Mr. Magazine

A century ago, we were more culturally and artistically advanced. Magazines in the 1920s shined a very bright light on art and culture. One such magazine, albeit short lived, Art Lovers’ Magazine, is but one example of a cultural and artistic publication from 100 years ago when magazines ruled the media world. Here is its story:

“ART LOVERS’ MAGAZINE has a definite mission, as we have indicated in previous issues, and that is to popularize art and culture for readers who have no inclination to delve into technical publications.” Thus opens the editorial of issue 4 of the magazine.

The editors continue to differentiate Art Lovers’ magazine from the tens of titles that are out there on the marketplace, including their own sister magazine American Art Student and Commercial Artist “and other purely art periodicals, but in ART LOVERS’ MAGAZINE we offer the general public a high grade of fiction, a department of Health and Beauty for Milady and a few jokes, in addition to strictly art material.”

Art material that they started to count and include in the table of contents starting with issue 3. More than 60 illustrations issue 4 claims to contain as did issue 3.

Trying to stay one step ahead from the competition and curving a niche for itself separate from the many magazines out there (see chapter 1) the editors present their mission statement one more time stating, “Our purpose is to present cultural material in an attractive and entertaining form; but first, last and all the time we wish to emphasize the importance of captivating appreciation for the best in art, literature and drama.”

In addition to the mission statement, the editors justify the need of Art Lovers’ magazine.  They write, “There was a definite demand for a magazine of this character, and the healthy growth of our subscription list and newsstand sales indicates that our influence is being felt. We are always glad to get suggestions and constructive criticism from our readers.”

To Courts We Go

However the magazine was not immune from the long hand of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.  John S. Sumner, secretary of the society took Art Lovers’ newsstand distributors to court claiming that it was indecent.  An article  in The New York Times on May 30, 1925 under the headline “Magazine Sales Attacked In Court; Action Opens on Distribution of “Artists and Models” and “Art Lovers’ Magazine.” Indecent, Sumner says. Publications Defended as Giving Cheap Reproductions of Famous Paintings in Museums.”

The article in The Times went on to report, “Mr. Sumner admitted that the magazines presented reproductions of art from the Metropolitan and other museums and of life from Broadway revues. He asserted, however that exhibition in theatre or museum conferred no certificate of good character or any kind of legal approval on the thing exhibited. He argued that the concentration in cheap magazines of nudes from the stage and the gallery was prima facie evidence of the purpose of the publishers to cater to primitive impulses rather than to highly civilized ones.”

Mr. Sumner “charged that the art business had looked up so suddenly when the new methods were now putting out three different magazines, each entitled “Artists and Models.”

The defense lawyer “asked for time in which to prepare a brief. Magistrate Ryttenberg granted the motion and adjourned all the cases until he had time to consider the brief.”

“The lawyer said that the hanging of a picture in a museum did not give it any legal approval, but gave it a standing as art.”

The June 1925 issue of Hubbard Publications’ Cartoons and Movies magazine had this headline on page 18: “Art Lovers’ Magazine Wins Fight For the Freedom of the Press.” 

John S. Sumner was not happy with the decision of the courts, so this time he decided to sue the magazine itself.  Again the results were not to the likings of Mr. Sumner. An editorial in issue 8, dated August 1925, of the magazine said, “ART LOVERS’ MAGAZINE has just won another battle in the war for freedom of the press and decency in art, in opposition to unofficial censors who confuse nudity with lewdity.”

The editorial went on stating, “Charges that this publication violated Penal Code No. 1141 (i.e. contained so-called indecent and objectionable matter in text and illustrations) were filed by John S. Sumner, secretary of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.

“The case went on trial before judges Herbert, Salmon and Herman in Court of Special Sessions, New York City, July 3. Mr. Sumner offered as evidence copies of the May number of ART LOVERS’ MAGAZINE, in which material he regarded as objectionable was carefully marked.  The magazine, although officially accepted by the Post Office as mailable, and indorsed by leading artists and other notables, was regarded by the vice society as deleterious.”

And the story continues…stay tuned.