The Wembley Controversy in Canadian Art

ANN DAVIS TheWembley Controversy in Canadian Art IN 19e3CANADA WAS INVITED toparticipate in theBritish EmpireExhibition, thefirstmajorinternational artexhibition since thewar.Thiswasto beheld the followingyear at Wembleyin London,England.Canada,naturally, wasanxious to mounta comprehensive andexciting display. Shegotmore thanshebargained for.The composition of that exhibitprovoked theworst dispute todatein Canadian arthistory. The Wembley controversy hastraditionally beenexplained asa conflict betweenCanada'sconservative painters,housedin the Royal Canadian Academy(RCA),and her modernartists,workingunderthe •egisof the National Gallery ofGanada (NO).•Thisinterpretation undoubtedly ispartly true.The traditionalists wantedto ensure thattheywerewellrepresented in thisart show;the modems and thosebackingthe Groupof Sevenwere equallydetermined to receive hanging space. Presented thiswaythedispute hastheappearance of anoft-repeated difference of artistic opinionandtemperament . And,toacertain extent, thiswasin evidence in thepre-exhibition wrangle. But an examination of thetwoprincipalinstitutions involved, the Royal CanadianAcademyand the NationalGallery,suggests differentthough complementary reasons forthedispute. Abstracting theheretofore acknowledgedcause of theconflict, the Groupof Seven, we seetwo artisticassociat Seefor example J.R. Harper,Paintingin Canada:.4 History(Torontot966), p.304;Ottawa,The NationalGalleryof Ganada, Exhibition Gatalogue, The Group of Seven(Ottawa•97o), p. •7o [hereafter referredto asD. Reid, The Groupof Seven]; F.B.Housser, .4 Canadian .4rt Movement(Toronto•926), p. 79; Vincent Massey, What'sPastisPrologue: The Memoirsof The Right HonourableVincent Massey(Toronto •963), p. 87; onlyMaud Brown,BreakingBarriers(Toronto •964), p. 73 makes morethana passing suggestion to theinstitutional dispute. Vol. LXV No • March •973 THE WEMBLEY CONTROVERSY IN CANADIAN ART 49 tionsat war.They werebafflingovertheirrespective Canadianandinternationalrights .By examining thisinstitutional power-playas well as the division oftaste, onegets aratherdifferent pictureofthedispute. The rootsof theconflict occurred in the creation and earlyyearsof these culturalbodies. The existence of the Royal CanadianAcademyand the NationalGalleryof Canada,eachaspiring to beacknowledged asthedominantnationalartistic institution, had,naturally, led to a certaindegree of competition between the two. The fact that oneof theseinstitutions, the NationalGallery, in some respects oweditsexistence totheother,theRoyal CanadianAcademy,onlyencouraged the rivalryand intensified the imbroglio .Asbothbodies werecentralcombatants in theWembleycontroversy it is necessary to attemptto distinguish theirrelativepowers and spheres of influence. Thiswill necessitate an examination of the formation and early years ofeachassociation. The initiativein creating a Canadianacademy of the artscamefrom two dynamic governors general; encouragement andadvicecamefromexisting Canadian artistic societies andtheirdirectors. The EarlofDufferin,governor general from x872to •878, wasthefirstto suggest suchan organization. Inspired bytheexample oftheBritish academy, by •877 LordDufferinwas callingonthe Canadian government to establish a similarinstitution. •'He reiterated thisideatwoyears laterat a farewellceremony with the Ontario Society ofArtists [osA], whose patron hehadbeen? Hissuccessor, theMarquisof Lorne,brought theproject to fruition.However, theworking out ofspecific details seems tohavebeen considerably influenced if notmanaged bymorenativeminds. Onesuch wasLuciusR. O'Brien,thevicepresident of therecently founded osA.(The president appears to havebeenmerely a figure-head in the earlyyears, leavingthe real powerto hisdeputy.) 4 O'Brienwaited onthegovernor general, Lorne,and•R• thePrincess Louise, to request theirpatronage for theos•, andreported mostfavourably: 'He [O'Brien] said thevisitwas most flatteringly received ...HisExcellency spoke ofa scheme hehadin viewfortheformation of a school andsociety andon comparison it wasfoundthatourownsystem coincided remarkably withhis views.'5 Thisreference to 'Our [os•] ownsystem' isinteresting. It suggests that • In an address to the TorontoClub, •5 Jan. •877. G. Stewart,Canadaunderthe Administration o[ theEarl o[ Dufferin(Toronto•878), p. 5•• 3 OttawaDaily Citizen, 7 March•88o;WilliamColgate, Canadian Art (Toronto •967), P.26.TheosAwasvirtuallyfunctioning asa national institution in the •87os. 4 Archives oftheProvince ofOntario, OntarioSociety ofArtists [osA] Papers, Minute andLetterBooks •, n, andm, •87•-8•, a-n The os^wasfounded in •87•. 5 Ibid.,MinuteandLetterBookn•,March•877-8•, Minutesof a special meeting of Monday, •7 March •878, p. 55 50 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW the OntarioSociety of Artistsalsohad someprojectin mindfor a larger Canadianassociation. Suchideaswereprobably based onthesuccess of the embryonic Art Unionof Canada,an offshoot of theosAformedin t876 to involve interested andpreferably wealthy patrons in Canadian painting. 6 Inconclusive references openthepossibility that,at onetime,theacademy wasto bean expansion of theosAor theArt Union. 7 If everentertained, thisideawassoon dropped? In thespring andsummer of t879 Lorne,advised byO'Brien,worked out the detailsfor the academy.Suchplanswerefirst officiallyaired by the governor general ontheoccasion of theopening of a permanent galleryof theArt Association of Montrealin May t879. Here the Governorexpressed thehope thatwemayin course of timelookforwardto the daywhentheremaybe a generalArt Unionin thecountry;a RoyalAcademywhose exhibitions maybe heldeachyearin oneof thecapitalsof ourseveral Provinces; an academy which maylikethatof theoldcountry,beableto insist that eachof itsmembers or associates should, ontheirelection, painta diplomapicture;an academy which shallbestrong andwealthyenoughto offer,asa prizeto themostsuccessful students...