0.3 Introduction: the birth of american artist printmaking  (Page 6/9)

A year later, in the February 24, 1888, club minutes, the club member Hamilton Hamilton proposed “excluding from future showsreproductive etchings and returning as far as practical to the original status of a painter-etchers exhibition.” The issue was resolved with the decision that“work will be received at the future exhibitions of the New York Etching Club only from individual etchers, except at the request of the Club.” The decisionwas intended to exclude submissions by most publishers and dealers to future shows. In June 1888, The Critic reported a refined version of the decision stating that “the New York Etching Club has announced that atthe next exhibition the size of plates will be limited, and no work will be received from publishers. This step has been rendered necessary by the amount ofcommercial work now executed by all but the very best etchers.” The Critic , June 9, 1888.

By 1888, then, an influential group within the New York Etching Club strongly favored a commitment to “original” prints over“reproductive” prints. This same group appears to have favored aggressive commercial production of large to unlimited print editions that served existingrelationships with galleries and publishers. Another group held conflicting points of view about the meaning of “originality,” particularly relating toreproductive etchings after their own paintings. This group also favored limiting edition sizes of new plates and imposing strict quality and integritystandards on the commercial ambition of publishers and galleries. On the surface, these differences could have threatened to split the club apart, if notentirely destroy it. Politics played an ever-present role in the club’s life. The club’s organizational structure provided for a closeddecision-making process, particularly regarding the election of new members. See Article II, Section 4, of the club constitution. Election of members was takenseriously and is one of the few activities well documented in the minutes. Etching ability and artistic skill played an important role in the nomination ofnew members, although membership in the influential American Water Color Society was an unspoken mitigating factor. For example, in 1888, AWCS member ReginaldCleveland Coxe was elected to non-resident membership on the strength of fewer than a half-dozen etchings, which were reproductions of his own paintings. Thiscould only have served to alienate many early and regular exhibitors like John Henry Hill, Champney Wells, Stephen Ferris (a remarkable artist and etcher),Benjamin Lander, John Millspaugh, and F. De B. Richards, who all ceased exhibiting independently with the club shortly after Coxe’s election. Attendanceat meetings appears to have been another hot button. There were many “resident members” who appear to have rarely or never attended a meeting and are nevercited for nonattendance, while others were summarily dismissed over the years for nonattendance.

Announcements began appearing in the press that summer about the formation of the new Society of American Etchers. The Critic , August 11, 1888. The Magazine of Art noted that “Thomas Moran has been elected President, Frederick Dielman Treasurer, and C. Y. TurnerSecretary of the new Society of American Etchers with the view of elevating the art of etching in this country, and limiting editions by guaranteeing to thepublication of each member the stamp of the Society, in the same way that the English prints are protected by the Printseller’s stamp.” The Magazine of Art , August 14, 1888