Lawton S. Parker (1868-1954): Part 3

Part 3:

After winters end in France, Parker came home to broad acclaim. [1] In March 1913 he was in Chicago to see the International Exhibition of Modernism, as show that was seen by 188,000 people at the Art Institute and had caused quite a stir. [2] In June the Chicago newspapers were filled with the remarkable events of the first American ever to achieve a gold medal at the Salon Société des Artistes Français. “Chicago Artist Wins Salon Medal,” and “The Gold Medal Of The Salon,” announced this honor for Chicago’s now, best known artist. [3] The New York Times had presciently written: “Lawton Parker and Louis Ritman have two of the best nudes in the Salon.” [4] Parker’s nude, decidedly risqué for a Chicago audience, lounging on a sort of day bed, La Paresse (idleness), caused a stir and much debate over the new award system. [5] Director William French tried to explain sometime later in a letter that as the old system had been eliminated, the new system created a medal without the same honor. A thorough reading of his letter makes it clear that Director French was quite unclear about the changes and probably did not understand them himself. [6]

French explained the old rule had first, second- and third-class medals, all gold in composition. Only two first class medals were ever given, both to Frenchmen. There was also a Grand medal of honor, higher than first class. At this point French was somewhat incoherent:

“For several years no first-class medal has been awarded to anybody, which is one of the reasons, I believe emphasis added, that this is now merged into the second, the two first class and second class corresponding somewhat emphasis added to the second-class medal formerly awarded. This, as nearly as I can explain, is now the gold medal.” [7]

The first Inter Ocean article stated the cable received from France was of award of a “Second Honor.” [8] An initial cable from Paris had stated it was second medal and shortly after the mistake was corrected by a letter from the Salon which lauded him with the Gold. It was supposed because of the time he spent in Paris he might not have been considered a foreigner by the Salon jury. [9] Critic Lena McCauley attempted her version of an explanation stating the medal was in fact of the second order previously won by only ten other Americans, but that the “first award” (Grand Medal) is never given to foreigners. This account tried to explain the new system which consisted of a Grand Medal (first), followed by Gold (second), followed by a third-class medal (presumably silver). [10] Critic Harriet Monroe offered a correction by saying his “life size study” was awarded a medal that was in fact of the “first class, not of the second, as was first reported.” [11] George Breed Zug offered his correction saying the cable gave word Parker was now Hors concours that “no longer goes with a second medal, but only with a first, and that medal is no longer restricted to French artists.” He commented the last four salons passed without a first-class medal given. [12] Parker was showing a sketch of the now famous painting in his Chicago studio. McCauley called the piece a “painter’s picture” because it was a technical feat, not meant for any other hidden meaning. She described the work as a:

“nude woman with flowing red hair, carelessly emerging from her pale violet kimono as she lies in a twisted position on a couch in the light that is diffused through a Venetian blind… of painted warm flesh tones harmonizing with the draperies on the couch and beside the window.”

McCauley was so eloquent comparing his work to that of French composer Claude Debussy, “color that as delicately awakens emotional sensations as the harmonies fall upon the eye.” [13] She went on to say there were over forty reviews of the Salon which contained favorable remarks about Mr. Parker’s painting. Finally, there was a move about Chicago to try and purchase the painting and present it to the Art Institute. At a dinner held in Parker’s honor at the Cliff Dwellers Club, several noted artists and patrons began to formulate the plans. [14] However, while it is unknown for sure, it is more than likely Parker was not interested in selling the work.

As he had with his Gold Medal painting from Munich, Parker gained a great deal of exposure by exhibiting La Paresse throughout the country: Art Institute Annual Exhibition of American Paintings and Sculpture, November 1913; [15] Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts annual, February 1914, illustrated in the catalogue; April 1914 at the Carnegie International annual, where it caused a stir for being taken from the walls by the director because it was a nude, then replaced; [16] 1915 at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, illustrated in the catalogue, and for which, with his English Girl and another portrait, he was awarded a Medal of Honor; [17] Cincinnati Art Museum American annual May 1916; National Academy of Design winter annual, December 1916, for which he won the First Altman Prize [18]; Detroit Museum of Art at the American annual in April 1917; St. Louis Art Museum American annual in September 1917; Nebraska Art Association annual, January 1918, in December 1919 at the contemporary American biennial at the Corcoran Gallery of Art and in 1921 at the Lyme Art Association where it held a “conspicuous place in the exhibition.” [19]

Since returning from Europe, he had been painting portraits, [20] and now took the opportunity to visit South Hampton, Long Island for the summer; possibly he would visit Chase. [21] He may have returned for the opening of his one man exhibition at the galleries of Marshall Field & Company, Chicago’s department store to the carriage trade. [22] But he was back in Paris by November 1913. [23]

It is appropriate, at this zenith of his career, to recount Parker’s philosophy on how he arrived at such a place of success:

“I soon saw that the way to get ahead of the rest of them in the Institute, was to put in more hours than the others. Art is like everything else. A person must have an aptitude for it and he must learn to work hard. An artist must learn his trade, just as a cabinetmaker must. He must learn how to use his tools; then if he has anything to express he can do it.” [24]

The University of Nebraska awarded him an honorary Doctor of Fine Arts noting he was a specialist in the history and technique of fine arts. [25]

In the winter of 1914 Parker’s painting Day Dreams (private collection, California) was illustrated in the catalog of the Artists of Chicago and Vicinity Eighteenth Annual. The work had been completed in France and was part of an outdoors series of painting featuring women at leisure.

In the spring 1914, Parker visited Santa Barbara, California, likely guests of the McGanns who had a winter residence there. [26] A great deal of Chicago society was then frequenting the fashionable, for them, coastal town. [27] He was fortunate to have remained home as those who traveled to France that summer were forced to flee as many were subject to the vagaries of war government. [28]

Parker’s reputation as an artist and authority had been building for several years, and he was certainly portrait artist to Chicago society. [29] His depiction of Mrs. Ray Atherton was done in tandem with a similar work by Grace McGann, [30] both pieces exhibited at the Annual Exhibition of American Paintings and Sculpture in November 1914, where Parker’s was illustrated in the exhibition catalogue. Evidently the effect of World War I and the loss of his walled garden for outdoor painting was apparent in this portrait as critic Maude Oliver remarked, “Lawton Parker has turned from problems in sunlight to a low-keyed interior portrait.” [31] A week later she said “Lawton Parker is quite a surprise to his friends in the low-keyed palette which he offers. From the problem of Giverny Gardens, he has jumped to a consideration of an interior in the cold, uncompromising colors of artificial lights.” [32] The portrait of Mrs. Atherton was later purchased by the Friends of American Art for the collection at the Art Institute. [33] The portrait had attracted great attention as Parker claimed the sitter was the “most beautiful woman in Chicago society.” [34]

Since the Annual Exhibition of Works by Chicago Artists had begun in 1897 at the Art Institute, local artists submitted their best works for this annual show. [35] Usually held in January and February, it was followed in the fall by the exhibition of American artists. Jurors for the Annual Exhibition of Works by Artists of Chicago and Vicinity came from a list of those artists accepted in previous shows and then voted upon by the artists. Because local artists felt the jury process fairer, they were mostly focus on the Chicago and Vicinity exhibit over the American show. The latter often consisting of invited paintings, submittals by dealers, and a generally layman jury. As the American Annual came to an end and the Chicago and Vicinity was soon arriving during the winter 1914-1915, the issue of juror selection became an extreme and hotly debated topic.

It tumultuously reached almost epic proportions as artists began lining up against patrons. Vehement protests were launched, and Lawton Parker was at the center of a gigantic controversy, primarily one that he in fact instigated.

The Chicago Herald sought Parker’s opinion on the entire system of selecting paintings and prizes for the annual exhibition of American artists and he responded:

“The annual exhibition is a public affair, theoretically open to any American artist who can present a work that is up to the established standard, and is advertised as ‘free for all.’ Space is limited and the standard is supposed to be very high... I think the public and the artists who were ‘turned down’ for lack of space have a right to know what percentage were ‘invited’ and whether the favored few or favored many took their places. They also have a right to know what percentage were submitted by dealers... Such canvases as are not ‘invited’ in advance are passed upon by a jury before they are hung in the exhibition - by the same jury that afterwards awards the prizes... Where does this jury come from? By whose act are its members constituted a jury? One might suppose they were elected by the exhibitors either at this or a previous exhibition or by some widespread organization of artists. The fact is that this committee is, like many of the pictures, ‘invited’ by the officials of the institute... The directors of the institute repeatedly ask why they cannot interest our best artists in the current exhibitions. It is a fact that they cannot, that works by these men which continue to be seen on their walls are submitted by dealers without sanction of the painters themselves, and naturally are often violently misrepresentative of the work these men are doing. [36]

Parker discussed the differences between the hurried prize decisions in Chicago and the long deliberate process of the Salon Société des Artistes Français. He also decried the ineptness of some of the lay members of the annual juries. Finally, Parker urged the jury be selected by the artists themselves rather than by the “caprice of lay officials of the institute.” He recommended further changes including returning to regional juries and their election early in the year. As Parker had been feuding with recently deceased Art Institute director, William M. R. French for years, it is a matter of conjecture whether he sought to attack the museum at this juncture, now that the directorship of the museum was only temporary and lacking the power of the French administration. [37]

A week later, the Chicago Examiner announced the Art Institute was ready to acquiesce to the request, as Newton Carpenter, long time secretary of the museum said, “Parker hasn’t objected for anything but the principle of the thing, and I know officials of the institute feel that if the painters wish to ballot for their judges it will relieve us of considerable responsibility.” [38] What appeared to be an amicable resolution only opened the issue further to questioning juries for the awarding of prizes. This issue would soon explode.

Response to Parker’s criticism came quickly as literary figure Alice Corbin Henderson (1886-1968) wife of artist William Penhallow Henderson (1877-1943), a fellow teacher of Parker’s at the Academy of Fine Arts, wrote to the Herald of further suggestions to changes in the jury system. She specifically introduced the idea of need for a salon des refuses in conjunction with the annual exhibit where rejected works could be shown. [39] A second response was printed in the Herald that was complementary when in reply, architect and Art Institute trustee Arthur Aldis commented at the end of his letter, “Mr. Lawton Parker has done a good work in starting the discussion of a difficult and important question.” [40]

Parker’s influence was indeed growing. In December 1914, he gave an exhibition of Ritman’s works in his studio on Pearson Street, [41] where Ritman was staying during his time back from Paris because of World War I. [42] He had done something similar for George Charles Aid (1872 - 1938) in 1910 to help along his career in etching. [43] The show opened to critical acclaim and Maude Oliver suggested, “That they should have a more central location is the verdict of all who have had the pleasure of viewing them.” [44] In describing the canvases, Oliver commented that one was painted in the same studio where Parker had painted his now famous, La Paresse. Through Parker’s apparent influence the Art Institute found time in their schedule to open an exhibit of the same Ritman canvases in February 1915, in conjunction (overlapping by a week) with the Annual Exhibition of Works by Artists Chicago and Vicinity. This was an unheard-of policy at the time. Just five years earlier correspondence between the museum and the society indicated, “The artists have always insisted that there should be no other exhibitions at the Art Institute at the same time.” [45]

Both Parker and Ritman, along with Frederick Frary Fursman (1874-1943), George Senseney (1874-1943), Jerome S. Blum (1884-1956), Roy H. Brown (1879-1956) and William Victor Higgins (1884-1949), were asked to speak as “modernists” on the future of art in Chicago in art, at the annual Chicago artists’ dinner held at the Press Club on February 7, 1915. [46] One week later, just two weeks before the opening of the Chicago and Vicinity annual, pressure on the layperson’s jury mounted. The Municipal Art League, who coordinated prizes, held a meeting where the scene was described as “lively,” as Parker’s request for a jury of awards comprised solely of artists met with “considerable objection,” Mrs. William F. Grower leading the opposition. [47]

Two days after the opening of the 1915 Chicago and Vicinity show a large group of artists used Parker’s opening to expand the issue of jury selection. While Parker was concerned with the awarding of prizes at the local show, and the admission of un-juried works at the American Annual, disenfranchised local artists attacked the jury process in total. While they offered no plausible solutions to a jury, nonetheless their complaints were voiced loudly. Twelve hundred works were submitted that year with three hundred accepted. [48] The jury of acceptance, however, for the local show, was in fact elected by fellow artists.

It didn’t take long for Parker to refocus the attention of the public on the real issue at hand, the awarding of prizes by laypersons. He led a group of artists, including Wilson Irvine (chairman of the city appointed Commission for the Encouragement of Local Art, to purchase local art, and former president of the Chicago Society of Artists) in requesting the awards juries be composed only of artists, calling the award system a “Pink Tea Fete.” [49] On the fifteenth of March at least three newspapers picked up on the story, the Tribune and Post with front page stories. [50] As Parker told it:

“It is ridiculous to place a fictitious value on anything that happens to strike the fancy of a lot of laymen who know nothing about the work they are judging… It is fooling the public to put a prize tag on something that doesn’t merit the distinction and then let the public wonder why. [51] The principal painters of Chicago have taken a stand against allowing the club women to judge the merits of works of art and award prizes…The present system is absurd and provincial… If the directors of the Art Institute are going to continue to let the club women play at art and decide the technical points of paintings and sculptures, we merely won’t exhibit.” [52]

In a letter to Newton Carpenter fifteen artists said they refused to exhibit further under the “farcical” existing conditions. Lawton Parker’s was the lead signature on the letter. Several of the signatories included those who rented studios from Parker, his protégé Ritman, and Art Institute professor Karl Albert Buehr (1866-1952) who had also been present in Giverny. Also included were noted artists William Penhallow Henderson (1877-1943) and Alson Skinner Clark. [53] “We won’t exhibit under any such county fair rules,” was Parker’s cry. “If they don’t want our money we can go somewhere else with our prizes,” was the retort of Mrs. William F. Grower, representing the voice of the Municipal Art League. [54] Parker was later quoted as saying, “The fact that these women are patrons of Chicago art does not invest them with the intelligence necessary to constitute them art critics. Their system of awarding prizes creates a ridiculous presumption that the object of that award is really a superior work of art.” [55]

The club women of course felt if they were to offer the prize money, they should have a significant hand in selecting the prize winners. They felt little remorse that one of the purchase prizes was awarded to Victor Higgins, a member of their own award jury. [56] Higgins then went on a public attack saying Parker was disgruntled because his “protégé” Ritman did not receive a prize; that the other signers didn’t understand the document they signed and all concerned lacked “gray matter.” [57] As artists lined up the Herald detailed those who sided with Higgins, including Carl Rudolph Krafft (1884-1938) and his best friend Rudolph Ingerle (1879-1950), Frank Dudley (1868-1957) and Albert Ullrich (1869-1951) – all members of the local Palette and Chisel Club. Those publicly joining Parker were probably the most influential artist in Chicago, Oliver Dennett Grover (1860-1927), Henry Leon Roecker (1860-1941), Alfred Jansson (1863-1931), Wilson Irvine (1869-1936) and Charles William Dahlgreen (1864-1955). [58]

Art Institute professor Wellington Reynolds, who stated emphatically that the letter and movement “had behind it the co-operation of every student in the institute” professing no financial need for the awards, only that a just system be implemented. [59] It was then the turn of the students to come out publicly for change. “We all agree with the protest. We know that our work will be up for judging soon, and we are anxious that it be judged by men or women whose training fits them for such work” Dorothea Gerhardt, spokeswoman for the students was quick to point out that the signatories of the letter were infrequent exhibitors and of independent means, thereby insisting they only wished for the fairest practices. [60]

Art Institute professor John Warner Norton espoused what perhaps was the most reasoned view by an artist in saying:

“It would seem to me that in the present system the great good lies in the fact that the public demonstrates an active interest and through exercising selective judgment educates itself.” [61]

One of Chicago’s then radical modern artists, Jerome Blum, used the controversy to call for juryless exhibitions altogether, again expanded the issue from just prize picking to selection into the general show. Why couldn’t the show be patterned after the Society of Independent artists in France he wondered. It was his claim that “real” artists weren’t interested in prizes at all and did all they could to remain independent. [62]

When the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune chimed it, a reader of that day could gather the issue was significant to all of Chicago. The editors agreed with Lawton Parker by disagreeing that paying for prizes entitled the clubwomen to vote on the awards. That the club women should be public spirited with their prizes and support local art for the better of the community was the point to be focused on and had no bearing to decision making. Otherwise, the supposed public effort was really “private enterprise.” [63]

The Palette and Chisel Club decided it was time to enter the fray in favor of the club women, despite the fact that one of their own, and a former Gold Medal winner of the club, Walter Ufer, was adamantly with Parker. One of the Chicago’s leading female artists, Pauline Palmer (1867-1938) derided Parker by stating he “has been in Europe so long, he doesn’t understand the situation here.” [64] This a somewhat odd statement coming from an artist who had achieved much of her training in Europe and was as well active in Giverny like Parker and Ritman.

As it turned out, changes were made, but they would prove to be not satisfactory to many artists. The prizes were awarded by first having a popular vote among the 168 delegates representing seventy-eight women’s clubs and societies. The top twenty-five paintings and five sculptures would then be submitted to a jury comprised of fifteen laymen (club women) and five artists appointed by the trustees of the Art Institute. [65]

The club women continued their way just as nothing had been in dispute and awarded their prizes, which were then labeled in the exhibition. The fine point of labeling created another stir among the warring artists as those in Parker’s camp demanded the labels be changed from signification as “awards” to that of “purchases.” The detailed point could well be understood given their views. [66] The timing of a new system of prizes at the Art Students’ League seemed designed to curry favor with the students. The club women announced they were going to give substantial purchase prizes at the upcoming students exhibit rather than their previous small awards of five and ten dollars. [67] Respected artist Ralph Elmer Clarkson, president of the Municipal Art League, naturally came out in favor of his own organization and its supporting club women. Their effort to deflect their own purchase monies to the students was then made public. [68]

The final blow was struck on March 19th when Louis Ritman retorted the earlier attack by Victor Higgins. Ritman was universal when he stated, “war in art means progress.” Importantly he pointed out that three of the signatories had in fact received prizes and three hadn’t even bothered to submit works for the exhibition. This in stark contrast to Higgins receiving an important award while sitting on the award jury. And as a further dismissive remark Ritman stated he couldn’t have submitted a work for a prize as nothing he painted was worth such as small amount as two hundred dollars. [69] That evening the Chicago Society of Artists and Municipal Art League held a joint entertainment to smooth over relations as many of the Society members were leaders against the award policy. [70]

The next day, Frank Virgil Dudley, Vice President of the Chicago Society of Artists, publicly rebuked members of the society who took issue with the prize awards process stating “the Chicago Society of Artists does not approve the sensational manner in which several of its members broke into print several days ago… I am confident that the action of several of our members will be officially deplored at our meeting April 5.” [71] This turned out to be a rather silly statement as instead of being “deplored” Dudley was voted out of office! Obviously, the members of the society felt he didn’t, in fact, speak for them. [72]

At their meeting of April 5, the Chicago Society of Artists unanimously, with one descent, forwarded a resolution to the trustees of the Art Institute asking the prizes jury to be composed of artists. The only opposing vote was cast by Oliver D. Grover. [73] This was followed by a vote of the trustees of the museum as headlines stated, “Artists Will Pick Own Juries;” Parker was “highly elated at the results.” [74] He had won. The threatened withholding of purchase prizes from the annual Chicago and Vicinity exhibition never materialized, [75] although the next year in 1916 three of those artists who had come out publicly in favor of the club women, Krafft, Palmer, and Higgins were given prizes of the Municipal Art League. By 1917, only two short years later, the all-out war was a forgotten memory along with its concurrent favoritism. Parker’s significant position in the Chicago art world was further solidified when at the time of the April 5 meeting, mayor Carter Harrison appointed him a member to the vacant position on the Commission for the Encouragement of Local art. [76] This public body of artists was charged with making significant annual purchases for placement in the public schools, which today forms the basis for the valuable Chicago Public School art collection. [77]

Parker dis not exhibit in the 1915 Chicago and Vicinity show. A variety of plans had been thought up including one by Walter Ufer, where all sixteen artists who refused works to the show would hold their own show in the fall. [78] Parker and eight other artists, four of whom also withheld works from the exhibition, pressed for a group show of their own, which was announced in April. While the artists stated it was a practice borrowed from Europe where small groups of artists exhibited independently of any larger group, [79] this group, probably the most prominent of Chicago artists in total, had enough influence to use the Art Institute for their venue. The was show open from May 13 to June 13, under the title of Nine Chicago Painters. [80] Karl A. Buehr, trying to smooth over the recent difficulties, said of the show, “The artists have no grievances. We first intended to hold our exhibition last fall, but it was postponed.” [81] Critic Anne Ellis of the Chicago Tribune, said of the show, “The exhibit... is rather overshadowed by the works of Lawton Parker, which are the most striking in the exhibit.” [82] She later told of “ill feeling” among some local artists that these nine artists were given this exclusive exhibit. An unnamed member of the group said the purpose was to display different styles in a harmonious setting complemented by bronzes, flowers, vases and other decorations. [83] The exhibit included wealthy art patron and painter Frederic Clay Bartlett, whom Parker would socialize with. [84] Ellis went on to say that viewing the attractiveness of the display the exhibit was “a complete success,” and that Parker’s work “completely overshadow those in their immediate vicinity.”

This exhibit was the beginning of the “Independent” artist exhibitions in Chicago. It was followed by an expanded arrangement at the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts, where invitations were sent to artists across the country, who would be subjected to no jury, and split expenses to show in the 4,000 square feet allotted. [85] An exhibition catalogue was produced and yielded the names of fifty-five artists, about half from Chicago, and one hundred eighty works. [86]

Parker’s influence in Chicago was completed when in June, Mayor Thompson, ousted long time president of the Municipal Art League and highly respected artist Ralph Elmer Clarkson, from the Chicago Municipal Art Commission. [87] He was replaced by Parker. Clarkson’s close friend and highly respected sculptor, Lorado Taft, was replaced by sculptor Emil Robert Zettler (1878-1946), who was a tenant of Parker’s at 19 E. Pearson. Parker was then named chairman of the commission. [88] A month after Parker’s appointment, he was then appointed by the mayor to the commission on the design of a Chicago flag, the city having never executed one. Parker was instrumental in the contest to establish the flag design, still in use today. [89]

It was at about this same time Parker received the Medal of Honor at Panama-Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco, [90] where he had been a member of the Midwest advisory committee for the organization of the exhibition. [91] His well-known portrait of Mrs. Atherton had been shown there, along with La Paresse and An English Girl. [92] He was also a sort of de facto spokesperson for John Trask, director of exposition fine arts. [93]

Having painted portraits of many of Chicago’s leading figures, Parker had an affinity for those who had made their mark on the city. Even civic minded, he offered paintings of living architects who had distinguished themselves, including Louis Sullivan, for a proposed hall of fame of architects in Chicago. [94]

Ties to artists were mended quickly. Parker and Frank Dudley, protagonists in the jury battle, agreed to be the only jurors for an exhibition in St. Paul, Minnesota, Artists of the Northwest during the summer of 1915. [95] This would have been some consolation as the artists had to spend considerable time together reviewing the over 900 entries. That same summer Parker was the guest of Frank Lloyd Wright at Taliesin in Wisconsin, invited along with sculptress Nancy Cox-McCormack. [96] He and Cox-McCormack returned only ten days later, Parker painting her outdoors in the sunlight. [97] The two lived in the same Pearson Street building Parker had renovated. [98] If there was a love interest, the secret died with the parties. [99]

By the time the Annual Exhibition of American Paintings and Sculpture exhibit arrived at the Art Institute in November 1915, Parker exhibited only one canvas, Portrait of James A. Patten. [100] There is no known reason for his now winnowing number of exhibited canvases. Perhaps he had tired of the process of juries and selection. He had already achieved a large measure of wealth and success. The painting Summer Girls at the Annual Exhibition of Works by Artists Chicago and Vicinity in February 1916, would be his last canvas at the annual exhibits of the Art Institute. [101] Active in local art affairs, though, Parker spoke at the annual Art Institute Alumni Dinner held February 15th. [102]

Parker had also mended ties to the ladies of the Municipal Art League. On November 3, 1915, he organized a group of several of the most influential women and men in Chicago art to meet and discuss the formation of The Arts Club of Chicago, an outgrowth of the Artists’ Guild. [103] Among those invited were included the acting director of the Art Institute, Charles L. Hutchinson; Art Institute trustees, Martin A. Ryerson and Edward B. Butler; Municipal Art League stalwart, Mrs. William F. Grower; art critic, Lena M. McCauley of the Chicago Evening Post and former Chicago mayor Carter H. Harrison. [104] It would be an important meeting and significant that Parker formed this group. [105]

In February 1916, the club, still searching for quarters, had membership which included about three hundred artists and lay people. [106] On March 22, 1916, the club was formally organized. [107] Parker became the first Vice President. [108] Wealthy patron and artist, whose studio was in Parker’s building, Grace Farwell McGann, became the first president. [109] By November they had secured quarters in the Fine Arts Building Annex on Michigan Avenue, on the fifth floor. Appropriately enough, entrance to the club was through the Artists’ Guild showroom. [110] Today, the club is still active and thriving having recently sold a Brancusi sculpture from their collection to pay for a multi-million dollar new clubhouse in Chicago. [111] However, Parker is given no credit for the formation of this important Chicago institution, yet, at the time, it was said he was the “originator” of the idea. [112]

At the end of January 1916, a benefit exhibition was held at the Art Institute under the moniker Appui aux Artistes. [113] The organization was formed for French artists who could not serve in the military and were left without a pension. Lawton Parker and Oliver Dennett Grover organized the event of several dozen exhibitors who donated canvases for sale at the exhibition. [114] It was a society affair, and the funds came under control of Vicomtesse de Rancougne who was raising money as head of the organization. Parker went so far as to lend his three-story home and studio in the Rue Jules-Chaplin, [115] in Paris to the Vicomtesse for French artists as a canteen during the war. [116] Obviously a very gracious act. This recounting of his home also pointed towards the wealth he had come to accumulate by this time.

Parker reportedly left for Paris, where he was to “remain for some time.” [117] His studio in Paris was still occupied by the canteen and the war was still raging in Europe, so its doubtful he either traveled there or remained long. Chicago offered an active art scene and portrait commissions for Parker. He sat on the jury of the Annual Exhibition of American Paintings and Sculpture which opened in November 1916. [118]

The Arts club had located a home on the fifth floor of the Fine Arts Building, [119] and Parker and Abram Poole (1883-1961), then living in Chicago, put a great deal of effort into organizing the inaugural exhibit of works by Sargent and Henry Golden Dearth (1864-1918). [120] One critic called the show, “A vitally interesting epoch in the artistic life of Chicago.” [121] This show was immediately followed by an exhibition of George Wesley Bellows (1882-1925), Robert Henri (1865-1929) and John Sloan (1871-1951).

Shortly after serving on the jury of the Annual Exhibition of American Paintings and Sculpture at the Art Institute in the Fall 1916, [122] sometime between the end of September 1916 and early 1917, Parker moved to New York City. [123] Earlier letters from Parker dated April 12, 1916, show he was staying in New York at the Hotel Van Cortlandt prior to the move. [124] Parker had moved to New York to take up co-trusteeship of the fund created by John Armstrong Chaloner which helped art students. Parker had encouraged Chaloner to create the fund and consulted with him on its operation. (The reader will recall Parker won a scholarship from Chaloner several decades earlier). [125] Correspondence dated October 18, 1916, shows Parker then took a studio at the National Arts Club where he was elected to life membership. [126] In December 1916, Parker had achieved more national acclaim when he won the aforementioned $1,000 Altman prize at the National Academy of Design where he had been previously elected as an associate. [127] He chose Irving Ramsey Wiles to paint his portrait which was required of new members.

Given the acclaim and his real estate project, Parker had ample reason to remain in New York. He planned construction of a fourteen-story new artist’s studio building, [128] like his successful venture at 19 E. Pearson in Chicago. [129] Named the Rodin Studios and located near Carnegie Hall at 200 West 57th Street, [130] it was built at a cost of $1.4 million. [131] Money for the facility was arranged through a corporation to which interested tenants subscribed. Parker was the President, artist, and heiress Georgia Timken Fry (1861-1921 [132]) was vice president and her husband John Hemming Fry (1861-1946), who had earlier experience as vice president of the Gainsborough Studios in New York, and was the owner of Art World, was treasurer. [133] Georgia was the daughter of wealthy industrialist Henry Timken whose namesake company was the largest maker of ball bearings in the U. S. The three had most likely met in Paris during their respective student days and since both the Frys were artists they may have studied with Parker. Parker had always been successful in attracting wealthy patrons and this business venture was no different.

Cass Gilbert (1859-1934) was their chosen architect. It is likely he was Parker’s choice as they had probably met in Chicago. Although from St. Paul, he had enough business in Chicago maintain an office in the Auditorium building in the late 1890s. [134] He had previously been responsible for the New York Custom House and Woolworth Building designs. [135] The building was a decided success, two thirds leased before it opened. [136] A New York critic wrote aptly:

“Not far away is Carnegie Hall… then there is the Lotus Club… Many hotels of the first class are to be found in the neighborhood and two blocks to the north is Central Park. A more admirable location could not have been secured… both in point of artistic surroundings, convenience to the theatres, leading shops, railroad terminals and street car lines.” [137]

Parker moved into the building in late 1917, [138] and was still the active manager of the building by 1920. [139]

Despite his move he continued to maintain ties to Chicago. At the end of 1917, he served on the New York committee for an upcoming retrospective exhibit of alumni of the Art Institute of Chicago. A large and encompassing exhibit, for artists who had attended the largest art school in the country, he was one of a dozen on the eastern committee. [140] Even in 1921, he was listed on the roster of the Chicago Society of Artists as an active member, exhibiting in their “First” annual show. [141] During this period he exhibited with the Lyme Art Association and spent summers there taking advantage of his Eastern locale. [142]

In the second half of 1920, Parker sold his interest in the Rodin Studio Building to his partner John Fry. [143] This must have left Parker a sizeable sum and with it he chose to leave New York to reside outside of Paris around 1921. [144] We do not know exactly when Parker moved to Paris. He continued to return to Old Lyme, or at least send paintings there, until 1927. [145] His nephew recounts that Uncle Lawton had been an early investor in AT&T and achieved a certain amount of financial independence from his investments. [146]

A careful and adept businessman throughout his career as an artist, between his multiple teaching positions, his school, his valuable portrait commissions and successful real estate ventures, he could certainly have achieved the financial independence, so few artists ever see. [147] He likely had a steady stream of visitors from Chicago as after the war Paris was very much back in fashion. One former pupil, Cecil Clark Davis, made the move to Paris with her mother in 1922, possibly to re-unite with Parker, but certainly re-acquainted. [148] Art Institute teacher Wellington Jarard Reynolds had been friendly with Parker for decades. When Reynolds won a prize at the Paris Salon it was Parker and Ritman who notified him, further solidifying the reality that Parker and Ritman stayed close to each other in France. [149] Reynolds stopped to see him while traveling France in 1925. He recounted Parker had purchased a chateau twenty miles from Paris and was living in comfort with servants to care for his needs. [150] He also spoke of Parker’s chief financial success from his real estate venture in New York. [151]

The town Reynolds spoke of was the village of Plailly, in Oise, where Parker had settled into the life of an expatriate on his six-acre estate, Chateau d’Andecy. [152] Parker married Beatrice Snow, an American librarian on study in France, on March 16, 1927. [153] Their home was a town of only four hundred, comprised mostly farmers, where the quiet life prevailed. On the top fourth floor of the chateau Parker kept his studio where he mostly painted sketches and experimented with various forms of printing. One of the workrooms contained a large press; there were plenty of printer’s chemicals and a darkroom to develop photography. [154] He left a long record of prints in various mediums, primarily monotype, etching and dry point. [155] There has been some implication of recent that he came to work with prints only late in his career. However, as early as 1903, one newspaper commented, “In his leisure hour late in the afternoon Mr. Parker was working on a dry-point study of a picturesque young woman posed before him.” He had shown the critic another dry-point nude study as well. [156] It is clear from a review of the subject matter, style and execution of the works in a one-man exhibition at R. H. Love Galleries, that Parker was involved in printmaking throughout his career.

Parker was friendly for years with expatriate artist Myron Barlow (1873-1937), who lived in Etaples. Correspondence between the two artists from 1933 to 1937 focuses on print techniques and the extensive experimentation each was conducting as evidenced by detailed notes in Barlow’s letters to Parker. [157] In 1935, an exhibition by members of the Artists Professional League opened in Paris to strong reviews. Critic B. J. Kospoth noted, “Lawton Parker’s monotone nudes are a ‘tour de force’.” [158]

Throughout the late twenties and thirties, Parker lived a comparatively comfortable life, somewhat pinched by the Depression, but none the less free to do as they please. His nephew recounted in great detail the pleasures of their life in France leading up to World War II. [159] When the Germans marched into France, Parker knew he had to get his family and himself out. He left the beautiful estate with his wife and young son for Paris and then proceeded to get them off to America via the Spanish border where they would join relatives in Montana. Parker returned to the estate to find the Germans had overtaken the place and stolen valuable items. [160]

It is fortunate the Germans didn’t confiscate or destroy the masterpiece, La Paresse. [161] Parker’s nephew makes no mention of the Germans destroying any of Parker’s work, nor did Parker make any such mention after leaving France. It is important to remember that he had basically ceased active painting before moving to his estate and thus there would not have been a large body of post 1922 work. None of Parker’s work would have been considered “degenerate” by the Nazis. Therefore, claims that the Nazis destroyed his work are certainly unsubstantiated and untrue. [162]

Between 1940 and 1942, Lawton was trapped in occupied Paris. Now homeless and considerably poorer, he scraped to get by. It was probably difficult to get funds into occupied France from his financial sources in the United States. He had joined painting classes which were kept warm for the benefit of the models. [163] Lawton fled France shortly after the United States was drawn into the war and arrived safely in New York in early July 1942 on the diplomatic exchange liner Drotiningholm; he was now seventy-three years of age. [164] By 1943, he and his wife Bea, had settled near the Arroyo Seco, in Pasadena, near family and artist friends such as Alson Clark. [165] He had enough money to afford the home and some conveniences and lived comfortably. There he completed his retirement plans by selling his beautiful estate outside Paris, after the war ended. [166]

During the years leading up to the war, his nephew related he repurchased several of his paintings when his brand of Impressionism had fallen out of favor. Whether or not this is true, Parker was known to keep his most important works as they yielded him more publicity in exhibition than in tucked away in a collection. The Pasadena Society of Artists held a one-man exhibition of his works in March 1945. Parker was the guest of honor at their monthly dinner and recounted the story of his escape from France and earlier experiences with Whistler. [167]

The last eight years of his life were spent quietly at home where he died on September 25, 1954 and was buried at Woodlawn Cemetery in Santa Monica. His obituary was about as succinct as possible in summing up his career, “Lawton S. Parker, rated by many critics as one of the greatest figure painters in America.” [168]

As a postscript, it is interesting to follow the fate of his paintings upon his demise. His wife moved to New York with their son and placed them in storage. After she died in 1972, the works remained in storage. Son Larry was married and during the delivery of their second child (a son) complications resulted in years of medical costs. By the time the Pasadena storage company made demand for payment of past due bills, Larry hadn’t the funds to sacrifice in favor of his son’s health. The paintings were sold at a liquidation sale on April 13, 1974. A collector and his wife searched for the paintings after their dispersal and were able to bring together enough works to exhibit at the Baxter Art Gallery of the California Institute of Technology in April 1976. The group of paintings included some prized Giverny works and were sold by the collector to various dealers and other collectors throughout the country. [169]

 [1] He arrived in the U. S. on 2/25/1913, having departed from Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France. Passenger Record, The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. In “News of the Society World,” Chicago Tribune, 2/9/1913, part 8, p.3 it was noted: “Abram Poole, who is also a member of a well known Chicago family, has taken Lawton Parker’s studio on Pearson street for the winter, and is hard at work on some portraits. He is just across the hall from Mrs. Cecil Clark Davis, who has two portraits in the present exhibition of Chicago artists at the Art Institute.” Parker’s arrival in the U. S. was also mentioned in “Passengers From Europe,” New York Times, 2/26/1913, p.13.

 [2] “Chicago Society Has Private View of ‘Cubist Art,’” Chicago Examiner, 3/25/1913, p.5.

 [3] See the following articles: “Chicago Artist Wins Salon Medal,” Daily Inter Ocean, 6/3/1913, p.3; “Art and Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 6/4/1913, p.10; “The Gold Medal of the Salon,” Chicago Evening Post, 6/12/1913, p.6; Harriet Monroe, “Chicago Artist Wins Gold Medal at ‘Old Salon’,” Chicago Tribune, 6/15/1913, Sec. 2, p.7 and George B. Zug, “Among The Art Galleries,” Sunday Inter Ocean, 6/15/1913, p.5. The painting was later illustrated in The Art Student, October 1915, p.4.

 [4]“Salon’s Sculpture Its Best Feature,” New York Times, 4/28/1913.

 [5]Charles Henry Meltzer, “4,000 Paintings Put On Display In Little Salon: Landon Parker Contributes Daring Nude to Paris Exhibit That Would Shock Chicago,” Chicago Examiner, 4/27/1913, p.11.

 [6] French to Mabel Packard, French Letter Archives, 2/6/1914.

 [7] Op. cit., French to Packard, 2/6/1914.

 [8] Op. cit., Daily Inter Ocean, 6/3/1913.

 [9] No article title, Chicago Examiner 6/16/1913, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 30, col. 4, p.129.

 [10] Lena M. McCauley, “Art and Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 6/5/1913, p.10. Other Americans who had won the medal included John Singer Sargent (1856-1925), Richard Edward Miller (1875-1943) and Henry Ossawa Tanner (1859-1937).

 [11] Op. cit., Chicago Tribune, 6/15/1913.

 [12] Op. cit., Daily Inter Ocean, 6/14/1913.

 [13] Op. cit., Chicago Evening Post, 6/5/1913, p.10. Twenty years later after the advent of Modernism a Chicago artist named Allan Lee Swisher (1888-after 1940) exhibited a work of the same pose but showing a modern woman smoking a cigarette and entitled it La Paresse (location unknown); proving Parker’s prize picture wasn’t far out of the memories of local artists. C. J. Bulliet, “How Modern Art Came to Town: The War Years and the Advent of No-Jury Shows,” The Chicagoan, Vol. 12, September 1931, p.31. The fact famed critic Bulliet chose the Swisher painting as an illustration for his article is instructive as well.

 [14] “Parker’s ‘Idleness’ Is Sought for Chicago,” Chicago Examiner, 6/20/1913, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 30, cols. 1-2, p.133.

 [15]William French was lamenting Parker made it difficult for the painting to be exhibited, having sent it late and “did everything wrong that was possible with regard to the shipment.” Letter to Sara Hallowell from French, French Letter Archives, 11/22/1913. Unfortunately, it was held up in customs and arrived a day after judging for the $1,000 Potter Palmer prize was decided. “Artist Threatens To Sue,” Chicago Tribune, 1/4/1914, p.2. “Painting Too Late for Exhibition,” Chicago Tribune, 1/6/1914, p.9. It was given a place of honor across from Gari Melcher’s painting Maternity. The painting was featured with an illustration in James William Pattison, “The Twenty-sixth Annual Exhibition Of American Art,” Fine Arts Journal, Vol. 29, December 1913, p.705. The illustration caused a problem for the Art Institute, though, as they had lent the magazine a photograph for reproduction and Parker had copyrighted the image. Letter to Pattison from Charles Burkholder, 12/10/1913, French Letter Archives, p.865. Parker was at the time negotiating the sale of the image copyright. It was noticed with a paragraph in Harriet Monroe, “Autumn Art Show Opens Tomorrow,” Chicago Tribune, 11/13/1913, p.13.

 [16]Evelyn Marie Stuart, “Inconsistency of Censors,” Fine Arts Journal, Vol. 31, July 1914, p.347. The painting is illustrated in this article. The painting was apparently removed from the official catalogue, p348. Parker placed the work on view at Wunderly Galleries in Pittsburgh when he learned it was removed from the show. Upon this viewing, the work was restored to the International exhibition. “Carnegie Gallery ‘Art Jury’ Merely “Dummy Directors,’” Chicago Tribune, 6/11/1914, p.13. “Eighty Graduates at Art Institute,” Chicago Tribune, 6/21/1914, p.D4.

 [17] Parker was on the Middle West advisory committee of the exposition, chaired by Frank Duveneck (1848-1919) of Cincinnati. Lena M. McCauley, “Art and Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 9/25/1913, p.8, and Illustrated Official Catalogue. Department of Fine Arts. Panama-Pacific International Exposition (With Awards), (San Francisco: Wahlgreen Company, 1915), pp.4-5, following “Index of Artists,” section, p.i. Anne Ellis, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 10/3/1915, p.E2. “New Light On Museum Bronzes: Awards at the Panama-Pacific Exposition,” New York Times, 8/1/1915.

 [18] Mention of this award appears in Annual Report of the Artists’ Guild, (Chicago: The Artists’ Guild, 1917), Chicago Historical Society. “Academy Of Design Prizes: Awards Made for Best Pictures in Winter Exhibition,” New York Times, 12/11/1916.

 [19] “Artists as Builders,” Chicago Evening Post, “News of the Art World,” supplement, 9/20/1921. “The World Of Art: The Old Lyme Exhibition and New Gallery,” New York Times, 8/14/1921.

 [20] Op. cit., Chicago Evening Post, 6/5/1913, p.10. His portrait of Mrs. Ray Atherton was illustrated in Chicago Tribune, 11/4/1914, p.12.

 [21] Lena M. McCauley, “Art and Artists” Chicago Evening Post, 7/5/1913, p.10, and op. cit., Oliver, Chicago Sunday Record-Herald, 6/8/1913. Oliver states he planned to spend the summer on Long Island to avoid the rains in France.

 [22] George B. Zug, “Among The Art Galleries,” Sunday Inter Ocean, Sunday Magazine, 8/3/1913, p.5, and Lena M. McCauley, “Art and Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 8/16/1913, p.6. For an extensive review of the exhibition see: James William Pattison, “Many Sorts of Realism,” Fine Arts Journal, Vol. 29, December 1913, pp.545-549. He described on page 545, the works as “superior in composition, sentiment and color… they are entirely realistic, a sentiment and poetry pervades each one.”

 [23] Op. cit., French to Hallowell, 11/22/1913.

 [24] Op. cit., Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 8/19/1913, p.6.

 [25]Op. cit., Freeman essay, p.8. It is stated in op. cit., Wells, The Nebraska Art Association A History 1888-1971, p.19, this was the first honorary degree ever granted by the institution. This was clarified in a letter to the author from Richard J. Hoffmann, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, 3/29/2006, stating it was the first honorary doctorate awarded by that specific college, but not the entire university. It certainly had to be influenced by his winning of the Gold Medal at the salon as well as his help in building the Nebraska Art Association collection along with that of patron Frank M. Hall.

 [26]“News Of Chicago Society: Personals,” Chicago Tribune, 12/12/1920, p.F4.

 [27]“Comment by Mme. X,” Chicago Tribune, 3/29/1914, p.F2. Parker exhibited A Santa Barbara Garden at the Art Institute Annual Exhibition of American Paintings and Sculpture in November, and A Santa Barbara Home, at the Art Institute exhibit Nine Chicago Artists, in May 1915.

 [28]Those without official papers were in some cases to be arrested and those without sufficient proof of funds were unwelcome. “Yankee Artists In Peril; Many Fleeing France,” Chicago Tribune, 8/3/1914, p.5.

 [29]He was among the first members in the prestigious Casino, a private club which was, and still is, limited to four hundred prominent members of Chicago society. The club is located on Delaware Street, only a short walk from his studio.

 [30]“Chicagoans Throng to See Art Exhibit,” Chicago Tribune, 11/4/1914, p.12. Parker’s example was illustrated in “Vivid Coloring Of Gown In Chicago Woman’s Portrait Attracts Attention,” Chicago Tribune, 11/4/1914, p.12. McGann’s and Parker’s portraits were illustrated side by side in “The Most Beautiful Woman in Chicago Society,” Chicago Tribune, 1/3/1915, p.B9.

 [31]Maude I. G. Oliver, “ ‘We Don’t Need Europe,’ Say Art Loyalists,” Chicago Sunday Herald, 11/8/1914, Sec. 2, p.3. Oliver stated both portraits showed the sitter in a “gown of vivid green, with touches of gold and black.”

 [32]Maude I. G. Oliver, “Facts About Prize Winning Canvases by American Artists, Now at Art Institute,” Chicago Sunday Herald, 11/22/1914, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.68.

 [33]“American Art Exhibition,” Bulletin Of The Art Institute Of Chicago, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1, 1915, pp.5, 11-12. The painting was illustrated on p.5. It was lent to the Corcoran Gallery of Art for their biennial show and again for the Panama-Pacific International Exposition the following year. Critic Louise James Bargelt termed the work “county wide famous.” Mrs. Atherton was the former Constance Coolidge. Louise James Bargelt, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 5/5/1916, p.16.

 [34]Op. cit., Chicago Tribune, 1/3/1915, p.B9. Louise James Bargelt, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 5/5/1916, p.16. The portrait had been acquired for $2,000. On March 14, 1950, the Art Institute of Chicago Committee on Painting and Sculpture met and voted to deaccession the work along with seven other works acquired for the museum by Friends of American Art including important pieces by Daniel Garber, Chauncey Foster Ryder, Henry Ossawa Tanner and William Wendt. One can only guess at the mindset of the committee in relations to these works of American Art, all of which are highly praised today. On April 19, 1950, the painting by Parker was sold at Grant Art Galleries for $65. “Minutes Of The Meeting Of The Committee On Painting And Sculpture,” Art Institute of Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago Archives, 3/14/1950, pp. 1-3.

 [35] Isabel McDougall, “Art and Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 10/21/1899, p.8.: “Chicago artists are chary of contributions to the annual exhibition of American paintings... It is assumed that they are holding back their works for the exhibition limited to Chicago artists...”; Chicago Sunday Times Herald, 11/5/1899, Part 2, p.7: “It is possible, however, that the local painters are reserving their works for the annual exhibition of artists of Chicago, which opens in February.” And: “Local Painters Vie In Annual Exhibit,” Chicago Evening Post, 11/2/1907, Sec. 4, p.7: “It has grown to be the custom among local painters to reserve their best canvases for the exhibition of works of artists of Chicago and Vicinity…”

 [36]Lawton Parker, “Artist Attacks Award System,” Chicago Sunday Herald, 11/29/1914, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.73.

 [37] Parker could not have known that in a personal letter, four years earlier, then Director French had also decried the ability of the lay people associated with the Municipal Art League. Letter to Pauline Dohn Rudolph from French, French letter archives, 1/11/1910, p.657.

 [38]“Oil Painters to Pick Own Juries,” Chicago Examiner, 12/8/1914 in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.82.

 [39]“Reply to Criticism of Lawton Parker,” in “The Fine Arts,” Chicago Herald, 12/10/1914, p.10.

 [40]“New View of Art Jury System,” in “The Fine Arts,” Chicago Record-Herald, 12/14/1914, p.10.

 [41] “Louis Ritman True ‘Pointist’,” in “The Fine Arts,” Chicago Herald, 12/21/1914, p.6. At the outset of Ritman’s career, Parker had been asked to decide on a year’s tuition award at the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts and had chosen Ritman for the honor. “Gossip of the Artists,” in “Art,” Chicago Sunday Herald, 12/27/1914, Sec. 2, p.5. Critic Oliver points out Parker had given Ritman shared use of his studio in Paris from 1912 to 1914. Ritman’s address in the 1914 and 1915 Annual Exhibition of Works by Artists Chicago and Vicinity catalogue was the same 19 E. Pearson Street where Parker had his building.

 [42]“Young Jewish Artist Holds Center Of Attention At Art Institute,” Chicago Israelite, 2/26/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.150.

 [43]Harriet Monroe, “Fine Work by American Artists On Exhibition in Local Galleries,” Chicago Tribune, 3/6/1910, p.B7.

 [44] Op. cit., Chicago Herald, 12/27/1914, Sec. 2, p.5.

 [45]Letter to Walter M. Clute from French, French Letter archives, Ryerson Library, Art Institute of Chicago, 6/16/1909, p.358. Later in 1915, Parker took the liberty to send a Ritman painting along with one of his own to Cincinnati. Letter to J. H. Gest from Lawton Parker, Cincinnati Art Museum Archives, 5/4/1915.

 [46] “Chicago’s Art Advance To Be Told At Dinner,” Chicago Herald, 2/4/1915, p.10.

 [47]“Bar Women On Picture Jury, Artists’ Plea,” Chicago Examiner, 2/14/1915 in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.136.

 [48]“‘Art Jury’ Foes Demand A New Award method,” 3/4/1915, Chicago Examiner, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.148.

 [49] “Painters Term Award System ‘Pink Tea Fete’,” Chicago Daily Journal, 3/15/1915, p.4.

 [50]The other articles included “Artists Rebel at ‘Layman’ Jury of Club Women,” Chicago Tribune, 3/15/1915, p.1, and “Art Is Long, But Money Talks Here; War Hits Institute,” Chicago Evening Post, 3/15/1915, p.1.

 [51]Op. cit., Chicago Journal, 3/15/1915, p.4.

 [52]Op. cit., Chicago Evening Post, 3/15/1915, p.1.

 [53]Op. cit., Chicago Tribune, 3/15/1915, p.1. The complete list also included: Frank A. Werner; Oskar Gross; Wellington J. Reynolds; Mrs. John Alden Carpenter; Cecil Clark Davis; Katherine Dudley; Walter Ufer; Emil Zettler; Harriet Blackstone and Abram Poole. Both Gross and Davis had won prizes at the recent Annual Exhibition of Works by Artists Chicago and Vicinity.

 [54] Op. cit., Chicago Evening Post, 3/15/1915, p.1.

 [55]“Art Tempest Grows; Blast Follows Blast,” Chicago Herald, 3/16/1915, p.4.

 [56]Op. cit., Chicago Evening Post, 3/15/1915, p.1.

 [57]Op. cit., Chicago Herald, 3/16/1915, p.4.

 [58]Op. cit., Chicago Herald, 3/16/1915, p.4.

 [59]“Artists Defy Clubwomen,” Chicago Daily Journal, 3/16/1915, p.2.

 [60]Marie Armstrong, “Fair Art Institute Students Rally to Artists’ Support,” Chicago Journal, 3/16/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.160.

 [61]“Drop Palettes To Join Battle Of Art And Gold,” Chicago Tribune, 3/16/1915, p.13.

 [62]“Art Commercialized Says Jerome S. Blum,” Chicago Herald, 3/17/1915, p.7.

 [63]“Art Awards And Art,” Chicago Tribune, 3/17/1915, p.6.

 [64]“Art Revolt Growing Bitter,” Chicago Examiner, 3/17/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.160.

 [65]Lena M. McCauley, “Art and Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 2/25/1915, p.6.

 [66]“Art ‘Prize’ Labels Assailed by Artists,” Chicago Examiner, 3/18/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.161. “Artists Win in Dispute: Labels of Pictures Read “Rosenwald and Butler Purchases,” Chicago Herald, 3/18/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.162.

 [67]“League to Buy Pictures,” Chicago Herald, 3/19/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.162.

 [68]“Clarkson In Art League Confab,” Chicago Examiner, 3/19/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, col. 4, p.162.

 [69]“Art,” Chicago Tribune, 3/19/1915, p.15.

 [70]“Artists Bury Hatchet,” Chicago Herald, 3/20/1915, p.6.

 [71]Op. cit., Chicago Herald, 3/20/1915, p.6.

 [72]“Society of Artists Elects,” Chicago Tribune, 4/6/1915, p.9.

 [73]“Artists’ Society Asks Institute to End Trouble,” Chicago Examiner, 4/6/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 33, page number unclear.

 [74]“Artists Will Pick Own Juries,” Chicago Examiner, 4/9/1915 in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 33, col. 2, p.8. The Municipal Art League withheld it’s Mrs. William Frederick Grower Prize and Mrs. William Ormonde Thompson Portraiture Prize in 1916. But, by the time this action was taken, the Annual Exhibition of Works by Artists Chicago and Vicinity already benefited by the addition of several new prizes which would render this action ineffective.

 [75]“Artists Marking Time in Ruling on Award Juries,” Chicago Examiner, 4/11/1915, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 33, p.12.

 [76]Letter from Frank A. Werner, secretary of the commission, to Lawton Parker, 4/6/1915.

 [77]Archives of the Commission are found in the archives of the Ryerson Library, Art Institute of Chicago. Despite missing well over half of the paintings given to it, the Chicago Public School collection is yet formidable.

 [78]“U. S. Women Are Vain, Artist Declares,” Chicago American, Extra; 1 Special Extra edition, Vol. XV, No. 234, 4/7/1915, p.3.

 [79]“Artists’ Society Members Plan Independent Exhibit,” Chicago Herald, 4/9/1915, p.9.

 [80] Exhibition by Nine Chicago Painters, (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1915). The group included what could be termed at the time as the most illustrious group of Chicago painters: Louis Betts; Charles Francis Brown; Ralph E. Clarkson; William P. Henderson; Wilson H. Irvine; Karl A. Buehr; Oliver D. Grover and Parker. Of these, Betts, Brown, Clarkson, Henderson, and Parker did not show at the annual exhibition. They were otherwise known at the “Great Nine.” Anne Ellis, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 5/13/1915, p.15.

 [81]Op. cit., Chicago Herald, 4/9/1915, p.8.

 [82] Anne Ellis, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 5/16/1915, p.E9.

 [83] Anne Ellis, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 5/18/1915, p.15.

 [84]“Society At The Opera,” Chicago Tribune, 11/23/1915, p.9.

 [85]Chicago Evening Post, 6/24/1916, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 33, p.40.

 [86]First Annual Exhibition of Independent Artists, (Chicago: Chicago Academy of Fine Arts, 8/2/1915).

 [87]The commission’s most important mission was to oversee any public art to be placed in the city. A secondary concern was the development of a municipal art gallery. Under the Commission for the Encouragement of Local Art, which Parker was a part of, the mayor had authorized the purchase of several canvases from local painters each year from the city budget to be used to decorate public buildings and schools. By the 1940s, the collection would encompass over three hundred works. “Taft and Clarkson Ousted From Art Body by Mayor,” Chicago Examiner, 6/2/1915 in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 33, col. 1, p.34. It is likely Parker promoted the idea of the Zettler on the commission. Zettler had expressed total surprise at the honor in “Mayor Names Zettler On City Art Commission,” Chicago Evening Post, 6/2/1915, p.3.

 [88] “Contest Will Decide Choice Of City Flag,” Chicago Herald, 12/2/1915 in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 33, col. 1, p.92.

 [89]Eleanor Jewett, “Art And Architecture: How the Chicago Municipal Flag Came to be Chosen,” Chicago Tribune, 7/17/1921, p.G3.

 [90]When Frank McComas visited Chicago in January 1916, he chose “several” paintings by Parker and ten by Ritman for the continuing exhibition at the Palace of Fine Arts after the close of the Panama-Pacific. Dr. Albrecht Montgelas, “M’Comas Pays Visit,” Chicago Examiner, 1/5/1916 in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 33, col. 2, p.121. This exhibit was most likely under the auspices of the San Francisco Art Association. McComas had been one of the jurors of the Panama-Pacific Exposition.

 [91]Harriet Monroe, “Smaller Cities Aspire to be Homes of Art Museums,” Chicago Tribune, 10/5/1913, p.B8. Other members on the jury included artists from Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston and St. Louis. Frederic Clay Bartlett was the other jurist from Chicago. “Paintings chosen for Panama Exposition,” Chicago Examiner, 12/4/1914, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 32, p.78.

 [92]Illustrated Official Catalogue. Department of Fine Arts. Panama-Pacific International Exposition (With Awards), (San Francisco: Wahlgreen Company, 1915), p.168.

 [93]“Fine Arts Palace At Fair Stays Open Until May 1,” Chicago Tribune, 11/28/1915, p.5. “Fair Building to Stay Open,” Chicago Tribune, 11/29/1915, p.11.

 [94]“Plan ‘Hall Of Fame’ For Chicago Architects,” Chicago Tribune, 6/9/1915, p.6. He had recently completed a portrait of Judge Nathaniel C. Sears for presentation to Beloit College, illustrated in “Portrait to Be Unveiled at Beloit,” Chicago Tribune, 6/22/1915, p.9. It was clear he continued active with such commissions.

 [95]Harvey B. Fuller, “Artists of the Northwest,” Art and Progress, Vol. 6, July 1915, p.316.

 [96]Op. cit., Letter to Alice Gerstenberg from Nancy Cox-McCormack, pp.31-33.

 [97]Op. cit., Letter to Alice Gerstenberg from Nancy Cox-McCormack, p.34.

 [98]Op. cit., Letter to Alice Gerstenberg from Nancy Cox-McCormack, pp.37-38.

 [99]Cox-McCormack would later model a sculpture of Parker whom she described as a “professional friend,” taking pains to point out discussion between the sexes should be “wholesome.” Letter to Alice Gerstenberg from Nancy Cox-McCormack, Nancy Cox-McCormack papers, Tennessee State Library and Archives, Box No. 1, Summer 1951, p.8.

 [100]American Oil Paintings and Sculpture, Twenty-Eighth Annual Exhibition, (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 11/16/1915).

 [101]Peter Falk, editor, The Annual Exhibition Record of the Art Institute of Chicago 1888-1950, (Madison, CT: Sound View Press, 1990), p.682.

 [102]“Art Institute Alumni Dinner,” Chicago Daily News, 2/15/1916, p.13.

 [103]Anne Ellis, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 2/12/1916, p.14.

 [104] “Society Events,” Chicago Evening Post, 11/2/1915, p.9, and Lena M. McCauley, “Art & Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 11/6/1915, p.8. Parker invited the most influential supporters of the successful Artists’ Guild of Chicago, an organization which had melded laymen and artist interests in a commercial gallery in the Fine Arts Building.

 [105]A list of those on the organizing committee may be found in Anne Ellis, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 11/29/1915, p.15. Part of the group’s importance was shown immediately when their inaugural exhibit, November 25, 1916, was a one-man exhibition of paintings by John Singer Sargent.

 [106] “Art Notes,” Chicago Daily Journal, 2/15/1916, p.6.

 [107] “New Club To Foster Art Here,” Chicago Examiner, 3/8/1916, col. 1, p.22, and “Art Club of Chicago Is Organized,” Chicago Examiner, 3/22/1916, col. 4, p.39, in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 34. The meeting was held on a Wednesday, the article mistakenly stated a Tuesday which would have been the twenty-first.

 [108] “New Arts Club Selects Location for Quarters,” Chicago Herald, 3/22/1916, p.8.

 [109] Op. cit., Chicago Examiner, 3/22/1916. See also: Sophia Shaw, “A Collection to Remember,” The Arts Club of Chicago. The Collection 1916-1996, (Chicago: The Arts Club of Chicago, 1997), pp. 21-22. Shaw quotes sculptor Nancy Cox-McCormack as saying Parker thought to organize the group with a president other than himself. Presumably, Parker was seeking to spread influence for the club by finding someone in Grace McGann who was tied closely to the prominent social circles in Chicago.

 [110]Louise James Bargelt, “Sargent and Dearth Paintings Shown,” Chicago Tribune, 11/7/1916, p.14.

 [111] A detailed letter to prospective members describing the purposes of the club was reprinted in Lena M. McCauley, “Art and Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 11/11/1915, p.8. The club incorporated the activities of the Artists’ Guild which was to remain active and help with the rent for a new building.

 [112] Op. cit., Chicago Evening Post, 11/6/1915, p.8.

 [113]“Appui Aux Artistes Reception Is Held,” Chicago Tribune, 2/2/1916, p.15. Anne Ellis, “Art,” Chicago Tribune, 2/1/1916, p.21.

 [114] “Comment by Mme. X,” Chicago Tribune, 1/30/1916, p.D1.

 [115] “Art Notes,” Chicago Daily Journal, 2/5/1916, p.4. Parker explained any artist of any nationality could apply for aid.

 [116] “Chicagoans Aid Appui aux Artistes,” Chicago Tribune, 1/28/1916, p.15.

 [117]Op. cit., Bargelt, Chicago Tribune, 5/5/1916, p.16.

 [118] Some of the other members of the jury included Childe Hassam, Richard Miller and Willard Metcalf.

 [119]Noted as the “Thurber Building”, the home of W. Scott Thurber galleries was in the Fine Arts Building. “Comment by Mme X,” Chicago Tribune, 11/5/1916, p.G4.

 [120] “Art Notes,” Chicago Daily Journal, 12/5/1916, p.9.

 [121]Louise James Bargelt, “Sargent and Dearth Paintings Shown,” Chicago Tribune, 11/7/1916, p.14.

 [122] Op. cit., Parker letter to Gest, 10/18/1916.

 [123]“What Artists Are Doing,” in “News of the Art World,” Chicago Evening Post, 11/28/1916, p.11: “Lawton Parker has gone to New York to live permanently.”

 [124] Letter to J. H. Gest from Lawton Parker, 4/12/1916, Cincinnati Art Museum Archives. Mr. Gest had requested Parker’s prized painting La Paresse, for exhibition at their American Annual.

 [125] Op. cit., New York Sun, 9/30/1917, p.10. The fund had established a bi-annual “Paris Prize” of substantial value. In awarding the prize, as a trustee, Parker had part in the final decision. See for example, “Boston Man Wins $4,500 Art Prize, Cincinnati Students Get Two Lesser Awards,” Arts & Decoration, July 1921, p.204. There was controversy in one award when the trustees refused to follow the jury of artist’s selection due to what they thought a copy of a painting rather than an original. As Parker was the only artist on the board of trustees, it is likely he was the one who discovered the error and guided the other trustees. “Trustees Withhold Paris Prize Award,” New York Times, 7/6/1923, p.6.

 [126] Letter to J. H. Gest from Lawton Parker, 10/18/1916, Cincinnati Art Museum Archives.

 [127]“Elected to National Academy,” New York Times, 4/13/1916. “Academy Of Design Prizes,” New York Times, 12/11/1916, Section 1, p.18. “Lawton Parker Awarded Prize,” Chicago Tribune, 12/11/1916, p.2.

 [128] Beginning in 1880, West Fifty-seventh Street became a location for several artist’s studio/residences with the construction of the Sherwood Studio Building at the corner of Sixth avenue. The Rembrandt Studio Building opened nearby in 1881, adjacent to the later Carnegie Hall Studios and Duplex Studios. In 1892, the American Fine Arts Society Building was constructed. For a complete discussion on the Sherwood Studio Building, see: John Davis, “Our United Happy Family: Artists in the Sherwood Studio Building, 1880-1900,” Archives of American Art Journal, Vol. 36, Nos. 3-4, 1996, p.19. A brief description of the plans was mentioned in “Revised Plans Filed,” New York Times, 11/26/1916, p.7.

 [129] Albrecht Montgelas, “News Of The Art World,” “Art News and Gossip,” Chicago Examiner, 12/11/1916 in AIC Scrapbooks, Vol. 35, cols. 3-4, p.22.

 [130]It was popular to name such studio buildings after famous artists such as the buildings named after Van Dyck and Gainsborough in New York.

 [131] “No Apartments in the City to Suit Them, so Noted Artists Built Their Own House,” New York Sun, 9/30/1917, p.10. A photograph of the building and Parker’s studio accompanied the article. See also: “Apartment Studio Building, No. 220 West 57th Street,” American Architect, Vol. 113, No. 2194, 1/9/1918, p.38. The building housed retail space on the first floor, business offices on floors two and part of three and apartment/studios on the remaining floors three through fourteen.

 [132] She died of pneumonia while traveling in China. “Obituary: Georgia Timken Fry,” American Art News, Vol. XIX, No. 43, 9/17/1921, p.6.                

 [133] For complete details on the building see “Landmarks Preservation Commission, Designation List 200, Lp-1571,” Typescript, New York Landmarks Preservation Commission, 2/16/1988 and “Apartment Studio Building, No.200 West 57Th Street,” The American Architect, Vol. 113, No. 2194, 1/9/1918, p.38. The corporation had purchased the lot in 1916 from the Mary Chisholm estate and proceeded to have the existing structure demolished. See also: “Artist To Have 30-Room Suite,” New York Herald-Tribune, 10/15/1916, IHAP Library.

 [134]Isabel McDougall, “Art And Artists,” Chicago Evening Post, 5/8/1897, p.7.

 [135] For a brief contemporary review of Gilbert’s architectural work see: Anthony Robins, “Courting Beauty,” Preservation News, November/December 1998, pp.20-21. In 1892 Gilbert, had won a national competition to design a new customhouse at the southern end of Manhattan. Gilbert also designed the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

 [136] Op. cit., New York Sun, 9/30/1917, p.10.

 [137] Op. cit., New York Sun, 9/30/1917, p.10.

 [138] In an interview with the artists’ grandnephew, 5/2/1997, Mr. Freeman stated Parker had built a studio in New York as a real estate venture which was very successful financially for the artist. Lena McCauley announced in “News of the Art World,” Chicago Evening Post, “Artist Guild Has Review,” 10/2/1917, p.13, he was to make his permanent home in New York City.

 [139] “Gossip Here and There,” in “News of the Art World,” Chicago Evening Post, 7/20/1920, p.8.

 [140] Lena M. McCauley, “The Alumni Exhibition,” in “News Of The Art World,” Chicago Evening Post, 12/11/1917, p.10.

 [141] First Annual Exhibition By The Chicago Society of Artists, (Chicago: 1921) This certainly was not their first exhibition but they were attempting to break with the past. In the catalogue, no address is listed

 [142] Records of the Association show he exhibited from 1919 through 1923. Connecticut scholar Jeffery Andersen infers Parker arrived at Old Lyme sometime in the teens: “The Art Colony at Old Lyme,” Connecticut and American Impressionism, (Storrs: The William Benton Museum of Art, 1980), p.123. He was recorded as being in Lyme in “News Here and There,” “News Of The Art World,” supplement, Chicago Evening Post, 7/29/1919. A later article stated he would “resume painting and go to the country within a few weeks to do some outdoor work,” op. cit., Chicago Evening Post, 7/20/1920, p.8. A review of his work in the 1920 show is found in “The World Of Art: Old Lyme Exhibition,” New York Times, 8/22/1920, p.33. An earlier article stated he was a member of the Old Lyme Art Association among thirty-one artists. “Notes About Current Art: Old Lyme Summer Exhibits,” New York Times, 8/8/1920, Sec. 6, p.12.

 [143]American Art News, Vol. 18, No. 39, 9/18/1920, col. 1, p.6.

 [144]This date is derived by the last year he showed in the U. S. and “Hint Given of ‘Find’ On Refugee Vessel,” New York Times, 7/6/1942, Sec. 1, p.5. The article states he had been resident for twenty-one years, which would place him there in 1921. A local article claims twenty-one years residence as well noting Parker’s complaint in being questioned by the FBI upon returning to the U.S. after being chased out of France by the Nazis. “Editorial of the Day,” Chicago Tribune, 7/18/1942, p.10.

 [145] One reviewer commented extensively on his work in the 1920 exhibit. Op. cit., New York Times, 8/22/1920, p.33. American Magazine of Art, Vol. 15, October 1924, p.544, mentions his 1924 exhibit and “Lyme Colony Holds Annual Summer Show,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 8/2/1927, p.5, mentions his 1927 inclusion. The show was thoroughly described by Alice Lawton, “Chicagoans Exhibit in Old Lyme Show,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 8/9/1927, p.3. Parker remained an artist member of the organization through his death. “The Lyme Art Association Artist Members,” Catalogue of the Fifty-Third Annual Exhibition of Oil Paintings, (Old Lyme: The Lyme Art Association, 7/10/1954).

 [146] Op. cit., Freeman essay, p.10.

 [147] His business acumen was credited with helping to make the Lyme, Connecticut artist’s gallery a financial success in a letter from Chicago businessman and painter Albert H. Ullrich, op. cit., Chicago Evening Post, “News of the Art World supplement,” 9/20/1921.

 [148]Mme. X, “News Of Chicago Society,” Chicago Tribune, 4/23/1922, p.F4.

 [149]“Wellington Reynolds, Chicago Artist, Wins Prize in Paris Salon,” Chicago Tribune, 6/4/1925, p.25.

 [150]“Reynolds Returns from Trip to Paris,” The Chicago Evening Post Magazine of the Art World, 10/13/1925, p.8. Reynolds had pointed specifically to the fact that Parker had made a fortune in his New York real estate venture which he had recently sold.

 [151]“Chicago Instructor Returns from Paris,” Rockford Gazette, 10/19/1925, p.15.

 [152] Op. cit., Freeman essay, p.13.

 [153]Reports from the family conflict on where the two met. Born April 21, 1897, in Deer Lodge, Montana, her father was the owner of a tavern in Billings, Montana. She was thirty years old and Parker was sixty when they married. One branch of the family maintains she was a librarian in Kearny, Nebraska, Parker’s hometown. Another conceivable connection is her father was somehow acquainted with Senator William A. Clark of Montana, whom Parker had met in Paris and when active in the American Art association of Paris. Parker won the second Clark prize at an exhibit sponsored by the association. She apparently did not attend college but when their son attended Northwestern University; she read the books that were his assignments. She died July 7, 1972, in New York City. Letter to the author from Joyce Young, 4/7/1999.

 [154] Op. cit., Freeman essay, p.15.

 [155] Richard H. Love and Danny Miller, Lawton Parker 1868-1954. Works on Paper, (Chicago: Haase-Mumm Publishing, 1995).

 [156] Op. cit., McCauley, Chicago Evening Post, 5/23/1903, p.14.

 [157] Letters from Barlow to Parker were purchased by the Illinois Historical Art Project when the entire remaining body of prints and drawings by Parker were purchased from R. H. Love Galleries in Chicago. Two letters are undated and from the same stationery and pen as letter dated 9/5/1933, 9/28/1933, 10/11/1933, 6/20/1937. All are impressed with the address of “11, Rue Du Rivage, Etaples, P. DE. C.

 [158] B. J. Kospoth, “U. S. Artists Exhibit Art here Inaugurating American Gallery,” New York Herald, Paris, 4/26/1935. Article on file IHAP Library, courtesy of R. H. Love Galleries, Inc.

 [159] Op. cit., Freeman essay, pp.13-20.

 [160] The story of Mrs. Parker’s escape from France is recounted in Del Leeson, “The Prospector. In Last Chance Gulch,” Helena Daily Independent, 8/22/1940, IHAP Library. The article mentions the artist was friends with artist Leon Dabo who was then also living in France and attempting an escape.

 [161] In Freeman’s essay, p.28, he recounts Parker’s son Larry, telling him he asked that a large painting, about five by seven feet of a reclining nude, be shipped to New York from a storage company. Larry planned to sell this and other works.

 [162] Art dealer Ron Woodlin had gathered Parker’s works for sale in 1976 and made the claim in an advertisement in American Art Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, March-April 1976, p.21, that most of Parker’s work was destroyed, with the commercial implication that somehow the works Woodlin had gathered would be more valuable.

 [163] Op. cit., Freeman essay, p.22.

 [164]“A Line O’ Type Or Two,” Chicago Tribune, 7/8/1942, p.14. Op. cit., New York Times, 7/6/1942, Sec. 1, p.5. The several hundred passengers of the Drottningholm had been detained for questioning by authorities. Parker was quoted as saying the ordeal was “terrible.”

 [165] Op. cit., Freeman essay, p.24.

 [166]Advertisement, “10-Room Villa With 6 Beautiful Acres,” Previews, Incorporated, New York, New York, IHAP Library, no date, c.1946

 [167] “Parker Paintings to Be Shown At Institute,” Pasadena Star News, 3/6/1945, on file, Pasadena Public Library.

 [168] “Famed Figure Painter Dies in Pasadena; 86,” Pasadena Star News, 9/26/1954. On file, Pasadena Public Library.

 [169] These articles give greater detail; however, the reader should be cautious as they contain several factual errors regarding the life of Lawton Parker: Bert Mann, “Collector Saves Art From Dust,” Los Angeles Time, 4/15/1976, pp. 1,6, and Harold N. Hubbard, “Parker Works to Make Impression in Area,” Los Angeles Times, 4/16/1976, both on file, Pasadena Public Library.