View PDF

It seems curious to ask, “What support has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given to the visual arts in Utah?” One would hardly consider as fields for fruitful exploration Baptist support of the arts in Mississippi, Lutheran encouragement in Oregon, or Methodist patronage in Kansas. Yet in Utah perhaps such a question can be asked, for seldom has one religion been so intertwined with other aspects of life. 

There is little doubt that Brigham Young felt a need for artists in the Salt Lake Valley very soon after the arrival of the first pioneers. By the mid-1850’s he was instructing missionaries in foreign lands to devote special attention to the conversion of skilled artists, artisans, and architects. That many came to Utah is implied by C. C. A. Christensen, the fine pioneer painter, who remarked in 1872, after visiting the Utah Territorial Fair, “I would never have believed so much talent could be found among us as a people who are nearly all gathered from among the most downtrodden classes of mankind.”[1] Almost too many came, for none, by art alone, could make the income necessary to support himself and his family. There was appreciation of art but seldom sufficient means to purchase it. Pioneer artists often noted this problem in the diaries and journals. Danquart A. Weggeland[2] states that he could occasionally dispose of a painting or a lesson for a few home-knit sox or a basket of onions, but that without commissions for his work in the Salt Lake Theatre, he would never have been able to pay his rent. Alfred Lambourne remarks in the 1870’s that his paintings had been “traded for a pair of boots . . . framed and then sold for what the canvas cost . . . [traded] for canary and cage . . . sold at a ruinously low price . . . raffled at $8.00, won by Briggy Young” (apparently Brigham Young, Jr.).[3]

George M. Ottinger says, “In the last 8 years I have up to this day, June 30, 1872, painted 223 pictures which have been sold for $3413.00 or a little over fifteen dollars apiece. Now deducting . . . seven dollars from each picture for cost of paint, canvas, stretchers and framing leaves me $1752.00 or a little over half . . . or $219.00 a year. Would not the heart of the strongest quail. When I look around at my family and our wants, I seem to myself a coward, a slave. Why don’t I stick pallet and brush into the fire. I certainly must have no talent, no, nothing requisite to me that is needed for a successful painter.”[4]

Yet, as Ottinger also notes, people “as a general thing like pictures and admire them but they have no money to spend for them, unless some stranger like Mr. Perry comes to the Valley.”[5] (Ottinger refers to Enoch Wood Perry, Jr., who maintained a studio in New York. From 1862 to 1866 he lived in California, making trips to Utah and Hawaii. Another pioneer Utah artist regrets in a diary note of April 1866 that “a gentile artist” had received $1000 in gold for a portrait of Brigham Young. The gentile artist was most likely Perry, for Ottinger states in another 1872 entry that Brigham Young, whose portrait he was then painting, remarked to him that the Ottinger work was a much better likeness than the Perry portrait done six years earlier.) Edward W. Tullidge, the Utah historian, confirms this observation, speaking of the “early taste and love for pictures in the community, far in advance of that in surrounding territories and greater than the newness of the country would seem to promise.”[6] He cites two reasons for this phenomenon: a larger than average proportion of citizens very recently from the Old World, where they were in the habit of visiting galleries, and the fact that these citizens were “the reverse of a floating population.”[7] Some of the pioneers brought pictures across the plains; a number of works by William Warner Major, who was active in Nauvoo and Winter Quarters, and by itinerant artists who visited the early Mormon settlements survive today in Utah collections. 

A love of art apparently existed, and Brigham Young apparently encouraged it. He took delight in pointing out to visiting dignitaries the Weggeland painting of his estate, hanging above his fireplace. Trained as a carpenter, Young understood craftsmanship and could appreciate a well-wrought painting. He evidently approved of the sculpture of the lion, which still crouches over the Lion House entrance, carved by William Ward in 1855, and admired the wood carvings of Ralph Ramsey which embellished the Tabernacle, Salt Lake Theatre, Beehive House and Eagle Gate. Beauty for Brigham Young was “a natural and necessary accompaniment of productive work.”[8]

The performing arts, however, received much stronger support from the Church and its leaders. That this was so, and that the pattern thus set continues to this day, is not too difficult to understand. Performing arts — music, drama, dance — are essentially group arts. And the solidity of the group, of the gathered people, is essential to Mormonism. In pioneer days a song, a skit, a dance served to unite the flock as well as provide much needed recreation and diversion from the hostility of nature and, often, the hostility of other men. 

But the visual arts of painting and sculpture are essentially individual arts. The heart of the esthetic experience is the quiet contemplation by one individual of one object created by one man. It is often a demanding experience and usually affords less recreational or entertainment value than its sister arts. The continuing interest of the Mormon Church in performing arts has done much to enrich our culture. It has helped create a climate in which a fine choir, an excellent symphony, and extraordinary modern dance and ballet companies can flourish. Its less active encouragement of the visual arts has been a serious deterrent to artistic growth. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no doubt feels that it has been, throughout its history, a strong supporter of the painter, sculptor and architect. In a sense this is quite true. Few churches or their members in the last century have commissioned as many works of art. Utah may have more portraits per capita than any other state, as a result of the Mormon’s intense interest in visual recordkeeping and of orders for several identical portraits during the days of polygamy. The Salt Lake Theatre, built by Brigham Young, furnished welcome employment for almost all the pioneer artists as scenery painters. And the Mormon temples abound with murals, paintings and sculpture. 

The painting of the Salt Lake Temple murals may be, in fact, a unique episode in religious art of America. The story begins as the second generation of Utah painters were studying under the pioneer artists Dan Weggeland and George M. Ottinger. Both instructors, feeling perhaps a growing provincialism in Utah art, urged their students to study abroad. The first to take their advice was James H. Harwood, who in 1888 enrolled at the Academie Julian in Paris; the sculptor Cyrus E. Dallin arrived two weeks later. As a result of this precedent, Weggeland and others were able to persuade George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency of the Church to send John Hafen, John B. Fairbanks, and Lorus Pratt on “a mission to Paris to study painting,”[9] with the understanding that they would decorate the Salt Lake Temple upon their return. In a letter to Lorus Pratt, who was selected to preside over the mission, Apostle Heber J. Grant stated, “We bless you that you may take joy in your labor and delight in your studies, that you may become proficient, and fitted and qualified and prepared through your labors and studies to beautify and decorate the House of God that shall be erected and the Temple of the Lord for the administering therein of the living and the dead.”[10]

The three landed in Liverpool on July 2, 1890, and were in Paris by August, commencing their studies at the Academie Julian. Edwin Evans joined the mission in the fall. Two others were later to receive official church sanction and support for their studies: Herman Haag, who began his Paris training in 1889 and John W. Clawson, who studied abroad from 1890 to 1896. These “pioneers in reverse” were followed by many others who were not on explicit church missions: Lewis A. Ramsey about 1897; Mary Teasdel, Lee Greene Richards, and Mahonri M. Young in 1901; Alma B. Wright in 1902; Donald Beauregard in 1906; Henri Moser in 1908; and by Rose Hartwell and Myra Sawyer. 

In later years B. F. Larsen, J. A. F. Everett, Gordon N. Cope, J. Leo Fairbanks, Avard Fairbanks, Lynn Fausett, Calvin Fletcher, Mabel Frazer and Waldo Midgley were among those who made the pilgrimage. 

The results of this training on the shape of Utah art were formidable. Though there is not space here to analyze the effects in detail, it may be said that a pattern of academic figure drawing and conservative landscape painting was set that largely continues to this day. Only a few — Evans, Beauregard, Moser, Larsen, and Frank Zimbeaux — rebelled and developed more or less personal styles. 

Further Church Support

But let us now return to the story of the French mission of 1890 by hearing from the First Presidency of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith. On May 20, 1892, they wrote to Elders Pratt, Fairbanks, Clawson, Haag and Evans, then all studying art in Paris (Hafen had left the group after one year): 

When we receive a reply to ours of April 28th, we expect to be able to write you with a better understanding of your several views on the mural decoration of the Salt Lake Temple. Today we simply suggest the way in which the $1500.00 sent you, in these two remittances, should be divided, our suggestions being based on the information given us in Bro. Pratt’s letters. He states that he and Bro. Fairbanks intend to return home next July, and to do so he will require $450.00 and Bro. Fairbanks $350.00 . . . . This leaves a balance of $700.00 which we suggest should be equally divided among Elders Haag, Evans, and Clawson, for their maintenance and current expenses during the next few months. . . .[11]

After the Salt Lake Temple was completed in 1893, the group fulfilled their obligation to the Church. John Hafen painted the murals in the “Garden of Eden” room; Edwin Evans and John B. Fairbanks decorated the “World” room. Lorus Pratt and Dan Weggeland were also involved, the former painting foliage and the latter specializing in animals and acting as foreman. 

Other examples of support of individual artists exist. In May, 1901, John Hafen signed a contract with the Church to enable him to study in the East. “He was paid $100 per month for one year and, as security until such time when the artist could return the money advanced, the Church became the owner of all sketches and paintings produced during the year. John Hafen was never able to redeem his pictures.”[12] President Heber J. Grant lent J. Leo Fairbanks, who had been living on ten dollars a month, enough money to continue his studies in Paris. Fairbanks later repaid the loan. President Grant also employed Joseph A. F. Everett to instruct his children in watercolor painting. And throughout this century the Church has continued to employ artists to design monumental and portable sculpture, to paint and restore murals in temples, tabernacles, and chapels, to portray church leaders in official portraits, and to illustrate and embellish church publications.[13]

The record is clear: there has been solid and continuing, though somewhat waning, employment of artists by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We must now ask what has been the nature and quality of this support, what has been the effect of the Church on the climate of art generally, and what attitudes have arisen in Utah artists. 

First, it must certainly be said that no critic in command of his senses would today expect a church to be in the vanguard of art patronage. Though traditionally the church and state have been the two great patrons of the arts, we must agree that the enlightened, affluent individual, the corporation or foundation, and the state — either directly through grants or indirectly through tax relief — are the great patrons today. 

Churches are by nature conservative, and their interest in art is almost always oriented toward function (how the art will directly serve the liturgy) rather than toward esthetics (how the art will move an individual). We cannot, therefore, too strenuously condemn the Mormon Church for the rather drab uniformity of its current architecture; we can regret that the precedents set by such sensitive local tabernacles as that in Coalville and such virile and original structures as the Salt Lake Tabernacle were not continued. We cannot expect the Mormons’ rather sparse liturgy to make use of a panoply of wondrous objects; we can regret that standard, “mail-order” objects of architectural decoration too often substitute for the skilled creations of a master craftsman in the tradition of the pioneer, Ralph Ramsey. We cannot blame the Church for tacitly permitting its heritage to be tortured by the unfortunate pastiche of the Pioneer Memorial Theatre, or the new Eagle Gate, which straddles a historic intersection like a giant tarantula, mocking the beautifully restored Beehive House and destroying the scale and breathing space it needs; we can hope that all of us who care about what Salt Lake City looks like and who care about the proper and tasteful preservation of great monuments of the past will be alert and energetic enough to influence certain design decisions in the future. 

Let us not place the burden of blame on the Church for the fact that Utah has been so often cited for its cultural backwardness. The reasons are many, complex, and self-feeding. As R. Joseph Monsen, Jr., has pointed out, the area’s great wealth has traditionally been its mineral wealth: 

The extractive industries, which have been owned largely by non residents, have made wealthy individuals. But the wealth of these individuals has benefitted other areas than the Great Basin where their wealth was obtained. The Mormon Church, on the other hand, has only in recent decades assumed the posture of wealth. The cultural developments for which Utah is noted, basically in music with her Tabernacle Choir and Utah State Symphony, have both established national reputations with amazingly little private or public financial support. Typically, the Tabernacle Choir has been developed without much financial outlay by the Mormon Church. The very fact that a choir, which gives its time free, is the first cultural institution to achieve national recognition for the area is indicative of the scarcity of financial resources for cultural affairs.[14]

The state’s parsimony may be partially explained by its small industrial base and its already high taxes. Yet, a modest increase in the amount now given to the visual arts could be a great stimulus to artists and museums. 

The demands of time and tithing placed upon its members by the Church partially explain why giving to the arts is at a relatively low level among individual Mormons. Yet, why do so few non-Mormons support the arts? Perhaps Dr. Monsen, in the speech quoted from above, has the answer: 

What about the non-Mormon families of wealth? How do we account for the fact that so little philanthropy exists there? Possibly part of this reluctance is due to the feeling of estrangement between the major institution of the area, the Mormon Church, and the wealthier non-Mormons. The “Gentiles,” feeling themselves a minority, whether true or not, are reluctant frequently to give if they feel that their Mormon brethren and the Church are giving nothing publicly. Further, wealth even in these families has not had a tradition or the experience of giving or of philanthropy — with a very few notable exceptions.[15]

As Dr. Monsen also observes, “The Great Basin is as dry of good public and private art collections as it is of water.”[16] If we had had an important museum of art during our first century, the exposure, the education, the encouragement which such an institution could have offered would have elevated the taste of our citizens, made them demand better architecture for their money, stimulated collecting of significant art, fostered greater respect for the professional artist and engendered much civic pride. Not having had such a museum and not having had great works of art to refresh, excite, challenge and educate us, we have exposed ourselves to the risks of confusing accumulations of curiosities with collections, depositories with museums, cleverness with creativity, quantity with quality, mechanical precision with technique, the gigantic with the truly monumental, the sentimental with the noble, the historical with the esthetic, prettiness with beauty, and subject matter with form. 

Throughout Utah’s history, as a matter of fact, the appreciation of art has been seriously hurt by inadequate exhibition space. The Utah Writers Project’s “Guide to the State” tells us that: 

Painters of this early period were hampered by a lack of organized exhibits and public interest. Paintings were normally shown in jewelers’ shops, department stores, and recreation halls, where space was restricted and the lighting poor. About 1869, the Deseret Agricultural and Manufacturing Society, forerunner of the State Fair, was persuaded to exhibit and to award medals for paintings as well as Durham bulls, insuring at least one comprehensive annual show. . . .[17]

The preference shown by the Mormon Church for the performing arts over the visual arts is vividly apparent in the new Harris Fine Arts Center at Brigham Young University. Art thrives by its separate dignity, not by being made part of an open lobby. When art is finally liberated from the society and entertainment sections of newspapers, and when it comes off the walls of converted tearooms, top floors, or basements of other structures and is installed in a properly designed, humidity-controlled, air-conditioned, properly lighted modern museum, then shall we have come of age in the arts. 

And then, we can hope, the rich collections of Brigham Young University will have the professional attention — documentation, interpretation, exhibition, and conservation — they deserve. It is all very well to say that art should be integrated with life. That it should. But the scholarly responsibilities must be met if the culture is to be more than a superficial or transitory one. The quixotic remark of the contemporary American painter, Ad Reinhardt, “Art is art and everything else is everything else,” has much relevance. 

Another hinderance to the full development of art in Utah, one which has most likely been influenced by Mormon attitudes, is the denial of the use of the nude model in all but one of the art departments of our institutions of higher learning, although other educational institutions have sporadically employed nude models, for instance, Brigham Young University, for a brief period in the late 1930’s. How preposterous such proscription can be is best illustrated by a recent student exhibition of figure drawings, arranged by an art professor in one of Utah’s universities. The female model was drawn attired in a sou’wester, long raincoat and rubber boots. The exhibition’s wry title was “This is how we learn human anatomy.” 

It is ironical that such attitudes should persist. All Utah students in Paris art schools drew little except the male and female nude. Their Paris sketches are used today as instructional devices in schools where students have never seen a gluteus maximus in its natural state. 

Another difficulty faced by art instructors is the problem of having to tell the student that the official, spectacular art commissioned by the Church, or the architecture it now espouses, are not often of significant quality. The Church has implied they are; therefore, the devout young student believes they are. The Mormon instructor does not like to contradict his Church, yet he must often do so if he is to be true to himself and academically responsible. 

Advances in Religious Commercial Art

In commercial art one can see glimmerings of hope in the employment by the Church of artists of stature and imagination. The Improvement Era, tastefully redesigned by Ralph Reynolds, comes immediately to mind, as do the issues of The Children’s Friend during the six months that Reynolds and Ed Maryon introduced style and grace to its pages. Distinguished illustrations and layout design by Maryon, V. Douglas Snow, F. Anthony Smith, Pete Lefon, Warren and Phyllis Luch, Gerald Purdy, Martha Estus, Sherman Martin, Ted Nagata, Paul Hasegawa, Keith Montague, Keith Eddington and others are more frequently being used in Church publications. Much remains to be done to elevate the quality of art in some fields of commercial design, especially that of book jackets, but encouraging progress has been made and fewer restrictions seem to be now placed on the artist, with non-Mormon artists frequently hired. I am tempted to hope that such progress augurs well for the abandonment, or at least the mellowing, of Utah’s traditional suspicion of the professional. Such distrust has been another great hinderance to the visual arts. 

We have never quite understood, even though the Church sent artists to Paris for study, that, as August Heckscher has said: 

Art is a matter for professionals. Its practice requires training, discipline and the most unflagging dedication. Nothing is more appealing in the United States today than the enthusiasm with which do-it-yourself culture is followed by the people. The activities of Sunday painters, amateur actors, weavers, wood-workers, musicians, etc. — all have their value. They are part of the constructive use of leisure . . . . But they do not attain, except in the most exceptional cases, the level of true art. The line between the professional and the amateur, between the artist and the audience, is one that any first rate culture must maintain.[18]

The Mormon Church — with its emphasis on self-sufficiency, donated services, and on an amateur rather than a paid, professional clergy — has no doubt reinforced the typical pioneer admiration of the man capable of doing any task himself and the pioneer notion of art as a kind of frill, or, at best, a fancy sort of recreation. The difficulty is that ”art is not self-evident nor of necessity immediately enjoyable. It requires in the spectator an effort of the spirit and of the mind, sufficient to put himself in harmony with a vision other than his own . . . . “[19] During the hard first decade of the building of Zion, few had time, energy, or the educational resources to make the effort; too few of us even today are willing to try. 

Dozens of Mormon artists stand ready to use their considerable talent in the service of the Church, though many have been disillusioned by what Dr. Monsen (who among Mormons possesses the greatest private art collections) has called the “generally low esthetic appreciation on the part of the church leaders.”[20] In recent years a number of devout Mormons have expressed to me concern that many of their fellow artists will be leaving the Church if such lack of appreciation continues. Others have complained that the demands of the Church for their services in other areas have left them with little time to paint. Another was deeply hurt when church officials scorned his unorthodox, but powerfully conceived, abstract paintings in an exhibition of religious art. One of Utah’s most sensitive architects tells of the rejection in thirty seconds by high church officials of designs he had spent months to develop. 

In other religions and sects — particularly among the Catholics, the Jews, the Lutherans, and occasionally the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Unitarians — we see the acceptance of the best artists, architects, and craftsmen as co-workers in the realm of the spirit. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — with its numerous building projects, extensive publication program, and proliferating radio, motion picture and television activities — has a unique opportunity to bring the creative artist and the Church into productive partnership. A simple experiment, administered perhaps by the Department of Art of Brigham Young University, might provide the encouragement and impetus artists are waiting for and would enable church officials to see and evaluate the wealth of talent available to them. With the outlay of modest funds, the Church could sponsor a design competition, open to Mormons and non-Mormons alike, for the design of, say, a chapel, a mural, a sculpture, a fountain, a mosaic, a stained glass window, a series of illustrations of Book of Mormon subjects, a book, a folder, a pamphlet, a magazine cover, a filmstrip, a short motion picture, an exhibition catalog, an exhibition design. The prospectus would detail only the technical limitations and would not delimit style or mode. A jury, composed of nationally recognized professionals, would award monetary prizes in each field; prize winners might be assured of future commissions by the Church. The winners’ designs would be on exhibition for an appropriate period of time. 

If the Church had had the benefit of viewing the work of some of its more creative members and non-members in this context, the artistic level of the Mormon Pavilion at the New York World’s Fair might have been greatly elevated. 

Such a competition might also bring to light contemporary artists with zeal comparable to that of C. C. A. Christensen, whose solid and sensitive interpretations of church history still stand as the best of Mormon art. Writing in his diary during his student days in Copen hagen over a century ago, he remarked, “I looked forward to the day when I could be released from my apprenticeship and get promoted as a painter, not so much because I wanted material gain but because I wanted the liberty so I could work among my countrymen as a missionary. I knew that in many parts of my native country my people were in perfect ignorance as to the wonderful things the Lord had given to mankind in these latter days.”

Alphabetical List of Artsits

The following list includes not only the artists cited in the preceding article, but those as well who appeared in the exhibit “100 Years of Utah Painting,” compiled by the author. 

WILLIS A. ADAMS, 1854-1932

GEORGE BEARD, 1855-1944 

DONALD BEAUREGARD, 1884-1914

G. WESLEY BROWNING, 1868-1951

ORSON D. CAMPBELL, 1876-1933

MICHAEL RITER CANNON, 1913-

CARL C. A. CHRISTENSEN, 1831-1912

JOHN W. CLAWSON, 1858-1936

GORDON N. COPE, 1906- 

HENRY L. A. CULMER, 1854-1914

CYRUS E. DALLIN, 1861-1944

GEORGE SMITH DIBBLE, 1904-

ELBERT H. EASTMOND, 1876-1936

KEITH EDDINGTON, 1923- 

MARTHA ESTUS, 1934- 

EDWIN EVANS, 1860-1946 

J. A. F. EVERETT, 1883-1945 

AVARD FAIRBANKS, 1897- 

JOHN B. FAIRBANKS, 1855-1940

J. LEO FAIRBANKS, 1878-1946 

LYNN FAUSETT, 1894- 

WILLIAM DEAN FAUSETT, 1913-

JOHN FERY, 1865-1934 

CALVIN FLETCHER, 1882-1963

IRENE T. FLETCHER, 1900- 

MABEL P. FRAZER, 1887- 

HERMAN H. HAAG, 1871-1895

JOHN HAFEN, 1856-1910 

ROSE HARTWELL, 

J. T. HARWOOD, 1860-1940 

PAUL HASEGAWA, 1927- 

SAMUEL H. JEPPERSON, 1855-1931

JOSEPH KERBY, 1857-1911 

RANCH S. KIMBALL, 1894- 

REUBEN KIRKHAM, 1866-1886

PETE LAFON, 1929- 

ALFRED LAMBOURNE, 1850-1926

B. F. LARSEN, 1882- 

WARREN LUCH, 1937- 

PHYLLIS LUCH, 1935- 

WILLIAM WARNER MAJOR, 1804-1854

SHERMAN MARTIN, 1928- 

EDWARD MARYON, 1931- 

WALDO MIDGLEY, 1888- 

KEITH MONTAGUE, 1921- 

HENRI MOSER, 1876-1951 

TED NAGATA, 1935- 

GEORGE M. OTTINGER, 1833-1917

HERMAN PALMER 

WILLIAM J. PARKINSON, 1899-

E. W. PERRY, JR., 1831-1915 

LORUS PRATT, 1855-1923 

GERALD PURDY, 1930- 

LEWIS A. RAMSEY, 1875-1941

RALPH RAMSEY, 1824-1905 

H. REUBEN REYNOLDS, 1898-

RALPH REYNOLDS, 1916- 

LEE GREENE RICHARDS, 1878-1950

DAVID H. ROSENBAUM, JR., 1908-

CORNELIUS SALISBURY, 1882- 

ROSINE HOWARD SALISBURY, 1887-

MYRA LOUISE SAWYER, d. 1956 F.

ANTHONY SMITH, 1939- 

RUTH WOLF SMITH, 1912- 

S. PAUL SMITH, 1904- 

V. DOUGLAS SNOW, 1927- 

NATHANIEL SPENS, 1838-1916

HARRY SQUIRES, 1850-1928 

LAWRENCE SQUIRES, 1887-1928

JOHN HEBER STANSFIELD, 1878-1953

LECONTE STEWART, 1891- 

MARY TEASDEL, 1863-1937 

EVERETT CLARK THORPE, 1907-

JOHN TULLIDGE, 1836-1899 

FLORENCE WARE, 1891- 

DANQUART A. WEGGLAND, 1827-1918

ALMA B. WRIGHT, 1875-1952

MAHONRI M. YOUNG, 1877-1957

PHINEAS HOWE YOUNG, 1847-1868

FRANK ZIMBEAUX, 1861-1935

---

This essay is the third in a continuing series, “An Assessment of Mormon Culture.” The author, himself not a Mormon, examines the influence of the L.D.S. Church on the visual arts in Utah from pioneer times. Mr. Haseltine is Director of the Salt Lake Art Center and the author of numerous reviews and articles for professional journals; he recently produced a retrospective exhibit of Utah painting at the Art Center and did much of the research used in this essay in preparing the exhibition catalogue, “100 Years of Utah Painting.” 

[1] William Mulder, Homeward to Zion (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957), p. 113. 

[2] An alphabetical listing (with dates) of all artists cited in the text is provided at the end of the essay.

[3] Alfred Lambourne, “Journal of Works of Art,” 1869-1899.

[4] George M. Ottinger, “Personal Journal,” 1833-1899. 

[5] Ibid.

[6] Edward W. Tullidge, History of Salt Lake (Salt Lake City: Star Printing Co., 1886), p. 810. 

[7] Ibid. 

[8] Mrs. Kenneth Smith, “Utah Artists.” Unpublished, undated typescript.

[9] “BLESSINGS upon the head of LORUS PRATT, given by Apostle Heber J. Grant, June 4, 1890. Reported by John M. Whitaker.” In the possession of Alton M. Pratt, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

[10] Ibid. 

[11] Hafen in a letter to his wife Thora from Paris, August 8, 1890, says, “I have a testimony that the Lord will enable me to accomplish all that is necessary in the year allotted to me to stay here. I do not believe that He will require any faithful servant of His to dwell in the midst of such wickedness any longer than is absolutely necessary. Brother Lorus Pratt often says, ‘we may have to remain two or even three years in order to accomplish our mission.’ But I tell him that he may entertain such ideas but I do not. I am booked for 1 year and more than that, God’s servants have blessed me with power to accomplish my mission and get all the knowledge of art required. … “

[12] Thomas A. Leek, “A Circumspection of Ten Formulators of Early Utah Art History.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Art, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 1961. 

[13] [Editor’s Note: This footnote is not in-text in the PDF, but it is in the footnotes. I have placed it here.] George D. Pyper, “President Grant: Patron of Drama, Literature, Art and Music,” The Improvement Era, Vol. 39 (Nov. 1936), pp. 671-79.

[14] R. Joseph Monsen, Jr., in a talk delivered before the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, April 12, 1963. Spirit duplicated ms., p. 1.

[15] Ibid., p. 5.

[16] Ibid., p. 5. 

[17] Utah Writers’ Project. Utah, A Guide to the State (New York: Hastings House, 1941), pp. 164-165.

[18] August Heckscher, “The Quality of American Culture.” Chapter 5, p. 135, of Goals for Americans, Comprising the Report of the President’s Commission on National Goals and Chapters Submitted for Consideration of the Commission (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960). 

[19] Ibid., p. 135.

[20] Monsen, op. cit., p. 4.