8/10/2019 Mote (Motte) (2)

1/5

I- ' ^

>-: O .^

0 5

s j

f

h ^

feSSd

^ Ci? rq

g- 1

/r>firRen5

/ n o T

fi,\- o

e i i

HAR^ y

330 Indiana Magazine of History

Mote,

he studied

at the

Academy

of

Fine

Arts

in Cincinnati

and

also

in Paris. He has exhibited paintings and sculpture

at

various

salons and expositions in Europe and in the United

States

receiving

many

medals.^

Harvey himself

has

told

the

story

of how he came to

study art, his association with Mote, and his

impressions

of

his first

art

teacher:

While

in my teens [thirteen] I at

tended one of the Friends Quarterly Meetings at Wilming

ton [Ohio]. It

was announced

that on the

following day

a

distinguished

artist

from

Richmond, a

Quaker,

would

be

present to

give

a chalk talk

lesson on

some Bible character.

I need not tell you I was there, 'present early' in choice seat,

center,

facing platform.

. . .

I

was all

eyes and expectancy,

eager

to

see a real artist,

not

just pictured in prints and

with

written descriptions of

beings

that might be termed super

men, with heroic

statures,

flowing beards and shaggy locks.

Then Marcus came in. I saw a man of unimposing stature,

about 5'

2 ,

past middle

life, clean shaven face,

light

brown

hair,

considerably grayed,

blue eyes, a ruddy healthy

com

plexion, plump cheeks void of wrinkles, and serene brow. He

walked

nimbly and talked glibly. Standing

before

the black

board with a box of crayons nearby, he addressed the large

assembly

with

a

few preliminary remarks,

then proceeded

to draw while talking. I can't recall a single word he

said nor drawing he made, but I

can

yet see him as he made

his entrance and exit, wearing a dark

brown smock

that

made him

look

like

somebody's

grandmother,

well

preserved

for her age. '

Feeling a great

desire

to study art, the

boy

visited the

ar t school in Cincinnati but

found

that the tuition was

85.00

a year, discouraging

information

for a farm boy of limited

means. With his father's consent he wrote to Mote to see

what the latter

could

offer in the way of

ar t

education. Mote

replied: That there may

be

no misunderstanding between

us I

will

write thee terms and conditions. Our home is a

plain brick house.

Thee

may

have

a bed room up stairs and

have meals with us in the dining room down stairs. Rhoda,

my

wife,

will

board thee and

take care of thy

bedroom. She

will

cook for thee breakfast, dinner and supper,

which will

be plain but substantial food, every day of the

week

includ

ing

First Day.

Our

charge for

board

and lessons will be

Who's Who in America, 1950-1951, p. 1165.

Eli Harvey to

Alta

Harvey Heiser,

Alhambra, California,

October

17.

1948.

This letter is the property of his

cousin,

a resided of

Hamilton,

Ohio. Harvey

was

a birthright

Quaker,

bom at Ogden,

Ohio.

8/10/2019 Mote (Motte) (2)

2/5

Marcus

Mote and his PioneerSchool of

Design

331

4.00 a

week

payable in advance. My studio is within

walking distance down town on Main Street. If thee decides

to come thee can walk with me to the studio when I open

the

door.

On First Days thee can accompany me to the

Friends Meeting in the large building where the Indiana

Yearly Meeting is

held.

I

forgot

to tell thee that the charge

above quoted does not include art material. Bring thy box of

paints. I

have

easels. ^

So Eli Harvey became a pupil of Marcus Mote who set

him to copying

colored

prints. He was so homesick that at

the end of the month he returned home; there he remained

until he was nineteen, when he entered the ar t school in

Cincinnati.

Since

Mote did not keep a journal at this time

no record remains of his opinion of the boy who lived in his

home, spent a month in his studio, and was to become the

most famous o f his stud en ts.

Mote knew

that

in 1864 the public schools of Cincinnati

had

added

art to their curriculum. As the leading art center

in the Middle West it was natural that Cincinnati should

lead in making art training as

available

to students as any

other branch of learning. Mote published an article in the

Richmond

Weekly

Telegram, April 27 1867 stating his be

lief

that

the public schools should

train

students for all

that is civil and useful. Since the ability to

draw

is

useful

he argued, often even necessary, to a mechanic, and since a

knowledge of the principles of art is of great advantage to

a housewife it

followed

that art

should

be taught in the

public

schools.

Mote was aware of the opposition of the Quakers to

the fine arts, but in

following

art as a vocation, in acting as

an

ar t

teacher in his private

school

and in advocating the

teaching of art in the public schools, he thought of himself

as a good Quaker who differed only in interpretation. Had

not George Fox instructed his followers to teach the young

all

that

was

civil

and

useful in

creation?

Therefore his

task

was to persuade the Quakers and the general public that a

knowledge of art

was

civil

and

useful. In his heart he

knew

that in thus making art of use to others man could find per

sonal happiness, and that even fine art had a high level of

usefulness,

though it

usually brought, in the words of Rus-

kin, only bitter bread and salt and going up and down other

people s stairs.

This information was supplied by Eli

Harvey

in a letter to the

author dated December 7, 1950.

O w

8/10/2019 Mote (Motte) (2)

3/5

^:Si

C5^

7*-

Ei9*S I

isnj

09

IndiaTia Magazine of History

For these reasons Mote continued his campaign to raise

the level of art appreciation and instruction in Richmond.

On August 22 1868 another article on the subject appeared

in the Richmond Telegram.

It

was unsigned, but Mote s

journal entry onAugust 19 indicated that he was the author:

I t is generally

conceded

that

schools

are intended to pre

pare the

pupil

for the active duties of adult

life

Is this

strictly true of our present system? Are not pupils taught

many things they never have any use for in after life, and

are not some things entirely omitted which are of primary

importance?

Among

the last,

which

is almost or entirely

omitted in our schools, is pract ical drawing. A knowledge

of Drawing, it must be admitted, is of use in all of the

necessary details of life. Drawing gives the pupil a

knowl

edge of form, size and proportion, and will assist the future

woman as housekeeper, shopkeeper, lecturer, teacher, e tc .;

and

to

the future

man

it

is almost indispensable,

whether

as architect, builder, mechanic, merchant or farmer. Then

why is Drawing omitted? Can any one of our educators

tell? I pause for a reply.

A year later Mote carried his concern directly to the

supertendent of schools and to the

mayor

An act of the

Indiana legislature of 1865 had authorized

schools

to make

additions to a specified list of subjects under certain condi

tions. The superintendent and the mayor did not believe

the

demand

was sufficien t in 1869 to justify action on

Mote s

concern.

His next move was directed at t he general public, a

campaign of propaganda to increase the demand for the

teaching of art. He had hundreds of circulars printed at his

own expense and personally distributed them. These called

attention specifically to the

need

of apprentices in the furni

ture factories for training in drawing.

It

is likely that he

hoped

to be the teacher for such a class, independent of the

public

school system. He realized that he did not have the

technical training which would be required by school boards

for teaching an accredited class. A class for apprentices did

not materialize, however.

Throughout the summer of

1872

the artist visited var

ious

Richmond factories

to

secure signatures

to a

petition

to

the school t rustees for evening schools fo r drawing. He

Mote Journal, October 27 and 29, 1869 See also Lawa of

Indiana,

1865, p. 32.

Mote Journal, May 26-27, 1871.

8/10/2019 Mote (Motte) (2)

4/5

8/10/2019 Mote (Motte) (2)

5/5

;: y^v r.

. Vt _

4 z S > ^

\ ftS4 Indin.nn. Maaazinp. o f H is io n

34 Indiana Magazine of History

men and

young women

and

send tl iem

out

in

the

world to

fill posts of usefulness, not fully fitted and prepared

for

their duties.

That Drawing

and

Designing have

been

almost

enti re ly omitted in the course of

study

is to be lamented. . . .

This

hint

we hope will be kindly taken by whomsoever it

may

concern,

and we hope with profit.

Ten

years were to pass before Mote

saw

his wish come

true

fo r

Earlham. He

had

to wait fourteen years

fo r

a r t to

be

introduced into

the public school

curriculum.

Authentic

information as to

further steps taken and

Mote's connection

with

them is lacking, bu t

tradition

gives him

credit for the

achievement, not only in Richmond bu t in Indiana. In 1886,

when Justin N.

Study was superintendent

of schools

for

the city, art became part of the curriculum and has been

taught continuously since

that

time.

According to an article in the Indianapolis Journal by

a reporter who visited the old artist, then nearly eighty

years old, Mote secured the petition which caused the legis

lature to provide that the public schools of Indiana should

teach drawing. The petition was presented by Sen. Wil

liam Baxter, since deceased. Two years previously the Quak

er

artist had

secured the teaching of drawing in the public

scliools of

Richmond

by ordinance.

Inasmuch

as William

Baxter s terms

of service in

the legis la ture were

in 1875

and

1877,

and since no such act was passed until later after art

teaching had

become

fairly general, the reporter seems to have

made an inaccurate statement. It may be that Mote related

efforts he

had

made toward the passage of the act

but may

have been confused

about

th e

sequence

of events.

Whatever the details may have been,

there

can be no

doubt that in actively promoting

the

introduction of art

into

the

school curriculum

and

in giving

art

instruction

in

his

own studio Mote was a local

prophet

whose work, combined

with

that

of

others

throughout the country, was responsible

for the general acceptance of art as a valuable field for gen

eral instruct ion.

25 Richmond

Independent,

June 29, 1872.

2

According to Earlham catalogs, the first teacher of drawing and

painting at the

college

was Florence. Chandlee in 1882-1883;

followed

bv M Gertrudo

Bailev, 1883-1887;

Harry

D. Williams, 1887-1888;

and

John

EKvood

Bundv, 1888-189 ), who built up the ar t depar tment to a

high level of excellence. The Richmond Evening Item, September 11,

1886, published

a list of

public

school teachers in 1886-1887, including

the name of Mary E. Johnson as the first supendsor and teacher of

drawing.

27 Reprinted in the Richmond Palladium-Item, December 29, 1943;

the date of the original publication was probably in the early

ISSO s.

S

, K

>--

,-r^

C 3^V..;'

^

:C C V

^ ^ .i'

' hQ ^

tal?:. --

O ^