Art Institute of Seattle publications, 1929-1932
Announcements and Reports: Art Institute of Seattle, 1929-1932
With an exuberant yellow announcement card at the beginning of 1929, the Seattle Fine Arts Society celebrated a new year and debuted a new name: Art Institute of Seattle (click the image to see the full announcement). The postcard-sized publication announces the name change, an open house, and the calendar for the month of January. Only four years later, there would be an announcement of the opening of the Seattle Art Museum. But for the time being, the Art Institute would continue to be Seattle's premier arts organization.
One more brief (one page) bulletin in June of 1929 would then give way to lengthier annual reports from 1929-1932 (reminiscent in style and form of the first Annual Reports for Seattle Art Museum - see more at our exhibition of SAM Annual Reports) and we begin to see Seattle Art Museum really taking shape. Terse as it is, this announcement still shows a focus on arts education and outreach; sculpture classes with Avard Fairbanks, children’s sketch classes, and an exhibition of student art at the Henry Art Gallery are the focus of the document.
The Annual Report "for the year ending March, 1929" is a supplement to this announcement card, providing more detail and insight into the many goings-on of the institute. Beginning with a lengthy report from President Carl F. Gould, the report sheds light on the conscious and diligent effort required to build a lasting and respected arts institution in Seattle. Gould is very much focused on the future:
The foundations now being laid for the establishment of an institute for the care of the community's art interests, we sincarely trust are of the right dimensions to support the growing structure that will be imposed upon them, as our cultural life grows richer in its art appreciation. (p. 6)
He also elaborates on the decision to change the name of the organization from Seattle Fine Arts Society in order to more fully reflect the goal of inclusivity:
...the name Seattle Fine Arts Society has become more and more inexpressive of the character of our work. The word 'society' seemed to designate an exclusive organization and to prevent the public, to some extent, from using it as freely as they otherwise might. Developing our purpose as we have, and touching the life of the city at many points, it has seemed necessary to change its designation to something expressing more adequately its civic character and its extended service to the community... (p. 6-7)
The director's report from John Davis Hatch, Jr. likewise echoes an optimism and sense of forward momentum:
Some things hoped for this year failed of accomplishment. others give promise of better things to come. Never since the beginning of this organization has there been so genuine an interest in its work. This is evidenced not so much in any concrete performance as in the attitude of the visitors, both children and adults. And this is important, for in an intelligent awakened interest lies hope for the future. (p. 19)
At a crossroads - after twenty years of the Seattle Fine Arts Society, and at the beginning of a stint in a new building and with a new name - the people building the Art Institute of Seattle worked with a sense of purpose, civic duty, and passion.
By the 1929-1930 Annual Report, we see the increased involvement from Richard E. Fuller, who would become the first president of the nascent Seattle Art Museum. Aside from the usual president's and director's reports, the list of exhibitions and acquisitions, the classes and lecture series, these three publications from the Art Institute of Seattle reveal the sense of friction and frustration during this time as the group built momentum towards establishing a permanent museum.
The 1930-1931 president's report discloses frustration tempered with hope:
Art is usually the principal standard by which the civilization of bygone days is measured. To many, it is still the chief criterion for determining the advancement of our present communities. Yet, in the past, it has been the one phase of life in which Seattle has been undeniably inferior to every city of similar size in the country. I grant that it is a need that many of our citizens have not yet felt, but I hope that, in time, the inspiration and enjoyment that beauty brings may have a great influence on the community, and that Seattle may at last assume a position which its population and geographic location demands. Recently, I have been surprised to find that many of our citizens have but slight idea either of the purpose or of the possible scope of an art institute. (p. 9)
Throughout these pages, there is an emphasis on educational outreach, collaboration with the University of Washington, youth programs, and the growth of the art library - perhaps to give Seattle citizens more than "but a slight idea" of this "purpose or...possible scope of an art institute."
Director John Davis Hatch, Jr. (seen here in 1933 as director of the Office of Public Works of Art Project Region I, Northeast States in Boston, Massachusetts) quoted Alice in Wonderland to evoke "wandering through a labyrinth of experiences...some extremely pleasant, some, perhaps, not quite as happy" and the work involved at this time to "...[establish] a broader foundation on which the Institute could grow" (1930-1 Annual Report, p. 13). He celebrated "the long-hoped-for establishment of the nucleus of a permanent collection," thanks in large part to the contributions of Dr. Richard Fuller and his mother Mrs. Eugenia Fuller.
A quote from Mr. Laurence Vail Coleman, the director of the American Association of Museums, describes the situation in 1932; apparently, he "studied the local situation last autumn he aptly stated that we had 'the stimulus of an excellent opportunity and the burden of an informal past.'"
There was a significant amount of work to be done to finalize the transition from informal Arts Society to formal arts establishment, but with this quote, the president and director formally announced the work to create the Seattle Art Museum. He noted, "As a rule it is not considered appropriate for any organization to celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary by curtailing its activities, yet in this instance I think that the move is definitely forward" (1931-2 Annual Report, p. 8).
The work on the "new" Volunteer Park building was nearing completion. It was a celebrated and strategic location:
Many of our citizens in going to Volunteer Park for recreation would obviously be in a receptive mood for enjoying art. It is a well established fact that most museums with the best attendance are in parks, while many people never take the trouble to visit those which they hurry by in the business districts. (1931-2 Annual Report, p. 13)
Dr. Richard Fuller was president of the Art Institute in this 1931-1932 reporting year. This was a leadership role he would continue to hold for Seattle Art Museum through to his retirement several decades later in 1972. He closed his statement in the 1931-1932 report with a sentiment of gratitude towards the members who "remained faithful during these trying times," and the hope that "they will eventually feel themselves to be amply repaid by the ultimate service that our organization will render to the city" (1931-2 Annual Report, p. 15). It was an optimistic note to end on, particularly in the face of uncertainty as the Art Institute transformed itself into an established civic institution.
He couldn't have known at that time what the museum would become or the role it would play as a Seattle cultural institution. He also couldn't have foreseen the continued difficulty of establishing and then directing a museum with that "burden of an informal past." But with dedication, optimism, and candor, Fuller and his colleagues managed to build and sustain the organization, community, and institution that is Seattle Art Museum.
Read more about the the beginnings of SAM in our exhibition featuring SAM Annual Reports from 1932 to the present.