The Avant-garde Artist, an Entrepreneur? Jan Toorop and Les XX‟s exhibition at the Haagsche Kunstkring Valérie Alexine Lewis 8 May 2015 Supervisor: Mw. dr. R. Esner Second Reader: Dhr. dr. G.M. Langfeld Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen Masters Dutch Art Word count: 19.123 Cover page: Portrait of Jan Toorop by Antoon Molkenboer drawn in the society album of the Haagsche Kunstkring. GAG, The Hague, archives of the HKK, No. 262, folder 41. Foreword Throughout this research many people have advised, supported, and encouraged me. I would like to thank all, and a few in particular. First of all, my supervisor Rachel Esner, who has given me insights and ideas to work on and always found a spare moment to answer my questions or help me out in case of doubt. She also handed me several important contacts, who, in their turn, provided me with new entries to deepen my research: Dr. Jan Dirk Baetens, Drs. Mayken Jonkman, and Noémie Goldman, thank you. Secondly, I would like to thank my boyfriend Zeno Koenigs and my friends, who were all keen to hear my newest discoveries and appreciated my enthusiasm, despite their lack of knowledge in Art History. They were great library companions, right until closing hour, and served as good coffee-buddies. Last of all, I would like to express my gratitude to both of my parents, who have supported me and have given valuable advice throughout its (sometimes seemingly eternal) process. 2 Table of Contents Foreword 2 Introduction 5 1. Entrepreneurial artists in the late-nineteenth century 14 1.1. Avant-garde art or commercial art 15 1.1.1. The artist‟s commercial disinterestedness 15 1.1.2. Undervaluing the artist‟s role of self-promotion 17 1.2. Artistic self-promotion 18 1.2.1. Active agency 18 1.2.2. Sociétés 20 1.3. Entrepreneurial strategies 20 1.3.1. Enlarging business skills 20 1.3.2. Employing the exhibition as a commercial stage 21 1.3.3. Engaging on an international level 22 2. Multidisciplinary art circles 24 2.1 The foundation for multidisciplinary art circles 25 2.1.1. Art societies in Belgium and The Netherlands, 1835-1880 25 2.1.2. The emergence of multidisciplinary art circles in the fin-de-siècle 27 2.2. Les XX 28 2.2.1. Organisation and exhibitions 29 2.2.2. Press and commercial activities 30 2.3. Haagsche Kunstkring 32 2.3.1. Organisation and exhibitions 32 2.3.2. Publicity and commercial activities 33 3. Toorop, artist and entrepreneur 36 3.1. Seeking commercial possibilities 37 3.1.1. Networker 37 3.1.2. Art dealers, publishers and exhibitions 38 3.1.3. Own press 44 3 3.2. Innovation and arrangement 45 3.2.1. Toorop and the Haagsche Kunstkring 45 3.2.2. Toorop and Les XX in Amsterdam 47 3.3. Les XX at the Haagsche Kunstkring 51 3.3.1. The preparations 52 3.3.2. The exhibition and press 53 Conclusions 59 Bibliography 62 Abbreviations and appendices 69 Abbreviations of archives 69 A: Solo exhibitions of Jan Toorop (when still alive). 69 B: Exhibitions in which Jan Toorop took part. 71 C: Letter from Toorop to Sala, Tuesday undated, No. 25. 75 D: Letter from Toorop to J.E. Langelaan-Rutgers, 17 March 1901. 76 E: List of exhibitions at Haagsche Kunstkring in which Toorop was involved. 77 F: Letter from Maus to the Panorama Maatschappij 3 May 1889 with the stipulations for Les XX‟s exhibition. 77 G: Draft letter of Octave Maus [1889], inv. 5270. 78 4 Introduction “The dialogue of money and art is manifest in the language, in the institutions, and in the actions of modernist artists and their audiences. [...] This protean relationship has become so bound up with the rise of modernism and its accompanying discourses that they can never be separated.” - Robert Jensen1 The Salon versus the dealer and the critic2 The seventeenth century in the Netherlands and Italy knew a buoyant market for contemporary art, yet it was not until the early-nineteenth century that the interest in this trade returned. The important developments, which the art trade experienced, mainly derived from commerce in prints.3 Famous art dealers like the British Thomas Agnew & Sons, Arthur Pond, Ernest Gambart and John Smith, the French Goupil & Cie., and the Dutch Frans Buffa & Zonen began their ventures in the 1820s with the sale of prints, exploiting their knowledge of authenticity, or connoisseurship by publishing engravings of their collections, alongside catalogues raisonnés.4 In the course of the 1850s, however, these print dealers increasingly opted for a trade in contemporary paintings and watercolours, which seemed to offer a brighter future in the market. Growing industrialisation had created a group of nouveaux riches with their own particular interest in contemporary art. 5 Rather than the immense historical masterpieces (machines) the Royal Academy and the Salon offered, they preferred smaller paintings of less formal themes, e.g. genre, landscape and still life, to decorate their homes with.6 Private dealers focused on this demand to serve their bourgeois clientèle, little suspecting that it would one day give them a virtual monopoly over the art trade.7 In France the Salon system, or Academic system, had dominated the art world both aesthetically and economically, and was controlled by the government‟s Académie de 1 Jensen, 1994, p. 10. 2 In their book Canvases and Careers, White and White juxtapose the rigid Salon system with what they call the dealer-critic system. Although I agree with the substantial role which art dealers and art critics had in changing the situation, I argue, in the course of the first chapter, that the entrepreneurial skills of the artist were of great importance too. Therefore, I prefer not to refer to the dealer-critic system, since it is not the sole alternative to the Salon system. 3 See White and White, 1965; Green, 1987; De Bodt, 1995; Dekkers, 1995; Jensen and Galenson, 2002, p. 145. 4 See Jensen, 1994, pp. 34 & 111; Helmreich, 2013, p. 91. 5 See White and White, 1965, pp. 8-10; Dekkers, 1995, p. 23; Jensen and Galenson, 2002. 6 White and White, 1965, pp. 90-92. 7 Neither the role of bourgeois clientèle nor that of private collectors should be neglected when we consider the growth in the trade of avant-garde art. Due to their enthusiasm for collecting and daring speculative ventures, they were often the source of avant-garde artists' prominence and success. 5 Peinture et Sculpture (hereafter: Académie).8 The monopoly of the Salon was such that without showing at the Salon, no artist could establish his reputation and career. This state of affairs continued, though with diminishing importance, until the late 1870s. 9 Yet, as the number of exhibiting artists grew, it became increasingly difficult for the Salon juries to find exhibition places for them (see illustration I.I). More and more artists, both unknown and established, found themselves being rejected from the Salon‟s exhibitions and, in turn, began to reject the Salon system as a whole.10 The modern art dealer was not blind to the speculative value of the emerging avant- garde, and hoped to obtain a monopoly over certain artists by seeking exclusive contracts and buying their entire oeuvres so as to influence the prices on the market.11 They also began to structure the exhibitions on an annual basis, and saw the benefit of developing a relationship with art critics.12 Those marketing strategies were generally first developed by the British, who already had a long commercial history in the field. Hence, unsurprisingly, it was London‟s exhibition and dealing scene which was key in influencing innovations in Parisian exhibition practice as from the 1870s. Now, not only were numerous shows 8 Within the Salon system, talented artists were trained at the government‟s École des Beaux-Arts. They were instructed to employ traditional methods and styles and they could only advance if they passed annual examinations and participated in talent contests. After graduation, their main goal was to exhibit their latest artworks at the Salon, where a jury of different members – though most were associated with the Académie – determined who would be exhibiting at the world-famous annual or biennial exhibitions. Jensen and Galenson were instrumental in instigating a discussion about terminology. While the Whites (1965, pp. 6-8) gave the term Academic system to describe institutional control over the art scene in France, Jensen and Galenson (2002, p. 140) renamed it the Salon system, arguing that the Académie was only one participant exercising control over the Salon, whereas the Salon itself exerted a continuous determinant influence over an artist‟s career. I believe the latter concept gives a clearer understanding of the ruling mechanism, so I will continue to refer to it as the Salon system. 9 This was sustained by an attractive system of medals and honours, a near monopoly in attracting serious publicity, and the artists‟ and public‟s belief that it was the only legitimate arena for the display and publishing of works of art: Jensen and Galenson, 2002, pp. 140-148. 10 Changing attitudes in the academic art world during the mid-nineteenth century were apparent in England as well as in France, yet the results differed greatly. While English artists continued to show at the Royal Academy while also presenting their work at innovative galleries like the Grosvenor Gallery (see illustration I.II), their French colleagues were forced to choose between the Salon or independent gallery exhibitions.