they make any claims for it at all?

Their complaint is as old as the hills. The remedy is equally old. The public, in the end, takes what it wants. The world, in matters of art, music, and literature, is the final judge. If the efforts of these painters are worthy, they will be recognized. Men who today are recognized gained their recognition through working, not kicking.

Consider Lorado Taft, Ralph Clarkson, or our younger artists--Albin Polasek, Pauline Palmer, Frederic M. Grant, Charles W. Dahlgreen, Frank V. Dudley, Gerald A. Frank, or Jessie Arms Botke--these names are known in most of the cities of America and in a great many places abroad. Why? Because the people they stand for, stood for something. They rose over personal disappointments and grievances to impersonal public recognition.

The subject is immense. There is time now for no more, but later it will be with the greatest of pleasure that I shall take it up again. I am neither for nor against any group of painters, but undoubtedly I am for art, no matter where it is found. The kernel of the introspective attitude apparently is that outside of their gospel there is no salvation. Pedantry and pretense!

Jewett was highly dismissive the Introspective Artists, characterizing their movement and its manifesto as nothing more than "pedantry and pretense" born from a "shallow mind". She pointed out a major contradiction in the group's philosophy. While the artists claimed to be above the commercialization of art and refused to sell works during their exhibition, Jewett argues they were actually desperate for notoriety and public applause. She questioned how a public could truly express appreciation other than by purchasing the art, asserting that these artists ultimately wanted exactly what they claimed to despise: their pictures bought and placed in people's homes.

Jewett believed that the tension between this group and the established Chicago art community was entirely one-sided, accusing the Introspective Artists of inventing a fake rivalry and acting like dissatisfied victims who falsely believed the city's artists and "money bags" were conspiring to keep their work hidden.

Aligning with the traditional academic establishment, Jewett stated that the public is the final judge of art and pointed out as examples artists who earned their widespread recognition through hard work, rather than by complaining and harboring personal grievances.

Ultimately, Jewett mocked the group's self-righteousness. By quoting their catalog directly, she highlighted the group's arrogant assumption that outside of their specific "gospel" of introspective art, there is no true artistic salvation. This rebuttal of the exhibition offered a perfect snapshot of the conservative, establishment pushback against Chicago's emerging modernist factions.

Featured Artists and Catalog Entries

Birth of the No-Jury Society System

The anti-academic movement in Chicago, started at this 1921 Arts Club exhibition quickly became accepted by those artists, typically younger, who were being rejected by the juries of the annual exhibitions for Chicago and vicinity artists at the Art Institute of Chicago. Later that year, fed up with the staid and conservative Art Institute juries, those artists whose works were rejected formed their own show entitled "Salon des Refusés," organized by prominent local modernists Carl Hoeckner, Raymond Jonson, and Rudolph Weisenborn. The exhibition was held at Rothschild's Department Store.

Formation of the Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists

One year later, in May 1922, the Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists was officially formed by Hoeckner, Jonson, and Weisenborn. This subsequent organization carried on the Introspective Artists' philosophy, and played a unique and democratizing role in shaping the reception of modern art in Chicago.